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.

[Quark2005]

Old-earth creationists such as Hugh Ross come up with numbers that are ridiculously inadequate to credit naturalistic evolution "alone"

The calculations Hugh Ross makes aren't based on any really sound method. There are too many variables in life systems to give any validity to the sort of simplistic calculations he makes. No one has had much success either proving the possibility or impossibility of evolution using probability calculations; it's just too complex of a system.

Evolution is not yet a complete theory (neither is gravitation, for that matter) but it has had more success than any competing theory in explaining diversity and morphology within the biosphere, makes specific predictions, and has never been falsified. That is what makes a good scientific theory.

[job]

What are your authorities for your statements? You have made blanket statements I know to be incorrect, but if you have a basis (an academic authority) for your statements that the gospels were written by someone else, and well after the purported authors were dead, please cite your authorities.

[hurly]

The New Testament was written by many different people. The traditional belief is that all the books were written by the apostles or their followers (e.g. Mark and Luke). Modern scholars now largely discount this assumption aside from seven of Paul's letters.
This is from wikipedia.com There are multiple hits on a google search for authors of the new testament. Most agreeing with this, but many theoris as to who actually compiled them.

[Asphalt]

I thought ID didn't say who, just that it was an intelligence

It says Intelligence, meaning God.

Your story is interesting, but could you explain the significance, I don't see what you're getting at.

[jec41]

The simple structure of a house is much less complex than a human eye. Scientists insist that the Earth happened by chance. They come up with explanations for how an absurdly complex thing known as a human happened by mere mixing of molecules. They ridicule any suggestions that maybe, just maybe, somebody designed and built this Earth.

It's like an arrow moving through space. Science claims to have discovered which way the arrow is going, how fast, and for how long. ID tells us who started the arrow moving.


Complexity is in the eye of beholder and is a function of intelligence,education and experience. Simple things are complex to some and vise versa. Questions are proposed in order to seek answers with some guidelines as to what is acceptable as a viable answer. If we were to accept the ID hope we would be faced with who made the intelligent designer and the billion designers before or did he just appear in a evolution cycle. How do you answer who started the intelligent designer and gave only the power to design. To put it another way, if you lived in a sealed sphere and that sphere was in the center of a larger sphere you would only be aware of the sphere you could see and anything else proposed you would think ridicules, even thought one might be blue and the other red.

[Quark2005]

The simple structure of a house is much less complex than a human eye.

Why do IDers & creationists (distinction understood) keep using this argument? The evolution of the eye from similar and simpler structures (such as those found in lancelets and primitive fish), graphically depicting many steps in its development, is better understood than you seem to think it is. The human eye is complex, but not too complex to have evolved through natural selection (and certainly far from perfect), and a large body of evidence supports the theory that it did evolve in unplanned stages. (At least not according to any intelligent plan that can be directly observed)

The info is out there - seek and ye shall learn. (No sarcasm intended here - evolution can be very hard to understand - it takes a long time and a lot of work - Lord knows I'm still learning.)

Naturalistic evolution is not intended as an affront to the religious (though some do use it as such); it is a theory that works, and works well, that's all - it requires more research, but there's no imminent need to replace it with a new paradigm.

[jec41]

If they disagree with the book to be read, they are heresy; if they agree with the book to be read, they are heresy - Let them burn!" Islamic fanatic upon burning the Library at Alexandria.

And once burned and knowledge extinguished the world collapsed into the dark ages and required a thousand years to reacquire civilization.

[jec41]

Naturalistic evolution is not intended as an affront to the religious (though some do use it as such); it is a theory that works, and works well, that's all - it requires more research, but there's no imminent need to replace it with a new paradigm.

That is not what they seek. They seek to eliminate all that does not agree with their perspective. That they be perceived to have knowledge and revelations that others are not capable of or cannot possess. Knowledge is a threat to their position and power. If such people can establish their version of knowledge as all encompassing and the only true thought or belief whether proved or not proved they will have made Gods of themselves. Not for the betterment of mankind but for themselves. It is why a fanatic Muslim with no formal education other than the ability to memorize the Koran deems himself superior to all others.

[Quark2005]

Most scientists are just like anyone else; they seek fame, recognition and money. New theories that succeed are rewarded with fame and recognition - it happens in science, but not on a silly whim; this community is adamant in demanding solid evidence. Believe me, if there was definitive proof that evolution through natural selection was wrong, someone would have cashed in on it by now (I know I would). People who come up with radical theories backed by no credible evidence contrary to what is known in order to seek recognition without the accomplishment are (rightfully) labelled crackpots.

Evolutionary theory is hardly a dogma like the Koran; the theory has changed (evolved?) considerably since the time of Darwin, contrary to popular belief (though the basic principles of it still work).

[Asphalt]

The simple structure of a house is much less complex than a human eye

Indeed. A house compared to an eye is like comparing a bottle rocket to the Discover.

It's like an arrow moving through space. Science claims to have discovered which way the arrow is going, how fast, and for how long. ID tells us who started the arrow moving.

If I remember correctly, was it C.S. Lewis who came up with this example?

To put it another way, if you lived in a sealed sphere and that sphere was in the center of a larger sphere you would only be aware of the sphere you could see and anything else proposed you would think ridicules, even thought one might be blue and the other red.

Exactly

[job]

Wikipedia is your answer?

Did you complete junior college?

[hurly]

You asked if there were any scholars to back up my statement. If you had bothered to look there are many references there. Also if you type in what I said you can do your own research that shows you didn't know what you were talking about. I've shown you and even given you a quote. You can do your own research. Someone said that you make not like or agree with the evidence, but it is there. Sound familiar? But I guess you don't need to look it up since you know it cannot be true! I have tried to be polite and respect your right to your opinion, but such flaming arrogance and ignorance is appalling!

[balrog666]

I have tried to be polite and respect your right to your opinion, but such flaming arrogance and ignorance is appalling!

Most astounding is how they wallow in their willful ignorance as if it were somehow praiseworthy to behave like an unruly child and demonstrate a mind-numbing stupidity at the same time.

[hurly]

Arguing with creationists is like wrestling with pigs.. you get dirty and the pig likes the attention, but it accomplishs nothing!

[blackfarm]

Funny how you Darwins try to paint anyone that looks at the evidence as a creationist. I'm really amazed how out of touch you darwinists are. http://www.reasons.org/

[Dimensio]

What are these godless, egotistical, er evolutionists going to do NOW?

Ah, another dishonest creationist repeats the lie that all who accept evolution are atheists!

But hey, it's no surprise; dishonesty is nothing new from you, nmh, or from other creationists.

(How many of the scientists who signed that list are named "Steve", btw?)

[Dimensio]

At the very least, it should be pointed out in public schools that it is a THEORY.

Indeed, just like gravitational theory or electromagnetic theory or atomic theory or germ theory...

[Dimensio]

Funny how you Darwins try to paint anyone that looks at the evidence as a creationist.

And then you link right to a creationist website. Are you trying to make yourself look dense?

[Aetius]

The point is that it need not be presented, in public schools, as though its completely unassailable and that it is completely accepted by all decent scientists.

I did not say that to point out the 'theory' aspect is to discredit it. It merely emphasizes that all is not known.

[Dimensio]

What predictions does ID theory make? How can these predictions be tested? What hypothetical observation would falsify ID theory?