Sam Harris

I’m wonder if anyone knows about the Science against evolution group? I guess what I’m asking is, does anyone know if this group has religious ties of any kind? I’m trying to find out if they are really skeptics about evolutionary theory or just another crank group.
:?:  :?:
the sites: http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v7i12a.htm

J. S. Dubreuil

Their home web site is:

www.scienceagainstevolution.org

They are a 501C corp, which means they are nonprofit.  If I wanted to accept funding for what I do in the schools, I would form a 501 corp, so I could have you send me $15 from paypal so I could buy a copy of a pro-evolution book for the high school library.

That group is probably just a couple of folks doing what they sincerely believe in, and they, of course, have every right to do it.  There is a similiar organization in my neck of the woods, and I run across them from time to time, mostly at science fairs and school board meetings.

I have no other knowledge of them byond that.  If you are really interested, email NCSE, they will be happy to reply.

www.ncseweb.org

“Over the years, the approach taken by Science Against Evolution has evolved. The original plan was to send one newsletter to everyone in Ridgecrest to try to build up a nucleus of people who would sponsor speakers from the Institute for Creation Research, or Answers in Genesis, to give scientific lectures about creation and evolution.”

I don’t know if they have any overt religious affiliations, but going by what I’ve quoted above from their article, they sound like they’re just another creationist, young earth group.

“Evolution” is not a belief system, believe it or not, and scientists don’t “believe in” evolution the way people “believe in” a religion. Nobody expects anybody to treat evolution as an article of faith. Evolution is a scientific theory, and scientists examine it as they would examine any theory.  If they find any flaws, or scientific evidence that doesn’t seem to fit, they point this out and try to figure out what this means.

These folks are using this fact to try to turn science into pseudoscience. That’s why they jump on things published in journals like Science and Nature which, on the surface, can appear to be calling into question some aspect of the theory of evolution as we understand it right now. Strong as the evidence is for evolution, there are plenty of things about it that aren’t all that completely understood yet, and scientists work in those areas. That doesn’t mean they’re questioning the theory of evolution as a whole. It means they’re trying to clarify certain aspects of a scientific theory and correct any errors. That’s the way knowledge progresses. There can’t be any sacred cows in science.

Thanks for the research MJ. I thought that it would be a good idea to have someone else give their own opinion from a skeptical standpoint. Regardless of my views of spirituality and religion, skepticism is the greatest asset to science and the scientific field.

I’m not a proponent of evolutionary “theory”, although, I do recognize that changes do occur within species and organisms in order to survive in a changing environment. If nature is not static then I see no reason to think that life is any different.

maybe there’s a science against the theory of gravity group

And exactly which theory of gravity do you have in mind?<g> I’m not going to go into it here, but understanding exactly what gravity is and what exactly is going on is one of the biggest scientific questions in physics at the moment.

[quote author=“MJ”]And exactly which theory of gravity do you have in mind?<g> I’m not going to go into it here, but understanding exactly what gravity is and what exactly is going on is one of the biggest scientific questions in physics at the moment.

And you make the overall point, while joking: scientific theories go after understanding phenomena in terms of what can be observed in the world. That it may cost bazillions to establish the conditions under which falsifying observations can be made is irrelevant to the judgement of a theory as scientific or not. Indeed, that there are often many rigorous scientific theories competing to explain the same fascinating phenomenon is a tribute to the creativity of scientists, not a criticism of the undertaking. But the “Science Against Evolution” crowd choose not to see that reality, of course. Arrghh!

Cheers,
jwl