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.

[AntiGuv]

There are about three million scientists in the United States.

[AntiGuv]

PS. If you take the loosest definition, as these ID lists do.

[Prost1]

You don't need 500 scientists!

Just good ol' logic. Science cannot say not demonstrate where intelligence comes from.

Until science can demonstrate and show that intelligence is evolutionary, they are blowing smoke and smoking %$%$.

EOM!

[Strategerist]

Probably closer to say 5% of biologists don't believe in evolution.

A wild overestimate; of the biologists worldwide with legitimate degrees from legitimate colleges I'd guess the percantage is some fraction of 1%.

[ndt]

"The greatest challenge for Darwinism is the evolution from organic matter to cells."

Well it would be a challenge if the Theory of Evolution actually covered it. Since it doesn't it is not.

[M203M4]

Keep facts out of this.

[jimbergin]

"And how many Paleontologists? Zero, I suspect.

And I bet geologists are almost totally absent from the list."

MAYBE YOU OUGHT TO READ THE LIST. I did not see any paleontologists, but lots of physicists, mathematicians, biologists, medical doctors, some geologists, astrophysicists, astronomers, genetics, etc.

[LiteKeeper]

YEC SPOTREP

[ndt]

"Keep facts out of this."

Sorry, bad habit, it just distracts from the debate :)

[Falconspeed]

Darwin's biology + Jenne's typewriter = outdated stuff. A flame 99 degrees Celsius cannot bring about boiled water at sea leve. Similarly, a compound cannot bring about organinc matter. Why are we even mentioning the obvioius? Oh yeah, some people are lazy and do not find time to study physics.

[g_suvorov]

Can ID be proven in a laboratory setting?

Until then, it can't be touted as science.

[Holdek]

Oh yes, I was just limiting it to biologists. I know that there are at least thousands of biologists in the world, so in my statement I allowed creationists a 5% claim.

Do you have a more precise figure?

[Luis Gonzalez]

I wonder what the comments would be, if these same 500 scientist supported the theory of global warming.

[JCEccles]

Brave men. The grand exalted priesthood of Darwin will surely not tolerate this dissent from revealed truth. There will be purges and inquisitions at at least some of these institutions of "higher" learning.

If scientists did not fear for their livelihoods and reputations, this list would be VASTLY larger.

[AntiGuv]

Yes. About 40,000 biologists in the United States.

[Holdek]

Cool, thanks.

[SteveMcKing]

'A flame 99 degrees Celsius cannot bring about boiled water at sea level.'

99 degrees is not a flame.

'Similarly, a compound cannot bring about organinc matter.'

F-

[taxesareforever]

Evolutionists always discount any scientist who doubts the validity of Darwinism or espouses ID. By your post it is evident that nothing has changed. Denial denial and more denial. Question the qualifications of the messenger unless the messenger espouses your line of thinking.

[Holdek]

Sure, but why should I have the arrogance to go up against the vast majority of professionals in a given field who are actually trained and spend their lives studying the said field?

I usually follow the medical advice of my doctor. It's what I pay him for. Why should biologists be any different?