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."

[OmahaFields]

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.

No, it means the Bible had it right first;. itsIt's scientist who disregard this fact that waste time. t T rying to disprove Creation will ultimately prove it.

Corrections made.

[razzle]

Dude, you have anger problems like most liberals. Neither creation or ID are proven, both have scientific evidence to support them. Get over your pain at hearing this.

[Recovering_Democrat]

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.

There's no way. Scientists have repeatedly demonstrated macroevolution--over and over again. And they've also given solid irrefutable fossil evidence of the same thing happening by random mutations in nature.

chirp chirp

[andysandmikesmom]

Actually, I dont think that people who dont have any belief in Jesus, actually hate it when someone talks about Jesus...what they may hate is the condescending tone, the tone that comes off in statements kind of like this..."Hey, I believe in Jesus Christ, I am better than you, I am going to Heaven, you are going to Hell"...and whomp, bash them over the head with the Bible, claim that you and only you know what the Bible means, and laugh about someone elses woes...this is really all vile language and vile behavior...and its shameful, that folks who profess to be Christians act and speak like that...

But speak about Jesus, be gentle, and calm, and wise, and then perhaps someone may listen, who may not have wished to listen before..

The message about salvation through Jesus Christ, can be so much more effectively spread, but folks such as yourself, as opposed to the 'bashers'...Bashers drive folks away from Christ, but gentle, meek, folks such as yourself, may actually draw folks to want to learn more about Christ...

The message is the same, that is, salvation through Christ...but the delivery of that message by some, is just plain vile and drives people away, but the delivery of that message by others, is soothing, and draws people in...

I appreciate your civility as well...you stand in direct contrast to the posters who love to bash, laugh and run away...

[OmahaFields]

Dude, you have anger problems like most liberals.

Ann Coulter says she can tell when a liberal is losing it. He starts the personal attacks against the messenger since he cannot argue the facts.

[celmak]

Like I said, too much coffee.

OK try one more time:

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

Whew!

[celmak]

Oh, those left-wing bastions of socialism?

Not all the students, thank God.

[razzle]

I know that fruit flies have been studied through billions of generations (lasting only several minutes for them), and they are ALL still fruit flies.

[AndrewC]

This was not a case of praying for sinners, but a case of praying for the sin to be successfull.

So you think it is a sin to have a child? That is the end purpose of IV. You must think it wrong to ask God for success in battle.

[AndrewC]

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

Oh, so you claim to be God.

[OmahaFields]

So you think it is a sin to have a child? That is the end purpose of IV. You must think it wrong to ask God for success in battle.

Sort of like praying for bank robbers to be successful so they can donate to the local church.

[OmahaFields]

You know that you are making un-substantiated claims about me. Sure sign of losing it. Attack the poster, not the message. I think Ann Coulter recently said something about your tactics and how they define a liberal losing it.

[OmahaFields]

I know that fruit flies have been studied

Then you know what they were before they mutated into fruit flies ...

[Coyoteman]

Does this include the global flood too?

Yes.

Here are some points which you might consider from my profession, archaeology (western US):

• We are dealing with soils, not geological strata. It takes a lot longer to create geological strata than the last 10,000 years affords. That means we are dealing with archaeology, not geology; soils, not rocks. This is an important point!

• The last 10,000 years are quite well known. We have multiple methods of investigation and dating, including sedimentology, radiocarbon (my favorite), tree-rings, glacial varves, stylistic seriation, paleomagnetism, etc. There is no evidence for complete disruption as would be required by a global flood at 2300 BC (the commonly agreed-upon date for the flood).

• Native American cultures are continuous before and after 6,000 years ago. There is no sudden creation at 6,000 years ago, nor any break at 2300 BC for a global flood. mtDNA patterns allow tracking back to the Out-of-Africa event some 70,000 or so years ago.

• In the western US, there is a cave in southern Alaska dated to 10,000 years, with subsequent mtDNA succession throughout half the hemisphere and coming all the way down to modern times. No evidence of a break and replacement with eastern Mediterranean or Middle Eastern mtDNA at 2300 BC. Rather, mtDNA patterns in the New World link to only five haplogroups, all of which seem to have formed way before 2300 BC and to be distinctly different from those in the eastern Mediterranean.

• Another site has a second founding Native American genetic type dated at 5250 BP; living descendants in the western US have the exact same type. There is no break at the purported time of the global flood.

This evidence is from one narrow field of study-- archaeology, and one small area--the western US. There is a lot more evidence from archaeology in other areas, and there are a lot more fields of study.

They all fail to support a global flood at 2300 BC.

[celmak]

I fail to see how this declaration is a net gain for anti-evolutionists since it does not declare the signers as anti-evolutionists.

Too bad you fail to see this as a sign that we are winning. Of course, many Democrats failed to see faith as a winning block of voters in 2004; e.g., a winning block of Conservative SCOTUS judges that will vote to overturn the bigotry against Creation being taught along side Evolution in our schools.

[andysandmikesmom]

Do you really believe that the SCOTUS will vote to allow Creation to be taught alongside of Evolution in science classes in our schools?

[OmahaFields]

billions of generations (lasting only several minutes for them),

Uh, go back to your creationist web-site. You misquoted from them. Of course anyone that had been in biolgy class that week they played with the fruit flies would see that you are seriously in error in your post. But that is ok. We don't really expect you to have even a basic biological background.

[OmahaFields]

Speciation can occur by divergence within a population leading to isolation - sympatric speciation

Best example is divergence in insects - can happen in less than an eye blink of geologic time, even in a few generations of insects. There is a genus of fruit flies, one species of which, prior to 1864, only lived on hawthorns, a native type of fruiting tree, in North America. In 1864, the species invaded domesticated apple trees in the Hudson River Valley. The colonizing flies only breed while host fruit is available so those breeding on apple trees would be immediately reproductively isolated from those breeding on hawthorns since apples mature first. A second group colonized cherries in 1960 in Wisconsin. Cherries mature before apples. So in 100 years, one species has become three.

[OmahaFields]

But you lost the first/last test of constitutionality of teaching religion in the science class.

[celmak]

I understand your dilemma, especially the understanding of the age of the earth. Before I go into depth about your findings, 2 questions:

How many times, say, just in the past 100 years, has the age of the earth changed? How many times has the age of the planet, during this 100 years, grown and shrunk?

I'll be back tomorrow, I do have a life beyond Freeping.