New Scientific Evidence Convinces Over 400 Scientists That Darwinian Evolution is Deficient

Discovery.org ^ | 7/18/05 | Staff

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

SEATTLE — More than 400 scientists have signed onto a growing list from all disciplines who are “skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.”

“Darwin’s theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought,” said Dr. David Berlinski, 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.”

Discovery Institute first published its Statement of Dissent from Darwin in 2001 and a direct challenge to statements made in PBS’ “Evolution” series that no scientists disagreed with Darwinian evolution.

“The fact is that a significant number of scientists are extremely skeptical that Darwinian evolution can explain the origins of life,” said Dr. John G. West, associate director of the CSC. “We expect that as scientists engage in the wider debate over materialist evolutionary theories, this list will continue to grow, and grow at an even more rapid pace than we’ve seen this past year.”

In the last 90 days, 29 scientists, including eight biologists, have signed the “Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.”. The list includes over 70 biologists total.

The most recent signatories are Lev V. Beloussov and Vladimir L. Voeikov, two prominent, Russian biologists from Moscow State University. Dr. Voeikov is a professor of bioorganic chemistry and Dr. Beloussov is a professor of embryology and Honorary Professor at Moscow State University; both are members of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences.

“The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems,” said Professor Voeikov.

“Lately in the media there’s been a lot of talk about science versus religion,” said West. “But such talk is misleading. This list is a witness to the growing group of scientists who challenge Darwinian theory on scientific grounds.”

Other prominent biologists who have signed the list include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe, Dr. Richard von Sternberg an evolutionary biologist at the Smithsonian Institution and the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology Information, and Giuseppe Sermonti, Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum. The list also includes scientists from Princeton, Cornell, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Ohio State University, Purdue and University of Washington among others.

[moatilliatta]

New Scientific Evidence

Where?

[wallcrawlr]

making lunch...or going to the bathroom??

which one??

[Mylo]

Well only 70 of them are actual biological scientists. A non biologist has little more than a layman's credibility when discussing theories outside their field.

So we have 70 biologists. If they published a paper that challenged the theory of natural selection upon scientific grounds it would be important. That they got 70 to signed a petition; and they think this is the death knell of Natural selection is almost funny. These guys will believe ANYTHING!

[Mylo]

But you just admitted that there is PLENTY of evidence for evolution; you just call it micro-evolution. Does that mean you don't believe in biology because there is micro-biology? If you put a "micro" in front of something that means it doesn't exist?

[blackfarm]

Only if you assume that I'm an advocate of Sunday school creationism. You set up a straw man argument that its 7 day creation or evolution by natural selection. Its just not true. Evolutionists can even explain common biochemical reactions such as blood clotting within the frame of evolution.

[Mylo]

Is a dog still a wolf?

We got every breed of dog from a Chihuahua to a Great Dane all from a wolf through selective breeding. Natural selection is just like selective breeding except there is only natural fitness rather than a human aesthetic or purpose that is being selected for.

[indcons]

MLC9852:

You know as well as I do that creationists in Kansas got Harun Yahya AKA Mustapha Aykol, a known Islamic radical, to testify on their behalf.

Mustapha Aykol is also a history revisionist who is well known for his VERY sympathetic potrayal of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. In their battle against science, creationists are perfectly willing to recruit dangerous wackos like Aykol (or Yahya). Don't dismiss the truth as name calling. Anybody who agrees with Aykol and uses his arguments in support of their own is not only a wacko but much worse.

Methinks DoctorMichael said it best when he mentioned that "totalitarians flock together."

BTW, here is a pic of Aykol's hero: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1446017/replies?c=202

[Mylo]

"Evolutionists can even explain common biochemical reactions such as blood clotting within the frame of evolution"

Absolutely, it is amazing how much can be explained through this elegant theory!

So you believe in Micro-evolution; but not Macro? OK, where did horses come from? Once they didn't exist at all look too deep and you don't find them, then there were hoofed mammals that are found in the fossil record but with three toed hooves, then one finds horse fossils. Molecular Biological data indicates that horses share a more recent common ancestor with other fused hoof mammals, than three toed hoofed mammal; and that it is more closely related to ANY hoofed mammal than it is to any non-hooved mammals. What is your explanation for the Molecular Biological data and the fossil record? Lots of Micro-evolution? Or something about a flood?

[fish hawk]

Columbus was even less percent than that. But it turned out that the world WAS round.

[mlc9852]

Doesn't sound so radical to me.

http://www.harunyahya.com/

But I guess it's in the eye of the beholder.

[Strategerist]

I would venture to say that the ratio of scientists in 1475 who supported the flat earth theory would be roughly proportional to today's scientists that except evolution.

All scientists in 1475 knew the earth was round; you need to get your historical education from something better than Bugs Bunny cartoons.

[Mylo]

Your ignorance is appalling. Columbus didn't discover the world was round. The argument he had was how FAR around it was, scholars argued that if you used Eratosthenes calculations it was too far (they were correct). Your recounting a fable by Washington Irving as if it were history. It isn't.

And sailing to America just proves there is another continent, not that the world is round. You have to circumnavigate the globe to PROVE it.

[Strategerist]

Well only 70 of them are actual biological scientists.

Are there any paelontologists at all? I'm guessing zero (with actual paleontology degrees from real colleges); they're the ones closest to the overwhelming evidence for evolution, every day.

[indcons]

Oh...I almost forgot. Creationists' favorite Islamic "scientist" is also a Holocaust denier. Fine company indeed.

[Mylo]

ROUND LIKE YOUR HEAD!

FLAT LIKE YOUR HEAD! (and Yosemite Sam/King Ferdinand beats bugs bunny's head flat with a pan!)

Classic.

[Disambiguator]

Crevo threads, ironically enough, always seem to devolve into less-than-scientific discussions.

[Mr. K]

There are two kinds of people in the world... those who believe there are two kinds of people and those who don't.

[indcons]

This is the site he has put up under his pseudonym. To check out his stated views on Islam, read the debates he had under the name Mustapha Aykol. The most prominent of these debates (where he was thoroughly debunked) appear around a year ago on www.frontpagemag.com. Please search for the links; if you cannot find the links, let me know. I will search for them on FrontPageMag.

[blackfarm]

The genes or information for starvation resistance already existed in the population. All the experiment showed is that a design condition existed to help maintain a fruit fly population through times of less food supply. It did not show a fruit fly evolving into anything but a normal fruit fly. The population used genetic information that already existed in the gene pool to maintain the population during tough times.As soon as that population was merged back into the normal palpitation with a normal food supply the percentage of starvation resistant fruit flys will assume there normal levels within the population. No evolution at all. Genetic variations are a design characteristic. Showing that genes from a smaller percentage of a species population under extreme conditions can assume a larger percentage of the population in a isolated genetic population is not macro evolution.You must change one healthy species into another healthy species.

[fish hawk]

"Your ignorance is appalling."

Have you ever read "How to Make Friends and Influence People"? Your ignorance of me is appalling to me, but I'm sure you are comfortable with it.