Fw: Re: Statement of Scientific Dissent

From: John W Burgeson (jwburgeson@juno.com)
Date: Sat Aug 30 2003 - 11:16:57 EDT

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Re: methodological naturalism - origin of the term?"

    FWIW, below is an email I sent today to Keith Pennock at the Discovery
    Institute. I note that at least one member of this list has signed
    Keith's statement.

    --------- Forwarded message ----------
    From: John Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com>
    To: kpennock@discovery.org
    Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 08:31:08 -0600
    Subject: Re: Statement of Scientific Dissent

    Keith:

    You wrote: "In 2001 Discovery Institute put together a list of 100
    doctoral scientists from around the nation who were willing to sign their
    names to the following statement: "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."

    Widely publicized during the past two years, this list of 100 scientists
    has played an important role in educating the general public and the news
    media about those in the scientific community who are skeptical of one of
    the central claims of neo-Darwinian theory and who favor open discussion
    of the evidence for Darwinian theory. (You can find a copy of the
    original list here,
    http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf)."

    As you may know, the ASA LISTSERV has been discussing this list. Some of
    us have signed it -- others are not doing so for a variety of reasons.

    My chief concern is that the statement is easily interpreted far too
    broadly. All of us (I think) subscribe wholeheartedly to the second part
    of the statement (careful consideration of ALL the evidence). But the
    first part is ambiguous. It is not unreasonable to consider that other
    factors than random mutation and natural selection are operative in the
    evolution of complex life forms. Those of us who are theists, indeed, see
    a divinity behind the scenes, but, of course, that is not science, but
    religious philosophy. Even non-theists, generally, are not unwilling to
    consider other causative reasons. Does this make them "skeptical?" In a
    logical sense, yes, of course. But how is that statement to be
    interpreted by the non-science educated public? Even those in the
    young-earth cults can, and will, cheerfully cite the statement as
    "evidence" they are on to something. And so their promotions of a
    "mini-god" will be reinforced, to the continued embarassment of
    Christianity as it gets tied to pseudoscience.

    I see the effort to promote this statement, unless greatly qualified, as
    detrimental to both science and theology.

    In Christ

    John Burgeson

    www.burgy.50megs.com

    ________________________________________________________________
    The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
    Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
    Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Aug 30 2003 - 11:22:42 EDT