|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discovery Institute's "400 Scientist" Roster | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Darwinian mechanisms alone have been scientifically demonstrated over and over again to be insufficient to account for the complexity we observe. Specifically, to which research do you refer? And how would you demonstrate that something is "insufficient to account" for something in the light of the well-understood inability to empirically prove a negative? And how can your statement even be true in the light of scientific/mathematical demonstrations that, in fact, random mutation and natural selection can account for the complexity we observe? Starting with one egregious error of scientific reasoning, and ending with a statement flatly contradicted by observation - your scientific credentials are not apparent. In fact I would say they've been completely disproven. The most likely explanation is that you're not who you say you are - I highly doubt that the real "Dr. Douglas Frank" would be such a leading figure in instrument manufacture if he regularly committed the grave errors in judgement and reasoning you've displayed in your post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
And how can your statement even be true in the light of scientific/mathematical demonstrations that, in fact, random mutation and natural selection can account for the complexity we observe? The details are off topic here Crash. However what might be on topic is a detailed disection of the statement itself. If we play little word games we can make the statement true. It is intellecutally dishonest and totally misleading but perhaps that is what is intended. If Darwinian mechanisms are defined as being ONLY natural selection and mutations then speciation can be a problem, for example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DouglasGFrank Inactive Member |
My PhD was in surface-electrochemistry. Big words...just think of it as what happens at the liquid/solid interface, such as self-assembly, cell-walls, neurotransmitter (redox) function....
For example, as a graduate student and post-doc I performed work (funded by NSF and NIH) modeling neurotransmitter function in model systems (modified electrode surfaces) and with live rats (electrodes in brains...). I co-authored about 60 publications, mostly in chemistry journals, about 15 dealing with biological systems. As a businessman, I have been awarded grants as primary investigator on DOD bio-remediation projects (see SBIR reports). I am currently scientific and technical consultant for a large corporation on some human and animal physiology-based projects. I am not at liberty to discuss these in public. So yes, I currently teach science and work as a professional scientist, in fields related to evolutionary science; that is if chemistry, biology, brain function, and physiology qualify.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DouglasGFrank Inactive Member |
I agree that this is not the place to debate the sufficiency question. I only mentioned it as it pertained to the validity of the Discovery Statement.
Believe me, I considered the statement carefully before I agreed to have my name added to the list. Since the statement seemed to withstand careful logical and scientific scrutiny, I was willing to endorse it. And although I agree with your implication that pure Darwinism is no longer the dominant paradigm, I question the methodology of evaluating the veracity of a particular statement by its perceived intended use.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DouglasGFrank Inactive Member |
- Cogito ergo sum! Check my website...toolsforanalysis.com...it's me!
- I see your point. I used the word 'practice' because the of the perjorative 'non-practicing' scientist. In my opinion, the scientific method is the most reliable process humans have yet derived for getting to the bottom of things, so I use the process on a daily basis (I do a lot of inventing, and the scientific method is great for trouble-shooting complicated phenomena and devices). - I am neither an 'ID-er' nor a 'creationist,' and neither was SJG. Yet both of us acknowledged that our current understanding of our origins is woefully lacking, requiring humility and open-mindedness rather than devotion to any particular theory. Ideally, individual scientists should resists the temptation to be any sort of "-ist." Follow the data... In my opinion, one of Gould's finest books is 'Full House.' He called it his "prodigal child." I continue to use it in some of my science classes. In my opinion, Gould's willingness to take on the current sacred cow of Darwinism (replaced it with 'punctuated equilibrium') was necessary in order to advance the scientific discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I think that the important question is whether you feel that these "insufficiencies" can be covered by other natural mechanisms, not requiring intelligent intervention (as Stephen Jay Gould would have agreed), or whether you agree with the DI which holds that an intelligence must have intervened in the history of life.
Which comes to the question of whether signing the petition can be held to indicate support for ID or not..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DouglasGFrank Inactive Member |
Thanks for the guidance. I am new to this forum, and am still learning the ropes.
I am aware how some folks mis-use the list. This does not invalidate the need for it. In particular, I am interested in the list's effect upon Discovery Institute itself. If one plans to make scientific claims, and then plans to get scientists to endorse those claims...and continue to endorse those claims, one will first very carefully examine those claims. Kind of like peer-review, eh? (wide grin)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DouglasGFrank Inactive Member |
Truly, it is I! Want my mother's maiden name?
Let me be clear. I can observe evolution in a test tube. Natural selection is abundantly apparent. Darwin was a smart guy...and a great scientist. He even proposed additional experimental test to evaluate his hypotheses (which all failed, by the way...leading to several subsequent shifts in our evolutionary paradigms...) But there are many more factors...some of which we are only just now gaining glimpses of. For example, recently an article appeared in Science describing yet another previously unknown mechanism by which nature efficiently filters mutations and preserves genetic integrity by passing messenger RNA during mitosis. I say, we need to chill. We are making scientific progress, for sure, but we are still basically clueless. The more we learn, the more we know how little we know. As a friend and colleague of mine from Lawrence Livermore once told me, "Remember, Doug, we're only just down from out of the trees."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DouglasGFrank Inactive Member |
What I 'feel' has nothing to do with science. Yet, I am human, and I do have feelings. I am most comfortable keeping an open mind, and approaching such questions with humility. I prefer honest discussions steeped in logic and intellectual integrity.
In many ways, the scientific community has brought this upon itself, by allowing secularist movements to use it as a vehicle. Analogous to the creationists absconding with Behe's book...Behe is not a creationist, and clearly states so in his book. DI is increasingly emphasizing that it does not support the teaching of ID in science classes...one of the principal reasons it withdrew its support for the case in Pennsyvania. DI certainly opposes the teaching of dogmatic 'fact.' Both good positions, I'd say. Maybe to some, endorsing the list indicates support for ID. But that is not what the list says... One of my pet peaves is the poor state of science teaching in this country. Science should be taught as a process, not as a set of facts. I believe the public debate of this issue will improve the situation, which is why have engaged the discussion. Thank you all for welcoming me ... actually, I am surprised how quickly y'all responded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DouglasGFrank Inactive Member |
I re-read these, and realized I inadvertently left out something here, regarding the role of 'faith' in my decision.
Actually, a childhood among fundamentalist Christians drove me AWAY from creationism. As soon as church members recognized my precocity and leanings toward science I was buried in supposed 'scientific literature' from the likes of ICR. The circular reasoning and weak arguments contained in this liturature was so obvious that even as an adolescent I had already concluded that to live a life of faith one had to suspend one's intellect. Good thing Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Kepler, et al. weren't born in my community... Now that I am 'grown up' (only 44) I understand that just because there are stupid Christians does not mean that Christianity is stupid. Just because some scientists behave poorly does not mean the scientific method is poor. Just because ALL of the experiments that Darwin proposed to test his hypotheses failed does not mean that Darwins ideas are not profound and useful. I suspect that people who want simple answers seldom find the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DouglasGFrank Inactive Member |
Just because an hypothetical model 'can' account for some experimental observation does not mean that it does.
The burden of scientific proof is not the ability to come up with an ex-post-facto explanation. Instead scientific knowledge becomes accepted as more and more probably correct as it survives years of intense experimental scrutiny. For example, I have read Science magazine cover-to-cover for over twenty years now...and 'stability' is not the word I would use to describe the current evolutionary paradigm. And I believe the pace of change will only intensify over the next 20 years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
But there are many more factors...some of which we are only just now gaining glimpses of. For example, recently an article appeared in Science describing yet another previously unknown mechanism by which nature efficiently filters mutations and preserves genetic integrity by passing messenger RNA during mitosis. A bit more detail of what research you are thinking of would be helpful here. If you mean the Hothead research (Lolle, et al., 2005), which was actually published in Nature although there was a news article about it in Science (Pennisi, 2005), then you are perhaps tending towards presenting something as an observed mechanism which is at best a tentative hypothesis. The mechanism behind the revertant phenotype of the Hothead revertants is still a mystery as far as I know. The mRNA hypothesis was just that, a hypothesis. the research did not demonstrate any wild-type Hothead mRNA was actually present in the gametes to act as a template. The only actual observation was that there were revertants both phenotypically and genetically, the basis of the reversion is unknown, or at least unpublished. Of course you might not be thinking of the Hothead research at all, in which case I am just rambling on to no end. If you are talking about the Hothead research then we know even less about the mechanisms of the reversion, if it is a real phenomenon and not an artifact as some claim, than you think. TTFN, WK This message has been edited by Wounded King, 10-18-2005 06:56 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Are you a evangelical or charismatic Christian?
...or adhere to some other religion or Christian sect which has a conflict with Biological Evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Do you have any expertise in Evolutionary science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: The sole purpose of the list is to misuse it for religious and political ends. That is transparent upon it's face.
quote: Actually no, not like peer review. You are not a "peer" to anyone working in Evolutionary science as far as I can tell. Would you send one of your papers for review and potential publication to, say, a journal that concentrates upon Population Genetics? Of course not, because those reviewers wouldn't have any expertise in your field, and thus wouldn't be "peers".
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024