[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Tell ya what: I'll do some research and get back to you, okay? I'll start at the first name and work down.

Dissent

[John H K]

Well, a few more actual biologists than I expected (though many are from small/obscure/non-prestigeous colleges) but the list is still mostly people only tangentally related to evolution.

And there isn't a single paelontolgist on the list, unless I missed a couple (person actually out in the field digging up fossils and examining them) which should tell you something.

[dangus]

Actually, their objections to evolution were by far the most intelligent I've read. I've tended to find anti-Darwinian unreflective Creationists, desperately trying to fit the round pegs of objective study into square holes of their ideology. This group does not do this. Although it does not really propose a solid alternative to Darwinism, it makes its points where I must concede their accuracy.

Creationism loses its credibility when it tries to argue that the Earth is young, etc. Traditional biology textbooks lose credibility particularly when the talk about such things as the endosymbiotic hypothesis. THe truth is Darwinism can only be proffered as a mechanism for one organism growing into another organism; it does little to explain the Pre-Cambrian development of life. (To be fair, I must point out that these scientists falsely claim that science books typically do not mention the Cambrain explosion.)

The reason I have never bought into Intelligent Design, however, is this: It doesn't explain what *did* happen. While an important critique of modern biology, it is light-years from supporting *biblical* creationism.

[DannyTN]

If there are 300 scientists who are willing to put in writing that they are skeptical of the claims of evolution, then there are probably 30,000 who are skeptical but afraid to put it in writing because they are afraid of losing their jobs.