Information icon.svg Please vote in the 2017 board of trustees election. The cabal thanks you for your service.

Talk:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I did some modest revisions to this page and got told that the size of the thing might make it somewhat hard to load for certain browsers. Is this something I should worry about? Can anyone with any knowledge whatsoever assume responsibility for the situation?G.D. (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the page takes a little bit longer to load the larger it is. It usually isn't a problem except for slower internet connections, dated browsers, and old computers. For me, it took only a split second longer than other pages on this wiki.
That said, I think it would be a good idea to move some of this article to its subspace. --"Shut up, Brx." 23:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Mainspace pages can't have subpages. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 06:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Appeal to authority[edit]

While this is obviously an attempt to confuse the issue by cherry picking a few scientists who disagree with evolution I think the following statement from the article is wrong:

  • "The petition is considered an Appeal to authority, whereby the creationists at the Discovery Institute are attempting to prove that there is a dissent from "Darwinism" by finding a few creationist scientists to support the statement."

The logical fallacy appeal to authority occurs when somebody is talking outside their field, but the "authority" which they have in their actual field is presumed to also apply to the unrelated field. As some (though not all) of these scientists quoted have some sort of qualification in the biological sciences the "appeal to authority" complaint doesn't work in respect of the entire project. I'd go with "cherry picking" instead.--Weirdstuff (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Mae-Wan Ho[edit]

"Mae-Wan Ho, Ph.D. Biochemistry, University of Hong Kong. A known critic of genetic engineering (in fact, a batshit crazy doomsday prophet) through opinion pieces (not peer-reviewed research).[118] Has not contributed to real research for 40 years, if ever. The fact that her signature appears on this list is pretty illuminating. Indeed, she is also a signatory to Rethinking AIDS, a list of HIV “skeptics".

Mae-Wan Ho has written some very interesting books on chemistry, evolution and physics she is not a creationist crank like most others on the list. She does have peer review publications out and she released some books which have recieved many positive reviews in well known journals etc. This women is not a crank, she has some interesting views and publications out on evolution. Is there a link for the rethinking aids? DinoCrisis (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok - I'll look up her publications again (she was among the first ones I did and I hadn't really found the same tricks and resources for locating publications at that stage). But no matter what happens: although she may have contributed to biology, she is without a shred of doubt a serious crank. She is a HIV denialist, for crying out loud. At least she signed some petitions to that effect, which I guess means that either she's a major crank, or she just signs whatever list comes her way. Either option puts her signature to this Dissent list in perspective. However, evidence suggest major crank: her GMO rants, at least, contain some major crankery and denialism. G.D. (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Section is now updated and, I think, more accurate. G.D. (talk) 06:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Rethinking Aids is here (the website of the organization who also runs the petition). But be warned: this is some serious crazy. The list of signatories is here, and ... it has a total of 2887 scientific dissenters! That's more than the Darwin list. Admittedly their quality control seems somewhat sloppy, since most of these are alternative health care practitioners. But you know what? I notice that they've done an Inhofe here - the criteria has changed, and these are no longer signatories but a compilation of people that RethinkingAids thinks belong on such a list. Which means I would have to change Mae-Wan Ho's entry once more. G.D. (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I have been through most of the list on this article and most appear to be creationists/intelligent designers, the only ones who are not creationists that I have found is Eugene K. Balon and Mae-Wan Ho. I need to do some more research into Mae-Wan Ho but I see that her association with rethinking aids has undermined some of her reputation. But the thing is a scientist may be a crank in one field but publish good work in another field. DinoCrisis (talk) 09:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Please correct my entry[edit]

My entry on this page reads

David Heddle, Ph. D. Physics, Carnegie Mellon University. Associate professor at Christopher Newport University, and has written the novel “Here, eyeball this” in which he defends his version of intelligent design; Google Scholar returns no scientific research. A proponent of cosmological intelligent design (e.g. the fine-tuning argument), Heddle has generally been skeptical of Intelligent design in biology. Has been in disagreement with Dembski, for instance, which resulted in Dembski booting him from his blog – teaching Heddle the hard way that the Intelligent Design movement is about public relations, not discussions of science.

Years ago I asked for my name to be withdrawn from the list. If you are maintaining a list of anyone who ever signed then it is fair--but it would seem reasonable to indicate that a person was removed by request.

Also,

Someone needs to be more careful when using Google Scholar. I publish under "D P Heddle" not David Heddle. The

correct search shows a decent though certainly not spectacular scientific output.

Also, while I discuss fine tuning in my novel, your description sends the message that it was a central theme of my novel. It wasn't. But that, I suppose, is subjective. Since I only sold a couple hundred copies it is certainly not important that you get it right. — Unsigned, by: Heddle / talk / contribs

Can you make an official statement, say, on your website or blog that you asked to have your name withdrawn from this list? That would make this much easier for us, thank you.--"Shut up, Brx." 14:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Dear David Heddle: Thanks for the update, and yes: the information is appreciated. Although the tone of the entries is sometimes a bit snarky, the primary purpose of the individual entries is not to shame the signatories (though some of them certainly deserve it) but to make the information here as useful as possible as a resource in discussions where the list comes up (which happens rather frequently). Your name is still on the official list according to the newest update from the Discovery Institute, but the fact that you have asked for your name to be withdrawn is exactly the kind of information that would be useful to have (you are not the only one who still appears on the list despite attempts to get your name removed). As for publication records I try to use various combinations and initials when I search google scholar, pubmed, and the various other resources (again, the goal is to be as accurate as possible), but it is unfortunately inevitable that some research records will elude me for some of authors (and yes, I'm the one who wrote the original entry).G.D. (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Non-creationists on the list[edit]

The only non-creationists I have found out of all of them are Eugene K. Balon and Mae-Wan Ho, the rest seem to support creationism or have links to intelligent design. Do you think we should mention this? DinoCrisis (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe - I take it that you mean "non-creationists" among the people with qualifications in biology (apart from C. Steve Murphree, who has denounced his earlier association with the list but not managed to have his name removed). There are quite a few non-creationists among the non-biologists here - Heddle is one, as he points out himself; others accept evolution but thinks that evolution fails to explain abiogenesis, which is not particularly surprising, or fails to account for absolutely everything, such as Patricia Reiff and Phillip Savage. Strictly speaking I suppose their views correspond to the letter of the petition, but certainly not with the spirit or the usages the Discotute has made of it. Do you, btw, know anything about where Martin Poenie stands at the moment? He seems to have been a bit back and forth with the Discotute in the past. G.D. (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
G.D. I have not been on rationalwiki since Novemeber 2012. I would continue to help you on this article and other evolution articles but I am too busy in real life. Something interesting about Mae-Wan Ho is that some of her ideas about evolution have proven to be correct regarding her views on epigenetics. You may be interested in this video [1]. Take care. DinoCrisis (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Dishonesty[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM DonExodus did a piece on this list wherein he found out that of the list contains mostly scientist that were tricked into signing. Think we should mention this? Greatnecro (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if you believe it's a credible source. Out of convenience alone, I prefer non-youtube sources since they're easier to scan at my own pace. In any event, it seems worthy of a sentence or so at the end of the opening paragraph. MarmotHead (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

B section is messed up[edit]

The B section of this page appears to have been messed up by FuzzyCatPotato back in July. Maybe FCP can fix it? Bongolian (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)