Skip to comments.More scientists express doubts on Darwin
Posted on 06/22/2006 1:28:41 PM PDT by Tim Long
600 dissenters sign on challenging claims about support for theory
More than 600 scientists holding doctoral degrees have gone on the record expressing skepticism about Darwin's theory of evolution and calling for critical examination of the evidence cited in its support.
All are signatories to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement, which 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 statement, which includes endorsement by members of the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences, was first published by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute in 2001 to challenge statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series.
The PBS promotion claimed "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true."
The list of 610 signatories includes scientists from National Academies of Science in Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, India (Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland, Russia and the United States. Many of the signers are professors or researchers at major universities and international research institutions such as Cambridge University, British Museum of Natural History, Moscow State University, Masaryk University in Czech Republic, Hong Kong University, University of Turku in Finland, Autonomous University of Guadalajara in Mexico, University of Stellenbosch in South Africa, Institut de Paleontologie Humaine in France, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, Ben-Gurion University in Israel, MIT, The Smithsonian and Princeton.
"Dissent from Darwinism has gone global," said Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman. "Darwinists used to claim that virtually every scientist in the world held that Darwinian evolution was true, but we quickly started finding U.S. scientists that disproved that statement. Now we're finding that there are hundreds, and probably thousands, of scientists all over the world that don't subscribe to Darwin's theory."
The Discovery Institute is the leading promoter of the theory of Intelligent Design, which has been at the center of challenges in federal court over the teaching of evolution in public school classes. Advocates say it draws on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines that indicate some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
"I signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement because I am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in favor of Darwinian dogma," said Raul Leguizamon, M.D., pathologist and professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico.
"Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all," he added. "Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as Bernard Shaw used to say."
If you are a Young-Earth Creationist, accept the water canopy theory, do not accept speciation (i.e. Ken Hams kinds), and want on my Six Days Ping List, Freepmail me.
Man made Global Warming and Darwism fall into the same category. Neither can be proved.
Huge news - they're still calling it a theory!
At 600 they haven't kept up with Project Steve...
According to the link below, over 700 scientists named Steve support evolution. Such lists are useless. This list of 600 isn't even news, and is quite an old list. Few of the scientists on it are even involved in the biological sciences.
Finally, the Theory of Evolution isn't a popularity contest.
They are calling it a theory because it is a theory. Only somebody totally unfamiliar with science and the way it defines terms would be shocked at this. So, before this thread gets any older, here a some definitions of terms, as scientists are likely to use them (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
[Last revised 2/23/06]
They can't be real sientists then.</ Sarcasm>
Just saving a little time for the Darwinists.
Hats off to Ann of this one.
What Darwin proposed was HYPOTHESIS, trying to make sense out of what to some would be hopeless chaos.
Evolution, as proposed, would result in an inordinate number of deaths within a species, before the mutated form became dominant, or the unlikely case in which the mutation was a dominate trait, in which case there would still be a small number of recessives still being born every generation.
Still a strong argument for an extraterrestrial (ir supernatural)intelligence stepping in and directing specific genetic transformations.
If scientists question evolution, (A) they aren't really scientists (because, if they were, they would support evolution, because all scientists support evolution), or, if they are, (B) it isn't a popularity contest.
This easy to fix. Any scientist expressing doubts about Darwin is excommunicated by the holy order of the scientific community. Therefore no "scientists" have any doubts about Darwin.
Believe what you want! Teach creation in church where it belongs and evolution in science class where it belongs.
Remember, the Theory of Relativity corrected Newton's Laws of motion
I have problems with parthenogenesis, but not evolution. It seems, from the article, many of the complaints are about parthenogenesis, the creation of life from that which was not life.
I would like to know how many of these scientists are biologists, geologists, or paleontologists. I'm not impressed that a dentist or psychologist doesn't believe in evolution.
Evolution (Macro) takes more faith does Creation.
A scientific theory is not the same as say my theory about something. It is a bit more. I happen to believe the Bible is true, but if you're going to talk to a scientific person, and you say something like, "Evolution is only a theory.", they will immediately assume you know nothing about science, and stop listening to you. It's right up there with the old, "If humans evolved from chimpanzees, why are there still chimpanzees?" Heck, dogs clearly are most closely related to wolves, but there are still wolves.
Oops. I should have read further before I posted!
Please clarify, should it be taught as fact or as theory? It is presented as fact in schools today although there is no evidence in the fossil record, as Darwin said there should be, to subsatntiate the theory.
> More than 600 scientists holding doctoral degrees ...
... in what? That is kind of important.
I wonder how many biologists were among them. This looks like a rehash of the long-discredited "400 scientists" canard. Of course, Project Steve has 744 scientists named "Steve" saying evolution is a well-supported theory. Since people named "Steve" represent about 1 percent of the population, it's evident that 74,400 scientists support evolution.
Betcha World Nut Daily doesn't report that.
Could you explain what problem you have with speciation (kinds).
I'm descended from Europeans. Why are there still Europeans?
(Your post was a good addition to what I posted on theory.)
the·o·ry Audio pronunciation of "theory" ( P )
Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.(This this really what ToE is)
Actual philosophers tend to discuss philosophy, although sometimes they get into more personal things such as Schopenhauer wondering why Hegel attracted most of the students and he, Schopenhauer, did not. Principle of sufficient reason.
LOL the European analogy is even better!
Refuse Darwin as your Savior and lose ALL funding!
All your funding are belong to US!
PBS = WDNC; the suckers basically hand their donor rolls straight over to the DNC and our tax dollars pay for it. Unbelievable.
False. See below:
Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)
Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)
Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)
Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)
Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)
See original source for notes:
I believe you mean abiogenesis. Parthenogenesis is basically virgin birth.
Poor Galileo. I can only imagine what the guy was up against.
This is a woeful update of the Discovery Institute's pathetic list of 500 evolution skeptics, of whom about one-third were said to be biologists. It seems they've found a hundred more clowns. The whole sad thing was analyzed in point 4 of my lead article at the start of this thread: Conclusions From Uncounted Creation/Evolution Debates. The conclusion was: The actual comparison is 46,600 biologists who accept evolution and a mere 154 who are "skeptical."
He's right. Some do however need to know a little about evolution. Especially those studing viruses.
I wonder if this dude plans to get a vaccination shot for the flu this year.
Nice to know a pathologist, from an independent university no less, has signed the dissent list.
Desperate times for the DI when they have to resort to WorldNetDaily to carry their water for them.
Just wait until they translate the "Dissent From Darwinism" statement into Arabic, Farsi, Punjabi and other Islamic languages. Then it will really explode. (Figuratively... I hope.)
Seriously, however, I'm a full-bore Darwinian evolutionist and I would be able to sign this statement. (Where it not for the political agenda behind it.) It doesn't actually contradict Darwinism, since Darwinian evolution has always included more mechanisms than natural selection and random mutation.
Ludicrously false. It's one thing to say that you don't find the evidence persuasive, or that you place greater weight on the Bible. But anyone who claims that there is *no* evidence for evolution in the fossil record is either woefully misinformed or making deliberate misrepresentations.
I can see that your public education serves you well. Although, the pictures you provided are interesting, they are not proof of anything evolving into homo sapiens. Don't forget that for Origin of Species to be true everything has to have evolved from geo-galactic muck. Not the incomplete argument you responded with.
I think the problem with evolution is not so much what is taught in schools, but the fact that no other explanation is permitted to even be considered. Most of my doubts about Evolution come from the fact that its supporters are terrified that someone may scientifically consider another alternative.
They get right into the cells where they link up with the DNA, hold hands and sing kumbaya.
The creationists and other anti-science types have to keep hope alive somehow, even if it's all based on a pack of lies.
Parthenogenesis is an observed fact.
It is "A form of reproduction in which an unfertilized egg develops into a new individual, occurring commonly among insects and certain other arthropods."
What you mean is 'abiogenesis' which is not observed and is not a fact, just like evolution.
And you really shouldn't be impressed no matter who believes in evolution. You should study it yourself. And that means getting opposing views... from the opponents, not from the adherents.
Here's a real scientist who went from Darwinist to YEC because he actually *looked* at the data.
Believe what you can prove, question all the rest.
GENOME SCIENTIST FINDS GOD
It has been just over fifty years since the discovery of DNA - a discovery which has radically transformed modern science and changed how many look at the origin of life. The Human Genome Project has mapped our entire genetic code, which consists of a sequence of over 3 billion chemical nucleotide bases. DNA research has lead to the discovery of genetic cures for diseases. It has also resulted in faster and more accurate diagnosis of diseases, and assisted doctors in developing customized treatment plans for patients.
Although scientists have learned a great deal about the human genome, the overwhelming majority of DNA remains a complete mystery. For all the new advances made in genetics, we are constantly discovering how complex the DNA really is and how much more we have to learn. According to Dr. Jerry Bergman, a professor of science at Northwest College, At the moment of conception, a fertilized human egg is about the size of a pinhead. Yet it contains information equivalent to about six billion chemical letters. This is enough information to fill 1000 books, 500 pages thick with print so small you would need a microscope to read it! If all the chemical letters in the human body were printed in books, it is estimated they would fill the Grand Canyon fifty times!
Scientists still do not know the exact number of genes, their exact locations, or their functions. Nor do they know much about gene regulation, DNA sequence regulation, Chromosomal structure and organization, or non-coding DNA. The list of things we have yet to learn about DNA goes on and on. What we do know about DNA is that it is a digital, error-correcting, and self-replicating code. Furthermore, within its complicated and elegant structure is held the blueprints of every living thing on the planet.
Francis S. Collins is has long been on the cutting edge of DNA research. He is the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute and oversaw the Human Genome Project - which some have called the most significant scientific undertaking of our time. What most people don't know about Francis Collins is that he used to be an atheist, but that his experiences have lead him to believe in the existence of God.
When Collins was practicing medicine he saw the faith displayed by some of his patients. Their strength in dire circumstances caused him to begin to ask questions. It was then, that a Methodist minister gave him a copy of the C.S. Lewis book titled Mere Christianity. The book opened his eyes to new possibilities, however the turning point in his life came while hiking in the mountains. It was the beauty of God's creation that finally broke his resistance. Today, Collins sees his research as a "glimpse at the workings of God". Although his beliefs are not without controversy, his story testifies to the fact that science and faith can co-exist.
According to Collins, "One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that has been created that science and religion have to be at war. I dont see that as necessary at all and I think it is deeply disappointing that the shrill voices that occupy the extremes of this spectrum have dominated the stage for the past 20 years." Collins plans to share his experiences in a book, due out this summer, titled The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.
Random chance cannot account for the complex design of DNA. It is statistically and mathematically impossible. In the last 30 years, a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of preexistent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10100,000,000,000 (ten to the one hundred billionth power). Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds that just the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 1040,000 (ten to the forty thousandth power). The odds calculated by Morowitz and Hoyle are staggering. Think of it this way, the chances of winning the state lottery every week of your life from the age of 18 to 99 are better than the odds of a single-celled organism being formed by random chance. The probability of spontaneous generation is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein. It is impossible. The evidence all points to the unavoidable conclusion that we not the product of chance or evolution, but the result of intelligent design.
Develop a competing scientific theory that fits the evidence, and it will be considered. "An unknown advanced entity did something at some point in the past" does not qualify.
Wow! Have you found anyone other than yourself that fits this category? Young-earth, six-day creationists are virtually certain to also believe in a global flood and Noah's ark. This makes it impossible to also believe in fixed species since there are far too many (several to a few tens of millions) to fit on the ark.
So I assume you reject the story of Noah's Ark?