[John H K]

Well, a few more actual biologists than I expected (though many are from small/obscure/non-prestigeous colleges) but the list is still mostly people only tangentally related to evolution.

And there isn't a single paelontolgist on the list, unless I missed a couple (person actually out in the field digging up fossils and examining them) which should tell you something.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Starting with the first name on the list, we have Dr. Schaefer.

Since 1987 Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer has been Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently named the third-most cited chemist in the world.

Here's a link to a paper he wrote:

Is Evolution a Good Theory?

An excerpt:

Let us consider two theories to which evolution is often favorably compared. The theory of gravity precisely predicted the appearances of Halley's comet in 1910 and 1986. On the latter occasion I was on sabbatical from Berkeley at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. The newspaper (informed by classical mechanics and the law of gravity) told me exactly when I had to wake up in the middle of the night to enjoy the wonder of Halley's Comet. And in fact, the theory of gravity never fails for the macrosopic objects to which it is applicable. A second successful theory, the atomic theory,is grounded in Schroedinger's Equation and the Dirac Equation. Atomic theory is able to make many predictions of the spectra of the hydrogen molecule and the helium atom to more significant figures that may be currently measured in the laboratory. We are utterly confident that these predictions will be confirmed by future experiments. By any reasonable standard the theory of gravity and the atomic theory are good theories, well deserving of A grades. In comparison with these quantitative theories of the physical sciences, when it comes to Hawking's second requirement for a good theory, the standard evolutionary model fails, and should be given a D grade at best.

[DallasMike]

Well, a few more actual biologists than I expected (though many are from small/obscure/non-prestigeous colleges) but the list is still mostly people only tangentally related to evolution.

My experience is that chemists (that was my original degree) are especially doubtful of the claims of evolution. Most of us have no religious problems with evolution but many of us do have problems with the claim that, say, 12 proteins magically appear in the same place at the same time and (name your bodily function) happens.

According to the current theory of evolution, one would expect us to have thousands of currently useless proteins, etc. in our bodies just waiting around to become useful. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Everything seems to (gasp!) have a purpose.

[bondserv]

Speaking to evolution, and leaving aside the age of the universe.

Matt 19:4
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,...

Referring to:

Gen 1:27
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

You only have a few options.

1. Jesus was wrong on some things. (therefore Jesus is not the Son of God)
2. Jesus deceptively perpetrated a myth. (therefore Jesus is not the Son of God)
3. The book of Genesis was miswritten and Jesus quoted an error. (therefore Jesus is not the Son of God)
4. We have unreliable Old Testaments and New Testaments. (therefore we have no reasoning for adhering to the standards in the Bible, other than "it sounds good to me")
5. You are wrong about evolution, and Jesus is the Son of God, and we have reliable copies of the original Scriptures.

2000 years of the best scholars unsuccessfully trying to tear down the Scripture tells us to go with #5. Now 300 modern Scholars are going on record disputing the Theory of evolution.

Thanks for the ping Michael_Michaelangelo!

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

It tells the objective observer that building an explanation for our existence from fossils takes a leap of faith that rivals the Grand Canyon. I'm still waiting for that first verifiable transitional form.