Dissent from Darwinism

For those who were interested in the Post: “Is Intelligent Design a Religion?”, there is a document entitled ‘Dissent from Darwinism’ that may be signed only by those holding either a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine. A person’s signature indicates that he or she states:

“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.”

Note the number of signatures on this document. I make reference to this fact to say that those who would deny Mr. Coppedge the right to discuss ID in the workplace should note the number of people who hold degrees in the field who agree that Darwinism should be challenged and Intelligent Design is a challenge to Darwinism.


About jlue

I am a grandmother of seven and I like to garden, read, study the Bible, and spend time with family. I am not very politically active, but very interested in who is elected to lead our country.
This entry was posted in Education, evolution, Intelligent Design. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Dissent from Darwinism

  1. paolosilv says:

    Happy Thanksgiving!
    yours, Paul


  2. Lou FCD says:

    Hi jlue!

    Perhaps you should also note the duplicity under which that document was signed by how many of the signatories, how many of them retracted their endorsement of the statement when they found out what it actually was, how many signatories never actually heard of this document, how many do not actually hold any degrees in relevant fields (like, y’know, biology), and how many actual, real scientists who knew what they were signing and had the relevant expertise that matters named Steve signed the Project Steve parody of this bit of dishonesty.

    Now *that* would be enlightening.



      • smijer says:

        Taber and Lodge’s Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs describes the confirmation of six predictions:

        1.Prior attitude effect. Subjects who feel strongly about an issue – even when encouraged to be objective – will evaluate supportive arguments more favorably than contrary arguments.
        2.Disconfirmation bias. Subjects will spend more time and cognitive resources denigrating contrary arguments than supportive arguments.
        3.Confirmation bias. Subjects free to choose their information sources will seek out supportive rather than contrary sources.
        4.Attitude polarization. Exposing subjects to an apparently balanced set of pro and con arguments will exaggerate their initial polarization.
        5.Attitude strength effect. Subjects voicing stronger attitudes will be more prone to the above biases.
        6.Sophistication effect. Politically knowledgeable subjects, because they possess greater ammunition with which to counter-argue incongruent facts and arguments, will be more prone to the above biases.


Comments are closed.