[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The point of the over 450 scientists that signed the Discovery Institute document is that Macroevolution via RMNS based on the evidence is not a convincing mechanism to create the complexity we see in living organisms."

Actually, the Discovery Institute Document was worded such that I would not disagree with it.

"“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.” "

Notice that nowhere in this statement does it say that common descent is wrong, or that evolution has not occurred, or that speciation does not happen. The problem with the question is that the ToE does not say that random mutation and natural selection are the ONLY forces that drive evolution. And I know of no scientist who says that the ToE should NOT be carefully examined.

"The 450 will continue to grow to a point where Scientific journals will be forced to publish their perspectives regarding the evidence."

The 500 or people who signed that poorly worded document still amount to far, far less than 1% of all scientists. They'll have to do a lot better than that to force anything.

[PatrickHenry]

The 500 or people who signed that poorly worded document still amount to far, far less than 1% of all scientists.

As Project Steve indicates, over 700 scientists named Steve (or Stephanie, Esteban, or Stefano, etc.), about two-thirds of whom are biologists, have signed on to a statement that says:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to 'intelligent design,' to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

These Steves are only the tip of the scientific iceberg, because the name "Steve" is given to only about 1% of the population. Therefore, the 700 Steves probably represent about 70,000 scientists. See also Project Steve update.

The Steves alone are greater in number than all the scientists (of every name) who have signed statements questioning evolution, and most of the evolution skeptics aren't biologists. For example, the much-publicized list of 500 names collected by the Discovery Institute includes only about 154 biologists, less than one-third of the total. Those 500 signed a rather ambiguous statement, which says:

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.

In contrast, two-thirds of the 700 Steves are biologists, so the biologist-Steves are about 466 in number. Steves are 1% of the population, so they represent approximately 46,600 biologists. Compare that number to the 154 biologists' names collected by the Discovery Institute. They're the totality of biologists who are evolution skeptics. These competing lists clearly tell us that evolution skeptics are a tiny fringe group -- about one-third of one percent of biologists. Therefore, notwithstanding the unending demands to "teach the controversy," there literally is no scientific controversy about the basic principles of evolution. Scientists, especially those in the biological fields, are all but unanimous in their acceptance of evolution.