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."

[RunningWolf]

Hey Zero,

Now never ever troll or post to or about me including any 'pacemakers' unless you have something to say that is civil honest and carries an intellectual maturity greater than a 3 year old.

That about wraps it up. You will reply because you cant do anything else, just as your posts will never become honest civil nor carries any greater weight than that of a toddler tossing her throw toy around.

BTW do you and any of the other evos ever continue to this place? Or do you just practice your crap on our dime?

I think I know the answer.

Wolf

[Admin Moderator]

Knock it off!

[RunningWolf]

I will 'knock it off'.

And should I be banned for any reason (and others stay) I will have never posted any sort of the imagery the evos have on this forum, such as the dogs crapping imagery that guitarman has posted at me, nor will I have ever posted any of the sac-religious hateful sort of imagery that shuckmaster puts regularly on this forum, nor will I have ever suggested that any freepers life is not worth living as evos have suggested of my life.

Knock it off indeed.

Wolf

[RadioAstronomer]

BTW do you and any of the other evos ever continue to this place?

I continue to peruse this place quite often.

[dread78645]

"Woodland faeries, pixie aerodynamics & invisible Moderator" placemark.

[RadioAstronomer]

ROFL! :-)

[Coyoteman]

Evidence and Its “Interpretation”

[Dog Gone]

I'm actually listed as a monthly continuer in the Dollar a Day continuer club.

[Jorge]

Wow, pictures of monkey skulls. I'm convinced!

[RunningWolf]

How would the Darwinists explain this one LOL.

Fool Monkey!

Obviously the tiger cubs have not developed into full predator mode yet.

Wolf

[js1138]

I wonder who held that monkey's beer.

[Coyoteman]

Wow, pictures of monkey skulls. I'm convinced!

Sorry, no monkeys there. You're off by 25+ million years.

Did you mean apes? No apes either. This is long after the man-ape split.

This species is on the general human line, and is very possibly a direct human ancestor.

[RunningWolf]

Several of those skull images are most likely composites, built up of undefined & unknown numbers of skeletal remains.

W.

[Jorge]

This is long after the man-ape split. This species is on the general human line, and is very possibly a direct human ancestor.

Sorry, I was a dedicated evolutionist when I was younger, but I just don't believe it anymore.

[js1138]

Dedicated, possibly, but not knowledgeable. ten to one you can't present a credible description of evolution in your own words.

[Jorge]

Several of those skull images are most likely composites, built up of undefined & unknown numbers of skeletal remains.

This was found to be the case with previous so-called "missing link" skulls...and as a result I am sceptical of anything evolutionists present since.

[Coyoteman]

Several of those skull images are most likely composites, built up of undefined & unknown numbers of skeletal remains.

You are responding to the wrong picture; the one I posted was just a single individual (see below). You didn't even read the post Jorge was referring to, did you?

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[Jorge]

Dedicated, possibly, but not knowledgeable. ten to one you can't present a credible description of evolution in your own words.

Typical hollow evolutionist arrogance.

When you can't convince somebody to agree with you, just spout insults at them.

I had plenty of pro-evolution professors in college and though I didn't believe them I aced ALL their classes.

In fact I graduated first in my class with a perfect 4.0 GPA.
Don't degrade yourself juvenile presumptions.

[VadeRetro]

Sorry, no monkeys there.

Not the only place on this page there's no monkey.

Note to lurkers: What's a gibbon?

[js1138]

I am waiting for you to demonstrate your ability to provide a brief summary of evolution in your own words.