[js1138]

Your list of biologist kind of peters out somewhere in the nineteenth century. There is a reason you hate Darwin, and that is that prior to Darwin there was no possible explanation for what had already been observed as the tree of life. After Darwin, the list of working biologists who question commmon descent shrinks to virtually none, even among ID proponents.

There is also a reason why Mendel might have been skeptical of Darwin. Mendel discovered the digital nature of heredity. Darwin had assumed that traits varied continuously. This mystery took over a hundred years to resolve.

I see no one on your list from 1950 on who would have any trouble with my list of non-controversies.

In the interest of honesty, I would like to say that the last item on my list, the one dealing with non-coding DNA, is probably badly worded. I have had it questioned by someone I trust, and I think it needs to be removed or re-worded.

[DannyTN]

"Your list of biologist kind of peters out somewhere in the nineteenth century. "

As does the other fields too. No doubt that's because history needs a few years to determine which scientists stand the test of time and were truly great. I have every confidence that in 2200 we will be looking back at scientists from this era and there will be people who were considered heretics in their field who will be in the list of truly greats.

After Darwin, the list of working biologists who question commmon descent shrinks to virtually none, even among ID proponents.

Well here is some. I don't know that most biologists are on record as to what they believe. I do know that there are many in the Medical field who believe in God and the power of prayer.

Biological Scientists