apis, I have to agree that it would be indeed fascinating to understand in detail why your list of 754 dissenting scientists do, in fact, dissent.

Or even, indeed, whether they are indicating their dissent at all.

The problem is, apis, that the wording of the petition in question doesn't actually commit them to anything.

"We are skeptical of 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."

No-one could possibly have a concern with the second sentence. That, after all, is what scientists do.

However, the wording of the first sentence is distinctly iffy.

There is nothing wrong with being "skeptical". What the petition - probably deliberately - doesn't say, is that they disagree with it.

I could sign that petition, and still believe that Darwin has come up with the best explanation, so far, of the mechanics of evolution. I will allow myself to be sceptical, and I most certainly would encourage continued rigour in the examination of the evidence.

But the reality is that it doesn't prove anything. Least of all, what you are trying to persuade it to mean, which is that a bunch of smart guys reject Darwin's findings.

After all, if that were true, that is what they would have said. Nothing would be simpler. "We the undersigned think that evolution as postulated by Darwin is a crock"

To paraphrase your last sentence back at you, apis...

>>Will you provide evidence on the neutral and level field of scientific debate or in some other way that is perhaps somewhat less scrupulous?<<

'Cos quite frankly, producing that petition in evidence is itself somewhat less than the rigorous application of logic, is it not?

I wasn’t going to bother responding to Michael’s last graceless sidestep. But I’d hate to think that I’m missing out on all the fun here.

Dear Michael,

On the 18th of February I made a few points as to why we don’t appear to be designed. In fact, nothing about Earth’s living creatures implies that we have been designed unless, of course, the designer was a very sloppy designer. Given this point (and many others I haven’t mentioned), the argument from design is an argument from ignorance.

Your posts are filled with non sequiturs, but one of the biggest was in that last response:

”If it was so clear cut, then it wouldn’t even be discussed on a web sight like this, one devoted to opinions.”

It would be more accurate to say:

”If it weren’t for religious nutters, then it wouldn’t even be discussed on a website like this, one devoted to a diverse range of opinions; whether they be based on a good understanding of the facts, or a lack thereof.”

Evolution is one of the most “clear cut” fields of science. According to your logic here, quantum physics should be an even more “hotly” debated topic, but it’s not, because it doesn’t threaten the emotional needs of fundamentalist Theists. The immense threat in which evolution poses to creationists is evident in your subtle sniping at Charles Darwin.

The second non sequitur:

”I would have thought that it would be hard for any of us to ‘show’ anything in 350 words. We’re just a bunch of guys and gals giving our opinions”

It sounds as though you think that an opinion has immunity from verification. I’m afraid it doesn’t. You don’t get off the hook that easily my friend. It would still be more courteous and helpful to the discussion if you could acknowledge when you are shown to be wrong instead of jumping to something slightly different and pretending your last failed point didn’t happen. Creationists are understandably fooled by these sorts of shenanigans (a necessary trait for denying facts) but others aren’t.

Dear apis,

You need to settle down a little. You provided the opinions of others, not facts.

The argument from authority is a logical fallacy because it doesn’t matter who believes what, but why they believe it. It doesn’t matter who thinks what, only what the facts support.

Not only are most of the scientists in your link not even scientists in the relevant fields, but those who are no longer deserve the title of “Scientist” as they have abandoned the scientific method for religious belief.

I can play your fallacious game too and add that less than 1% of scientists reject evolution.

As a side note, I noticed that the link you provided was from the Discovery Institute - not exactly a credible reference.

If you want to know by what right I accuse these “scientists” of logical fallacies then please read through this thread and try listening to every argument that every creationist has ever had to say. I will happily take back what I have said if you could give me one - just one - piece of evidence that supports creation. No one else has ever been able to, so I suspect you couldn’t. But give it a go anyway. It could earn you a Nobel prize.

Dear Sancho,

Intelligent falling is no joke and many scientists reject the belief in gravity and the new false religion: Gravitationalism.

Before you poke fun at Intelligent Falling, please educate yourself about the theory. I recommend books such as:

’Newton’s Black Box’
’Refuting Gravity’
’Newton’s Enigma’
’The Predicatment of Gravity’

Let us not forget about the numerous people throughout history who have pushed innocent people off cliffs because of their belief in gravity. I’m not sure what these tragic acts have to do with the facts of the matter but it makes gravity sound very bad anyway.

I will now leave you with a selective quote from Newton that proves even he doubted gravity:

”I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore ... whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”

Apis,

The document you refer to shows that there is a tiny handful of the 1000s of acedemics who are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life."

What a pathetic, wishy washy, non commital statement. I notice no committment to any alternative. Also I could see no A grade scientists included.

If this is the best you can do for acedemic support you are seriously grasping at straws. I also see no attempt to offer any evidence.