Are Scientists Abandoning Evolution?

The Discovery Institute certainly makes it seem like scientists are abandoning evolution in droves, though I can't find any statistics at their website concerning this revolution. They did list a hundred scientists, at least some of whom appear to be biologists, who have gone on record as supporting the following statement: "We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Does the DI want people to think that careful examination has not been encouraged? This sounds like the rhetorical tactic of rebutting an argument that was never made in the first place: "I don't care what the scientific dogma says, the sun does rise in the East!!"Admittedly, James Shapiro is a maverick biologist, but during his online interview by the fellows, he flatly denies there is any design or 'front-loading' involved in his theory of mobile genetic elements. So much for getting a real scientist to support IDC.ARN has an article wherein fifty-two Ohio scientists have gone on record espousing no stronger support for Intelligent Design Creationism than these statements:

quote:

---

We Affirm:
That biological evolution is an important scientific theory that should be taught in the classroom;
That a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science;
That a science curriculum should help students understand why the subject of biological evolution generates controversy;
That where alternative scientific theories exist in any area of inquiry (such as wave vs. particle theories of light, biological evolution vs. intelligent design, etc.), students should be permitted to learn the evidence for and against them;
That a science curriculum should encourage critical thinking and informed participation in public discussions about biological origins.

​

We Oppose:
Religious or anti-religious indoctrination in a class specifically dedicated to teaching within the discipline of science;
The censorship of scientific views that may challenge current theories of origins.

---

That doesn't sound like the edifice of Naturalism crumbling to me.Incidentally, the membership directory of the American Institute of Biological Sciences lists 241,946 biologists.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Schraf,That's exactly my point. Scientists have produced constructive results on both sides of the wave vs. particle issue. However, creationism has no worthwhile research to show for itself.The difference isn't just philosophical. Evolution by natural selection is a comprehensive framework that unifies research in several different disciplines and proposes natural mechanisms and consistent timelines for its bases. Darwin's theory has seen its predictions borne out by advances in paleontology, molecular biology, and genetics. This methodology is sufficient to contextualize and explain the vast majority of the data available from these and other fields.Creationism is an exclusive patchwork of isolated factoids from various sources, relying most heavily on the authority of Holy Scripture. Its mechanisms are undetectable and untestable, and its timelines are inconsistent when articulated at all. It has never guided worthwhile research or proposed verifiable predictions. It purports to explain (the term is arguable) only a fraction of the available data from astronomy, geology, population studies, genetics, etc., ignoring without comment the vast majority of existing research.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

I was trying to say that a scientific approach should try to be inclusive, attempt to explain all of the available data, and strive for an objectivity that will allow researchers with many different philosophical or cultural backgrounds to engage each other in a coomon, cooperative effort.Creationism is manifestly exclusive, it ignores almost all available data, it requires its adherents to believe in the most narrow-minded Biblical literalism regardless of its lack of utility, and attacks anyone who doesn't choose to live in the same ridiculous dreamworld.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall