More Than 1,000 Ph.D. Scientists Are 'Skeptical' of Darwinian Evolution
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
On the 210th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birthday, the Discovery Institute is going public with a list of more than 1,000 Ph.D. scientists who declared their skepticism toward Darwin's mechanism for evolution: natural selection acting on random mutation. This mechanism is the centerpiece of Neodarwinism, the current but eroding consensus on how evolution took place.
"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 reads.
The Discovery Institute released a video of 19 scientists reading the statement.
"Our statement is not anti-evolution, it's on what is the mechanism," John West, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, told PJ Media on Monday. He said the list originated in 2001 "as a response to claims that were frequently parroted by the media that there are no scientists who raise questions about Darwinian theory."
The Discovery Institute found 100 Ph.D. scientists and published the list in The New York Review of Books. After a few years, "the pushback became really harsh; some of the people on the list lost funding, some were threatened with their jobs. We thought, 'We don't have to keep promoting this.' People kept signing anyway."
West insisted that the list "keeps growing on its own accord without our promotion." In fact, West told PJ Media that the Discovery Institute encouraged many professors not to sign, lest they lose their jobs. "There are people who want to sign and we tell them not to because they don't have tenure. It's not like we're begging people to sign," he said.
The list includes Ph.D. scientists from around the world. It includes a professor at Moscow State University in Russia. The list also includes a former president of Bangalore University in India, as well as many Ph.D. scientists who taught and studied at various prestigious American institutions like Harvard University, Duke University, and Johns Hopkins University.
"This is not to say the majority of scientists don't support Darwin's theory," West explained. But "the claims that there are no serious scientists that doubt Darwin, those are false."
"There are more than a thousand serious scientists who are willing to say there is an issue, that natural selection and random mutation do not explain the diversity of life," the Discovery Institute scholar said.
Many outlets might emphasize the fact that this statement does not disavow evolution per se. West said that is a virtue of the statement, however.
"Evolution is a real weasel word that means all sorts of things," he said. "If they mean small level changes within species, no one doubts that. If they mean a universal common ancestor, that's the majority of the scientific community. Our statement focuses on mechanisms."
"The standard theory going back to Darwin is natural selection or survival of the fittest acting on random mutations," West explained. "When the debate is over what mechanism can actually produce life, I would say that's a fundamental debate."
The mainstream media may insist that evolution is "settled science," but the debate over mechanisms is vital. "If people understand just how fundamental these debates about the mechanism are, that opens Pandora's Box," West said.
Importantly, not everyone on the list is a Christian, and the list has nothing to do with the theory of Intelligent Design.
Tellingly, the New York Times's Ken Chang ran an expose of the list in 2006 misleadingly entitled, "Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition." As West reported later that year, "While Chang’s story conveys the clear impression that scientists who support Discovery’s Dissent from Darwinstatement are motivated by religion rather than science, Chang has now admitted in an interview that 75% or more of the scientists he interviewed did not fit this description" (emphasis original).
In two weeks, biochemist Michael Behe (one of the signatories on the list) will release a new book, Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution. The pre-eminent magazine Science ran an article attacking the forthcoming book, but the article did not address the book's key arguments, West claimed. Behe himself responded to the Science article, noting that evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski had no response to his arguments.
"I used to believe Darwin’s theory got it right about most of life, but as science learned more about the molecular and cellular levels of biology I broke ranks," Behe told PJ Media. "My new book, Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA that Challenges Evolution, shows readers why new research gives those thousand scientists much more reason to be skeptical."
Americans need to understand that there is a real debate about key aspects of Darwin's theory of evolution, and that dissent is not merely a religious position, but a scientific one.
Tags
Who is online
237 visitors
Natural selection vs random selection.....
Survival of the fittest versus random mutation.....
Debates that have been taking place under the surface of Evolution since the discovery of the primordial soup was first recreated (and since repeated multiple times) by Miller.... The search for how DNA, (the first self reproducing molecule) actually produces itself in the first place is the source of much speculation.
Evolution from the ideal of creation is a scientifically proven fact, the question becomes HOW..... and from how, WHY?
Darwin's theory is a proposition of but one way evolution is theorized to take place and many, many scientists do not go along with it......
Speciation: The Origin of New Species From the Knowledge Project, Is a very good in-depth treatise on current scientific thought on the subject....
It reveals that the current line of reasoning has been drifting away from Darwin's theory as an absolute and that for many years investigation has been ongoing in the areas that Darwin doesn't cover or explore at all...... Randomness, how does DNA recombines into a new species, how some species just "appear" rather than "evolve".
The scientific fact is DNA "creates" itself in the proper environment. Science has been able, for many decades since Miller, to "create" DNA, albeit small 10 to 15 segment strands that have no real patterns to them but do recreate themselves.......
The main driving force of evolutionary studies is in the mundane, how does DNA (like human DNA, or any advanced DNA) actually develop? It isn't as flashy as the theoretical ideals that attempt to explain everything in one declaration. (like Darwin's particular ideals) but how the building blocks of life actually work.
Darwin's work requires one to accept that there is a link, that matches current life to past life. Every thing is an evolution from something before. Which lead to the common form of scientific exploration in this area, "Find the link, prove the theory".... "missing Link ideology" without being able, after many many decades of searching and not finding what the theory states MUST be there...... Scientists started looking elsewhere for the explanations that Darwin's theories do not cover.
There are many holes to this readily available, (and easily teachable) theory to shows the theory is not full-proof. This fact in and of itself proves that absolutist Darwinian theory is wrong. It doesn't explain how some species just "appear" without any link to any past molecular formulation.....
Yet we have those that claim to be of the scientific bent that reject all ideals of molecular diversity creation except for the natural selection process outlined by Darwin.
To me, they need to go back and get on board the elemental train, cause they are losing their way. (50 years too late)......
Rejecting Darwin as the foundational basis for evolution is not only becoming the scientific mainstream, it is proving to be the only road that advances the science.........
Darwin was wrong about pangenesis. We've learned a lot more about evolution than we knew back in his day ... and will probably always keep learning more. That's what makes science so fascinating!
I've never been quite able to understand what the "Christian" objection to evolution actually is. God could certainly have worked His will through the mechanism of evolution and the special nature of human beings would still be applicable. Animals are not capable of self-reflection or self-consciousness, or means of expressing these abilities , the way human beings are. Obviously we are a "specially" developed species. Why not attribute that to the workings of "God", and let go the story book assertions associated with taking the Old Testament literally? The Bible cannot be read as literal history of events. Period. That realization does not preclude belief in God.
My mom considers evolution to be God's tool. But then, she's not a literalist or a young earther, as C4P is. Many Christian sects accept science just fine.
I get that. What I don't get is WHY they feel compelled to cling to a literal old testament. It is not necessary for belief in Christianity. And it makes them look dumb/gullible.
Several major christian denominations have no particular objection to evolution and I'm not sure why they would. The Bible isn't really intended as a science text and I think most churches are not really in the business of giving science lessons on Sunday. As for me, I'm a christian and I have no problem with evolution. I know some evangelicals who do, though.
For everyone's edification:
For a literalist, it's both a science text (bats are birds, who knew?) and a history text. Which means humans never had a hunter-gatherer stage, for example.
The young earth creationists took it further; it's a fad dating from the 1800s. I think they added up all the begets (as if someone could really have lived to be 400 when the average lifespan was probably in the late 20s) and consider the lineage described in the bible to be unbroken. Which obviously makes no sense, humans were around for a long time before got into agriculture and cities and such.
My sister turned into a young earther. My mom (Episcopal) honestly doesn't understand why it even matters so much to them to believe this - it's not like their faith is any stronger than that of an old-earth creationist, or than someone who accepts evolution. And it must take so much mental effort to totally discount geology and the other sciences.
My next door neighbor is also a young earther. It was a little strange when she was showing me her photos from Ireland, and the megalith has a caption about how it was 6000 years old. I wanted to ask her how she thought people from the Middle East could have gotten to Ireland so quickly and built so many things - but didn't bother.
Yeah but bats don't lay eggs and birds don't have nipples
And maybe 400 years is more like 400 months (that would be approx 33 years).
Methusalah lived to the ripe old age of 900 years or 900 months or 75 years? You decide
Neither do playpus
For some Christians it flies in the face of man being directly created by God. But I suspect most Christians accept evolution nowadays.
For Young Earth Creationists the problem is simple - they are biblical literalists. It is impossible to reconcile YEC beliefs with evolution. That is why the likes of Ken Ham are engaging in an all-out war with evolutionary sciences. For them, it is necessary for their survival.
Why does it always come back to n....
lol
(and self correcting)
Hmm, 1,000 out of the estimated 7 MIllion in the world.....This is a big nothing burger, let me know when these 1,000 can convince at least 1 Million of the 7. Then i might get interested.
Time to back out of discussion here, it is rapidly devolving itself into the same old tired evolution vs intelligent design (science vs religion) crap that is all too prevalent nowadays
lol....chicken
That question will never be answered satisfactorily for anyone
Gotta go with the egg or rather what was inside the egg (the first chicken). The critter that laid the egg would have been close to being a chicken, just not quite there, for lack of a better term I would call it a proto-chicken.
The picture I saw showed the egg with a satisfied smile in bed, while the chicken looked disgruntled. So I think there is a clear answer.
Never seen an egg smile. My guess is that it was some sort of a lame genetic bartender. Shit tends to happen with solar insolation. Evolutional changes due to irradiation (and other environmental factors) is reality. Always has been and always will be. Seems mankind is now superseding orbital Milankovitch cycles. In fact, our pollution is blowing right through what used to be natural cycles.
Screw all idiots who deny anthropogenic damage to our only planet.
Don't believe in either/or scenarios. Life is not all black or white. Shit happens.
Obviously a few cells got together and eventually became a chicken or an egg after a few million years.
A biologist would say that the egg had to develop first from earlier chicken prototypes. Evolution.
The fact that this is even a thing is kind of sad. Skepticism or criticism in science should never be grounds for losing your job.
Actually it should be. Screw all science deniers who deny scientific reality due to fossil fuel money.
Scientists hold to a higher standard of truth than paid science deniers and far right wing propagandists.
You are very wrong. And very unscience.
Very unscience?
please explain why you feel that someone who accepts science is "very unscience" as compared to the charlatans at the Liberty Institute.
I think I'll take that as a compliment considering the source.
Neither the Heartland institute nor the Heritage foundation deal with science.
Far right wing propaganda is what they do.
By the way, Heartland and Heritage said cigarettes are good for you. Because they were paid to.
Wow. Thanks for the typo find. It's all you could cone up with? Lol.
The source is a real scientist rather than an ignorant hack. [Removed]
Nice deflection.
[deleted]
How is 'unscience' a typo?
Well perhaps if you addressed her question there would be MORE.
I prefer actual recognized and credible scientific organizations like NASA and the National Academy of Sciences.
But ... they're actual scientists, not religious fanatics, so they aren't going to say what he wants to believe.
Oh silly me. I sometimes forget some people think their beliefs override actual science and facts.
Two more highly right wing rags pron to misrepresentation and out right bs
A total lie made up to spur the right wing
You post more and more like it's coming from a script. May I ask who supplied the script?
There is no hope for those who simply look for ways to support a belief rather than form a belief based upon quality evidence. No hope.
KAG, you post a seed that, in effect, claims 0.014% of world scientists are skeptical about 'random' processes fully explaining the complexity of life.
This seed then effectively suggests that possibly upwards of 99.986% of worldwide scientists are NOT skeptical about 'random' processes fully explaining the complexity of life.
Your argumentum ad populum fails due to being fallacious and also fails in terms of its (utter lack of) logic.
But what is really important is to understand what science is and what it is not. Science is not about consensus. It is about evidence, logic and falsification. Even though the super, super majority of scientists worldwide accept evolution as the best explanation for the complexity of life, it really does not matter what they think. What matters is the mountains of evidence that supports the theory and the fact that the theory persists (and strengthens) in spite of continuing efforts to expose its flaws (by 'skeptics' as well as advocates).
Goddidit. That’s all the explanation that some people need.
What fields of science would those "scientists" be in?
Skepticism is fine. There are people who are "skeptical" about the Earth being round. But skepticism alone does not diminish or invalidate a scientific theory. Especially not one as strong and solid as evolution.
Those are the best explanations for the diversity of life. I have yet to hear any other valid explanation.
Sure. But evolution has been studied and examined since it was first proposed. It has withstood all attempts at denial or refutation.
Major red flag right there, especially where the credibility of these "scientists" (as well as those who support or endorse the DI) is concerned.
Then I'm sure they can propose a better explanation and provide evidence to back it up. Right?
You're ALL wrong. Adam and Eve were two youths who were sent to the lush verdant planet Earth from the remaining people on the dying planet Mars in a spaceship (just like Superman was sent from the dying planet Krypton), in order to grow and propagate, something like the stranded youths in the movie Blue Lagoon, and become the father and mother of humanity on Earth. The Old Testament is almost right as far as it goes, but indicates no prehistory. My theory is just as valid as anyone else's, including Darwinian scientists, because NOBODY can prove that they're right.
You just have to have more faith in the movies. I've always said that LIFE IMITATES ART, notwithstanding that sometimes ART IMITATES LIFE.
So you see, you need to join the Everyone Loves Movies, Classic to Current group, watch more movies, and get a taste of reality, not the tiresome aggravating fiction of Politics.
Your theory is as valid as any, maybe more so. After all the Bible story is also a huge stretch. G-d manifested Adam out of dust then stole one of his ribs to make his wife, Eve.
So how did humanity proceed with just them and their sons Cain and Abel ? Did the sons hook up with neanderthal gals ?
To answer your question, I'll give you 3 alternative possibilities:
1. As I amended my treatise to say "the old testament is ALMOST right", it may have omitted Eve's twins born after Cain and Abel - Abra and Anna.
2. Oedipus Incest
3. The Muslim imams may be partially right in that Cain and Abel did their thing with chimpanzees, in which case not just Jews, but everybody is descended from apes, including the imams.
So the Blue Lagoon is actually a creation myth?
No. Please pay attention. I have provided two movie EXAMPLES of my theory. My theory, and I will repeat it for you with more clarification, is that a male youth and female youth were sent to an uninhabited but verdant Earth from a dying planet (EXAMPLE: Superman sent to Earth from Krypton) and not only survived but thrived and then propagated (EXAMPLE: The two youths in the movie Blue Lagoon). Genesis, in the Old Testament provided an allegorical story, just as the creation of Heaven and Earth over a seven day period is allegorical as well. That is neither evolution nor creationism. My theory is merely one that differs from both.
So all of the animals were already here and the apples weren't forbidden?
Only The Shadow knows.....
Sounds like a plot line taken from Star Trek. Of course, a single male-female pairing does not a viable genetic pool make.
More Than 1,000 Ph.D. Scientists Are 'Skeptical' of Darwinian Evolution
It begs the question:
Were those Doctorates issued via Trump University or was it the College of Bob?
With the education we have available to us as Americans in the USA and you don't believe in evolution it is my opinion that common sense has failed you.