Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

1,623 Views | 69 Replies | Last: 20 yr ago by TexasAggie_97
Aggie4Life02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t.html
quote:

Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.

The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

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.

Discovery Institute first published its Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list in 2001 to challenge false statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS’s “Evolution” series. At the time it was claimed that “virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.”

“Darwinists continue to claim that no serious scientists doubt the theory and yet here are 500 scientists who are willing to make public their skepticism about the theory,” said Dr. John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. “Darwinist efforts to use the courts, the media and academic tenure committees to suppress dissent and stifle discussion are in fact fueling even more dissent and inspiring more scientists to ask to be added to the list.”

According to West, it was the fast growing number of scientific dissenters which encouraged the Institute to launch a website -- www.dissentfromdarwin.org -- to give the list a permanent home. The website is the Institute’s response to the demand for information and access to the list both by the public, and by scientists who want to add their name to list.

“Darwin’s theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought,” said Dr. David Berlinski, one of the original signers, a mathematician and philosopher of science with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (CSC). “It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.”

Other prominent signatories include U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe; Smithsonian Institution evolutionary biologist and a researcher at the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology Information Richard von Sternberg; Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum --the oldest still published biology journal in the world-- Giuseppe Sermonti; and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov.

If you have a Ph.D. in engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences, and you agree with the following statement, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged," then please contact us at cscinfo@discovery.org.






Apollos.ws
think.learn.know
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”


I agree with this statement. Randomness is not a scientific concept, only a theoretical mathematical concept. Randomness can never be proven or disproven only infered or assumed. Randomness is not an explanation or mechanism; it is only a useful practical assumption.

I also have a beef with natural selection. It is based on circular reasoning, and it is in no way predictive.

I would not consider this a condemnation of evolution in general, though. I still think science has good evidence for the common descent of species, speciation, adaptation, and benefits/harms of heritable traits. Those are the basic tenets of evolutionary theory when you strip away all the unscientific catch-phrases. These scientists most likely do not object to evolution in general, but they object to the unnecessary, atheistic, and unscientific overtones.
Apetree
How long do you want to ignore this user?


[This message has been edited by Apetree (edited 2/20/2006 3:23p).]
Guadaloop474
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gee, it's about time scientists came to their senses...Who in their right mind can study the genetic code and DNA and then say - "Hey - It happened all on its own!!"

Apetree
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wow, all the usual suspects are conspicuously missing from this thread!
muster ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"Who in their right mind can study the genetic code and DNA and then say - "Hey - It happened all on its own!!" "

Maybe anybody smart enough to understand how chemical reactions work?
Bracy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
muster ag:

quote:
Maybe anybody smart enough to understand how chemical reactions work?


Yikes, I had assumed that you were better educated than this.

Explaining the development of something as complex as DNA via chemical reactions is like explaining the creation of the Great Temple of Petra via erosion and other natural forces:




[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 2/21/2006 10:05a).]
muster ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You are trying the Watchmaker Argument. There are simple things that are designed and complex things that originate naturally. Complexity does not imply design; in fact, simplicity is a design goal in most designs.

Religion is confined only to those parts of the universe we do not know about, and that keeps shrinking.
jkag89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Maybe anybody smart enough to understand how chemical reactions work?

Wow, I didn't know that scientist had observed or recreated the chemical reaction that produced DNA from its basic organic compounds. Huge news! I wonder how I missed hearing about it? I bet it is some "X-Files" type religious conspiracy keeping the truth from us. Come to think of it Benny XVI sort of resembles the Cigarette-Smoking Man.



VT2TAMU
How long do you want to ignore this user?
muster ag

how do chemical reactions work?

vt
Bracy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I wonder how these scientists managed to earn their Ph.Ds without understanding chemical reactions?
muster ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Do you understand the chemisrty involved in how DNA works?
jkag89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Do you understand the chemisrty involved in how DNA works?


I'd have to brush up, but I did take several semesters of organic chemistry so I have some idea.
Aggie4Life02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Do you understand the chemisrty involved in how DNA works?


No, but these scientists do:

  • Emil Palecek - Prof. of Molecular Biology, Masaryk University; Leading Scientist Inst. of Biophysics, Academy of Sci., Czech Republic.
  • Russell Carlson Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology University of Georgia.
  • Scott Minnich Professor, Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochemistry University of Idaho
  • Ralph Seelke Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology University of Wisconsin, Superior
  • Raymond Bohlin Ph.D. Molecular & Cell Biology University of Texas, Dallas
  • Marvin Fritzler Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology University of Calgary, Medical School
  • Daniel Kuebler Ph.D. Molecular & Cellular Biology University of California (Berkeley)
  • John Omdahl Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology University of New Mexico
  • Georgia Purdom Ph.D. Molecular Genetics Ohio State University
  • Quinton Rogers Prof. of Physiological Chemistry, Dept. of Molecular Biosciences Univ. of California (Davis), School of Vet. Medicine
  • Richard Sternberg Ph.D. Molecular Biology Florida International University
  • Linda Walkup Ph.D. Molecular Genetics University of New Mexico Medical School
  • Jonathan Wells Ph.D. Molecular & Cell Biology University of California (Berkeley)
  • Martin Poenie Associate Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology University of Texas, Austin
  • Mark Toleman Ph.D. Molecular Microbiology Bristol University, UK
  • Gary Maki Director, Ctr. for Advanced Microelectronics and Biomolecular Research University of Idaho
  • Arthur Chadwick Ph.D. Molecular Biology University of Miami
  • John G. Hoey Ph.D. Molecular and Cellular Biology City University of New York Graduate School
  • Christian M. Loch Ph.D. Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics University of Virginia
  • Luke Randall Ph.D. Molecular Microbiology University of London






Apollos.ws
think.learn.know
Apetree
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Do you understand the chemisrty involved in how DNA works?



Do you?
An Ag in CO
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”


Who can argue with that statement?

Being skeptical is one thing, but these scientists are not by any stretch refuting the theory at all.
An Ag in CO
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I did some reserach on some of the scientists listed and some of them are pretty far out of the mainstream and not only when it comes to the theory of evolution.
Aggie4Life02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Riiiiiiiiight.



Apollos.ws
think.learn.know
schizmann
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The petition is beyond lame. The Discovery Institute - a well funded concern, has been working full bore since 2000 to pull people with a doctorate out of the woodwork to sign this thing. After all that work they only get 150 or so biologists to sign. many of those on the list are from some really marginal institutions. In contrast, an e-mail petition sent out last year to biologists world wide in suport of evolution collcted many thousands of signers in just 4 days.
Aggie4Life02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Why Is Evolution Suppressed by Scientific Community?
quote:
I’m genuinely confused. Can some of the more experienced IDers explain why critcism of evolutionary theory is supressed within the scientific community?

Comment by Kibitz — February 15, 2006 @ 7:19 pm


It’s really simple. 72% of the most influential scientists in the United States, members of the National Academy of Sciences, are positive atheists according to this well known poll at Stephen Jay Gould’s website. Another 21% are weak atheists (agnostic). Only 7% believe in God. And as Richard Dawkins famously said:
quote:
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: “I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn’t a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.” I can’t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
– Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 6


Now consider that in almost 60 years of presenting the “overwhelming” scientific evidence for Darwinian theory in public science education, in the legally enforced absence of criticism or alternative hypotheses, they have not put a significant dent in the number of people who swallow the story that evolution was unguided (15% or fewer).

Imagine how many people would swallow the story if it were presented in a critical manner and alternatives to unguided, unplanned evolution were presented? Where would the next generation of atheist scientists come from? My God man, atheism might die out entirely! We can’t have that, now can we? ;-)

The theory is suppressed because anyone with a career in science that threatens the metaphysical beliefs of the most senior scientists can kiss his career goodbye. John Davison who comments here frequently, a comparative physiologist with 50 years experience and Emeritus Professor of Biology, published a non-Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis in 1984 and was rewarded with a frozen salary, isolation from students, ostracism in the mainstream journals where he frequently published, eventual coerced retirement, and no more access to a lab. Much more recently, Rick Sternberg, who dared publish an ID sympathetic paper in a biology journal connected to the Smithsonian, was the subject of the establishment’s ire. These are just two cases.

That’s how and why criticism of evolution is suppressed within the scientific community. Any questions?


http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/822



Apollos.ws
think.learn.know
jctrampe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Keep fighting the good fight Aggie4Life.

Don't let something as wacky as "science" get in the way of your beliefs.

It must be their atheism that is clouding their judgement not actual factual evidence.

Aggie4Life02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Keep fighting the good fight Aggie4Life.

Don't let something as wacky as "science" get in the way of your beliefs.

It must be their atheism that is clouding their judgement not actual factual evidence.


That was a nice anecdote, but in reality, today we have the Scopes trial in reverse. Where mainstream Evolutionists today supress any criticism of their golden calf. It's "Give me that old time religion[darwinism]" all over again.



Apollos.ws
think.learn.know


[This message has been edited by Aggie4Life02 (edited 2/21/2006 12:38p).]
FtWorthHorn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A4L, explain something to me. What is the motivation for an atheist to support evolution over other explanations? For instance, if there truly is a better, more logical, more strongly supported answer, what motive do atheist scientists have to reject it? I would think that truth and good science would be their goal. You have posited this obsession with evolution but have not given a reason for it.
Aggie4Life02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
You have posited this obsession with evolution but have not given a reason for it.



Yes I did...

quote:
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: “I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn’t a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.” I can’t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
– Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 6




Apollos.ws
think.learn.know
VT2TAMU
How long do you want to ignore this user?
muster ag:

you're question is pretty broad, and it is clear you have little to no desire to explain yourself. this is clearly bait to flex your intellectual muscle, but here are a few points.

DNA is constructed through base pairing and sequencing of Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine. Two DNA strands are twisted together in an alpha helix structure.

For replication, the strands split and the amino acid expression necessitates the sequence of an incoming RNA sequence. Two RNA sequences come in and pairs with the split strands of DNA and two new DNA molecule.

are you looking for something more specific?

vt
NoACDamnit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I bet you could find 500 scientists to say just about anything.

So what?
Aggie4Life02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
I bet you could find 500 scientists to say just about anything.
So what?


You didn't read the article did you?

quote:
Discovery Institute first published its Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list in 2001 to challenge false statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS’s “Evolution” series. At the time it was claimed that “virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.”




Apollos.ws
think.learn.know
NoACDamnit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
500 scientists saying they have doubts does not disprove the statement that virtually every scientist in the world believes something.
Aggie4Life02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
virtually every scientist


What does "virtually every scientist" mean to you?



Apollos.ws
think.learn.know
The Lone Stranger
How long do you want to ignore this user?
muster ag, you said that "complexity does not implie design."

I don't see your point because that is exactly what it does imply. What are you saying?
If complexity does not implie design, then does disorder and chaos implie design?
flechenbones
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How many times do we have to go over this. Taking the Newsweek numbers presented in the late 90s, roughly 0.15% of US scientists in the life sciences had a problem with evolution. That is, 99.85% of scientists who are knowledgeable in evolutionary theory and data (instead of philosphers, mathematicians, and other unrelated areas) support evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth. That IS virtually all of them.

Instead of criticizing the Newsweek data, embrace it. They estimated roughly ~700 life scientists in the US didn't accept evolution, instead of the paltry ~550 worldwide you've dredged up. Besides, many on your list (like Behe) fully accept that evolution occurred, but don't think it can explain ALL of the diversity of life today. That list doesn't mean what you think it means.

Click on the steve-o-meter here to put it in perspective.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

Honestly some of you are ridiculously inconsistent. You rely on science in most facets of your life, but yet you criticize science every chance you get, unless you think it might support your views.
NoACDamnit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
What does "virtually every scientist" mean to you?


I'm not sure where I'd make the cutoff, but I'd say that 99% qualifies.
Losman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A scientist, like a doctor usually has a field of study that is specialized. So when someone makes a blanket statement like 500 scientists don't believe in Evolution what fields are these people in?

You have so many fields of study that you can have some who have backgrounds that are strong in Physics while others may be more into geology, meteorology or chemistry. That being said you can have debate and dissent among the different fields but saying that 500 scientists oppose an idea is no consensus.

As for the Discovery Institute, they are known for pimping Intelligent Design so I know what their motivation is about...
Aggie4Life02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
That being said you can have debate and dissent among the different fields but saying that 500 scientists oppose an idea is no consensus.

As for the Discovery Institute, they are known for pimping Intelligent Design so I know what their motivation is about...



Who said anything about consensus? Obviously, you didn't read the article either. That being said...As for the National Academy of Sciences, they are known for pimping Darwinian Evolution so I know what their motivation is about...



Apollos.ws
think.learn.know
Bracy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I can understand why an atheist would believe in Darwinian evolution, but what I can't understand is why some Christians believe that the earth's age must agree with science while the resurrection of Yeshua HaMashiach after 3 days in the grave does not.
Last Page
Page 1 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.