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."
We'll be back.
Each second it grows one second older. Each millesecond, it grows one millesecond older. Each microsecond, it grows one microsecond older ...
Yes, it will happen with 1 more Conservative judge.
And each second, we get closer to proving the Bible right. LOL!
Manana
Does the Bible say "Do not kill" or does it say "Do not murder"?
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?
The age of the earth has been refined several times over the last 100 years. It has gotten older, not younger. The changes are getting smaller, as the technology improves and the processes are refined. It is narrowing in on about 4.5 billion years. There has been less and less, and now pretty much no, support for the young earth scenario from this process.
How about all the points I raised in my post from my experience with western US archaeology? Are you going to ignore them all and try a subject switch? Or are you going to link a few refinements in the age of the earth over a century or so, narrowing in on 4.5 billion years, to somehow "proving" the earth is only 6,000 or so year old?
Well, I do think that you are completely wrong about this, but we will see in the future...
Well, I always have to remind myself that alot of people on the internet are only here to entertain themselves. Anyway, you have a nice night. Glad to have met you. I really didn't come onto this thread to get into any sort of religious discussion, I generally avoid these discussions like the plague!
susie
LOL.
How big was the barf bucket? (see tagline)
At least they have a disclaimer from a reviewer of the toy. --Cristina Vaamonde
Do you ever feel like you're stuck in some infinite loop of Inherit the Wind?
No clue how much bandwidth I've seen wasted by creation "scientists" over the past eight years on FR and to no end.
Personally I believe the earth is flat since that adhers to my narrow Biblical interpretation of Isaiah 11:12 and Revelation 7:1 . And no I don't want anyone's revisions on scripture - why should I listen to you when you ignore mine?
And if it isn't flat, how can it have edges, pillars, corners and ends?
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--From Hamlet (I, v, 166-167)
Yes, these threads can get downright ugly at times, and its really a shame that it happens...anyway, I am also glad to have met you, and you have a nice evening as well...
Again your viewpoint is rather perverted so that is to be expected from you. It is nothing like that. Thou shalt not steal is a commandment. Thou shalt not embryo transplant is not a commandment.
You put the beer in the coconut and throw the can away ...
This reminds me of a comedy skit I saw recently on TV..I missed most of it, but just heard this one liner, something about creationists, that when they are watching 'The Flintstones', on TV, they think they are watching a documentary....
Dinosaurs, and humans all existing at the same time, side by side...saddle up, lets go for a 'Dino' ride...
4,589,038 (plus or minus) ducks and you still will not say whether embryo transplant is a morally acceptable procedure for Christians.
Sad thing is it is probably as close as some get to reality.
No, it is substantiated. It is a conclusion drawn from your contention that the embryo transfer is definitely a sin. I'm sure Ann would side with me rather than you in this discussion.
I made no contention that it was a sin. Please reread my posts.
This is not the question originally asked. You were asked for a science where creationism made a contribution. The Bible did not contribute to modern Cosmology. The BB was 'discovered' independently from religious beliefs.
I suspect that the Bible was not the first to state that the Cosmos had a beginning.
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.