Over 500 Scientists Sign Statement Skeptical of Evolution

http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=2155 ^

[truthfinder9]

WorldNetDaily reports that 514 scientists with doctoral degrees have signed a statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's theory of evolution. The list include 154 biologists, 76 chemists and 63 physicists who hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science and related disciplines.

The statement, says the report -- which includes endorsements by members of the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences -- was first published by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute in 2001 to challenge statements made in PBS's "Evolution" series which claimed "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory [evolution] to be true."

"Darwinists continue to claim that no serious scientists doubt the theory and yet here are 500 scientists who are willing to make public their skepticism about the theory," said John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (DICSS).

West said Darwinist "efforts to use the courts, the media and academic tenure committees to suppress dissent and stifle discussion are in fact fueling even more dissent and inspiring more scientists to ask to be added to the list." As a matter of fact, due to the growing number of scientific "dissenters," West said the Institute was encouraged to launch a website for the list.

"Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought," said David Berlinski, a signatory and mathematician and philosopher of science with DICSS. "It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe."

Other prominent signatories, according to the report, include U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell, American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen, evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe; Smithsonian Institution evolutionary biologist and researcher at the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Biotechnology Information Richard von Sternberg, editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum - the oldest still published biology journal in the world - Giuseppe Sermonti and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov.

[jbp1]

Hey! I found that the first presupposition of an entity within a domain derives forethought on the obtuse nature of surface.
Therefore an asynchronous development of theory constrains elliptical bloviation, to which the participant entreats with various dysfunctional quadrants for.
This proves conclusively Darwinist observations and cultural servitude provide an association argument that can be labeled evasive relations that.

Am I getting through to you?

[ElectricStrawberry]

Sorry, a doctorate degree in mathematics or computer science doesn't mean you understand the theory of evolution. Heck, a PhD in physics or chemistry doesn't ensure that you have a clue about the theory of evolution.

This is a stacked list from people with a clear agenda.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Mathematicians and computer science post-docs don't necessarily have a freakin' clue what evolution is as it's not part of their training. They are included to bolster the numbers. Even pysics and chemistry post-docs won't necessarily have more than a 6 year old rudimentary understanding of evolution.

This is like the GW theorists that claim 500 scientists claim "X" when it's really ONE scientist and 499 liberal arts bachelors degree holding "researchers".

[Echo Talon]

The point is these people are coming forward for you to castigate. Open fire.

[ElectricStrawberry]

OK. They (those trying to prov e something with this list) are trying to use computer science PhD holders as "scientists" that are skeptical of Dawrin's works....when "compouter science" has exactly NOTHING to do with the natural sciences, let alone Darwinism. All to bolster their numbers. As for the 514 individuals, I cannot castigate them because nothing has been presented by them in this article for me to castigate other than:

"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."

So, what these "scientists" very unscientifically simply state is "We don't believe it." Hardly "science".....

[Preachin']

"Sorry, a doctorate degree in mathematics or computer science doesn't mean you understand the theory of evolution. Heck, a PhD in physics or chemistry doesn't ensure that you have a clue about the theory of evolution."

But the implication of your post was that these were just 514 out of 100,000, when in fact, they were 514 scientists with a doctorate.

There is a big difference between what the article said and what you implied.

Do you agree with that?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Paging Dr. Nietzsche, paging Dr. Nietzsche

[moatilliatta]

To maintain honesty, it should be pointed out that these 514 have doctorate degrees.

This group does not include any scientists with lesser degrees.

In most fields of science it is more or less mandatory to have a doctoral degree to be actively involed in research at anything but the most junior level.

[Preachin']

"In most fields of science it is more or less mandatory to have a doctoral degree to be actively involed in research at anything but the most junior level."

It was implied that this was the opinion of just 514 out of a group of over 100,000.

That's intellectually dishonest, don't you think?

[ElectricStrawberry]

OK, to withdraw and rephrase to clear up my stated observation without changing my observation in any manner.... 514 out of the total number of natural scientists THAT HOLD AN APT DOCTORAL DEGREE (which is well over a hundred thousand, worldwide, but I don't know and am not looking for an accurate number because that's not the freakin' point) is hardly a large number. STILL statistically insignificant. AND, no...they weren't 514 scientists with a doctoral degree. They were 293 scientists with a doctoral degree and the rest were mathematics or computer-science people with doctoral degrees that are included to bolster the numbers of "scientists" to make it seem like this is a big deal when it's not. Mathematics anbd computer science is not a "science" that would be applicable, if a "science" at all.

However, it only really takes ONE correct scientist to end or force the amendment of a theory....but they aren't there because the theory is SCIENTIFICALLY sound.

And 514 PhDs saying "we don't believe it" means nothing.

[quant5]

"I'm a believer in God and I still don't want this stupid mythology of Intelligent Design taught in a science class. Teach science in a science class. Teach the rest in a philosophy or a religion class."

I am a believer also and agree with you. Trying to cram religion into a science discussion does not belong. Evolution in general does occur, science has proven this. What Darwin and science cannot prove is that we are direct descendants of apes. It is the "missing link" they will never find. Genesis is scientifically accurate in the fact listing of how water appeared on earth, then land then fish, then birds, then animals then man. The bible writer Moses couldn't have possibly known these scientific facts which is one of the main reasons I believe in God and intelligent design.

[zipp_city]

Untill the missing links are found evolution is just Science Fiction. For the non believer it is their only straw

[Coyoteman]

Untill the missing links are found evolution is just Science Fiction. For the non believer it is their only straw

Is it possible that some of these are the formerly "missing link(s)"? If not, when then do you consider them to be?

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[LiteKeeper]

YEC SPOTREP

[zipp_city]

I don't why some go to so much trouble to find these specimens when they could have found them all in south Dallas.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Trying to cram religion into a science discussion does not belong.

It is not so much a matter of cramming religion into science as it is allowing religious presuppositions to guide scientific inquiry, among them that the universe is intelligently designed and sustained by an almighty God. Evolution has on occasion been presented as an overarching explanation for the history of the universe. It is not unreasonable or unworthy of consideration. In most cases evolution, as such, is not crammed into science discussions.

Furthermore, to observe life in all its details and infer therefrom an intelligent designer is hardly "cramming religion" into the matter. Religion has to do with WHO the intelligent designer is, not whether an intelligent designer in some generic sense may be reasonably deduced or inferred.

[moatilliatta]

How many scientists with doctorates do you think there are? I would guess that for the US 100,000 is an underestimate.

[Sun]

Here's 700 more:

PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- Hundreds of supporters of "intelligent design" theory gathered in Prague in the first such conference in eastern Europe, but Czech scholars boycotted the event insisting it had no scientific credence.

About 700 scientists from Africa, Europe and the United States attended Saturday's "Darwin and Design" conference to press their contention that evolution cannot fully explain the origins of life or the emergence of highly complex species.

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/34122.html

[Sun]

"Leave Science to the Scientists and Religion to Theologians."

Leave atheism to the atheists.

Evolution is nothing but atheism in disguise.