More scientists express doubts on Darwin

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | June 22, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

[Tim Long]

600 dissenters sign on challenging claims about support for theory

More than 600 scientists holding doctoral degrees have gone on the record expressing skepticism about Darwin's theory of evolution and calling for critical examination of the evidence cited in its support.

All are signatories to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement, which reads: "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."

The statement, which includes endorsement 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 about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series.

The PBS promotion claimed "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true."

The list of 610 signatories includes scientists from National Academies of Science in Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, India (Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland, Russia and the United States. Many of the signers are professors or researchers at major universities and international research institutions such as Cambridge University, British Museum of Natural History, Moscow State University, Masaryk University in Czech Republic, Hong Kong University, University of Turku in Finland, Autonomous University of Guadalajara in Mexico, University of Stellenbosch in South Africa, Institut de Paleontologie Humaine in France, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, Ben-Gurion University in Israel, MIT, The Smithsonian and Princeton.

"Dissent from Darwinism has gone global," said Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman. "Darwinists used to claim that virtually every scientist in the world held that Darwinian evolution was true, but we quickly started finding U.S. scientists that disproved that statement. Now we're finding that there are hundreds, and probably thousands, of scientists all over the world that don't subscribe to Darwin's theory."

The Discovery Institute is the leading promoter of the theory of Intelligent Design, which has been at the center of challenges in federal court over the teaching of evolution in public school classes. Advocates say it draws on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines that indicate some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.

"I signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement because I am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in favor of Darwinian dogma," said Raul Leguizamon, M.D., pathologist and professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico.

"Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all," he added. "Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as Bernard Shaw used to say."

[VadeRetro]

Then there's that "religious horror" thingie, the idea that you might go to Hell for learning the wrong idea.

[Jorge]

I wouldn't say my resume is "dazzling" as there are plenty of very smart and accomplished people on both sides of this debate.

I have just come to the conclusion that creationists are correct on this, and will come out on top ultimately.
Wait and see.

[js1138]

Waiting 203 years and counting...

[VadeRetro]

Your posts remain unresponsive where it counts.

It's always this way.

[Radix]

"Waiting 203 years and counting..."

You been around here that long?

Pray tell, what does that refer to in order that I can go read a book and smash it?

[js1138]

Try reading some history of science.

[Jorge]

Your posts remain unresponsive where it counts.

Probably because as the author I decide what "counts" when it comes to my responses and not you.
I don't expect you to fashion your posts to meet my requirements either.

[js1138]

Actually, I am thinking of William Paley's Natural Theology. I'm off a year, depending on when you start counting.

It was Darwin's favorite book in college and the inspiration for Origin of Species.

[Jorge]

Waiting 203 years and counting...

God is patient. Not willing that any should perish.

[Radix]

"Try reading some history of science."

I'll just toss out my Biology notes, my Micro notes, My A&P notes,and then engage on an exploration of what the heck happened in 1803 that you consider to be so important.

All because you can't answer a simple question.

[RunningWolf]

I am not saying the entire run would be there (I think you know that) but say 2 to 4 laps of it. This would have been late 20's for me and I was in extremely top physical condition 5'9" and 148lbs then, I was not bulked out but very well conditioned.

All of my runs were at nighttime in early-late spring of those years. During the parts of the runs where I got into the high speed cruise, your body is springing along like a gazelle, the breathing is aligned with the running. It became a flowing meditation.

But now my left knee hurts, and I just know my lungs and the rest of the body would 'say not' also. Even POTUS BUSH who is close to our age gave up the running a while back.

Well Take Care,

W.

[Radix]

Chucky was a pretty nice guy.

He hesitated to post his Theory on the "Origin of Species" until he recognized that other people could also read, and were ready to publish their own observations.

It was a matter of weeks in the end concerning who got the credit for the completely discredited notion that Evolution is a fact.

Non sequitor.

What happened 203 years ago that caused your post remark?

I am just curious!

[js1138]

check out 1008.

[RunningWolf]

But see 'you guys' are taking an analogy (Goo to you, via the zoo) and making it into a straw-man and then you might even insert it yourself if 'the opponent' does not, while at the same time 'the other side' is supposed to automatically interpret your analogies correctly.

When I don't see those sort of things going 50-50 I guess thats one part that draws out the defensive negativity in my posts. Its more to the dynamics of the threads than any greater arguments-debates.

See from my POV, what the reality is will remain ultimately remain an unknown and beyond man. If I am to be attacked on anything attack me on that.

Now does that mean I try to compete against 'you guys' with pixes and fairies ?? NO!! and why should anyone suggest so, if not but a reflection upon them?

While this post is to you Vade, its not about you per se, but more an overall observation to one piece of the crevo debate dynamics.

Wolf

[Radix]

OK, I'll go Googling in order to figure it all out.

Meanwhile, I am running out of time here for doing new research and posting on it.

Not complaining mind you, just noting publicly, that I have more important things to do with my suspect intellect.

[Jorge]

Don't worry about it.
No need to get down an dirty with the opponents. Years of experience have shown that to be useless.

You are on the right side of this debate and will be proven right. I have total confidence in that fact.

[Maurice Tift]

I was really hoping that we would settle this entire debate tonight!

[VadeRetro]

Having peaked and started over the hill at 35, I currently summarize my condition as "21 years and 30 pounds added."

[VadeRetro]

An analogy IS a strawman if you don't know the real basis of the "analogy" and cannot describe the situation at all without "analogy."

[js1138]

I think it is settled. Some people think they can overturn hundreds of years of established science without even knowing what it is they are arguing about.

If you can't state your opponent's position, you lose the debate by default.