Posted: Jun 08, 2014 2:27 am
Hi ADParker! Well, the Rangers are beating the LA Kings 4-to-3, and the rest of the family is immersed in the game, so I thought I'd steal a few minutes for RationalSkepticism.org. I'm picking this up with you saying that you're...
What a coincidence ADP. Earlier today, I had the resident atheist at a theology forum criticize me for using the term "evolutionist". I posted there that I've also been criticized by an abortionist for calling him an abortionist, and liberals for calling them liberals. I don't quite understand all that. Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss (emphasis on the theoretical) didn't even like me using the word "people". That's funny, no? When I am called a Christian creationist, a pro-lifer, a fundamentalist evangelical, or even an anti-choice activist, I don't run from it. I own it. Could it be that all those complaints are just obfuscation issues? I assure you ADP that neither me nor any creationist I have ever interviewed has suggested that Darwinists believe everything Darwin ever wrote. (For example, his overt racist and sexist contemptible comments, as at AmericanRightToLife.org/darwin, are rejected, I believe, by countless Darwinists.) And I can't recall any creationist making the claim, either, that Darwinists worship Darwin. So I'd rest easy on those concerns. A Darwinist today is someone who generally adheres to the modern synthesis (which of course isn't all that modern anymore, what with the study of epigenetics being what it is.)
Thanks for the good question ADParker. I'd like to try to answer it. According to a prestigious pro-evolution institution, as reported on and linked to (including the raw data), over at Real Science Radio, the percentage of U.S. MDs who believe that some kind of intelligent design must be involved in the origin of mankind, here's a breakdown of some of them by worldview:
- Buddhist doctors: 43% reject materialistic Darwinism (compared to 36% who accept it)
- Hindu doctors: 54% reject materialistic Darwinism
- Jewish doctors: 32% reject materialistic Darwinism (contrary to the anti-intelligent design position of the pro-evolution Louis Finkelstein Institute at the Jewish Theological Seminary which commissioned the --rather expensive-- survey)
There were even 2% of atheist doctors who reject the strictly materialistic Darwinism approach, who I'm suggesting ADP consider questions like the four I listed, as do the atheists who are friendly to the ID Discovery Institute, and like atheist Thomas Nagel who subtitled his latest book, "Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False."
Of the Real Science Radio report I mentioned earlier, that provides links to lists of names and to research from prestigious organizations that document the more than half-a-million degreed Americans, most of whom with PhDs and most in science-related specialties, who reject strict materialist Darwinism, one smaller group of highly-credentialed scientists at The Third Way (about 15 of them), acknowledge that neo-Darwinism and its natural selection cannot account for the diversity of life. These scientists include molecular biologists, etc., from institutions like Oxford, the University of Chicago, Tel Aviv University, MIT, University of Vienna, University of Bonn, UCLA, Princeton, and you would have a hard time dismissing their assessments due to religious beliefs since they are all anti-creationists.
Ha! The Kings have just tied it up 4-to-4! As soon as the Rangers went up in the first period 2-to-0 I felt sorry for them.
Talk to you soon, I hope, ADP!
- Bob Enyart
Real Science Radio
p.s. Now it's going into overtime!
ADParker wrote:Not a fan of the term "Darwinism"... like we worship Charles Darwin [or] take his works as 'gospel'...
What a coincidence ADP. Earlier today, I had the resident atheist at a theology forum criticize me for using the term "evolutionist". I posted there that I've also been criticized by an abortionist for calling him an abortionist, and liberals for calling them liberals. I don't quite understand all that. Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss (emphasis on the theoretical) didn't even like me using the word "people". That's funny, no? When I am called a Christian creationist, a pro-lifer, a fundamentalist evangelical, or even an anti-choice activist, I don't run from it. I own it. Could it be that all those complaints are just obfuscation issues? I assure you ADP that neither me nor any creationist I have ever interviewed has suggested that Darwinists believe everything Darwin ever wrote. (For example, his overt racist and sexist contemptible comments, as at AmericanRightToLife.org/darwin, are rejected, I believe, by countless Darwinists.) And I can't recall any creationist making the claim, either, that Darwinists worship Darwin. So I'd rest easy on those concerns. A Darwinist today is someone who generally adheres to the modern synthesis (which of course isn't all that modern anymore, what with the study of epigenetics being what it is.)
ADParker wrote:Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:So here are the kinds of questions that lead educated folks to doubt Darwinism:
Okay, do you have any actual reason, or better yet evidence, that these kinds of questions have led educated folks to doubt Darwinism. Or is it that only people who already doubt for other reasons (religious indoctrination for instance) use them in cases like this?
Thanks for the good question ADParker. I'd like to try to answer it. According to a prestigious pro-evolution institution, as reported on and linked to (including the raw data), over at Real Science Radio, the percentage of U.S. MDs who believe that some kind of intelligent design must be involved in the origin of mankind, here's a breakdown of some of them by worldview:
- Buddhist doctors: 43% reject materialistic Darwinism (compared to 36% who accept it)
- Hindu doctors: 54% reject materialistic Darwinism
- Jewish doctors: 32% reject materialistic Darwinism (contrary to the anti-intelligent design position of the pro-evolution Louis Finkelstein Institute at the Jewish Theological Seminary which commissioned the --rather expensive-- survey)
There were even 2% of atheist doctors who reject the strictly materialistic Darwinism approach, who I'm suggesting ADP consider questions like the four I listed, as do the atheists who are friendly to the ID Discovery Institute, and like atheist Thomas Nagel who subtitled his latest book, "Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False."
Of the Real Science Radio report I mentioned earlier, that provides links to lists of names and to research from prestigious organizations that document the more than half-a-million degreed Americans, most of whom with PhDs and most in science-related specialties, who reject strict materialist Darwinism, one smaller group of highly-credentialed scientists at The Third Way (about 15 of them), acknowledge that neo-Darwinism and its natural selection cannot account for the diversity of life. These scientists include molecular biologists, etc., from institutions like Oxford, the University of Chicago, Tel Aviv University, MIT, University of Vienna, University of Bonn, UCLA, Princeton, and you would have a hard time dismissing their assessments due to religious beliefs since they are all anti-creationists.
Ha! The Kings have just tied it up 4-to-4! As soon as the Rangers went up in the first period 2-to-0 I felt sorry for them.
Talk to you soon, I hope, ADP!
- Bob Enyart
Real Science Radio
p.s. Now it's going into overtime!