Posted on 06/22/2006 1:28:41 PM PDT by 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."
I can see that your public education serves you well. Although, the pictures you provided are interesting, they are not proof of anything evolving into homo sapiens. Don't forget that for Origin of Species to be true everything has to have evolved from geo-galactic muck. Not the incomplete argument you responded with.
I think the problem with evolution is not so much what is taught in schools, but the fact that no other explanation is permitted to even be considered. Most of my doubts about Evolution come from the fact that its supporters are terrified that someone may scientifically consider another alternative.
They get right into the cells where they link up with the DNA, hold hands and sing kumbaya.
The creationists and other anti-science types have to keep hope alive somehow, even if it's all based on a pack of lies.
Parthenogenesis is an observed fact.
It is "A form of reproduction in which an unfertilized egg develops into a new individual, occurring commonly among insects and certain other arthropods."
What you mean is 'abiogenesis' which is not observed and is not a fact, just like evolution.
And you really shouldn't be impressed no matter who believes in evolution. You should study it yourself. And that means getting opposing views... from the opponents, not from the adherents.
Anyway...
Here's a real scientist who went from Darwinist to YEC because he actually *looked* at the data.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1173
Believe what you can prove, question all the rest.
GENOME SCIENTIST FINDS GOD
It has been just over fifty years since the discovery of DNA - a discovery which has radically transformed modern science and changed how many look at the origin of life. The Human Genome Project has mapped our entire genetic code, which consists of a sequence of over 3 billion chemical nucleotide bases. DNA research has lead to the discovery of genetic cures for diseases. It has also resulted in faster and more accurate diagnosis of diseases, and assisted doctors in developing customized treatment plans for patients.
Although scientists have learned a great deal about the human genome, the overwhelming majority of DNA remains a complete mystery. For all the new advances made in genetics, we are constantly discovering how complex the DNA really is and how much more we have to learn. According to Dr. Jerry Bergman, a professor of science at Northwest College, “At the moment of conception, a fertilized human egg is about the size of a pinhead. Yet it contains information equivalent to about six billion chemical letters. This is enough information to fill 1000 books, 500 pages thick with print so small you would need a microscope to read it! If all the chemical letters in the human body were printed in books, it is estimated they would fill the Grand Canyon fifty times!”
Scientists still do not know the exact number of genes, their exact locations, or their functions. Nor do they know much about gene regulation, DNA sequence regulation, Chromosomal structure and organization, or non-coding DNA. The list of things we have yet to learn about DNA goes on and on. What we do know about DNA is that it is a digital, error-correcting, and self-replicating code. Furthermore, within its complicated and elegant structure is held the blueprints of every living thing on the planet.
Francis S. Collins is has long been on the cutting edge of DNA research. He is the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute and oversaw the Human Genome Project - which some have called the most significant scientific undertaking of our time. What most people don't know about Francis Collins is that he used to be an atheist, but that his experiences have lead him to believe in the existence of God.
When Collins was practicing medicine he saw the faith displayed by some of his patients. Their strength in dire circumstances caused him to begin to ask questions. It was then, that a Methodist minister gave him a copy of the C.S. Lewis book titled Mere Christianity. The book opened his eyes to new possibilities, however the turning point in his life came while hiking in the mountains. It was the beauty of God's creation that finally broke his resistance. Today, Collins sees his research as a "glimpse at the workings of God". Although his beliefs are not without controversy, his story testifies to the fact that science and faith can co-exist.
According to Collins, "One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that has been created that science and religion have to be at war. I don’t see that as necessary at all and I think it is deeply disappointing that the shrill voices that occupy the extremes of this spectrum have dominated the stage for the past 20 years." Collins plans to share his experiences in a book, due out this summer, titled The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.
Random chance cannot account for the complex design of DNA. It is statistically and mathematically impossible. In the last 30 years, a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of preexistent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10100,000,000,000 (ten to the one hundred billionth power). Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds that just the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 1040,000 (ten to the forty thousandth power). The odds calculated by Morowitz and Hoyle are staggering. Think of it this way, the chances of winning the state lottery every week of your life from the age of 18 to 99 are better than the odds of a single-celled organism being formed by random chance. The probability of spontaneous generation is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein. It is impossible. The evidence all points to the unavoidable conclusion that we not the product of chance or evolution, but the result of intelligent design.
Develop a competing scientific theory that fits the evidence, and it will be considered. "An unknown advanced entity did something at some point in the past" does not qualify.
Wow! Have you found anyone other than yourself that fits this category? Young-earth, six-day creationists are virtually certain to also believe in a global flood and Noah's ark. This makes it impossible to also believe in fixed species since there are far too many (several to a few tens of millions) to fit on the ark.
So I assume you reject the story of Noah's Ark?
For any other explanation to be considered, it must first pass scientific rigor. What the creationists and IDers want is for their pet beliefs to be called science without having to actually do any science to support them. It's basically affirmative action for religion.
The bottom line is that scientific theories are often wrong and most of science is junk science, including the theory of evolution and global warming. I take anything science says with a grain of salt because science does not have a very good track record of being correct.
And of course, the evols will claim that these aren't real scientists. LOL
The number of chromosomes is known, including several irregularities. Some genes have been identified, but a gene is not generally something that has separate identity.
I see the conflation of 'evidence' and 'interpretation of evidence'.
Quite common among true evos.
There are few, but do scientists are normally not that great at finding what animals fit into "species." It would take forever to see which of the supposed millions of species of animals can reproduce.
Nothing to see here.
Move along.
I don't mean to be argumentative, but I don't believe that it will.
Then you're on the wrong thread :)
I'm curious, how is that you've managed to post on this internet forum in 2006 from your sod hut in medieval England?
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.