It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


100 Scientists Declare Skepticism over Darwinism

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 04:39 AM


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, most recently by spokespersons for PBS’s Evolution series, that
“all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution” as does “virtually every
reputable scientist in the world.”

The following scientists dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction
to the second. There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.

Henry F. Schaefer, Nobel Nominee, Director of Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth, Prof.of Cellular & Molecular Physiology,Yale Grad.
School• Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry, NAS member • Frank Tipler, Prof. of Mathematical Physics,Tulane U. • Robert Kaita, Plasma Physics Lab, Princeton • Michael
Behe, Prof. of Biological Science, Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn, PhD Biochemistry-U. of Illinois • Tony Mega,Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry,Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus
of Biology, San Francisco State • Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath • Daniel Kuebler, Asst. Prof. of Biology, Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David
Keller, Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry, U. of New Mexico • James Keesling, Prof. of Mathematics, U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch, PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert
Newman, PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval, Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry, U. of Colorado • Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College • William A. Dembski, PhD
Mathematics-U. of Chicago • George Lebo, Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy, U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish, PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener, Prof. of
Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering, U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks, Prof. of Signal & Image Processing, U. of Washington • Carl Poppe, Senior Fellow, Lawrence Livermore
Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology,Technische Universität München • Gregory Shearer, Postdoc. Researcher Internal Medicine, U. C. Davis • Joseph Atkinson,
PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.,American Chemical William P. Purcell, PhD Physical Chemistry-PrincetonSociety member • Lawrence H. Johnston, Emeritus • Wesley Allen, Prof. of Computational Quantum
Prof. of Physics, U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich, Prof., Dept Chemistry, U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko,Asst. Prof.,


of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochemistry, U. Kansas Medical Center, U. of Kansas • Chris Grace,
of Idaho • David A. DeWitt, PhD Neuroscience-Case Assoc. Prof. of Psychology, Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith,


Western U. • Theodor Liss, PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Prof. Emeritus of Mathematics-Oregon State •
Braxton Alfred, Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology, U. of Rosalind Picard, Assoc. Prof. Computer Science,
British Columbia • Walter Bradley, Prof. Emeritus of OF RANDOM MUTATION M.I.T. • Garrick Little, Senior Scientist, Li-Cor • John
Mechanical Engineering,Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown, L. Omdahl, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular
Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies,Trinity Western AND NATURAL SELECTION Biology, U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie,Assoc.
(Canada) • Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology, U.
Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School • of Texas, Austin • Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of


Theodore Saito, Project Manager, Lawrence Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia
Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal, PhD Hugh Nutley, Prof. Emeritus of Physics


Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan, Center for Theology Engineering, Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski, PhDand the Natural Sciences • S.William Pelletier, Philosophy-Princeton, Mathematician,Author • Neil
Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 07:40 AM
Fine - if they've got evidence, then bring it on! Science is about learning, not about making sure "your" camp beats "theirs".

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:17 PM
Majority, or dissent, does not add or subtract validity from a theory. I would argue Darwinism even if I was the only one on Earth to believe in it... if, that is, I had all the evidence I reason that I have currently.

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 05:03 PM
this is ridiculous. science isn't about popularity, it's about facts.


877 scientists by the name of steve (or a variation of the name steve) have affirmed this statement:

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.

yep, just Steves

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 07:24 PM
That's a lot of Steves. But aren't you arguing against your own point? Science isn't about popularity, it's about facts, like you said.
This is known as argumentum ad populum, or 'jumping on the bandwagon.' Just because the majority are saying it, doesn't make it true. Ask their historic counterparts a bit of time before Copernicus (or a bit after, for that matter), and they would have told you the sun revolves around the earth. I suppose you're a geocentrist?
I'm a heliocentrist and creationist, for the record.


removed quote of post directly above

[edit on 22/4/08 by masqua]

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 05:30 AM
reply to post by Alcove

i was just making the point that not only is it a logical fallacy, it's a misused logical fallacy because it's only an insanely tiny minority of scientists that disagree with darwin.

posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 05:05 PM
So what exactly does it take to prove Darwinism?

Abiogenesis? -- so until scientists create life in the lab Darwinism is just a hypothesis?

top topics


log in