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."

[brytlea]

Or almost anyone else.

susie

[OmahaFields]

I question evolution because its supporters are fighting so hard to keep it from being questioned.

I question your sincerity since you only question the sincerity of the supporters of evolution. Did it ever occur to you to do some real research and find out why evolution has such strong support in the scientific community?

[OmahaFields]

I am troubled by the historical (and current) tactics and dishonesty of the defenders of evolution.

I am troubled by your tactics and dishonesty. If anyone is dishonest it is those supporting the "competing theory" concept based on religion and ID. Those are the agenda based radical fanatics.

[kerryusama04]

Your bias against evolution leads you to post falsely about science and evolution.

What bias? What have I posted that is false? What have I posted to indicate a position on the debate?

[Coyoteman]

I question evolution because its supporters are fighting so hard to keep it from being questioned.

The theory of evolution is now, and has been since it was introduced, challenged almost entirely on religious grounds.

Scientists are working out the differences in interpretation involved in calling a specimen, such as KNM-ER 3733 for example, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, or Homo erectus ergaster.

Creationists are still at the stage of yelling, "Its just a theory. Teach the controversy." Not very productive. And not much to take seriously.

[kerryusama04]

OmahaFields
Since Jun 10, 2006

[OmahaFields]

What bias? What have I posted that is false?

We can start with the post #215 that I replied to.

[OmahaFields]

Intelligence is not measure by how long one has been registered here. OTOH, trying to use that argument as you are shows a definite inability to post intelligently.

[OmahaFields]

What bias?

Starting with your post #4 on this thread.

[ConservaTexan]

Nice backtrack! That's about an 8 anyday!

Sorry for the delay, I went to a baseball game. Can you please point out where I back tracked? I can't seem to find it. Are you saying that what you posted proves that these skulls(of apes, monkeys, early liberals or whatever) positively evolved into homo sapiens? If that is true, I did not get the memo on the discovery of the missing link! If I accept that they did evolve into current day man, that is fine but where is the evidence that they started out as single cell beings and evolved into homo erectus eragaster? What about the "explosion" of life during the Cambrian period? They seem to have "appeared" rather suddenly, geologically speaking.

[kerryusama04]

I can't recall seeing an article where evolution was questioned by evolutionists. Could you send me a link?

[Boxen]

Nice.

I get this warm, fuzzy feeling when the newbies start to sting back.

[kerryusama04]

Starting with your post #4 on this thread.

I guess that could look like bias. The point is that evolution is generally presented as scientific law vice theory. I just yearn for an honest presentation of the facts.

[Radix]

I do not tnink that I have even used the word "creation" here tonight. Maybe I did but that is not my point anyhow.

It is the darwinists who are suppressing dissent.

My real issue is about free thinking people being able to deliberate on diverse opinions.

The "machine" will no longer allow that.

It is not open minded to put a muzzle over the mouth of an antaganost.

Even Luther and Eck had debates way back in the good old latter part of the dark ages.

The Scientists refuse to work in the laboratory of public opinion. Talk about laws written in stone. Oh the irony of the fossil record.

You are no better than scribes working with stones and chisels.

You really can't see it, and yet you chastise the creationists because why? They accept things that they cannot prove?

Truly you peer through a clouded glass.

[kerryusama04]

I haven't been here that long either, bud. Your stance on this thread coupled with the 12 day old handle look a little fishy. I hope you aren't a troll because I am enjoying the banter, but I could see a DU getting a big kick out of poking fun at us God fearing FR types, especially on a crevo thread.

[OmahaFields]

http://www.mbari.org/seminars/2000/Fall2000/oct18_reznick.html

[thomaswest]

Re 209: Onelifetogive: but the fact that no other explanation is permitted to even be considered. The point is that you went from 0 to demonize in 4.5 microseconds. This would illustrate the whole "no other explanation considered" thing.

I'm sorry. Whom did I demonize? I am generally against the 'demon possession theory of disease' and favor the scientific 'Germ Theory of Disease'. Perhaps you misunderstood my post?

As to "no other explanation considered", you are unfairly dissing my Pixie Theory of Gravity. I regret that you are biased against pixies--they are really nice once you get to know them. They explain everything better than "God did it"; when my house gets messy, I know that the pixies need more attention. When my wife is 'too tired', I find that some love talk guided by pixies makes all the difference.

Who are you to dismiss pixies as "another explanation"? It's quite funny--those who claim to "know God's law" are never able to share God's email address with the rest of us. This makes me doubtful about their knowing their elbows from their ankles.

Teach the controversy. The Garden Gnome Theory of gas mileage promises 150 mpg from pure water--if it is really pure, abstinent, and magnetized. At a slight additional charge for postage and handling, your soul goes to heaven. Good alternative explanation in about 20 minutes? Sorry about the microseconds--I wanted to get a sandwich.

[kerryusama04]

Thanks, I'll read it tomorrow. Goodnight.

[Radix]

"I think it is time for you to take a break. Your personal insults are getting a little weak and ragged."

I suppose that I could use a break from tangling with all of the FR mental giants who indulge in harping on silly little remarks which are little more than hostile invectives solely designed to deflect attention away from anything that I might have actually said or implied. My comments and those of others, here and on other threads.

Unfortunately for you, this is my Friday night, and it is also one of those times when I feel the need to exercise my right to indulge in a serious slam dunk.

You got nothing but overpaid judges and a few guns to make your position right! In truth you are doing more damage to the educational system in this country than the interventionist busing advocates did in Boston (my home town) in the 70s and elsewhere with their tampering and social experiments.

Don't even ask about the success that the lefty retards had with that insane endeavor which nobody has ever apologized for.

You all might not see the connections, but in truth, it is all the same stuff.

Arrogance, and a gavel, backed up with a gun. That is all that you have. Ignorance is bliss, indeed for the social interlopers.

[Coyoteman]

Can you please point out where I back tracked? I can't seem to find it. Are you saying that what you posted proves that these skulls(of apes, monkeys, early liberals or whatever) positively evolved into homo sapiens? If that is true, I did not get the memo on the discovery of the missing link! If I accept that they did evolve into current day man, that is fine but where is the evidence that they started out as single cell beings and evolved into homo erectus eragaster? What about the "explosion" of life during the Cambrian period? They seem to have "appeared" rather suddenly, geologically speaking.

Nice subject switch! About a 7.

As far as backtracking, I explained this in my post #72:

You stated that there was no evidence in the fossil record, so I provided you with evidence. Now you attack my education (the nuns will get you!), and deny what I posted is "proof."

(Check back toward the beginning of the thread and see the definitions I posted for "theory" and its use in science.)

So first you claimed there was no evidence in the fossil record, and I showed you evidence.

Now, in this post you discuss the fossil record briefly, then switch to single cell beings and the Cambrian "explosion." That's the subject switch; its nice, but only a 7 or so.

What I am saying is that there is evidence in the fossil record. Those who have studied it agree that it is pretty pursuasive. (I am somewhat familiar with it because I did half of my six years in grad school in fossil man and evolution and closely related subjects.)

The evidence suggests (but, like all of science, cannot "prove") that Homo erectus ergaster or H. ergaster (taxonomists disagree) is transitional between earlier, more ape-like species and later, more human species. See the chart below.

Now, you may not agree with the evidence, or scientists' interpretations of it, but your initial challenge, that there was no evidence in the fossil record, has been effectively rebutted. BUSTED! (Sorry, I've been watching Mythbusters too much.)

As far as a delay for a baseball game? Good for you. Fresh air and fine American entertainment is always in order.

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html