Posted on 07/20/2005 9:13:07 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
SEATTLE — More than 400 scientists have signed onto a growing list from all disciplines who are “skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.”
“Darwin’s theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought,” said Dr. David Berlinski, 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.”
Discovery Institute first published its Statement of Dissent from Darwin in 2001 and a direct challenge to statements made in PBS’ “Evolution” series that no scientists disagreed with Darwinian evolution.
“The fact is that a significant number of scientists are extremely skeptical that Darwinian evolution can explain the origins of life,” said Dr. John G. West, associate director of the CSC. “We expect that as scientists engage in the wider debate over materialist evolutionary theories, this list will continue to grow, and grow at an even more rapid pace than we’ve seen this past year.”
In the last 90 days, 29 scientists, including eight biologists, have signed the “Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.”. The list includes over 70 biologists total.
The most recent signatories are Lev V. Beloussov and Vladimir L. Voeikov, two prominent, Russian biologists from Moscow State University. Dr. Voeikov is a professor of bioorganic chemistry and Dr. Beloussov is a professor of embryology and Honorary Professor at Moscow State University; both are members of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences.
“The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems,” said Professor Voeikov.
“Lately in the media there’s been a lot of talk about science versus religion,” said West. “But such talk is misleading. This list is a witness to the growing group of scientists who challenge Darwinian theory on scientific grounds.”
Other prominent biologists who have signed the list include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe, Dr. Richard von Sternberg an evolutionary biologist at the Smithsonian Institution and the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology Information, and Giuseppe Sermonti, Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum. The list also includes scientists from Princeton, Cornell, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Ohio State University, Purdue and University of Washington among others.
What should I be calling them, if not creationist scientists? Darwinian-dissenter scientists?
What a pantload.
Yes, I understand you perfectly: The Individual is Nothing, The Collective is Everything.
Correct, Comrade?
And... are they still fruit flys?
That settles it then, doesn't it? Life on this Earth was created by the god Bain'Ofloggle. The Universe as we know it is really a subuniverse off of the "main universe", created when Bain'O ate some beans and farted this universe into existence. Our universe has all the properties of this main universe, whose laws and rules were written by a guy named Ken, sitting at an old IBM Selectric typewriter powered by a looong extension cord, in the back of his rusted out Chevy Van, sipping Milwaukees Best beer.
Exactly. Strength in numbers.
A majority belief in a theory does not make it true. In schools they should teach Evolution fully, give all the 'facts' and then teach the ID theory, tell kids those are the two ideas out their, and they can decide. If ID is so stupid, the kids should be bright enough to figure that out.
But, neither has been proven to my satisfaction so I don't waste time making arguments for one or the other. Just too many unknowns to make a judgement in my opinion.
too bad none of your quotes are worthy of your profile page...you must really try harder
I would venture to say that the ratio of scientists in 1475 who supported the flat earth theory would be roughly proportional to today's scientists that except evolution.
Just because the current numbers support one theory over another, is not proof of correctness.
Nope. As long as someone believes in it. It will live.
Lolololololololololololol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gotta run! I've got a scientific experiment (NOT pseudo-scientific) to attend to.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But will it be enough to turn the tide of eliminating the wholesale teaching of Darwinism?
You mean there is an actual theory? In the scientific sense of a theory, and not merely the biological equivalent of saying "General Relativity in its present form does not completely explain the nature of gravity, ergo gravity is magic"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.