“I’m not sure what I was supposed to notice from the list of links”.
Color me shocked!!!
You didn’t notice for instance most freepers don’t buy into the cult of evolution?
I’ll bet you didn’t notice FR is a conservative website too.
“And yet, despite the vacuousness of the statement, and the fact that it’s been circulating for nearly a decade, and that there are over half a million scientists and engineers with phds in the US alone, and that it’s open to scientists and engineers internationally - the list has yet to hit 1000 names. And most of the names on the list have degrees in fields that have nothing to do with evolution. The list could hardly be better evidence of how astonishingly little “dissent from Darwinism” there really is. I would have thought that such a list, being that it’s open to all fields of science and engineering worldwide - with that sort of statement - would have no problem getting tens of thousands of signatures - even with the overwhelming vast majority of scientists being Darwinists”.
And here you conveniently left out that many scientists probably aren’t even aware of this site and that this site by no means is the only avenue of dissent.
What I find much more interesting is that despite the site being around for a decade as you point out, nevertheless the list indeed grows.
Try actually reading some of the observations sometime.
“You didn’t notice for instance most freepers don’t buy into the cult of evolution?
I’ll bet you didn’t notice FR is a conservative website too.”
—Of course I noticed it’s conservative. Whether most are evolutionists or not, hard to say, it looks like a pretty close call.
“What I find much more interesting is that despite the site being around for a decade as you point out, nevertheless the list indeed grows.
—It’s hardly interesting that the list grows. What’s the alternative? (Even if “dissent from Darwinism” is rapidly shrinking within the scientific community, the list would still grow)
And as I said before, skepticism of facts and theories should come naturally to scientists. And besides that, if we look again at the statement: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life” — far from mere skepticism, we KNOW that random mutation and natural selection don’t “account for the complexity of life”. There are other extremely important mechanisms: genetic drift, neutral selection, sexual selection, group selection (maybe, that one is controversial), and probably other things we haven’t thought of. And so there’s no reason for ANY scientist to not sign the statement - even the most hard core dogmatic follower of the Temple of Darwinism - except perhaps familiarity of how the signatures are being used to mislead laymen.