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.


A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 06:51 AM
Previous threads consistently berate Christians for being dumb and stupid

for not believing in the folk tale of darwinism here is a list of scientists that agree with the following quote

From an outside source

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.

This was last publicly updated April 2008. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.

Philip Skell Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Lyle H. Jensen Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of Biochemistry University of Washington, Fellow AAAS

Maciej Giertych Full Professor, Institute of Dendrology Polish Academy of Sciences

Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State University Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics Institute of Developmental Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences

Emil Palecek Prof. of Molecular Biology, Masaryk University; Leading Scientist Inst. of Biophysics, Academy of Sci., Czech Republic

K. Mosto Onuoha Shell Professor of Geology & Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Univ. of Nigeria Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science

Ferenc Jeszenszky Former Head of the Center of Research Groups Hungarian Academy of Sciences

M.M. Ninan Former President Hindustan Academy of Science, Bangalore University (India)

Denis Fesenko Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia)

Sergey I. Vdovenko Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine Organic Synthesis Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry
Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine)

Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia

Paul Ashby Ph.D. Chemistry Harvard University

Israel Hanukoglu Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Chairman The College of Judea and Samaria (Israel)

Alan Linton Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol (UK)

Dean Kenyon Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University

David W. Forslund Ph.D. Astrophysics, Princeton University Fellow of American Physical Society

Robert W. Bass Ph.D. Mathematics (also: Rhodes Scholar; Post-Doc at Princeton) Johns Hopkins University

John Hey Associate Clinical Prof. (also: Fellow, American Geriatrics Society) Dept. of Family Medicine, Univ. of Mississippi

Daniel W. Heinze Ph.D. Geophysics (also: Post-Doc Fellow, Carnegie Inst. of Washington) Texas A&M University

Richard Anderson Assistant Professor of Environmental Science and Policy Duke University

David Chapman* Senior Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Giuseppe Sermonti Professor of Genetics, Ret. (Editor, Rivista di
Biologia/Biology Forum) University of Perugia (Italy)

Stanley Salthe Emeritus Professor Biological Sciences Brooklyn College of the City University of New York

Marcos N. Eberlin Professor, The State University of Campinas (Brazil) Member, Brazilian Academy of Science

Bernard d'Abrera Visiting Scholar, Department of Entomology British Museum (Natural History)

Mae-Wan Ho Ph.D. Biochemistry The University of Hong Kong

Donald Ewert Ph.D. Microbiology University of Georgia

Russell Carlson Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology University of Georgia

Scott Minnich Professor, Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochemistry University of Idaho

Jeffrey Schwartz Assoc. Res. Psychiatrist, Dept. of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences University of California, Los Angeles

Alexander F. Pugach Ph.D. Astrophysics Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Ukraine)

Ralph Seelke Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology University of Wisconsin, Superior

Annika Parantainen Ph.D. Biology University of Turku (Finland)

Fred Schroeder Ph.D. Marine Geology Columbia University

David Snoke Associate Professor of Physics & Astronomy University of Pittsburgh

Frank Tipler Prof. of Mathematical Physics Tulane University

John A. Davison Emeritus Associate Professor of Biology University of Vermont

James Tour Chao Professor of Chemistry Rice University

Pablo Yepes Research Associate Professor of Physics & Astronomy Rice University

David Bolender Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Cell Biology, Neurobiology & Anatomy Medical College of Wisconsin

Leo Zacharski Professor of Medicine Dartmouth Medical School

Michael Behe Professor of Biological Science Lehigh University

Michael Atchison Professor of Biochemistry University of Pennsylvania, Vet School

Thomas G. Guilliams Ph.D. Molecular Biology The Medical College of Wisconsin

Arthur B. Robinson Professor of Chemistry Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine

Joel Adams Professor of Computer Science Calvin College

Abraham S. Feigenbaum Ph.D. Nutritional Biochemistry Rutgers University

Kevin Farmer Adjunct Assistant Professor (Ph.D. Scientific Methodology) University of Oklahoma

Neal Adrian Ph.D. Microbiology University of Oklahoma

Ge Wang Professor of Radiology & Biomedical Engineering University of Iowa

Moorad Alexanian Professor of Physics University of North Carolina, Wilmington

Richard Spencer Professor (Ph.D. Stanford) University of California, Davis, Solid-State Circuits Research Laboratory

Braxton Alfred Emeritus Professor, Anthropology University of British Columbia (Canada)

R. Craig Henderson Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering Tennessee Tech University

Wesley Allen Professor of Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia

James Pierre Hauck Professor of Physics & Astronomy University of San Diego

Mark Apkarian Ph.D. Exercise Physiology University of New Mexico

Eshan Dias Ph.D. Chemical Engineering King’s College, Cambridge University (UK)

Joseph Atkinson Ph.D. Organic Chemistry MIT

Dennis Dean Rathman Staff Scientist MIT Lincoln Laboratory

Richard Austin Assoc. Prof. & Chair, Biology & Natural Sciences Piedmont College

Raymond C. Mjolsness Ph.D. Physics Princeton University

John Baumgardner Ph.D. Geophysics & Space Physics University of California, Los Angeles

Glenn R. Johnson Adjunct Professor of Medicine University of North Dakota School of Medicine

posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 06:56 AM
George Bennett Associate Professor of Chemistry Millikin University

Robert L. Waters Lecturer, College of Computing Georgia Institute of Technology

David Berlinski Ph.D. Philosophy Princeton University

James Robert Dickens Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering Texas A&M University

Phillip Bishop Professor of Kinesiology University of Alabama

you can find the full list here

How can anyone say that evolution is a fact, when clearly even the scientific community is divided?


posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 06:59 AM
Let us be clear that this is a call to "examine the evidence" rather than a statement that a God associated with any particular religion did it all.

That is not to say that a physical manifestation of an entity that could be attributed with properties that we commonly associate with a God is not possible, just that this is a call to better understand how life is created and promoted.

Let us not get into "bashing" either Christians or Darwinists. I am sure that Darwin himself would be the first to step up to the plate to further refine or amend his theory if the *evidence* suggests something different.

posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 07:04 AM
hello sugar

i never mentioned God or atheists some Christians believe in evolution.

yes its an examination of the evidence call by skeptics


a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

these people don't have to be of any faith to see that Darwinism has been propagated as facts.


posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 07:10 AM
I agree with your point, ultimately, it is the "theory" of evolution. As all theories rely on a certain premise, if that premise is shown to be false then it should rightly be assessed for applicability in light of new evidence.

A good thread if the attack dogs keep at bay

posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 07:23 AM
i would be interested to see a list of scientists that DO think this is NOT a theory.

I'm not sure if there is one or not though.

I just don't like feeling i am being mislead, i feel that was what happed during school. I never even looked into this as a youngster. But i guess that is like most kids, they trust and accept.

Only later as an adult did i go back to it.


posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 08:13 AM
Who cares? It's little to do with the science. But we know that already, eh?

There is also the Steve list which has at least 889 scientists in directly relevant fields who support evolutionary theory.

The disco institute has less than a dozen Steves, and they come from any old scientific field. So our Steves outweigh theirs, and our Steves have more authority. Kappow!1eleventyone!1

What's with the love of appeals to (and arguments from) authority? I guess it's normal for theists to appreciate such an approach.

Science divided? By what? Several hundred theologically-motivated individuals? There's probably over a million biological scientists in the US alone.

It's a manufactroversy. There is none in science over the broad notion of evolutionary theory.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by melatonin]

posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 08:23 AM
is it divided or united?

Do you know what every one of the million scientist thinks on this theory? i don't think you do, so it cannot be used as supporting evidence. also you seem to think that all these scientists in the list are of faith.

I haven't mentioned that in my OP and here you are trying to inject faith into it, why?

quite disappointed to be honest. its not divided because its not a 50/50 split?????????????? poor argument.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 08:41 AM

Originally posted by drevill


Do you know what every one of the million scientist thinks on this theory? i don't think you do, so it cannot be used as supporting evidence. also you seem to think that all these scientists in the list are of faith

I haven't mentioned that in my OP and here you are trying to inject faith into it, why?


The million either think the petition is a waste of time and have better things to do or they just spouted lulz and got on with doing science? Steves appear to be quite keen to get involved though, but they favour the evolutionary side of the equation.

Why is religion important? Because the DI is pushing creationism and want to 'renew culture' - a theocracy might be sufficient. We know a lot about the DI and their aims. Check out the wedge document some time.

You will never get 100% of scientists agreeing on anything. I could create lists of scientists who disagree with all sorts of things. It always comes down to evidence-based argument.

The petition means nothing to science. Science is about evidence, not opinion and petitions. If your point is that not all scientists agree on 'darwinism', OK. So what? The statement is a strawman anyway. As evolutionary theory goes further than purely darwinian process of natural selection. Thus, in one interpretation I could even sign the thing - but I know their game

The next point is how many, why, who are they, and what do they study?

There are very few. They have no evidence and their alternative is pseudoscience. They appear to be predominately theists, evangelicals actually. And they come from various unrelated fields, with only around 20% being in related fields. So from 700, we are down to about 140 biological (or related) scientists across the world? I'm quite sure there are a few more, but they probably understand how meaningless such a petition/list is*

In a field of a million biological scientists alone in the US?

So few? When they have no evidence for such claims (their real claims)? When they support pseudoscience? When most have theological motivations, along with the DI itself? When we have many more Steves?

In sum, who cares...

And even if you could present a petition like the global warming denialists with over 20,000 people (Arthur Robinson@OISM in the list is its architect), it would still mean nada to the science itself. It's a crappy appeal to authority.

*they need to get into their super-secret bunkers and do some science....rofl

[edit on 21-6-2008 by melatonin]

posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 09:21 AM
I think that the point is that they do not necessarily disagree with the evolutionary theory, rather, they want to understand the mechanism that introduces such a diversification of life on Earth.

We have examples of convergent evolution, geographically disparate entities that evolve to a common biology and we also have highly divergent life forms but we do not fully understand the mechanisms behind it.

Sometimes we see highly adapted life forms within a small period - other times we see life forms that seem to have changed little... why? Is it specific to the environment or are there other factors involved. What are those factors?

Did everything spawn from the same group of single celled organisms or were there highly divergent colonies that produce different paths of evolution.

The theory itself works to a point, but it never had to include things like DNA memory. Every theory should, rightly, be debated, for only by continuous demonstration of reliability and applicability can it be considered as valid.

Any deferment of further investigation "just because" lots of people who have letters prefixing or suffixing their name "believe it" goes against all scientific principles - that is how religion works, not science!

Any theory should be tested in light of new data.

posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 10:46 AM
Nice list. Unfortunately, like Creationism, it too doesn't hold up well to scrutiny.

posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 01:45 PM

sometimes this is the case

However, whilst ill concede that this video says that some of those names say they felt mislead, where is the evidence of that?

Also the opening statement on the list is just about ignored and although "common descent" is used its not quite the same

someone could agree, for example, that humans are from a common ancestor but not agree that all life has been through evolution

Secondly, the skeptical part is ignored for the most part and this skepticism is regarding Dawins theory

Thirdly about 1.5 minutes in this person states that evolution is fact, which it is not.

some good points in there regarding "fields" but can a biologist lay claims to singular ownership of "evolution" I think not

just to finish, this list was last updated in April 2008 and your video seems quite old. (being finiky i know, sorry)


posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:18 PM
reply to post by drevill

However, whilst ill concede that this video says that some of those names say they felt mislead, where is the evidence of that?

Their own testimony, as he was referring to the 16 of the 18 biologists which did respond to them. He sited their concern in both his email and external sources. If is he is lying or misleading, a simple email to said biologists would be ample evidence.

Also the opening statement on the list is just about ignored and although "common descent" is used its not quite the same

Common descent and Evolution are pretty closely tied together meaning that multiple species came from a common ancestor. Such as Apes and Man (technically, we are one of the Great Ape species). Even were a singular common ancestor for all species not the case, it would still certainly be the case in many instances - including Humans. This is the main point many creationists really howl at - because I don't think they really care if all the other animals come from a common ancestor, they just don't want to believe that WE also came from a common ancestor. They want to believe that we were specially hand crafted by god for his divine purpose.

You could try to make the common argument that many species descent from a certain "type" - but I've yet to hear any clear outline of exactly what defines a "type" from any creationists that is either has as detailed a structure or garners the concession of Creationists the way that Taxonomy does for Biologists. The bible is certainly no guide, as it defines bats as a type of bird and whales as fish when we know that they are neither. They are mammals.

someone could agree, for example, that humans are from a common ancestor but not agree that all life has been through evolution

But to concede that humans and apes descended from a common ancestor, even if you think that wasn't the case for all life, still supports a concept of Evolution. Maybe not a Universal Common Ancestor as Darwin proposed and most Biologists accept, but still it supports Evolution. In biology, common descent doesn't mean that all humans have a singular pair of common human only within that species. Common Ancestor is referred to the point where the evolutionary tree branches off into two distinct species. This is grade school biology.

Secondly, the skeptical part is ignored for the most part and this skepticism is regarding Dawins theory

No, rather it was concisely addressed and then he moved on. He stated that healthy skepticism is a backbone of science, because science is a process of falsification. Evolution, as Darwin proposed, was wrong or incomplete on many levels. His theory has grown far beyond him and what he originally proposed. For example, he had no idea of DNA or Mutation - but it's discovery did validate his claim of reproduction with variation which is selected against by the environment.

Thirdly about 1.5 minutes in this person states that evolution is fact, which it is not.

Yes and no. There are no 100% absolutes in Science. 99.9999999999999999999999999999% certainty, perhaps, but not 100%. Even if something IS fact, science cannot truly say it is just for the sake of keeping it falsifiable. Gravity, you could confidently say is a fact, but to science - they have to keep open the possibility that it isn't.

but can a biologist lay claims to singular ownership of "evolution"

He didn't just leave biologists there. He left chemists, paleontologists, and other fields directly related to Evolution. If you wanted advice TCP/IP configurations in Windows, who would you go to? A MSCE certified technician or an auto mechanic? Even if the auto mechanic uses Windows PC's to track parts and customers, you're going to get your most accurate answer from the certified technician.

posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:22 PM
reply to post by drevill

Where is the evidence? In the fact that most of the people on that list weren't even in the field of biology. Also in the fact that most weren't contactable. Also in the fact that of all the contactable biology/biochemistry scientists, only 2 actually don't believe in evolution, and of those 2, one worked for Liberty University, and the other didn't understand too much about evolution.

That, to the sane mind, should demonstrate just how much of a pointless, pathetic joke that list is. If that's the best the DI can come up with, they should just close down.

Please at least try to use the incredible brain God gave you. Mindlessly swallowing any lie that suits your pre-determined beliefs is a slap in the face to his creation - you.

posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:56 PM
reply to post by drevill

just to finish, this list was last updated in April 2008 and your video seems quite old.

That's true. However, considering it's basically a revision of the same list from the same organization, having more names on the list means little when they've been proven to be underhanded, misleading, and flat out dishonest in an attempt to artificially inflate their list. It's a matter of trust. Honest mistakes are honest mistakes, yes, but the number of and the scale of the "mistakes" is too much to simply chalk up to accident. To say nothing of the Discovery Institutes dubious track record of similar tactics in the past.

And on another, unrelated, note. Why do they insist on calling it "Darwinism"? Evolution is Evolution, and as already stated it has grown far above and beyond what he originally proposed. Once it was published, it was no longer "Darwin's" theory - it belonged to the world. He is only credited as the original proponent of it, not the owner of it. His estate does not collect any royalties from products and usages of the word Evolution.

To say that Evolution is "Darwinism", is like saying that General Relativity is "Einsteinism". It just seems to me to be a not so clever ploy to try to rename Evolution in common speach into "Darwinism" so that it sounds similar to "Creationism". -ism. Therefore, creating the illusion that they equal fields of study when they they are most definitely not. Or worse, a feeble attempt at propping up Darwin as a scientific alternative to Christ. This is seen a lot in creationist propaganda - the idea of "God vs. Darwin" when it really has never been the case. Darwin himself was, for much of his life, a devout bible believing Christian and at one time a clergyman who often quoted scripture as a moral authority. As events in his life passed, as he made his observations, and as he suffered the loss of his daughter, he became an agnostic - doubting the bible but not really doubting the existence of a god.

posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:11 AM
One thing I do not understand about evolution and maybe some of you can elaborate on the subject. If we are all descendants of a single organism, how can you have a huge diversity in species? Should they not all hold similar traits?
It ranges from microscopic organisms we have today to 200 foot dinosaurs.

Why do the small organisms stay small and yet others mutate into a 5 ton beast?

posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:50 AM
reply to post by Equinox99

Because the better an animal is at reproducing, the more likely its DNA is going to be passed on to the next generation. Mutation in the genes provides the range of choices natural selection has to pick from. To illustrate my point (albeit somewhat exaggerated for clarity), if a shark is born with unusually large teeth, which no other shark had before (the result of a genetic mutation or how a combinations of genes creates an outcome different to either gene on its own, just the same as how we don't look exactly like both of our parents combined), and having large teeth meant that it could eat more food, it would become a healthier shark than the others. When it came time to reproduce, it would be a more attractive specimen for the lady sharks, as it looks healthier (this is assuming lady sharks choose their shark-dates by how they look, which is common throughout the animal kingdom, as it indicates how well they are at surviving, which is a positive trait the shark-mother-to-be would want her sharklings to have). Because it is more likely to mate (due to looking great), its genes would be more likely passed on to further generations, and so it continues - all sharks descended from that one shark with the mutation have larger teeth. Over time they consistently eat more food than the small-teeth sharks, and eventually out-breed them, meaning all sharks end up as big-teeth sharks. Of course, instead of having big teeth, the physical characteristic might mean the new shark can't breed with sharks that don't have the same new gene combination, or only with limited success, which given enough time will result in a new species of shark, one that can't breed with the very same species it itself came from. Just as we can't go boink a prehistoric rat and expect rat-people.

We can see the common threads in animals all around us. Take mammals. We all have 4 limbs, most of us have what are called "pentadactyl" limbs, meaning we have five digits. Even whales have four limbs. Lady mammals have breasts, and all suckle their young. Those are just two glaringly-obvious examples of common threads between animals of common descent. When you go to a natural history museum, take a look at the skeletons of the various creatures. You'll see that they are all startlingly similar, just slight changes here and there, and you can have yourself anything from a pigeon to a blue whale.

posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 06:02 PM
reply to post by Equinox99

If we are all descendants of a single organism, how can you have a huge diversity in species? Should they not all hold similar traits?

We're probably not all descended from a single organism. More likely, we are descended from several different organisms which didn't really reproduce in ways we think of reproduction. Instead, they probably underwent some form of gene transference which promoted diversity until clear divisions between Prokaryotes (no nucleus) and Eukaryotes (nucleus). Eukaryotes then diversified into several groups we call Kingdoms. This includes Animals, Plants, Fungi, Protista, etc.

As far as traits, we do share common traits. The study of these traits and the classification of animals by these traits is called Taxonomy. An example of this would be the division of life between those that have a spinal column and those that do not. We, and most life intimately familiar to us, happen to belong to a taxonomic group which developed a spinal column. On the other side, we have invertebrates which includes sponges, worms, insects, and mollusks.

posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 07:49 PM

Originally posted by drevill
I haven't mentioned that in my OP and here you are trying to inject faith into it, why?


Have you looked at the wedgie yet?

This is a document that outlines the short- and long-term aims of the discovery institute - the source of this dissent list with a piddling number of Steves.

The same organisation funded by the likes of Howard Ahmanson. A guy who was involved in Rushdooney's reconstructionist crowd. Essentially, a group of christofascists.

new topics


log in