Atheists: Can we debunk the famous Discovery Institute list once and for all?

Question

the only credible scientists on the list are devout fundy christians who have obviously relied more on their faith than science:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070223063527AAgOtBZ&r=w

Answer 1

I don't know about atheists but as a Christian biologist I can certainly say that the list is a scam.

The majority of the "scientists" whose signatures they have collected are not even biologists. They include physicists, nuclear physicists, chemists, electrochemists, astronomers, psychiatrists, psychologists, philosophers, geologists, geophysicists, computer specialists, limnologists, oceanographers, meterologists, mathematicians, statisticians, pharmacologists, image analysts, civil engineers, aerospace engineers, industrial engineers, bioengineers, dermatologists, pediatricians, radiologists, nutritionists, atmospheric scientists, scientific historians, etc., etc., none of whom are in a position to offer any legitimate professional opinions about a complex biological process. Why would the Discovery Institute go to the trouble of gathering so many irrelevant signatures? Simple. It allows them to make the blanket statement, "over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism" without actually, technically, lying. Sounds pretty impressive when you don't know the facts, doesn't it?

Further, there is nothing in the statement they signed that indicates any doubt about the fact of biological evolution. That is a leap of faith they hoped you would make. The statement reads, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life". Any biologist alive today would completely agree with this statement. A hundred and fifty years of subsequent scientific investigation have revealed that biological evolution is a very complex process that involves several mechanisms in addition to random mutation and natural selection. Therefore it is true that these two factors by themselves, as described by Darwin, cannot account for the complexity of life. So, the statement crafted by the Discovery Institute is equivalent to saying "We are skeptical of claims that the principles discovered by Gregor Mendel can account for all inherited characteristics"; or, "We are skeptical that the discoveries of Louis Pasteur can account for all communicable disease mechanisms". No kidding! Obviously the initial discoveries made by the "founding father" in a specific scientific discipline do not constitute the totality of what becomes known after an additional century or two of research. But ... no-one is claiming otherwise!

So, what is the point of the whole project? In a word, deception. They set up a straw man by composing a written rejection of a claim that no-one is actually making, couch it in essentially meaningless terms that anyone could agree with, and get it signed by a motley crew of individuals with questionable credentials. Why? So they can publish an intentionally misleading statement to the effect that "hundreds of scientists have expressed skepticism about biological evolution", without being called bold-faced liars - though the effect is the same - intentional deception. Uninformed people who read their propaganda trustfully assume that the signers must surely be biologists familiar with evolutionary processes, which most of them certainly are not; and that they actually expressed skepticisim regarding the fact of evolution itself, which they certainly did not. Pitiful.

Answer 2

The Discovery institute has relied on a two things to stay in place. 1) money
2) No no legit scientist feels thta preparing to do battle with them is worth the effort.


however, I feel that if scientists actually worked together to organize the mountains of evidence they have and challenged the discovery institute to a public debate, it would be the end of them0

edit-hey gravtol whats up

also, the movie flock of dodos is basically about how the ID people are much better at putting together media presentations and pandering to lay people than scientists, and if scientists could just learn the game, they would wipe the floor with em..

Answer 3

You mean the scientifically valid discoveries, or the ones that are only "discoveries" if you happen to agree with their underlying conservative religious agenda? The first list is short (0); the second list can't give you, because I prefer my scientific discoveries to be, well, actual science.

Answer 4

what you dont think their are theists that believe in natural selection and evolution?

Dont stab your own allies in the back.