A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

ondaball · Nov 3, 2007

During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.

The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001 over 700 scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names. The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

"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."

There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.

Click here to read a press release about the Dissent list.

Click here to download a PDF copy of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list

The arguments that ultimately unravel the Darwinian synthesis aren't terribly difficult to grasp. Anyone who remembers the rudiments of logic they learned in freshman composition can follow the essentials of the argument. Below are three articles to get started:

Fact Sheet: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

Fact Sheet: The Cambrian Explosion

The Survival of the Fakest

If you have a Ph.D. in engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences, and you agree with the following statement, "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," then please contact us at cscinfo@discovery.org.

If you are a medical doctor who is skeptical of Darwinian evolution please visit Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity at www.doctorsdoubtingdarwin.com and sign their list for doctors who dissent.

www.DissentFromDarwin.org

Ian

notto · Nov 3, 2007

ondaball said:
The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.

That is because they do. When one asks biologists, it certainly is true. After all, the theory of evolution is a theory of biology. What do I care what an engineer or cosmologist says about it?

over 700 scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names.

So, if I find 700 academics regardless of their field that agree that the holocaust didn't happen then that should be taught in school, right? Afterall, if engineers don't accept biology, then we should listen to them based on the logic of this argument.

Can you tell us what percentage of worldwide scientists 700 individuals represents?

Do you think that actually makes a persuasive and compelling argument?

You probably think that magnets can cure cancer. I bet I can find 700 'doctors' that believe they do. Would you trust them?

Of course I don't expect you to actually stick around and discuss this. You are too busy spamming the board unfiltered links from google searches and lecturing on honest debate.
You are a great creationist.

Nathan45 · Nov 3, 2007

List of scientists named "Steve" who accept evolution

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

Click to expand...

-- the Steve manifesto.

SeraphymCrashing · Nov 3, 2007

Ya, the list of scientists who are named steve far outweighs the list of scientists who dissent from darwinism (whatever darwinism is supposed to mean).

Also in the words of Einstein who replied to a reporter who asked him about the "100 authors against Einstein"
: "If I was wrong, one would have been enough."

Baggins · Nov 3, 2007

Ondaball can post a list of 700 people, not scientists; some are mathematicians some are lawyers some are engineers, who dissent from evolution.

Nathan can post a larger list of people called Steve who are biologists who support it.

Any mainstream idea from the holocaust through relativity to evolution will have dissenters. In the case of evolution 99.85% of biological scientists accept evolution.

from wikipedia:

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully explain observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others.[16][17][18][19][20] One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.85% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science.[21] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[22] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[23][24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#CITEREFMartzMcDaniel1987

gamespotter10 · Nov 3, 2007

ondaball said:
During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.

The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001 over 700 scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names. The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

"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."

There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.

Click here to read a press release about the Dissent list.

Click here to download a PDF copy of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list

The arguments that ultimately unravel the Darwinian synthesis aren't terribly difficult to grasp. Anyone who remembers the rudiments of logic they learned in freshman composition can follow the essentials of the argument. Below are three articles to get started:

Fact Sheet: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

Fact Sheet: The Cambrian Explosion

The Survival of the Fakest

If you have a Ph.D. in engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences, and you agree with the following statement, "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," then please contact us at cscinfo@discovery.org.

If you are a medical doctor who is skeptical of Darwinian evolution please visit Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity at www.doctorsdoubtingdarwin.com and sign their list for doctors who dissent.

www.DissentFromDarwin.org

Ian

and yet there are still 480,000 scientists who are working in geology and biology and still accept darwins theory of evolution

and thats just in america

Dannager · Nov 3, 2007

Once again, for those who missed it.

ondaball has a list of 700 people (not even scientists, just people) who don't like evolution.

Nathan45 has a list of 840 scientists named Steve who support evolution.

EDIT: Oh, by the way, the statement they have to agree to? "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."?

That's doesn't even qualify as dissent.

Vene · Nov 3, 2007

Dannager said:
Once again, for those who missed it.

ondaball has a list of 700 people (not even scientists, just people) who don't like evolution.

Nathan45 has a list of 840 scientists named Steve who support evolution.

EDIT: Oh, by the way, the statement they have to agree to? "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."?

That's doesn't even qualify as dissent.

Exactly, it justs says those scientists want a greater understanding of the theory. Scientists are typically skeptical towards any claim.

TeddyKGB · Nov 3, 2007

Ondaball's contempt for the collective intelligence of this board continues to become more apparent.

In any event, perhaps something more personally meaningful to him: Clergy Letter Project

consol · Nov 3, 2007

ondaball said:
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
"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."

I wonder would they sign if it read like this?

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

"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, and the possibility that a 'Goddidit' should also be encouraged."

Even if Darwinism is wrong, (which it isn't) why should a 'Goddidit' theory be any more true?
there is even less evidence for that than there is for Darwinism, so what are you advocating?
giving up a theory that has something going for it, and adopting a theory that has nothing going for it.

That might make sense to a creationists, but it makes no sense to a person who has not been indoctrinated with the 'Goddidit' theory.

metherion · Nov 3, 2007

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,

I am skeptical of the abilities of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. I think that non-random gene insertion (such as from viruses), artifical selection (aka breeding), and so on help a little bit.

Examination of EVERY theory should be enocuraged. Heck, if I find that my senior lab distillation column reliably and reproducable violates thermodynamics, I'd be set for life! And if current thermo didn't actually work in all cases, think of what we could do! Free energy, anyone? Anyways, yes. All scientific theories should be examined.

Such a weak and non-all-encompassing statement is worthless.

Try this:
Evolution is a baseless and spurious theory that is full of holes, with little evidence for any idea it encompasses beyond small intra-specie changes. Major scientific doubt exists as to the veracity, fundamental mechanisms, or plausibility of the thoery of evolution. It is inappropriate to teach this at all as it does not work, and evolution should be immdiately replaced by ID and/or creationism.

See how many people in relevant fields agree to THAT and then come back to us.
Relevant fields would be biology, genetics, zoology, possibly organic/bio chemistry, you get the idea. Not any humanities, not any social sciences, no law, maybe a couple of the engineering (like genetic engineering would probably be, but electrical, mechanical, chemical, etc would be out), no inorganic chem, no physics, etc. In short, ONLY THINGS THAT ACTUAL DEAL WITH EVOLUTION, MUTATIONS, THEIR EFFECTS, THEIR CAUSES, THEIR APPLICATIONS, THEIR FUNCTIONS.

Metherion

USincognito · Nov 3, 2007

notto said:
That is because they do. When one asks biologists, it certainly is true. After all, the theory of evolution is a theory of biology. What do I care what an engineer or cosmologist says about it?
So, if I find 700 academics regardless of their field that agree that the holocaust didn't happen then that should be taught in school, right? Afterall, if engineers don't accept biology, then we should listen to them based on the logic of this argument.

Can you tell us what percentage of worldwide scientists 700 individuals represents?

- When I see 700 historians who deny the holocaust
- When I see 700 astronauts who say the moon landing is a hoax
- When I see 700 geologists who think the Earth is 6,000 years old

I might start buying into the argumentum ad pettitionum, but only if I'm provided with a list of 700 biologists who say evolution didn't happen and the Project Steve folks recind their previous signing.

Nathan45 · Nov 3, 2007

USincognito said:
When I see 700 astronauts who say the moon landing is a hoax

.... how many astronauts have there ever been ????

Naraoia · Nov 4, 2007

Nathan45 said:
[/color][/font]
.... how many astronauts have there ever been ????

And anyway, why should a random astronaut be an authority on moon landings? After all only two dozen or so people actually went (or pretended to go, if you prefer) there, and the Apollo missions were decades ago. And when you work in a factory you may not know what the managers are doing in the background.

Late_Cretaceous · Nov 4, 2007

Here is a copy of the statement that 700 scientists have supposedly signed ... "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," As an "evolutionist" I have to AGREE with this statement! Yes that is right, I fully accept the theory of evolution, yet I agree with that statement. Any scientific theory should be regarded with skepticism, and evidence should be examined (and re-examined, and re-examined) closely! I do not see anything in that statement that disputes evolutionary theory, nor anything that proposes an alternative - only a statement that says that open minded skepticism and further investigation is warranted. Heck, if I was a professor of in the department of Ecology and EVOLUTIONARY Biology at Princeton University I would sign that statement just to ensure more research money! What a joke, and a dishonest one at that, to try and use that statement as a "dissent to Darwinism". Sad that some so called Christians have to resort to outright lying like that. If you asked a campaigning politician "do you support the capital punishment for jaywalkers" and he says no, could you to to the media and say he is "soft of crime.

Late_Cretaceous · Nov 4, 2007

metherion said:
I am skeptical of the abilities of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. I think that non-random gene insertion (such as from viruses), artifical selection (aka breeding), and so on help a little bit.

Examination of EVERY theory should be enocuraged. Heck, if I find that my senior lab distillation column reliably and reproducable violates thermodynamics, I'd be set for life! And if current thermo didn't actually work in all cases, think of what we could do! Free energy, anyone? Anyways, yes. All scientific theories should be examined.

Such a weak and non-all-encompassing statement is worthless.

Try this:
Evolution is a baseless and spurious theory that is full of holes, with little evidence for any idea it encompasses beyond small intra-specie changes. Major scientific doubt exists as to the veracity, fundamental mechanisms, or plausibility of the thoery of evolution. It is inappropriate to teach this at all as it does not work, and evolution should be immdiately replaced by ID and/or creationism.

See how many people in relevant fields agree to THAT and then come back to us.
Relevant fields would be biology, genetics, zoology, possibly organic/bio chemistry, you get the idea. Not any humanities, not any social sciences, no law, maybe a couple of the engineering (like genetic engineering would probably be, but electrical, mechanical, chemical, etc would be out), no inorganic chem, no physics, etc. In short, ONLY THINGS THAT ACTUAL DEAL WITH EVOLUTION, MUTATIONS, THEIR EFFECTS, THEIR CAUSES, THEIR APPLICATIONS, THEIR FUNCTIONS.

Metherion

Agreed

Late_Cretaceous · Nov 4, 2007

Lets do a survey for biological scientists that says " I think evolutionary theory is pure bullcrap" and see how many sign it.

And-U-Say · Nov 4, 2007

ondaball said:
During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

<snipped to reduce stupidity and brain damage to innocnet readers>

Ian

As other have mentioned, the thing that kills me about this statement is... its correct. All theories should be questioned. Nothing in Science should be set in stone.

But as others have also said, this makes this statement worthless. It really doesn't say anything against evolution and says NOTHING in support of creationism.

Lastly, I would bet that many of the signers to this statement do not agree to the purpose to which it is beinig used. So the atual number of signers is really quite a bit less.

So please, spare us the lies.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

ondaball

Guest

Legend

Nathan45

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Back in Town

In memory of ChordatesLegacy

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

Well-Known Member

Veteran

a post by Alan Smithee

Nathan45

Guest

Apprentice Biologist

&lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g

&lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g

&lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g

Veteran

Similar threads

<font color="#880000" ></font&g

<font color="#880000" ></font&g

<font color="#880000" ></font&g