常見問答 FAQs

引言

在我們的Facebook 群組﹐經常看見有神創論/智慧設計論支持者提出大量謬論攻擊進化論﹐很多都是不假思索﹑沒頭沒腦就照抄神創論/智慧設計論團體的文宣材料﹐連什麼是科學﹑什麼是進化論等基本知識都缺乏。我們希望任何人對進化論提出異議前﹐理應做好功課﹐掌握基礎知識﹐不要提出一些天馬行空﹑荒誕無稽的說法 (有人問為過為何狗不會進化成貓﹑或者為何動物園的猩猩不變成人這些荒誕無稽的問題﹗)

Introduction

On our Facebook site, as well as in the media and in the Internet, we encountered many people who are either ill-informed about the topic, or worst, Creationists/Intelligent Proponents who mindlessly repeat their propaganda. We ask anyone who intend to challenge evolution to first do their homework before making misinformed statements or far-fetched claims such as "why don't dogs evolve to cats" or "why don't gorrilas in zoos turn to human beings".

Please click here for English version.

基本認知

對演化論常見的誤解﹐神創論/智慧設計論者常用的論據 (點擊這裡看他們的策略)

進化/演化不可能在試驗室重複﹐所以不是科學

演化論違反熱力學第二定律

澄江動物群﹐寒武紀大量物種同時出現挑戰達爾文進化論

學習科學﹐是啟發批判思維﹑多角度思考的。我們鼓勵通識﹐所以應該讓學生認識多一個學說

有很多科學家反對達爾文的學說﹐科學界對進化論有爭論

進化生物學家之間的觀點分歧證明進化論獲得的嚴謹科學（Solid Science）支持非常少

進化是隨機﹐隨機成功組合就算是紅血球需要都時間都太久﹐比宇宙年齡長﹐所以進化不可能發生

什麼謂之科學?

科學泛指所有用科學方法包括以下步驟的迭代(Iteration)和遞歸(Recursion)而得的知識：

1. 觀察(Observation) - 用感應器官去注意自然現象或實驗中的種種轉變，並記錄下來。涉及的活動包括：眼看、鼻嗅、耳聞和手的觸摸﹐也使用儀器幫助觀測﹐也涉及計算。
2. 假說(Hypothesis) - 將從觀察得的事實，綜合觀察﹐提出解釋。
3. 預測 (Prediction)- 根據假說引申出在假說的某些變數﹑情況下﹐應該出現的現象為何﹐例如人類和猿猴有共同祖先﹐應該很久以前有介乎於猿猴和人類的生物﹔廣義相對論說重力扭曲空間﹐那麼太陽巨大重力對空間的扭曲是可以察覺的。
4. 確認 (Experiment)- 透過進一步的觀察和實驗﹐找尋數據﹑證據﹐去證實預測的結果。
5. 評估 (Confirming or Rejecting Hypothesis)- 根據經驗和結果主觀地評比或下結論。
6. 同行的審閱 (Peer review) -- 同行科學家審閱結論﹑假說和證據﹐試圖找出假說有沒有缺陷﹑數據證據有沒有問題﹐確認﹑實驗的方法是否合理
7. 發表 - 通過了同行審閱﹐公佈成果。發表有很多形式，像是投稿或是發表會。
8. 批判﹑改進 - 其他同行科學家根據成果不斷測試﹑觀察﹑甚至看看假說有沒有不完善地方﹐按新出現證據修正。

對於科學的核心特徵或者說所謂科學精神，隨著人類的進步，有不同的觀點，目前一般認為科學具有如下特徵：

- 理性客觀：從事科學研究一般不以「神」、「鬼」、「上帝」為前提（一些科學家仍會信仰宗教，但是"科學"本身是理性思維的結果），一切以客觀事實的觀察為基礎，通常科學家會設計實驗並控制各種變因來保證實驗的準確性，以及解釋理論的能力。
- 可證偽：這是來自卡爾·波普爾的觀點，人類其實無法知道一門學問裡的理論是否一定正確，但若這門學問有部份有錯誤時，人們可以嚴謹明確的證明這部分的錯誤，的確是錯的，那這門學問就算是合乎科學的學問。
- 存在一個適用範圍：也就是說可以不是放之四海皆準的絕對真理。例如：廣義相對論在微觀世界失效，量子理論在宏觀世界失效。不過科學家們仍然努力尋找與探索是否有某種理論可以囊括所有自然現象(至少在物理界，將相對論與量子力學合併是一至少延續數十年的野心)。
- 普遍必然性：科學理論來自於實踐，也必須回到實踐，它必須能夠解釋其適用範圍內的已知的所有事實。

科學方法 - 香港大學思方網

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/chi/sci.php

可證偽﹕參考科學與「可證偽性」

演化論是甚麼?

演化論指現存的生物多樣性是透過「遺傳，改變和天擇」(descent with modification through natural selection) 經過長時間自然而成。

如果生物的可遺傳特徵在某一環境之中使牠們有適應能力上的差異，那麼擁有較高適應力的生物就較可能繁殖，也就較容易遺傳其特徵，長遠使該特徵較普遍。

可參考﹕進化論 ﹐變異和演化--演化理論簡述

為什麼演化論是科學?

因為它是依科學過程而生產出來的知識：觀察及搜集資料、作出假說、提出實驗去證明或否定假說、修改假說以乎合實驗結果；

它是用自然現象去解釋自然現象，不涉神鬼等在科學範圍以外的東西；

它具可否證性，即可用實驗去證明它是錯的；

它的研究結果已經被廣泛應用在日常生活中，如醫藥學生產出可治病的藥物，保持身體健康，法證學可由屍體捱論出死者的死因，協助找出真兇，遺傳學把大豆改良為可生長在非洲的水土，解決非洲飢荒問題。用演化論中的基因多樣化原理發展的雜交水稻﹐更加增加了米的產量。

創造論/智慧設計是甚麼?

創造論(Creationism)是指人類，生命，地球和宇宙是由一位神創造的信仰，而它們被創造之後一直都是以同一形態存在。

智慧設計(Intelligent Design)指人類，生命，地球和宇宙是由一個智慧創造的，而它們被創造之後一直都是以同一形態存在。

可參考文章：什麼是 Creation Science?

http://sites.google.com/site/hkscienceeducation/faq/creation_science

為什麼創造論/智慧設計論不是科學?

1. 它用超自然原因去解釋自然，科學大前提是客觀可見的事實，但超自然當然不是客觀可見的事實；
2. 科學是由客觀現象生產假說，再由假說提出實驗驗證，然後依實驗結果去修改假說，但是創造論/智慧設計論卻往往倒過來由宗教信仰而產生出「神是一切生物的設計者」假說，然後再嘗試用實驗去證明此假說，要是實驗的結果不合預期，就修改實驗方法而不是修改「神是一切生物的設計者」的假說，直至得出可以證明「神是一切生物的設計者」的實驗為止，違反科學精神；

- 2. 美國分別在1987年和2005年分別有州份法院裁定創造論/智慧設計論都是源於宗教，在科學課教授它們違反美國「政教分離」憲法；[6,7]

1. 智慧設計/神創論者不可能設計出一個實驗去否證智慧設計/神創論的假設，它不具備可否證性，因為無論現實的情況是如何，智慧設計/神創論者都可以以一個設計者的偏好來解釋，智慧設計/神創論永遠是「對」的；

1. 因為(1)，它不可以對自然作有用的推論，不能改善人類的生活，例如它不可以指出禽流感何時會變種、如何變種，可以用什麼方法來預防。

[6] Full text of Judge Jones' ruling, dated December 20, 2005. http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

[7] Edwards v. Aguillard . Case on teaching creationism in schools. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=482&page=578

另外可以參考﹕揭秘智能設計﹐“智能設計論”(智慧設計)只不過是一具行走的殭尸

為什麼不可在科學課教神創論/智慧設計論?

根據某些耳熟能詳的觀點，教演化論的時候同時教神創論/智慧設計論，可以令學生更持平地了解物種起源的各個解釋。

但持這種觀點的人其實並不了解科學教育的目的和教授科學知識所需的標準。

科學教育的目的，是令學生學習科學方法及由此方法得出的知識，神創論/智慧設計論既非為科學，就沒有必要出現在科學課，教授它們只會糢糊化科學的定義。

中小學教育的目的是給學生人類迄今為止最可靠的知識，而在科學裡面，可靠的知識必須是要經得起反覆的驗證，以及學者間的同行審查(peer-review)，再經過教育研究，才可納入教程。故此，直接教授神創論/智慧設計論會必然地違反以上準則，造成「打尖」的現象。

再者，所謂「演化論/神創論之間的爭議」只存在於一部份宗教者和科學家之間，事實是科學界是一致地認為演化論是迄今唯一解釋生物多樣性的科學理論，而神創論只是沒有證明的宗教主張[9,10,11]，理應只出現在宗教或通識課。

美國的American Association for the Advancement of Science2002已經指出﹐智慧設計是對科學教育有害無益。[12]

所以教授神創論/智慧設計不但沒有教學生抱持平，反而不自覺地灌輸了被扭曲了的學術界面貌，不自覺地把演化論和創造論在科學上等價，絶對不該被鼓勵在科學課上宣揚。

[9] American Association for the Advancement of Science: "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution". http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf

[10] Interacademy Panel on International Issue (IAP): Statement on the Teaching of Evolution. http://www.interacademies.net/CMS/6159.aspx

[11] THE ELIE WIESEL FOUNDATION FOR HUMANITY NOBEL LAUREATES INITIATIVE ON TEACHING OF EVOLUTION. http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdf

[12]http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml

以上文件也可以在本網站的檔案庫找到。

"演化'只是'理論, 不是事實"

有一點可能比較令人費解：在科學上，演化是理論，也是事實。

在日常生活中，「理論」一詞多用於形容人對事情的推測，而「事實」就是客觀的真相。然而，不為人所知的是在科學裡「理論」(theory) 和「事實」(fact) 都有和日常截然不同的定義。根據美國科學促進會(AAAS)：

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. "

(「科學理論是一個具備良好的證據的，對自然世界某些方面的解釋，它已經通過觀察和實驗，在一些事實的基礎上一再被證實。」)[1]

另一方面，科學上的事實則是指一些客觀的和可被驗證的觀察[2]。

實情是：演化論是有極大量證據支持，被反覆驗證的科學理論；演化同時也是可被客觀地觀察的事實。

[1] AAAS. Q & A on Evolution and Intelligent Design. http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml

[2] Gower, Barry (1997). Scientific Method: A Historical and Philosophical Introduction. Routledge. ISBN 0415122821.

"演化論沒有證據"

科學上，一個理論的證據(Evidence)是指一個支持或推翻該理論的觀察。支持理論的證據是指一些可根據該理論解釋(Explain)的事實，科學家企圖利用理論解釋一個新的觀察的過程，就是「驗證」。

演化論有極大量的證據支持，已經被反覆驗證，而且新證據還在不斷呈現，所以科學界對演化有否發生事實上已經沒有爭議[5]。演化論的確立基於多種證據：

1. 生物在解剖學上，形態學上，行為上，胚胎發展上，以及遺傳學上的相似性
2. 化石證據 ─ 其時期及地域分佈[3]
3. 人工選擇 ─ 許多牲畜和農作物(如狗隻和香蕉)在人類的歷史上已經和其祖先極盡不同，並演化出人類偏好的特徵
4. 微生物的適應能力 ─ 某些藥物令病源體隨時間演化出抗藥性
5. 退化的器官、人體的缺陷和一些疾病 ─ 演化的不完美性和㾗跡，包括人類的智慧齒、狹窄的分娩道、眼睛、闌尾和心漏症等等[4]。
6. 證據的一致性 ─ 不同種類的證據互相吻合，如(1)(2)得出的演化樹大致一樣：如果演化論是錯的，為什麼證據如此一致？

[3] UCMP - University of California Museum of Paleontology. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/

[4] 犬塚則久. 《退化原來是進化》. 究竟出版社 2008年8月.

[5] "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" Finding the Evolution in Medicine. National Institutes of Health

"演化論論述生命的起源"

以現代生物學的理解，演化論解釋的是現存的生物多樣性是如何是從簡單的生命形式(單細胞生命)演化出來，和簡單的生命形式如何出現沒有直接關係。

所以演化論沒有解釋生命如何出現不代表它不完整，正如引力理論沒有解釋電磁場現象不代表它不完整一樣。

"演化論說生物隨機合成"

這個謠言源於人們對演化論的理解止於具隨機性的突變，但是其實演化還包括自然選擇(Natural Selection)，而自然選擇不是一個隨機的過程。不符合環境的生物體難以生存和繁殖，所以整個演化進程是由環境導向的，非為隨機/無定向。

"化石記錄的間隙證明演化論是錯的"

演化論從來沒有保證我們會找到完整和連續的化石。

化石記錄是真實地存在，而科學合理地解釋了化石記錄的地域和時間分佈。這符合了支持性證據的定義。

其次，現存的化石的量已經超過足夠證明演化曾經發生所需，而且新化石正不斷出土。說間隙證明演化論錯誤，就等於說即使有齊全的佐證─族譜、墳墓等，但如果我沒有看見一個家族的每一代的生育情況，這家族就不存在。

"進化/演化不可能在實驗室重複﹐所以不是科學"

這是出於對實驗的誤解。實驗是科學裡面﹐眾多收集數據/證據來印證科學理論的方法﹐例如化學和一些物理學理論﹐是可以通過試驗驗證。但實驗室裡面的實驗不是科學談究 scientific inquiry 裡面收集證據的唯一途徑或者方法。

如果只可以在實驗室重複的才可以算證據﹐請問牛頓如何印證萬有引力對星球﹑恆星﹑月球﹑地球﹑行星等運行的影響﹖大家有如何印證板塊漂移論 Plate tetronics﹖你怎樣在實驗室重現呢﹖

答案就是通過計算加觀測。

星球﹑恆星﹑月球﹑地球﹑行星等位置可以通過牛頓萬有引力的公式推算位置﹐印證理論的方法就是通過天文鏡在推出的位置找不找到那個星體。

19世紀和20世紀發現海王星﹑冥王星﹐就是這個方法﹐而且不是一次﹐他們反覆推算新位置﹐觀測到的也和推算吻合。

板塊漂移論就導出預測﹐說如果兩個大洲曾經在一起﹐那麼在推測曾經是相連部份﹐大家找到的岩石應該是可以對應的。

一個有關的疑問就是你如何重複這個"實驗"。學說的可重複性/再現性 (reproducibility / repeatability)﹐不是狹義在實驗室那種﹐更加不是重複一模一樣的實驗﹐而是特定的情況下﹐除了一個人﹐另外一個獨立的人在相同的特定的情況也可以得出同樣的觀測﹐或者使用相同的方法預測的結果﹐印證到觀測。

用萬有引力為例子﹐他們可以反覆用牛頓的方程式計算星球不同的位置﹐再觀察看看是否每次都吻合。

可重複性不是重複一模一樣的實驗﹐而是根據理論提出的方法﹐進行觀測﹐結果仍然吻合理論。

進化/演化論的可重複性不是說一個物種可以重複出現兩次﹐例如人類可以在通過進化再出現一次﹗而是指出如果應用同樣的進化/演化原理﹐在地球的不同環境﹐都是同樣可以重複地觀察到的物種的進化過程。

另外一個﹐就是 controls。多數人是從初中實驗知道要有兩個對比作為 control ﹐用來排除其他不是引起一個自然現象的因素。在研究進化﹐雖然不是百分百都可以在實驗室進行 (進行的都是果蠅﹑細菌的實驗)﹐但比較類似的化石﹐就可以找出差異的因素﹐例如是傳染病。尼安德特人最先被發現﹐被指是患了骨質有關的病﹐例如是軟骨病。但通過對比軟骨病人的骨骼﹐就排除了這個因素﹐這是應用了 controls。

"演化論違反熱力學第二定律"

熱力學第二定律(Second Law of Thermodynamics)說一個封閉系統的熵 (Entropy)會隨時間上升，直至達到平衡狀態為止。我們知道能量可以轉移，但隨時間過去能量不再有淨轉移(平衡狀態)，如冰在溶化後變成室溫的水就再沒有淨熱轉移。熵的概念是用來量化這種均衡化的進展程度。

和融化的冰比較，有機體通過演化變得更加複雜和其內部結構變得更有序，看來是違反了熱力學第二定律。但這是不正確的，因為生物甚至地球都不是封閉的系統，而太陽幾十億年來不斷提供能源予所有地球上的生物，所以太陽也是系統的一部份。[8]

[8] The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

"澄江動物群﹐寒武紀大量物種同時出現挑戰達爾文進化論"

寒武紀物種大爆發歷來是神創論者反對進化論的一個理由。其中新華社的報道是這麼說的：“地球上的生命何時大量出現？‘寒武紀大爆發’究竟產生了什麼？中國科學院、雲南大學和西北大學的科學家陳均遠、侯先光和舒德幹歷時20年，共同完成了‘澄江動物群與寒武紀大爆發’科研項目，通過對澄江動物群化石的發現和研究，在世界上首次揭示了“寒武紀大爆發”的整體輪廓，證實幾乎所有的動物祖先都曾站在同一起跑線上。”往後的報導更加誇張的說“澄江動物群證實幾乎所有動物並非演化而來”。

達爾文提出的進化論主要包括四個子學說：

一，一般進化論：物種是可變的，現有的物種是從別的物種變來的，一個物種可以變成新的物種。

二，共同祖先學說：所有的生物都來自共同的祖先。

三，自選選擇學說：自然選擇是進化的主要機制。

四，漸變論：生物進化的步調是漸變式的，是一個在自然選擇作用下累積微小的優勢變異的逐漸改進的過程，而不是躍變式的。這是達爾文進化論中較有爭議的部分。

寒武紀大爆發挑戰的就是漸變論，但是並不能否證漸變論。它即使成立，也僅僅不過表明進化有時候是能夠以躍變的方式進行的，並不能否認進化在其他時候是以漸變的方式進行的。寒武紀大爆發更不會挑戰進化論。幾乎所有動物的“門”都在寒武紀早期出現，絕不意味著這些動物祖先不是進化而來的，更不意味著它們之後沒有發生進化。實際上﹐寒武紀大爆發是指寒武紀地層出現了大量化石﹐不一定證明當時突然出現很多生物﹐同時那個期間不短﹐有幾百萬年。更加合理的解釋是之前生物並沒有骨骼或者外殼或者有助保留為化石的部份﹐所以之前化石數目非常稀少﹐但不代表之前生物非常稀少。

更詳盡的回答可以參考方舟子所寫的澄江動物群挑戰達爾文進化論了嗎？ (http://sites.google.com/site/hkscienceeducation/cambrian-explosion)

學習科學﹐是啟發批判思維﹑多角度思考的。我們鼓勵通識﹐所以應該讓學生認識多一個學說

這是所謂 teach the controversy﹐或者不偏袒 fair and balanced的理由去科學堂講達爾文進化論以外的其他解釋。

這種說法包含兩個假設﹕

1. 所有意見﹑學說都是同等﹑同樣合理﹑同樣符合科學﹕這是不現實的假設﹐這其實等同要人放棄批判思維
2. 開放代表不加批判﹑分析接納所有學說 (實際上神創論﹑智慧設計推動這只希望推動他們的神創論﹑智慧設計)

開放思維 open-mindedness﹐僅僅是指人是願意理性地考慮其他的觀點﹐不是毫不批判﹑分析就接受﹐所以科學除了邏輯分析﹑證據﹑證偽外﹐還包括了對新學說的存疑態度 Skeptcism。任何學說﹐不通過科學的要求﹐就不是科學﹐就可以合理地拒絕。在科學堂對進化論提出質疑﹐質疑本身如果自己都通不過科學的嚴謹要求﹐就變成為批判而批判﹑為質疑而質疑。

科學堂目的是教導優質﹑經過千錘百煉﹑有充份證據支持﹑科學界已經有把握是合理的科學學說。

就如上面說﹐智慧設計/神創論不是科學﹐不在科學堂教是符合科學的目的。如果要以給學生多認識一個學說為理由﹐又說 fair and balance, 又說科學不必拒絕非科學﹐那麼就更加沒有理由只講智慧設計/神創論﹐而應該連希臘神話﹑北歐神話﹑中國盤古初開﹑印第安人的創世故事﹑巴比倫的也講﹐“讓學生學得更多”對不對﹖多角度思維不是多一個兩個角度﹐而是儘量多﹗

課堂外本來就有無限量未被證實的東西﹐是否為了開放﹑多角度﹐都應該全部講﹖

那麼又為何只針對生物學的進化論﹖為何不在西史教導所謂“猶太人捏造納粹德國屠殺猶太人謊言”(相信這個說法的不比相信智慧設計/神創論的人少)﹐為何不在物理堂教導金字塔能量﹖中文堂可以教粗口﹑火星文﹖或者說“人類登月是大謊言”﹖

我們可以看到﹐課堂上﹐不是對任何學說﹑任何講法﹑任何資訊都無條件開放的﹐否則以上荒謬的情景就沒有任何理由阻止的了。

課堂目的是學生可以學習最優質的知識。要鍛煉批判思維﹐那麼就在通識批判智慧設計/神創論﹐讓學生明白為何它們不是科學好了。

有關什麼謂之開放思維 open-mindedness﹐可以去我們的多媒體頁看一個相同題目的 YouTube片 (英語)。

有很多科學家反對達爾文的學說﹐科學界對進化論有爭論

智慧設計論/神創論者會對人說﹐“有”﹑或者“很多科學家”對達爾文的進化論表示質疑﹐然後就引言達爾文異議 (Dissent from Darwin) 這個網頁的簽名作為支持。這裡面有一個文件說有很多“科學家”簽名。

“達爾文異議”本來就是宣揚智慧設計論/神創論機構“發現研究所” (Discovery Institute) 的把戲。他們2001年開始收集簽名﹐目的是製造所謂“多科學家質疑進化論”的假象。但八年來﹐僅得754人 (2008年8月數據)﹐在全球科學界簡直滄海一粟。

這個簽名運動有很多問題。首先﹐簽名運動的字眼非常含糊不清﹐它太概括﹑含糊其辭﹕"我們對隨機突變和自然選擇作解釋生命複雜性之理論表示懷疑﹐我們相信進化論需要更多詳細調查"。這寫字眼﹐就算是百分百同意進化論是生物多樣化最佳解釋的生物學家也不會馬上反對﹐因為科學往往是保持存疑態度﹐永遠不會百分百肯定﹐並且繼續尋找證據調查﹐這句子本身根本不可以理解為對達爾文的進化論表示質疑或者有爭議。其他問題包括﹕

- 科學不是靠數人頭決定理論的真偽﹐而是嚴謹跟隨科學方法去找證據﹑提出假說﹑驗證然後發表新理論。這些人除了發表異議﹐多年來根本就沒有提出具體的新學說來 (除了不是科學的智慧設計論)﹔當然表裡面的人數也根本太少﹐沒有代表性。
- 這個簽名裡面的人一開始就鬧出笑話。初期一百人﹐當中有郊野公園管理員﹑在法律學院工作的 ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM )
  - 2004年John Lynch一個evolutionary morphologist (http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2008/01/dissenting_from_darwinism.php )再分析當時有300人的名單﹐裡面竟然只有5人所屬的研究﹑學習學術領域是和進化論有關的。
  - 英國的British Centre for Science Education 在2007年(名單有700人)對名單裡面34所謂來自英國或者在英國學府畢業的人他們的來歷也提出了質疑﹐部份人既不是在學術界工作﹐也不是科研人人員 ( http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/IntelligentDesignAdvocates )
- 部份擁有所謂 Ph.D.的﹐部份的和自然科學無關﹐例如教育﹑哲學﹐其他的就算是科學科目有關的﹐都是應用科學 (applied science)的專科﹐例如工程﹑電腦﹑數學﹑統計﹑醫科﹐就算不是應用科學﹐很多都和生物學無關 (例如數學﹑化學﹑物理學﹑天文學﹑氣象學等)﹐有些是的學位是醫療的﹐不代表他們都有足夠學術背景和相關領域知識去對進化論作出合理的評論
- 部份簽署人﹐例如 Stanley Salthe﹐表示根本不是質疑進化論﹐也不知道簽署幾個目的是什麼﹐機構是什麼背景
- 這些簽署人列出的名銜﹐並非按照學術界慣例來列出 (即列出目前的職位﹐和自己最高的學歷)﹐而是把過去曾經做過最高的職位列出﹐如果Ph.D.不是自然科學有關﹐更加不會列出來﹐例如Tianyou Wang Research Scientist Center for Advanced Studies in Measurement & Assessment, University of Iowa 的Ph.D. 是 Education﹐例如Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana 和Jonathan Wells出他們獲取博士學位的學院﹐現在不是在學術界中﹐而是分別在不同傳教機構工作﹕Probe Ministries, Reasons to Believe Ministry, 和 Discovery Institute
- 個別人士的立場更加古怪﹕例如Dennis Dean Rathman﹐參與過一個簽名運動﹐否認HIV是引致AIDS﹗

簡單說﹐這名單把科學家這個名詞含義模糊化﹐並且把不是從事科學研究工作的人也儘量納入名單。本站有一個詳細分析﹐發現最少11個已經不是在學術界﹑科研界中的人。

詳細參考﹕

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

http://ncseweb.org/creationism/general/doubting-darwinism-creative-license,

http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/IntelligentDesignAdvocates

什麼樣的科學家在反對進化論

進化生物學家之間的觀點分歧證明進化論獲得的嚴謹科學（Solid Science）支持非常少

進化生物學家在多個問題上有激烈的爭論：物種形成的過程，進化性變化的速率，鳥類與恐龍的始祖關係，以及穴居人（Neandertal）是否是不同於現代人類的另一分支，如此等等。這樣的爭論在所有其它學科都存在。但是在生物學中，將進化論認定為事實和指導原則卻是放之四海而皆準的做法。

不幸的是，狡詐的神創論者卻將科學家的評論斷章取義，該偷換面為對進化論的否定。哈佛大學的古生物學家Stephen Jay Gould，了解他工作的人都清楚，這位參與創立間斷-平衡框架（punctuated-equilibrium model）的人同時也是進化論最雄辯的維護者和宣揚者（間斷平衡理論指出，大多數進化性變化都發生在地質學意義的短暫時間內，雖然這仍然需要數百代的更替，由此解釋了化石紀錄的模式）。然而神創論者卻熱衷於從Gould的長篇大論中截取出一小段，讓人感覺他是在質疑生物進化，他們還將間斷平衡理論解釋為，新的物種可以在一夜之間出現，或者是鳥類可以從爬行動物的卵中孵化出來。

如果見到貌似在質疑進化論的科學權威人士的引文，一定記得要查找上下文。結果幾乎無一例外，說這些文字是攻擊進化論完全是一廂情願。

進化是隨機﹐隨機成功組合就算是紅血球需要都時間都太久﹐比宇宙年齡長﹐所以進化不可能發生

一種流傳頗廣的對進化論的誤解認為，進化是一個概率幾乎等於零的不可能事件。有人比喻說，要進化出一個細胞，就像是讓一陣旋風刮起零件自動組裝成一架波音飛機。神創論的宣傳品也反复宣揚這種論調。但這種說法假設了﹐如果生物有N個部份﹕

- N個部份﹐每個是隨機出現
- N個部份必須同時出現同時組合
- 有一個目標“設計”來規定最終組合

但是在自然觀測到的並非如此﹕

- N 個部份隨機出現﹐可以同時出現1個或者多個﹐當然多個機率較小﹐自然環境裡面﹐有利繁殖/存活的因素可以不只一個
- 個部份組合可以累積的﹐因為有利繁殖/存活的因素可以遺傳下去﹐有更大機會保留﹐最終的機會率比百份百隨機高很多。

假設要產生句子 "Methinks it is like a weasel" ﹐變化是假設大小寫字母共52﹐加空白﹐即是53個不同變化﹐隨機形成機率是 53^28分之一﹐大約是2之後48個零。假設電腦能夠每秒隨機產生100,000 個28字符的組合﹐大約是2*10^48 / (100000 * 60 * 60 * 24 * 365) =6之後35個零年才出現﹐這個做法已經是很aggressive 的隨機組合﹐因為每秒達到100,000 個隨機組合產生﹐而且假設每代都出現變異

我跑這個模仿 Richard Dawkins 在 The Blindwatch maker 而寫的 Java 程式﹐調到速度是每秒只有15914個組合產生﹐而且只容許50代才出現變異﹐把變異機會拉得很低﹐唯一不同是環境會有回饋﹐產生都字句會對比於目標組合距離多少﹐但沒有任何信息顯示中了那些字母﹐完成只是3 秒﹐僅僅用47744代就做到。這個模擬很清楚顯示﹐如果把環境因素考慮對存活﹑繁殖和遺傳在內﹐如果一個物種具有在那環境下可以提高存活率和繁殖率的特點﹐這些特點會一代一代一代累積﹐因為存活率提高﹐特點可以遺傳下去﹐最終可以發展出不同的特點﹐出現不同物種﹐而機會率比反對進化論者所假設的百分百隨機高很多。

English version

Essential concepts

What is science ?

What is evolution ?

What makes evolution theory a science ?

What is creationism/intellgent design ?

Why aren't creationism/intellgent design science ?

Why can't we teach creationism/intellgent design in science class ?

Misunderstandings about evolution and common Creationist/Intelligent Design proponents arguments (Click to see their common tactics)

Evolution is "just a theory", not fact

There is no evidence to support evolution

Evolution talks about the origins of life

Evolution says that life and species arises from purely random process

Gaps in fossil records prove that Evolution is wrong

You cannot repeat evolution in an controlled laboratory experiment, so it is not science

Evolution is against the Second Law of Thermodynamics

"Cambrian Explosion" and the known abundant fossils found in Canada Burgess Shale in British Columbia and China Cheng Jiang threatend evolution

We encourage critical thinking and wide perspective of seeing things, it is beneficial, stimulating to teach children an alternative explanation

There are many scientists expressed skepticism to Darwinism/Evolution, There is a REAL debate about evolution in the scientific community

There are disagreements among scientists who worked on evolution, which means evolution has little or no basis in science

The probability of evolving complex lifeforms by random processes is so low that it takes a time longer than the age of the universe to evolve!

What is science ?

Science refers to the natural explanations for natural phenomena, acquired through the iterative scientific methods which embodies the following steps:

1. Observation - using our senses, and also with the aid of equipments, to detect occurence of natural phenomena or changes in environment, and collect them as data
2. Hypothesis - based on the data collected, make logical deductions and propose a natural explanation to the natural phenomena
3. Prediction - based on the hypothesis, deduce the outcome that can validate the hypothesis
4. Experiment - perform further steps, like observation or experimentaton to validate the prediction
5. Confirming or Rejecting Hypothesis - using the results, conclude if the hypothesis should be rejected
6. Publish the result - publish the results to scientific community

There are further principles of science:

Skepticism and critical thinking

All conclusions are evidence based, and must be free of personal belief or conviction, and independent of any frame of reference - so that any discovery or explanations can be validated and proven to be true anywhere in nature (hence supernatural causations are not regarded as science because it is as personal belief)

Falsifiability, that is you can tell something that it is false or true by testing it; without this one cannot tell if it is false and thus cannot be science

Universal -- even though Quantum Theory and General Relativity appears to be in conflict, it is science' content that natural explanations ought to be applicable universally

Consistent with all known natural explanations

According to the definion by the Interacademy Panel:

We also subscribe to the following statement regarding the nature of science in relation to the teaching of evolution and, more generally, of any field of scientific knowledge :

Scientific knowledge derives from a mode of inquiry into the nature of the universe that has been successful and of great consequence. Science focuses on

(i) observing the natural world and

(ii) ormulating testable and refutable hypotheses to derive deeper explanations for observable phenomena.

When evidence is sufficiently compelling, scientific theories are developed that account for and explain that evidence, and predict the likely structure or process of still unobserved phenomena.

Human understanding of value and purpose are outside of natural science’s scope. However, a number of components – scientific, social, philosophical, religious, cultural and political –contribute to it. These different fields owe each other mutual consideration, while being fully aware of their own areas of action and their limitations.

While acknowledging current limitations, science is open ended, and subject to correction and expansion as new theoretical and empirical understanding emerges.

According to the definion in "Science, Evolution and Creationisn" (National Academy Press 2008 page 10):

Science is "The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process". In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena.

Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations.

Any scientific explanation has to be testable — there must be possible observational consequences that could support the idea but also ones that could refute it. Unless a proposed explanation is framed in a way that some observational evidence could potentially count against it, that explanation cannot be subjected to scientific testing.

A consitent understanding of science (as oppose to some claims that there is "no universally accepted definition") is essential because scientific community share their works, collaborate, and improve on each other's discoveries and works. Moreover the explanation has to be natural and repeatable because science has to be applicable, and can only able to put to practical use if the results can be shown to be consistent.

See also The Scientific Method.

What is evolution ?

It is the explanation of the biodiversity (the many living organism species) on earth through variation caused by mutation in genes, and natural selection, over a long period of time and on a large population of an organism.

When a variation confers an advantage to survival, that is taken in a large group, those advantage allow them as a whole to survive better, reproduce better, the group then be able to perpetuate through time, and as small changes acculumated over time, new species are created.

What makes evolution theory a science ?

Evolution meets all the criteria of science:

The knowledge and explanation it proposes are based on observable evidences in nature: variations, fossil records, genetics and mutation of microorganisms in laboratory. It can also be falsified because it produced testable predictions. For example, if man and the great apes have common ancestors we ought to find fossils of a transitional form, and a lot of them were found; and we ought to share very similar DNA, and it was again confirmed in the mapping of human genome.

It includes only natural explanation, involving processes that can be observed or we can find evidenes of.

As stated above, on predictions of common descent and transitional fossils, if the predictions are wrong, the theory is falsified. This demonstrates its falsifiability.

It was applied in a wide variety, from developing of vaccines, understanding drug resistence, using DNA to locate criminals, and identifying new strains of viruses such as SARS and H1N1.

What is creationism/intelligent design ?

Creationism derives from the Christian Biblical account in Genesis 1-2, and purports that all lifeforms are created by God, fully formed, with no new species arised since they are created. There are the Young Earth Creationists who believed a literal 6-day creation and a short age of earth (not more than 10,000) years, and the Old Earth Creationists who accepted that earth's age as evident from our fossil records.

Intelligent Design was an off-shoot from Creationism movement, which suffered a set back in 1987 when the USA Supreme Court ruled that Creationism is not science, the Creationists then repackaged the Creationist claims and said that, some aspects of organisms must have been designed by a so-called "intelligent designer." The proponents avoided religious references like "God" and "create", but claimed that there is some aspects so difficult to understand or explain, it must be an "intelligent design" behind it.

Why aren't creationism/intellgent design science ?

Both purported non-natural / supernatural causes (God, intelligent designer) that cannot be tested.

Both arrive at a conclusion that depends on personal belief, instead from evidence.

Both failed to provide testable predictions to falsify / validate the existence of God or the intelligent designer.

Both "appeal to ignorance" by saying, because this (currently) cannot be explained (by evolution), then God/Intelligent Design did it, which is not a scientific explanation.

In two landmark ruling in USA, both are ruled as "not science", and violated the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution:

- Full text of Judge Jones' ruling, dated December 20, 2005. http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
- Edwards v. Aguillard . Case on teaching creationism in schools. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=482&page=578

This YouTube video by Potholer54 on "creation science" illustrates what the controversy behind them:

http://sites.google.com/site/hkscienceeducation/faq/creation_science

Why can't we teach creationism/intellgent design in science class ?

This is a familiar tactic of so-called "non-biased, stimulating" way to allow student to understand "different exlanations". This viewpoint is a result of misconception about what is science and what science education is about.

"The goal of science education is to expose students to the best possible scholarship in each field of science. The science curriculum is thus the product of centuries of scientific investigation. Ideas need to become part of the base of accepted scientific knowledge before they are appropriately taught in schools." ("Science, Evolution and Creationism, National Academy Press, 2008)

Clearly Creationism/Intelligent Design are not results of scientific investigation, inclusion of them in a science class only confuses or waterdowns the whole idea about science.

Moreover, science knowledge that are to be acquired in a science class must be those already established by scientific methods, passed scrutiny of peer-review, stood numerous tests and represent the current understanding of scientific community.

Creationism/intelligent design attempted to bypass scientific scrutiny and pose t hemselves as "science", is like cutting in the line, and compromises science education. It also turn off students mind as students are no longer sure what is really science.

The so called "controversy" about evolution is a manufactured dissent. Scientists have come forward to voice their consensus a number of times:

- American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Resolution on the Intelligent Design: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml
- American Association for the Advancement of Science: "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution". http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf
- Interacademy Panel on International Issue (IAP): Statement on the Teaching of Evolution. http://www.interacademies.net/CMS/6159.aspx
- THE ELIE WIESEL FOUNDATION FOR HUMANITY NOBEL LAUREATES INITIATIVE ON TEACHING OF EVOLUTION. http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdf

Evolution is "just a theory", not fact

People often use the word "theory" in a day-to-day sense to mean hunch or a guess.

However, in science the term “theory” is used differently. The world "theory", in science nomenclature is a strong word; a "theory" represents body of knowledge obtained via scientific methods regarding an aspect of the natural world which explains and describes that aspect, with substantial evidences to support those knowledge and experience, and the "theory" is tested and falsified. "Gravity" is a theory, "Electromagnetism" is a theory etc.

Creationist and Intelligent design proponents purposefully confuse the two meanings of the word “theory.” The frequent claim of Creationist and Intelligent design proponents advocates that evolution is “just a theory.”using the common day-to-day usage.

In fact evolution is both a theory and a fact.

the theory of evolution is supported by numerous observations, evidences and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.

When substantiated to the degree that evolutionary theory has been, a theory is regarded as a fact. The evidence in support of the evolution theory is so overwhelming that scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur.

The fact and the theory of evolution is now relied upon by practicing biologists who operate within the rich context of evolutionary theory, and no part of modern biology, including medicine, is completely understandable without it.

There is no evidence to support evolution

In science, evidences are used to support a theory or to disprove it. Scientific methods require collection of large amount of evidence to substantiate any proposed hypothesis, and if there is no evidence to disprove and the evidence is overwhelming, the hypothesis can become a theory.

The simplist piece of evidence is an observation, such as a reading in some sensors, or fossil find that matches the prediction in paleontology. An observation that contradicts the theory or prediction, and after investigation that this observation is not distorted by other factors, or the anamoly is accounted for, it may require the theory to be refined to explain it.

In evolution, fossil records of transition forms like those of dinasours to birds(Archaeopteryx), marine life to tetrapods (Tiktaalik) etc. are abundant.

Others include the study of living organisms' embryo, how human applied "selection" in crops cultivation and breeding of pets/livestocks, the observation of drug resistance in bacteria.

In genetics the human genome compared to that of the great apes confirmed our common descent.

Reference:

UCMP - University of California Museum of Paleontology. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/

"99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" Finding the Evolution in Medicine. National Institutes of Health

NOVA http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/tran-nf.html

Evolution talks about the origins of life

Evolution explains only about the biodiversity on earth, how speciation occurred, not how lifeforms arises from chemicals. Although evolution does not address the question about the origin of life on earth, it does not mean it is a theory in crisis.

Evolution says that life and species arises from purely random process

The only part that is random in evolution is mutation, which certainly plays a large part in evolution because it causes variances in a population of organism, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance.

Mutations, which are radom, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

The branch of science that deals with origins of lifes on earth is abiogenesis, not evolution. Even abiogenesis is not a purly random process. Atoms and molecules bind and react amongh themselves according to their chemical properties, which are certainly not random or by some unknown forces, but by known chemical properties.

Gaps in fossil records prove that Evolution is wrong

Evolution do not require nor predict a "complete" set of fossil records of any evolution of species. Nor does evolution relies on fossil records alone.

Fossil records confirmed various transitional forms in evolution, and matches the prediction of the evolution theory. Palaeontologists have had great success in finding transitional forms between large groups of living creatures. For instance, there are more than twenty known genera of dinosaurs with feathers, large breastbones and other birdlike characteristics, strongly supporting the evolutionary hypothesis that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Similarly, many early tetrapods or “fish with feet” have been found, such as Tiktaalik and Panderichthys, indicating that land vertebrates did evolve from lobe-finned fish. All these discoveries were predicted beforehand by evolutionary theory.

There are more than enough fossil records than needed to prove evolution did occurred.

Evolution is also confirmed by genetics, where it confirmed our common descent.

For more on them, please see the following pages:

- http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
- http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/new-order.html

http://ncseweb.org/rncse/21/5-6/more-birds-dinosaurs

You cannot repeat evolution in an controlled laboratory experiment, so it is not science

In scientific methods, using controlled laboratory experiments is one of many ways to obtain evidences and data to support a hypothesis or theory. If all sciences has to be able to perform a "laboratory experiment", how can we prove, say the Theory of Gravity ? We cannot "experiment" with the motions of planets or stars in a laboratory. The same is true for plate tetronics and of course evolution.

In scientific methods, evidence can be an observation, such as a fossil find matching the predictions in evolution, or the observed position of a planet compared to its predicted position arrived by applying the equations of Newton. Neither of those needed a "laboratory".

Collection of evidence to support a theory hence does not limit to laboratory works, in also included fieldworks, like those of paleontologists, geologists or astronomers.

Another challenge is "evolution cannot be repeated". Again this is a misunderstanding of the "repeatability" or "reproducibility" of science.

The two terms do not mean an exact replication of an event or experiment, it means if you apply a theory repeatably, the result will always match the what the theories predict. There is no point of repeating the exact experiment 1000 times if you don't change the variables to test the validity of the theory.

Likewise, given the ideas of evolution (variance, natural selection), paleontologists and paleoantropologists observed repeated occurences in history of evolution in different environment and different species, and all consistent with what the theory has predicted from different fossils (birds, hominids etc.).

Evolution can also be observed in laboratories, for micro-organism like bacteria, where they can study drug resistence.

Evolution is against the Second Law of Thermodynamics

This claim is mindlessly repeated by Creationisms/Intelligent Design proponents and their followers, and demonstrates the lack of understanding on the law itself.

They claim that second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible.

The Second Law of Theromodynamics merely states that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease.

This claim overlooks these factors in the Second Law of Theromodynamics:

- Our earth is NOT a closed system, sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
- Entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
- Even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
- In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

Reference: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

"Cambrian Explosion" and the known abundant fossils found in Canada Burgess Shale in British Columbia and China Cheng Jiang threatend evolution

This is another propaganda circulated by Creationisms/Intelligent Design proponents and their followers. They claimed that many species appeared "at the same time" in this period, some even says that "complex life forms appear suddenly in the Cambrian explosion, with no ancestral fossils (all at once)" or "all modern groups of living things appeared during the Cambrian explosion, or all groups of complex organisms did so".

The Cambrian Explosion is simply a period of prehistory during which an unusually large variety of animal groups appeared relatively quickly in the fossil record. The most widely-accepted explanation is that, at the end of the pre-Cambrian, animals evolved the ability to form hard, mineralized parts (such as bones, shells, and teeth). This new ability stimulated an adaptive radiation, as different animal lineages exploited it to suit different niches. At the same time, animals with these hard parts were much more likely to fossilize than their soft-bodied ancestors had been, so that many more species ended up in the fossil record at this time.

The Cambrian period started about 530 mya (million years ago) and ended around 580 mya, and lasted around 50 to 70 million years. Although in geological standard this period is unusually short, it is still a far cry from "all at once" or "at the same time".

As to the "no ancestral fossils claim", some forms of complex life appear in the fossil record well before the Cambrian, such as sponges, cnidarians (like jellyfish and corals), and there is evidence that many of the animal groups first identified in the Cambrian actually evolved in earlier eras, but were too small, few in number or soft-bodied to fossilize well. There are a large number of ambiguous fossils from the late pre-Cambrian, such as Spriggina, Kimberella, and the “small shelly fauna,” which may represent these ancestral animals. More are being discovered every year, in fossil beds such as China’s Doushantuo formation and Australia’s Ediacara hills.

The claim that "all modern groups of living things appeared during the Cambrian explosion" is again wrong. Some forms of complex life appear in the fossil record well before the Cambrian, such as sponges, cnidarians (like jellyfish and corals), and the now-extinct Edicaran fauna. Many others do not appear until long after the Cambrian. For instance, fossils of mammals, birds, reptiles, true insects, and flowering plants only appear hundreds of millions of years later. Most of the large organisms of the early Cambrian would look very alien to our eyes.

Reference:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html

http://ncseweb.org/evolution/geology-cambrian-explosion

We encourage critical thinking and wide perspective of seeing things, it is beneficial, stimulating to teach children an alternative explanation

This is the so called "teach the controversy" argument. People argued that to disallow teaching creationism/intelligent design is being narrow-minded. Similar to above, this argument tries to play on common misunderstandng about "non-bias, stimulating" education. This argument rests on two assumptions:

- All ideas are equally valid and worthy of discussion
- Being open-minded is to accept uncritically any new ideas

Open-mindedness merely means the willingness to consider new ideas or explanations, not the unconditional acceptance of any new ideas. New ideas must be subjected to the rational thinking process of reasoning, skepticism, and logic. When the new ideas is valid, reasonable and supported by evidence, then the person may accept it or even changes his/her mind. In science, the new idea must go through scientific scrutiny.

Thus rejecting any idea that is not valid, unreasonable, lack of evidence, and not consistent with science is not being "narrow-minded" but simply an exercise of a core component of critical thinking and scientific inquiry: skepticism.

As stated above, goal of science education is to expose students to the best possible scholarship in each field of science, creationism/intelligent design are not science. If we use the same reasoning of "fair and balance", "stimulating" etc., forgoing the goal of science education, then there is no reason to apply this on science subjects, but also other subjects. Can we start teaching the "Holocaust Hoax" in history (there are more people that believe the WWII Holocaust is a hoax then than those who believe in creationism/intelligent design) ? Or should we teach that the landing on moon by man is also a hoax ?

The proponent of this idea of "teach the controversy" is only being "open-minded" to ONLY ONE idea, that is creationism/intelligent design.

A YouTube video on "Open-mindeness" is a good further viewing to allow deeper understanding of what is open-mindedness, and can be found at our Multimedia page.

There are many scientists expressed skepticism to Darwinism/Evolution. There is a REAL debate about evolution in the scientific community

The Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents, often will resort to argumentum ad populum. However scientific questions are ever settled by popular vote or counting heads. It has to be settled by scientific method of investigation, evidence, experimentation, falsification etc. to see if a theory is still adequate to explain a natural phenomena.

The list that was cited is the "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism", and it is created by Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents organization the Discovery Institute. It started to collect signature in 2001, and over nearly 8 years, they only got a little over 750 (latest count: 754 as at August 2008), a tiny drop in the ocean of scientists!

The signatories agree only on this statement: “We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Upon close examination, this statement does NOT actually imply disagreement with the theory of evolution, nor is it an endorsement of any so-called "alternative explanation" (such as Creationism or Intelligent Design), let alone represent a "real debate".

The first cut of 100 they published shortly after they began collecting signaturs was a laughing stock as it turned out there were park rangers, employees at law schools, book publishers, and very few biologist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM).

In 2004, John Lynch, an evolutionary morphologist analyzed the then 300 signatories of this, and of this list he found only 5 organismal biologists who might possibly study evolutionary biology: http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2008/01/dissenting_from_darwinism.php

In 2007, when the list was around 700 people, the anti-creationist British Centre for Science Education raised doubts about the claimed affiliations and relevant expertise of 34 British or British-trained signatories of the Dissent list. The BCSE’s analysis determined that a number of them are neither working in academia nor practicing scientists: http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/IntelligentDesignAdvocates, and of course a lot of them are know Creationists.

Our site did a more detailed analysis, and based on British Centre for Science Education and USA National Center for Science Education, and Googling, we identified at least 11 of them are not practicing scientists, and 1 has a Ph.D. that is not related to any science.