Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

More scientists express doubts on Darwin
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | June 22, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

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."


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: crevo; crevolist; mdm; pavlovian; wingnutdaily
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 1,121-1,138 next last
To: stands2reason
"What judge forbade debate on evolution?"

Ann Coulter speaks about a few of them in her latest book.

I ain't no walking encyclopedia, but the matter of judges dictating what can and can not be said in public classrooms is endemic. Endemic, you know always present in a community.

I'll be glad to put together a list of what I can find for you if you seriously want names. I can't do it right now because of time constraints.

I will say that you probably have as much an access to Google or other searchers as I do. Or you could read of the cases Ann noted.

601 posted on 06/27/2006 4:44:03 PM PDT by Radix (Stop domestic violence. Beat abroad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: brytlea
I don't see why you keep posting to me to keep my religion out of the classroom. I have said I did that. Are you one of those people who believes if they just keep saying something over and over, people will believe it's true (in this case inferring that I proselytise in class)? I don't know why you keep saying that.

Uh, the first word was "Fine" in response to what you were doing. I just wanted to clarify my position. I think your skin is too thin for this open forum. OTOH, you sure are great at 'inferring' onto other people.

I gotta laugh about your comment about imposing my will by praying for someone. If you aren't Christian, then you would believe my prayers go nowhere anyway. How does that harm you? Is wishing you well also forbidden by you as well? ;) Anyway, hon, you got issues, and somehow I stepped into them. I feel bad for you, and yeah, I probably WILL say a prayer for you. I promise it will be something innocuous like a prayer for mercy or something. Have a good day.

I gotta laugh too. I have been around here a short time but long enough that when posting to y'all, subtle posts don't work. You have to hit them over the head with a post in order for them to get the meaning. Of course we know why, because they are reading the posts through Sunday school shaded glasses.

It is not what I believe. It is the fact that those that pray THINK they are imposing their will on others against that persons will. Why is it "Christian" to think that is ok.

602 posted on 06/27/2006 4:58:27 PM PDT by OmahaFields
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 583 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
What you have produced is a loaded question. In any case, whether IV transfer is against the Christian moral code or not, Christians also pray for sinners. BTW Christians also serve in combat.

Hmm. This was not a case of praying for sinners, but a case of praying for the sin to be successfull. By praying for success, there will be more people trying IV-embryo transfer than before. But I may be mistaken in my assumption that fundamental Christians consider IV-embryo transfer a sin. Please correct me if I am wrong.

603 posted on 06/27/2006 5:02:12 PM PDT by OmahaFields
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
go, and sin no more.

Nice post - for someone that supports praying for others to sin.

604 posted on 06/27/2006 5:41:23 PM PDT by OmahaFields
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
"But the reason that the list of anti-evo scientists is growing is because creationists have created their own unaccredited science degrees.

So tell me, where did you find out where they get their degrees? The ones I found received them from Brown, USC, etc.

605 posted on 06/27/2006 5:57:05 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: Junior
That's not a scientific advance. That's an assertion.

Than why are scientist certain there was a "Big Bang?"

"First off, the way the survey question is worded, I would probably have signed it had I not known it was put out by that particular organization. Secondly, how many of those "scientists" are biologists? Anyone else has as much bearing on this issue as you or I."

Never the less the list grows, and so too the pressure to have Creation along side Evolution in schools. It will happen, happy & true!

606 posted on 06/27/2006 6:02:54 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies]

To: celmak

Oh, those left-wing bastions of socialism?


607 posted on 06/27/2006 6:04:41 PM PDT by OmahaFields
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: celmak
Never the less the list grows, and so too the pressure to have Creation along side Evolution in schools. It will happen, happy & true!

Actually the list shortens. Many have repudiated the organization that used their names in a manner they did not agree to. As for the pressure of Creation in the science class, it was dealt several big blows recently and now the creationists are huddled around trying to figure out what to do next.

OTOH, the ID movement is catching fire in the Muslim world.

608 posted on 06/27/2006 6:07:30 PM PDT by OmahaFields
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp; DaveLoneRanger
The science behind current Cosmology is not the result of reading about the Genesis origin story. For you to attempt to credit the Bible or creationists for that particular theory is disingenuous.

No, it means the Bible had it right first, it scientist who disregard this fact that waist time trying to disprove Creation.

609 posted on 06/27/2006 6:08:47 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 595 | View Replies]

To: OmahaFields
Actually the list shortens.

Logical Evo

610 posted on 06/27/2006 6:11:24 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]

To: celmak
No, it means the Bible had it right first, it scientist who disregard this fact that waist time trying to disprove Creation.

Slow down, take a sip of water, two deep breaths and then review your post before hitting the post button.

611 posted on 06/27/2006 6:11:55 PM PDT by OmahaFields
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
For you to attempt to credit the Bible or creationists for that particular theory is disingenuous.

Georges Lemaitre, who posited the Big Bang theory, was a Catholic priest, a creationist if you will.

The irony here is that Judge Jones would have forbidden any discussion of Lemaitres work in public schools. At least I think it's ironic sharpy. :-}

612 posted on 06/27/2006 6:14:27 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 595 | View Replies]

To: OmahaFields

I'm going to stop what is clearly an exercise in pointlessness. You can say that you won a debate, and everyone else who read this (if anyone indeed did) will decide for themselves. I will leave this saying, I don't really have a clue what your point is. I doubt you do either. Anyway, this is clearly a waste of time. Have a good one.
susie


613 posted on 06/27/2006 6:16:58 PM PDT by brytlea (amnesty--an act of clemency by an authority by which pardon is granted esp. to a group of individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 602 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

Point taken...but it is as you state, not at all helpful, and in my opinion, just plain vile, to tell anyone that you think that they are going to Hell(and make that statement as if it were a known fact), and then laugh about it...

Would you actually approach a person and say they are going to Hell, and that you are going to have a good laugh over that? No, I dont believe that you would...but there are many on FR, many who do exactly that...and it is to them specifically, that I say, keep you nosey nose to yourself, and worry about your own fate...


614 posted on 06/27/2006 6:17:35 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: OmahaFields
Slow down, take a sip of water, two deep breaths and then review your post before hitting the post button. No, it means the Bible had it right first; its scientist who disregard this fact that waste time. trying to disprove Creation will ultimately prove it.

Corrections made.

615 posted on 06/27/2006 6:19:24 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom

Absolutely I would not, that doesn't serve any purpose. And I don't see how anyone could find any joy in another human being actually going to hell (barring of course someone who has truely greviously wronged that person--even that is wrong from a Christian perspective, but understandable). Personally, I would love it if we all got to go someplace really nice after this life, but my reading of the Bible doesn't lead me to actually believe that. However, as I think I stated previously, I can't save anyone anyway, that is between them and the HS. I know that before I and my conversion experience, I HATED people to talk to me about Jesus and all that stuff, so I know exactly how people feel about it.
Thanks for being civil.
susie


616 posted on 06/27/2006 6:22:05 PM PDT by brytlea (amnesty--an act of clemency by an authority by which pardon is granted esp. to a group of individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies]

To: celmak
Slow down, take a sip of water, two deep breaths and then review your post before hitting the post button.

No, it means the Bible had it right first; its scientist who disregard this fact that waste time. trying to disprove Creation will ultimately prove it.

Hit send button too soon again. too much coffee! ;)

617 posted on 06/27/2006 6:22:06 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies]

To: celmak
No, it means the Bible had it right first

Does this include the global flood too?

618 posted on 06/27/2006 6:26:00 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 617 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Sir Francis Bacon quote

Sounds like a definite case FOR Creation & Evolution to be taught together. Here, here! And thank you.

619 posted on 06/27/2006 6:27:17 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 599 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Does this include the global flood too?

Yes.

620 posted on 06/27/2006 6:29:04 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 1,121-1,138 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson