Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Do you have an open mind? Might want to check.

What is it about the statement that someone is "open minded" really mean. Usually the open minded statement comes from someone who very well thinks that the other person is not. Well, let's check our hats at the door and really see who might be open minded.

500 Scientists....who are willing to put their names on a document have stated.


The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington.

Don't believe it yourself. Take a look at the list and the institutions these good folks hail from as you can see above.

Certainly not slackers in the Higher Education world. Now open any conversation of said topic with such information and you are bound for the "are you kidding me" quotes from the enlightened. But have you thought about this topic or is it dogma for you? And if it is are you open minded? Might want to take a look at the points some of these bright guys make.


Blogger Grace said...

Personally, I find ID intriguing, and think it should absolutely be taught in schools as an alternative viewpoint, alongside evolution. (Of course, I would also want alternative viewpoints presented on everything else, too -- say, the European conquest of the Americas and the country's current slide into totalitarianism.)
On the other hand, I do note that your source here is a press release from the Discovery Institute, an organ which exists to little purpose beyond undermining popular belief in the theory of evolution, without presenting any valid alternative theory. In fact, the Institution has apparently done very little actual research into ID; they have presented very few academic papers and conducted nothing that could be considered a serious scientific study. They spend most of their time picking itty bitty semantic and semiotic holes in particular aspects of evolutionary theory -- or more specifically, Darwinian evolution and the theory of natural selection. I also note that this press release quotes only Discovery Institute fellows, not any of the "independent" scientists who signed the statement. Why not?

Take a look at this puppy.

Mark, I could never discuss religion or politics with you in peace. I would drink your cabernet and eat your chocolate in blissful silence. Sometimes that's just as good.

9:31 AM  
Blogger Mark for Cab & Chocolate said...

Pleased you took a look at the article. You are quite right that the Discovery Institute is not a scientific body but a clearing house for those who entertain alternative views concerning Darwian theory and its expansive applications. Historically speaking, I was a historiography major in college-with that and $2.50 you can buy a Heineken, large ideas-beliefs have a developmental life. It is taboo in most scientific circles to question the all expansive role that Darwin has in this world. Why is that when scientists are said to be the most open minded of all. The History of Scientific development is rampant with such taboos. Was not that long ago that a U.S. President died from a gunshot wound contaminated by dirty hands of his Doctors that after 20 years of discussion about germs.

There are many qualified scientists, not all who are Jerry Falwell creationists, who wonder about how much scientific water this jug can hold. But when someone comes to question they are sent to the Scientific pope to experience the modern inquisition. They must be superstitious, religious fanatics, or those who have no respect for larger scientific principles. The concept of dogma in the scientific world is the butt of modern jokes. What is going to kill us this week is going to allow us to live to 200 next week.

The heated debate concerning these topics is not rational and questions are dismissed with the inference that to discuss such things is beneath the scientific community. Yet, many scientist are wondering how Dna, Rna and simple amino acids became complex functioning systems within the common cell. A couple of questions to ask about early Darwinian development are: how the "pre-biotic atmosphere was chemically reductive; second, that nature found a way to synthesize cytosine; third, that nature also found a way to synthesize ribose; fourth, that nature found the means to assemble nucleotides into polynucleotides; fifth, that nature discovered a self-replicating molecule; and sixth, that having done all that, nature promoted a self-replicating molecule into a full system of coded chemistry." (Berlinsky, Orignis of Life). I have a couple of Biologic friends who agree these are uncertain issues but regardless Darwinian evolution must be correct. Selection of the species might work. Manufacturing a species might be another question worth discussion. An open mind is something worth minding.

8:25 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home