Sign the List
Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine. Signers must also agree with the following statement:
“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.”
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/sign_the_list.php
Woopsie- many ARE turning away, or at least ceding that the natural process of Macroevolution does NOT explain how l ife got here
“Professor Colin Reeves
Dept of Mathematical Sciences
Coventry University
Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection’s ability to create complex biological systems - and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour”
“Edward Peltzer, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.”
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/
On and on it goes- but of course all of htese more than 700 scientists must not be ‘real scientists or prophesors and specialists in their fields’ because they find that the mechanisms behind Macroevolution can NOT explain how life got here, right? They must all have a ‘religious agenda’ and just want to ‘sneak relgion and creationism into hte classroom, right? Lol Yeah right!
“Science seeks to discover natural causes to provide natural explanations for what is observed in nature. However, to say that natural causes are the only causes or to dogmatically assert that everything about the material world can be explained through material causes alone are philosophical statements and not objective statements about scientific methodology.
Science makes no presuppositions about the existence or non-existence of transcendent causes. Neither does science make any presuppositions regarding the influence or effect a transcendent cause might have in the material world or the ability or inability of science, using the methods of empirical science, to detect those influences or effects. Consequently, the impossibility of disproving the existence of a transcendent cause precludes an assumption that all observable effects must be due to natural causes and only natural causes. Imposition of such an assumption can only be made on the basis of ideology and within the context of public education, raises First Amendment issues.
Evidence bearing on a scientific question must be critically examined from all sides and evaluated on the basis of scientific merit, not religious or philosophical presuppositions. While it may be true that science can only study material effects in the natural world, there are some effects that cannot be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry, chance and time alone and point to the possibility of an intervening intelligence, or, a previously undiscovered law that mimics the actions of an intervening intelligence. To rule out the possibility of an intervening intelligence can only be made on the basis of ideology, not evidence.”
http://www.nmidnet.org/articles.htm
Science is supoposed to be about OBJECTIVE observation- but macroevolution cuts objectivism off at the knees by declarign that everything MUSt have a natural origins and MUST be explained via natural processes- this is a subjective ideological religious claim, and is NOT an objective observation of the evidences