Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory

Discovery Institute ^ | 02.20.06

[Coleus]

The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list is now located at a new webpage, www.dissentfromdarwin.org.

SEATTLE — Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.

The statement 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 list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington.

Discovery Institute first published its Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list in 2001 to challenge false statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS’s “Evolution” series. At the time it was claimed that “virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.”

“Darwinists continue to claim that no serious scientists doubt the theory and yet here are 500 scientists who are willing to make public their skepticism about the theory,” said Dr. John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. “Darwinist efforts to use the courts, the media and academic tenure committees to suppress dissent and stifle discussion are in fact fueling even more dissent and inspiring more scientists to ask to be added to the list.”

According to West, it was the fast growing number of scientific dissenters which encouraged the Institute to launch a website -- www.dissentfromdarwin.org -- to give the list a permanent home. The website is the Institute’s response to the demand for information and access to the list both by the public, and by scientists who want to add their name to list.

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

Other prominent signatories include U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe; Smithsonian Institution evolutionary biologist and a researcher at the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology Information Richard von Sternberg; Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum --the oldest still published biology journal in the world-- Giuseppe Sermonti; and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov.

[Junior]

Coit'nly. This is just a reposting of the hundred-times refuted DI garbage, but it's still a thread. Maybe someone should post a link to "Project Steve..."

[gobucks]

bump

[js1138]

The problem is that neither mutations nor natural selection can produce a new kind of animal, only variations within a species.

This is true of one generation to another, but what mechanism prevents populations from changing? Be specific.

Evolution assumes that children are always of the same species as their parents. Only in Hollywood do mutations produce a new species.

[js1138]

Every other scientific theory is open for debate, but in the scientific community, it's a completely hands off attitude towards evolution.

How can this be true if more and more scientists are quesioning it? Someone needs to get their story straight.

It would help if someone would be specific in their criticism of evolution.

What specific mechanism required by evolution has not been observed?

[EricT.]

It's more like "100 against Einstein", don't you think ?

No, Monsignor dr_lew.

[Stultis]

The early "Church Fathers" circa 400 A.D. were zealous flat earthers [...snippage...] This type of thinking held sway in Europe until 1200 or 1300, or so.

I know. (Although I would tend to dispute, "held sway".) But the freeper I replied to was talking about the 1400's.

[Stultis]

Do you assent to the statement?

Yes. But, where I a scientist, I would not sign it due to the fundamentally (and intentionally) dishonest use to which it is being put.

[Sopater]

As Stephen Jay Gould (the late, highly respected evolutionary biologist who went out of his way to defend theologians) concluded, the flat earth myth was invented by scientists to blame the Christian church for the supposed “Dark” age of human enlightenment.

“For the myth itself only makes sense under a prejudicial view of Western history as an era of darkness between lighted beacons of classical learning and Renaissance revival-while the nineteenth-century invention of the flat earth, as we shall see, occurred to support another dubious and harmful separation wedded to another legend of historical progress- the supposed warfare between science and religion.”

Source: Science & Theology News

[js1138]

[Coyoteman]

if you have proof of one type of creature evolving into another,say a peacock changing into a bald eagle, I'd be more than interested in examing your data. If you want a real challenge, show me proof a reptile evolving into a mammal, or vice versa.

The examples you give are ridiculous, as you well know.

How about addressing the changes in the following chart? At least then you will be addressing the theory of evolution, rather than some silly strawman.

If you will note, the change from Australopithecis to Homo is a change of genus. What do you think of that?

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[Stultis]

How did the behavior of "Laughing at Darwinists" evolve?

It didn't because it's not a separate trait. It is an epiphenomena stemming from the concurrence of two otherwise independent traits: cynicism and false-bravado.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

500 down, 20 million to go.

[Stultis]

So your argument is that because the theory of evolution doesn't even bother to attempt an answer to the most obvious question that the theory creates [i.e. the origin of life], it is therefore immune from criticism regarding that question? Are you saying that its incompleteness is its salvation?

Well, if you want to put it that way, sure. All scientific theories are "incomplete" in this sense. (They have what scientists usually call "boundary conditions".) They have to be or they couldn't be scientific theories.

A scientific theory explains the behavior of natural phenomena by appeal to some model or mechanism(s). Therefore it is automatically restricted to addressing those phenomena that can be explained by and do (on reasonable inference) result from it's mechanism(s).

The mechanisms of evolutionary theory include natural selection among other agents of genetic change. Natural selection, and other mechanisms of genetic change, exist because, and only because, of peculiar properties possessed by living things. For example: reproduction, inheritance, the dependence of organisms on environmental resources, superfecundity (the tendency of organisms to produce more offspring than can be supported by the environment were all to survive), and so on.

The biological theory of evolution only is, and only can be, relevant after living things (or populations of SOME sort of entity with these characteristics) exist. Therefore the origin of life itself must be explained by some other theory or theories.

[Tim Long]

I should have said proven or disproven.

Did you know disproven isn't a word? I think it should be, but it's "disproved."

[AndrewC]

Yes. But, where I a scientist, I would not sign it due to the fundamentally (and intentionally) dishonest use to which it is being put.

And what dishonest use is that? It seems to me that agreeing with a statement and not having the guts to display that assent is dishonest.

[ndt]

" Well, if you want to put it that way, sure. All scientific theories are "incomplete" in this sense...."

Let me just add that... uhhhh... actually that was perfect.

[stands2reason]

But but but... there's not a stigma attached to the word "abiogenesis" like there is in the word "Darwinism." Not fair!!!
:-)

[ndt]

"And what dishonest use is that? "

The dishonest use would be to to portray signatories of that statement as necessarily backers of ID. Without doubt, many on that list are but the statement itself in no way indicates support for ID.