Ranks of Scientists Doubting Darwin’s Theory on the Rise
No wonder Darwinists are in a panic. Their beloved theory is being attacked. They no longer have exclusive access to the media. Their priests are getting angry. And of course, as they keep telling us, no real scientist disbelieves the fact of evolution, do they, or they wouldn’t be a real scientist?! Well, that depends what you mean by ‘evolution’. Ed.
Discovery Institute
February 8, 2007
SEATTLE — Another 100 scientists have joined the ranks of scientists from around the world publicly stating their doubts about the adequacy of Darwin’s theory of evolution.
“Darwinism is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs modern biology,” says dissent list signer Dr. Michael Egnor. Egnor is a professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook and an award-winning brain surgeon named one of New York’s best doctors by New York Magazine.
Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture today announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The statement, located online at www.dissentfromdarwin.org, 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.”
“We know intuitively that Darwinism can accomplish some things, but not others,” added Egnor. “The question is what is that boundary? Does the information content in living things exceed that boundary? Darwinists have never faced those questions. They’ve never asked scientifically if random mutation and natural selection can generate the information content in living things.”
“More scientists than ever before are now standing up and saying that it is time to rethink Darwin’s theory of evolution in light of new scientific evidence that shows the theory is inadequate,” said John West, associate director of the Center for Science & Culture. “Darwinists are busy making up holidays to turn Charles Darwin into a saint, even as the evidence supporting his theory crumbles and more and more scientific challenges to it emerge.”
The list of signatories includes member scientists from National Academies of Science in Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, India (Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland, and the United States. Many of the signers are professors or researchers at major universities and international research institutions such as Cambridge University, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, Ben-Gurion University in Israel, MIT, The Smithsonian and Princeton.
Source: here.
Despite the fact that almost any scientist would agree (I basically do) with the Discovery Institute 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”) very few have signed it because thy recognise it is being used to attack modern scientific theory and activity. It is being used to imply support for ID and opposition to evolutionary theory – something not actually in the statement.
Support for the statement is pathetic. Compare the 700 or so with the more than 11,130 Christian Clergy who signed support for evolutionary theory and opposition to ID (Clergy Letter Project). Or the more than 860 on Project Steve. (Only 9 people named Steve on the Discovery list).
My brief analysis of the people on the Discovery Institute list indicates that their motives for signing were religious and not scientific (see Who are the “dissenters from Darwinism”?).
I agree with all these scientists who think that natural selection is an inadequate theory to explain the emergence of living beeings.
Anyone looking for a rethinking of Darwin’s theory and for the foundations of a new theory should visit the blog:
http://www.cosmosandgaia.blogspot.com (or the spanish blog linked with it)
There you can find excerpts of my book “Cosmos y Gea. Fundamentos de una nueva teoría de la evolution” (Cosmos and Gaia. Foundations of a new theory of evolution)
best regards,
Francesc Figols
So how many of them are named Steve?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/
“Many of the signers are professors or researchers at major universities and international research institutions…”
Many? How many?
What are their field of expertise?
(…awkward pause…)
For those of you who are interested in these questions here’s a link that give you a breakdown of the list as it stood in 2004 when it was 300 signatories.
Anyone care to guess if the other 400 any any different?
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2008/01/dissenting_from_darwinism.php
Paragraph #1: Interesting comment Ken. So if you are skeptical, then how do you account for the origin of life? Or are you playing ‘science of the gaps’?
Paragraph #2: Well, I guess in general scientists are smarter than the average clergyman — true in my experience at least
Most of the signatories will probably be ‘liberal’ christians (note the small ‘c’). But there are of course other factors, like the certain persecution that will follow you if you were to add your name to the list. Then there are those scientists who see Darwinism as irrelevant to their science (most I would guess).
Paragraph #3: Granted, but the same cuts both ways. Or are we back to the ‘atheists are neutral’ claim? Seriously, people like me plainly have more of an interest in this than most people who are just fed a steady diet of Darwinian dogma and probably don’t even see a place for ID and the DI.
Cedric, for all your good points, you spend a lot of time demanding evidence that would have excluded numerous other ideas in science.
Are you expecting ID to be accepted overnight and for the entire scientific establishment to suddenly receive revelation that Darwinism is false, or at best inadequate?
Your commitment to the fallacy of ‘appealing to the majority’ does not cut it around here my friend.
Part of being a scientist is to be skeptical – and if you aren’t personally the social procedure of science certainly is skeptical. It’s an essential element of discovering reality – our species evolved to survive and reproduce, not to do science. That’s what makes the social skepticality of science so important.
I can’t give an account of the origin of life (I don’t have any problem saying “I don’t know” but that always means to me “so let’s get to work, let’s find out how”). Maybe we (humanity) will never be able to answer that question specifically (although I suspect we will, in the not to distant future, be able to demonstrate the formation of a living organism from “non-living” chemicals). But if we do, it will be because of scientific investigation – not by taking myths as fact. And skeptical analysis of individual findings will be a necessary part of that process.
Interesting – you seem to determine intelligence of an individual on the basis of their agreement or otherwise with you particular prejudice about ID! I suppose that is a human failing, but it is also a way of avoiding facts.
And again, when skepticism is aimed at the stories told by the Wedge people you call it “persecution.”
Now, you seem to accept that the motives of signatories to the Discovery Institute’s list are religious rather than scientific. To me, that supports my claim that this “controversy” in the US is a conflict within Christianity (not science) and that is where is should be debated. It is to some extent (Dembski and mates recognise that Christians are their constituency and they pay a lot of attention to it).
Of course, politically and scientifically, ID has absolutely no traction in New Zealand. But, again, there are still a large proportion of NZs Christians (about 40%) who refuse to accept the scientific theory of evolution. It would be healthy thing for the religion if this question was more openly debated within that religion.
Admin said…”Are you expecting ID to be accepted overnight and for the entire scientific establishment to suddenly receive revelatio..”
No Admin. The problem is that YOU’VE accepted ID “overnight” and you are totally unable to demonstrate the validity of ID.
You fail to make your case as does the entire Discovery Institute.
The scientific establishment ignores them because they are presenting no scientific case.
No conspiracy necessary. No “Darwinian Priesthood” necessary.
If you think that ID is a scientific theory then present your evidence.
Please.
If you don’t really have any…then do the right thing and withdraw your claim.
Please.
If you want to call ID theology or philosophical musing then…fine but to dress it up as science is promoting a falsehood.
Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.
Now admin. You say you work in science. Have you signed the Discovery Institute statement? If not – why not.
Hullo!
Is there anyone home??
It does seem rather quiet, doesn’t it?
Perhaps it’s the Rapture?
Rapture? Is that when you get called back to Seattle?
Perhaps there has been a “palace coup.” The latest post (Michael Ruse reviews Richard Dawkins) seems to be encouraging Michael Ruse – a well known atheist and critic of ID!
Leave your response!
Nano-Blog News from around the world
NZ CHRISTIAN BLOGS
NZ CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES
PLACES TO VISIT