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."
Don't miss this! More Scientist against Darwin!
http://www.islamonline.net/English/Science/Science/NaturalSciences/2006/06/01.shtml
Are you REALLY expecting certain uhhhh
'scientists' and their cheering masses
to uhhhh . . . . take their heads out of the sand and rationally consider
uhhh
the
FACTS of the matter?
Oh, dear. That is brash!
Wonderfully brash.
I hope you have your hazmat suit and flack jacket on.
Some have gone on record stating that they were duped.
Lighten up, Francis.
OmahaFields, there's nothing really unusual there. Many religions, scientists and especially mathematicians deny metaphysical materialism. The fact that Islam does so, does not constitute evidence in favor of materialism's plausibility.
Islam has used anti-materialism to justify a backward society. Islam is using anti-materialism to justify their attacks on wester society. It is interesting that the main tenet of ID is, you guessed it, ANTI-MATERIALISM. By pushing anti-materialism, you are pushing western society into another dark age.
Amen.
People believe evoution because they do not to want to believe that there is a God and a judgement. (Rom.1:20-25)
yes, I agree. It's impossible to hide from His judgement of us when we are resentful and harsh. But the darkside is so crafty in our minds with confusing voices and thoughts and false teachings.
Just out of curiousity, what would you say to those christians who believe that evolution best fits the evidence?
I would say that the scriptures teach Creation and don't put your faith in false science (1Tim.6:20)
I'd prefer be an unsophisticated country person than an ignorant elitist like you.
Good grief. You're the ignorant buffoon if you don't think Chien ever read Darwin's book. You just can't come to grips with the fact many scientist can use the evidence to strongly show that Darwinian gradual evolution did not happen.
Wake up and smell the reality.
It is very hard to see the difference between the Christian writings and the Islamic writings....
I'm assuming your remark is only in the context that both Christians and Muslims are theists, opposed to materialism and want to make sure they've got a seat at the educational table. If that is your point, what's wrong with that?
Scientist have failed miserably in linking the evolutionary theory from start to present animal groups and phyla to sell materialism to most people who truly look at it with an open mind. Too many holes. They cannot even explain how the eye evolved.
The complex nature of the eye and the probability that it came about by chance is a reason for me to believe that it was designed by a higher power. Ditto with fingerprints and DNA.
Until scientists can show continuous proof from the beginning to present animal groups and phyla, materialism cannot dismiss theism and it is arrogant for them to try.
From The Wedge Strategy:
THE WEDGE PROJECTS
Phase I. Scientific Research, Writing & Publication
Anyone whose goal is to promulgate "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" is not doing real science. If a group with those goals ever comes to power I can see a lot of the sciences we do now being "de-emphasized." Biologists and paleontologists would be among the first to be "re-educated."
Even what I do, western US archaeology, would be subject to censorship because we consistently fail to find any evidence of a global flood, and we have documented continuity across the last 12,000 years or so--in other words, no flood, no young earth.
Given free rein that is what I see "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" leading to. Don't believe me? You can see the beginnings of all of this right now, with the attempted censorship of evolution in schools.
Hey, clown, punctuated equilibrium was Darwin's idea.
Wake up and smell the reality.
Quit smoking the crack of Creationist websites.
You're the clown, jerk. No one is arguing that PE is not anti-Darwinian. It's known that the scientific basis and conclusions of PE originated with Charles Darwin. If you think Chien's mention of PE and Gould means he doesn't recognize Darwin's PE theory, you are the one who needs to put the crack pipe down!
Thanks, but I'll keep my Creationists views. Scientists have failed miserably in linking the evolutionary theory from start to present animal groups and phyla to sell materialism to most people who truly look at it with an open mind. Too many holes. They cannot even explain how the eye evolved.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!
If you would do a little REAL study instead of visiting those scam creationist websites you would understand the evolution of the eye. I believe a link was posted last Friday or Saturday with that explanation. If you wade around, you will see that their is a counter-argument for everyone of the lies on the creationist websites.
Besides, why did God give us an eye that is can't even see the radiation that causes blindness? Why did God make radiation from the sun that blinds us? Why did God design the eye such that the sensors block most of our vision?
Why didn't God, in his wisdom knowing that the eye was a faulty invention, give Adam eyeglasses?
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.