Jump to content

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.202.238.172 (talk) at 18:54, 26 April 2008 (→Statement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism or Dissent From Darwinism, is a list of signatories attesting to a statement, produced by the Discovery Institute, expressing skepticism about the ability of natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encouraging careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinian theory". This list is published in a document together with an introductory statement claiming that its signatories dispute assertions that evolution fully explains the complexity of life and that all known scientific evidence supports evolution.[1] Dissent From Darwinism is one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by creating the impression that evolution lacks broad scientific support.[2] The Discovery Institute presents the list in an appeal to authority to support its anti-evolution viewpoint.[3]

The document itself has been the subject of controversy and extensive criticism from a variety of sources. The statement in the document has been branded as artfully phrased to represent a diverse range of opinions, set in a context which gives it a misleading spin to confuse the public.[1] The listed affiliations and areas of expertise of the signatories have also been criticized.[4][5][6] The Discovery Institute states that signatories are "listed by doctoral degree or current position",[7] but the accuracy of this claim has been disputed.

In addition, the list contains only a minuscule fraction of scientists in the relevant fields and representing an insignificant fraction of the total scientific population.[8] Therefore, the document gives an inaccurate impression of the situation in the scientific community.[1] The theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted throughout the scientific community.[9] Professor Brian Alters of McGill University, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[10]

Statement

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism states that:

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.

The statement refers to "Darwinian theory", which is vague, misleading and not used by scientists to refer to current theories. In fact, the use of the term "Darwinism" in modern usage is usually a pejorative term employed only by creationists.[11]

It should be noted that Charles Darwin himself described natural selection as being "the main but not exclusive means of modification" of species.[12] The modern theory of evolution additionally includes recombination as a source of variation and genetic drift and gene flow as mechanisms, meaning that the current theory of evolution, the neoDarwinian modern synthesis, does not in fact claim "the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." This creates a degree of ambiguity as to what it is that the petition is a "dissent from." Skip Evans, of the National Center for Science Education, suggests that this confusion has in fact been carefully engineered.[1]

In addition, the exhortation to encourage the careful examination of evidence for Darwinian evolution sounds, on the face of it, to be quite reasonable, and something most would agree to. The objections arise from the uses to which this document has been applied.

Discovery Institute usage

By promoting a false perception that evolution is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community,[9][10] the list is intended to lend support to other Discovery Institute campaigns, such as "Teach the Controversy", "Critical Analysis of Evolution", "Free Speech on Evolution", and "Stand Up For Science". For example, through its "Teach the Controversy" campaign, the Institute claims that "evolution is a theory in crisis" and that many scientists criticize evolution. This Discovery Institute also asserts that this information is being withheld from students in public high school science classes along with "alternatives" to evolution such as intelligent design.[13] The Institute uses A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism as evidence to support its claim that evolution is widely disputed within the scientific community.[14][15]

The list was advertised in prominent periodicals such as The New York Review of Books, The New Republic, and The Weekly Standard in October and November 2001, "to rebut bogus claims by Darwinists that no reputable scientists are skeptical of Darwinism" by "producing a list of 100 scientific dissenters."[16][17] Its initial release was timed to coincide with the airing of the PBS evolution series at the end of 2001.

The Discovery Institute has continued to collect signatures, reporting 300 in 2004[18], over 400 in 2005,[19] over 600 in 2006 (though in 2006 the Discovery Institute began to include scientists from outside of the United States),[20] and over 700 in 2007.[15][21] The Discovery Institute includes a description of the list in a response to one of its "Top Questions".[22]

The Discovery Institute-related organization Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity manages "Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism", a similar list for medical professionals. The Discovery Institute compiled and distributed other similarly confusing and misleading lists of local scientists during controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas.[23][6]

Critical responses

The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism document has been widely criticized on several different grounds. First, similar to previous appeals to authority produced by other creationists, the professional expertise of those listed is not always apparent and is alleged to be deficient.[24] Also, the professional affiliations and credentials that are claimed for some of the signatories has been questioned. Finally, there appear to be many who appear on the list who are not firmly committed to the agenda advanced by the Discovery Institute, and who have been misled into signing or who have changed their minds.

Expertise relevance

The list has been criticized by many organizations and publications for lacking any true experts in the relevant fields of research, primarily biology. Critics have noted that of the 105 "scientists" listed on the original 2001 petition, fewer than 20% were biologists, with few of the remainder having the necessary expertise to contribute meaningfully to a discussion of the role of natural selection in evolution (a pattern that has persisted),[4][1] that the wording and advertising of the initial statement statement was, and is, misleading,[1] and that a review of the signatories suggested many doubt evolution due to religious, rather than scientific beliefs.[4] The list has also been called intellectually dishonest due to its lack of relevant experts while trying to divert the attention from the real issues of creationism and evolution,[5] a minuscule representation of relevant experts,[25] and a blatant appeal to authority who in this case are irrelevant non-expert authorities.[26] PZ Myers further stated that one signatory was "proud" of his ignorance of evolution, stating that like Michael Behe, he was able to ignore contradictory information that had been placed in front of him.[27]

The Discovery Institute has responded to some of these criticisms.[28][29]

Affiliations and credentials

Southeastern Louisiana University philosophy professor Barbara Forrest and deputy director of the National Center for Science Education Glenn Branch say the Discovery Institute deliberately misrepresents the institutional affiliations of signatories of the statement "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism".[6] The institutions appearing in the list are the result of a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute to only present the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual. For example, if someone was trained at a more prestigious institution than the one they are presently affiliated with, the school they graduated from will more often be listed, without the distinction being made clear in the list. This is contrary to standard academic and professional practice and, according to Forrest and Branch, is deliberately misleading.

For example, the institutions listed for Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells, were the University of Texas, Ohio University, and the University of California, Berkeley respectively, the schools from which they obtained their Ph.D. degrees. However, their present affiliations are quite different: Probe Ministries for Bohlin, the Reasons to Believe Ministry for Rana, and the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture for Wells.

Many of those who have signed the list are not currently active scientists, and some have never worked as scientists. For example, Leonard Loose signed the Dissent document at the age of 96, after a career as a high school teacher and missionary, but is listed as being affiliated with his alma mater, the University of Leeds,[30] even though Loose's affiliation with the University of Leeds and the scientific community ended over 70 years ago.

Also, if a signatory was previously the head of a department or the president of an institute, their past and most prestigious position will be listed, not their current position. For example, Ferenc Jeszenszky is a physicist in Budapest who handles the "Hungarian Creation Research" videos, but appears instead on the list as "Former Head of the Center of Research Groups, Hungarian Academy of Sciences".

Visitors at prestigious institutions will have that affiliation listed, not their more humble home institutions. For example, Bernard d'Abrera, a writer and publisher of books on butterflies, appears on the list as "Visiting Scholar, Department of Entomology British Museum (Natural History)", in spite of the fact that this museum had become independent of the British Museum three decades previously and had formally changed its name to the Natural History Museum almost a decade before the petition. d'Abrera's primary affiliation is with his publishing company, Hill House Publishers. d'Abrera does not have a PhD either, nor any formal scientific qualification (his undergraduate degree was a double major in History & Philosophy of Science, and History), although creationists often call him "Dr. d'Abrera".[31][32] It is not clear how many other signatories of the list do not have a PhD either, although the Discovery Institute currently recruits people with PhDs to sign the Dissent petition.[33]

At least one other signatory, Forrest Mims, has neither a PhD nor any formal academic training in science. Additionally, at least seven signatories have their advanced degrees from outside the areas of "engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences" that are currently being recruited: Ronald R. Crawford has his Ed.D. in Science Education, David Berlinski has his PhD in Philosophy, Tom McMullen has his PhD in the History & Philosophy of Science, Angus Menuge has his PhD in the Philosophy of Psychology, Stephen Meyer has his PhD in the Philosophy of Science, Tony Prato has his PhD in Agricultural Economics,[34] and Tianyou Wang has his PhD in Education[35] and at least six, Jeffrey M. Schwartz, Ricardo León Borquez[36] (incorrectly listed as "Ricardo Leon"), Gage Blackstone, Daniel Galassini, Mary A. Brown and Thomas C. Majerus, have professional doctorates (such as an MD, DVM or PharmD), rather than holding a research doctorate (such as a PhD).

Also, in early editions of the list, Richard Sternberg was described as "Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution" though Sternberg was never a Smithsonian staff member, but an unpaid research associate.[17] At the time of signing the list Sternberg was the outgoing editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a minor biology journal, where he played a central role in the Sternberg peer review controversy. Later versions of the list dropped mention of Sternberg's affiliation with the Smithsonian[37] in favor of Sternberg's alma maters, Florida International University and Binghamton University. At present Sternberg is a Staff Scientist with GenBank, the genetic database at the National Institutes of Health.[38]

Critics also say the Discovery Institute inflates the academic credentials and affiliations of signatories such as Henry F. Schaefer. The institute prominently and frequently asserts that Schaefer has been nominated for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.[17][39] Barbara Forrest and others allege that the Discovery Institute is inflating his reputation by constantly referring to him as a "five-time nominee for the Nobel Prize" despite that Nobel Prize nominations remain confidential for fifty years[6] and there being about 250-300 nominations per prize per year.[40]

Defections and disagreements

The National Center for Science Education interviewed a sample of the signatories, and found that some were less critical of "Darwinism" than the advertisement claimed.[1][41] For example, Stanley N. Salthe, a visiting scientist at Binghamton University, State University of New York, who signed but describes himself as an atheist, said that when he endorsed a petition he had no idea what the Discovery Institute was. Salthe stated, “I signed it in irritation.”[42] However, Salthe prominently appears on the list as "Emeritus Professor, Biological Sciences, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York."

At least one signatory of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism has abandoned the list, saying he felt misled. Robert C. Davidson, a Christian, scientist, doctor, and retired nephrology professor at the University of Washington medical school said after having signed he was shocked when he discovered that the Discovery Institute was calling evolution a "theory in crisis." "It's laughable: There have been millions of experiments over more than a century that support evolution," said Davidson. "There's always questions being asked about parts of the theory, as there are with any theory, but there's no real scientific controversy about it." "When I joined I didn't think they were about bashing evolution. It's pseudo-science, at best ... What they're doing is instigating a conflict between science and religion."[43]

A careful analysis of the 34 nominally British, or British-trained signatories of the Dissent list by the pro-evolution group British Centre for Science Education found similar problems with the list. The BCSE raised doubts about the claimed affiliations, commitment to intelligent design and relevant expertise of those on the list.[44]

Counter-petitions

As a humorous response parodying such listing of supposed supporters, the National Center for Science Education produced Project Steve listing only scientists with doctorates in relevant fields (as opposed to the Discovery's Institute's acceptance of signatories from a variety of disciplines, including nonscientists and those without PhDs) who had signed a pro-evolution statement, except that all had to be named "Steve", or its equivalent (such as "Stephanie" or "Esteban"). About 1% of the U.S. population has a name equivalent to "Steve". As of August 2, 2007, the "Project Steve" list included 820 Steves, and it continues to grow.[45] The DI's list meanwhile had eight Steves as of July 25, 2007.

The DI's William Dembski has responded that "if Project Steve was meant to show that a considerable majority of the scientific community accepts a naturalistic conception of evolution, then the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) could have saved its energies -- that fact was never in question. The more interesting question was whether any serious scientists reject a naturalistic conception of evolution".[46]

After the Discovery Institute presented the petition as part of an amicus curiae brief in the Kitzmiller v. Dover intelligent design court case in October 2005, an unfunded grass roots counter petition, A Scientific Support For Darwinism, was organized and gathered 7733 signatures from scientists in four days.

The Clergy Letter Project has collected signatures of over 10,000 American clergy who "believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist."[47]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g Evans, Skip (11/29/2001). "Doubting Darwinism Through Creative License" (HTML). NCSE. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Cite error: The named reference "Evans" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Barbara Forrest. May, 2007.
  3. ^ Russell D. Renka, Professor of Political Science (November 16, 2005). "The Political Design of Intelligent Design". Southeast Missouri State University. Retrieved 2007-08-25.
  4. ^ a b c Chang, Kenneth (2006-02-21). "Few Biologists But Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-01-04.; available without login
  5. ^ a b Lemonick, Michael (2007-02-21). "The Evolution Wars Visit Eye on Science". Time magazine. Retrieved 2008-01-04.
  6. ^ a b c d Wedging Creationism into the Academy Barbara Forrest, Glenn Branch, Academe Online, American Association of University Professors, May, 2005
  7. ^ A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
  8. ^ According to the National Science Foundation, there were approximately 955,300 biological scientists in the United States in 1999 (National Science Foundation/Science Resources Statistics Division, 1999 SESTAT (Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data) Table C-1). Only about 1/4 of the approximately 700 Darwin Dissenters in 2007 are biologists, according to Kenneth Chang of the New York Times (Chang, 2006). Approximately 40% of the Darwin Dissenters are not identified as residing in the United States, so in 2007, there were about 105 US biologists among the Darwin Dissenters, representing about 0.01% of the total number of US biologists that existed in 1999 (which is probably an underestimate of the figure in 2007).
  9. ^ a b Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83
  10. ^ a b Finding the Evolution in Medicine, Cynthia Delgado, NIH Record, National Institutes of Health, Vol. LVIII, No. 15, July 28, 2006
  11. ^ From the Beagle to the School Board: God Goes Back to School, Morris Sullivan, Impact Press, Spring 2005.
  12. ^ Darwin, Charles (1859). [[On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life]]. London: John Murray. pp. p. 6. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); URL–wikilink conflict (help)
  13. ^ Chapman, Bruce (2003-09-21). "How Should Schools Teach Evolution? Don't Forget Weaknesses in Theory". Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-10-30.
  14. ^ "Academic Freedom Under Attack in NCSE Letter Seeking to Limit Teaching of Evolution". Discovery Institute. 2005-09-29. Retrieved 2007-10-30.
  15. ^ a b Staff, Discovery Institute (2007-03-08). "Ranks of Scientists Doubting Darwin's Theory on the Rise". Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-10-30.
  16. ^ Edwards, Mark (2001-09-24). "100 Scientists, National Poll Challenge Darwinism" (php). Retrieved 2007-10-30. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |publsher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)
  17. ^ a b c "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" (pdf). September, 2001. Retrieved 2007-10-30. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); original "100 Scientists" advertisement.
  18. ^ "Doubts Over Evolution Mount With Over 300 Scientists Expressing Skepticism With Central Tenet of Darwin's Theory". Discovery Institute. 2004-05-01. Retrieved 2007-10-30.
  19. ^ "Over 400 Eminent Scientists Sign "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" (html). lifesite.net. 2005-07-22. Retrieved 2007-10-30.
  20. ^ Crowther, Robert (2006-06-21). "Dissent From Darwinism "Goes Global" as Over 600 Scientists Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwinian Evolution" (html). Retrieved 2007-10-30.
  21. ^ "'Who's Who' list challenging Darwin grows: 100 more of the world's top scientists express skepticism of theory". WorldNetDaily.com. 2007-03-11. Retrieved 2007-10-30.
  22. ^ "Discovery Institute Top Questions" (php). Discovery Institute.
  23. ^ Schafersman, Steven (2003-09-02). "Texas Citizens for Science Responds to Latest Discovery Institute Challenge" (html). Retrieved 2007-10-30.
  24. ^ See the other lists described at level of support for evolution, for example.
  25. ^ Myers, PZ (2007-02-18). "Dr Michael Egnor challenges evolution!". Pharyngula. Retrieved 2008-01-04.
  26. ^ Brayton, Ed (2007-02-19). "Neurosurgeon Challenges Evolution". Science Blogs. Retrieved 2008-01-04.
  27. ^ Myers, PZ (2007-02-24). "Egnor responds, falls flat on his face". Pharyngula. Retrieved 2008-01-04.
  28. ^ Crowther, Robert (2006-02-16). "Time's Darwinist Thought-Cop Accuses Pro-ID Brain Surgeon of Committing "Intellectual Fraud". Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2008-01-04.
  29. ^ Crowther, Robert (2006-02-21). "Predictable as Clockwork, the New York Times Misses The News In Reporting On Scientists Dissenting From Darwinism". Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2008-01-04.
  30. ^ Interview with Dr Leonard Loose - longest serving member of CSM (Christian Science Movement), 3rd July 2006
  31. ^ Bernard d'Abrera - a brief biography, Bernard d'Abrera, Learn about Butterflies website (maintained by Adrian Hoskins), 2007.
  32. ^ Butterfly blast, Carl Wieland, Creation 25(3):16–19 June 2003.
  33. ^ A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, official webpage, Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute
  34. ^ Tony Prato Vita, Center for Agricultural, Resource and Environmental Systems, University of Missouri website
  35. ^ Tianyou Wang, Research Scientist Vita, College of Education, University of Iowa website.
  36. ^ Message from Ricardo León Borquez, MD, M.S.A., Ricardo León Borquez, Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara School of Medicine website
  37. ^ A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism (current)
  38. ^ Homepage of Dr. Richard Sternberg
  39. ^ Intelligent Design -- A Scientific, Academic and Philosophical Controversy Paul M. Weyrich. American Daily, December 6 2005.
  40. ^ Nomination Facts, Nobel Prize website
  41. ^ The Steve Project, radio show transcript, The Science Show, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, March 8, 2003.
  42. ^ Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition, Kenneth Chang, New York Times, February 21, 2006
  43. ^ Danny Westneat (August 24, 2005). "Evolving opinion of one man". The Seattle Times.
  44. ^ Intelligent Design Advocates: List of People with PhDs from UK Universities who Have Signed the DI Statement, Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education official website.
  45. ^ Steve-o-meter
  46. ^ Project Steve - Establishing the Obvious: A response to the NCSE, William Dembski, Discovery Institute, March 19, 2003.
  47. ^ Clergy Letter Project, hosted by Michael Zimmerman (Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Butler University)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Scientific_Dissent_from_Darwinism&oldid=208369824"