InToTheRain
it's all about LOVE!
- Messages
- 1,180
- Reaction score
- 323
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
[PIE]Compiled by Jerry Bergman Ph.D.
It is commonly claimed that no scientist rejects macroevolution or Darwinism (by which is meant evolutionary naturalism). For example, Dr. Steve Jones. professor of genetics at university college of London, said that “no scientist denies the central truth of The Origin, the idea of descent with modification... plants, animals and everything else descended from a common ancestor” (2000, p. xvii, xxiii). Other writers avoid the words “all” or “no scientist” and, instead, claim that “almost no scientist” rejects Darwinism. In an article refuting “wiccan creationism,” the author claimed that
evolutionary theory has been confirmed to such a high degree and has such great explanatory power that it is the central organizing principle of the biological sciences today. Modern biology is basically unthinkable outside of the context of evolution and that is why it is accepted without reservations by pretty much every working scientists [sic] in the life sciences. It also isn’t really questioned in the other natural sciences, either, like physics or chemistry.
The author then makes the following absolutist statement:
Evolution is taken as a fact—and while there might be disagreements about some of the details of how evolution proceeds, there are no disagreements about the idea that it does occur and that it is the explanation for the diversity of life on our planet. Ashtaroth’s claim is exactly the opposite of the truth, which is that “almost no scientist puts any stock in any other attempted explanation for the diversity of life—especially creationism” (http://atheism.about.com/b/a/063194.htm. Accessed May 28, 2004, p. 1).
This view is not an isolated example. The late Ernst Mayr, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, is “one of the most influential evolutionary theorists of our time” (Ferris, 2001, p. 326). Mayr declared that “no educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact” (Mayr, 2001, p. 141). He has been claiming this for over 40 years—in 1967 he wrote that “evolution is accepted by every scientist” and for this reason it is no longer necessary to “enumerate painstakingly the proofs for evolution” Mayr, 1967. p. v). In 1971 Mayr claimed that he did “not know of a single well-informed person who questions the factuality of evolution” (p. 49). Not one person! Mayr defines evolution, which he calls “Darwinism,” as the rejection of “all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as creator or designer” (2001, p. 138).
Mayr adds that “eliminating God from science made room for strictly scientific explanations of all natural phenomena” (2001, p. 138). Furthermore, Mayr concludes, the “truly outstanding achievement” of Darwinism is that his theory “makes unnecessary the invocation of ‘final causes’—that is, any teleological forces” (2001, p. 136). I was able to, with little difficulty, assemble a list of almost 3,000 scientists and professors who reject evolutionary naturalism, most of whom hold the Ph.D. degree in science. This is a small percent of the estimated 113,000 Darwin skeptics in the United States alone accordingly to Harvard researcher
The following scientists and educators all reject “Darwinism” according to this definition of Evolutionism and Darwinism, proving Mayr’s claim that “no educated person any longer questions the validity” of Darwinism, as Mayr defines it, to be not only false, but grossly irresponsible. Yet, Mayr admitted evolution is an historical science, not an empirical science:
Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain (2001, p. 135).
Given his acknowledgement of this fact, it is all the more surprising that Mayr would be so dogmatic as to the validity of Darwinism. And to give one more example, Joseph McInerney, the director of Biological Sciences Curriculum Study which publishes Biological Science: An Ecological Approach, said “creationists maintain that ‘scientists disagree about evolution.’ That is a deliberate misrepresentation of biology. In fact, all scientists accept the reality of evolution” (quoted in Hill, 1996, pp. 5,7, emphasis mine). This erroneous view has been accepted at least since 1922 when Professor George Duncan claimed that
Evolution is well-nigh universally accepted by all scientific men as the best explanation for the facts of life. The American Association for the Advance of Science with over 1400 members, comprising most of the scientific men of the United States and Canada, affirmed, in December, 1922, without a dissenting vote, the following: “No scientific generalization is more strongly supported by thoroughly tested evidences than is that of evolution. The evidences for the evolution of man are sufficient to convince every scientist of not in the world.” ...H.F. Osborn of Columbia University writes: “Evolution has long since passed out of the domain of speculation, of hypothesis, and even of theory. It is a law of living nature as firmly and incontrovertibly established as the law of gravitation in respect to the celestial spheres” (Duncan, 1931, pp. 31-32).
Others acknowledge that some Darwin skeptic scientists exist, but conclude that the number is very small. For example, Samuel Kounaves argues evolutionary naturalists include “99.9999 percent of the scientific community” (2005, p. 1). One would think that scientists would consult the scientific literature before they make such outrageous claims. No shortage of empirical studies on this topic exists, so it would be easy to determine Mayr’s and these other claims are false.
The sources of this list include primarily persons of the editors acquaintance, or from their involvement in creationist or Darwin doubter organizations, or books that they have written. The list is very incomplete, and I apologize for the many omissions. I estimate that, given the time and resources, I could easily complete a list of 10,000 names. I am also on three discussion groups involving close to 400 creationists, mostly professionals or professors in the area of science, that could add another several hundred names to this list. I did not add names unless the person was out of the closet or gave his or her permission.
On my list I have well over 3,000 names including Nobel Prize winners but, unfortunately, a large number of persons that could be added to the public list, including many college professors, did not want their name listed because of real concerns over possible retaliation or harm to their careers. Many of those who did not want their names on the public list are young academics without tenure, or academics who are concerned about if outing them could damage their career. Many on this list are secure tenured professors, teach at Christian Universities that protect their academic freedom to criticize Darwinism, or are in industry, or in a medical field where less antagonism exists to questioning Darwin. Some on this list are now involved full time in speaking and writing on origins, and no longer depend on secular employment to put bread on the family table. Many are also retired, thus no longer face retaliation for their doubts about Darwin. Some consented to include their names only if their current employment was not listed. This is an ongoing project and I greatly appreciate the contributions of the many persons who have helped me in this several year long project. I contacted most of those on this list. If they have published books or articles that clearly express doubts about Darwinism, or were active in various creation or ID movements, I did not always contact them.
The list and the source:
http://www.rae.org/darwinskeptics.html
[/pie]
Here is another very interesting website:
[PIE]
A Scientific Dissent From DarwinismDuring 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."
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
[/PIE]
It is commonly claimed that no scientist rejects macroevolution or Darwinism (by which is meant evolutionary naturalism). For example, Dr. Steve Jones. professor of genetics at university college of London, said that “no scientist denies the central truth of The Origin, the idea of descent with modification... plants, animals and everything else descended from a common ancestor” (2000, p. xvii, xxiii). Other writers avoid the words “all” or “no scientist” and, instead, claim that “almost no scientist” rejects Darwinism. In an article refuting “wiccan creationism,” the author claimed that
evolutionary theory has been confirmed to such a high degree and has such great explanatory power that it is the central organizing principle of the biological sciences today. Modern biology is basically unthinkable outside of the context of evolution and that is why it is accepted without reservations by pretty much every working scientists [sic] in the life sciences. It also isn’t really questioned in the other natural sciences, either, like physics or chemistry.
The author then makes the following absolutist statement:
Evolution is taken as a fact—and while there might be disagreements about some of the details of how evolution proceeds, there are no disagreements about the idea that it does occur and that it is the explanation for the diversity of life on our planet. Ashtaroth’s claim is exactly the opposite of the truth, which is that “almost no scientist puts any stock in any other attempted explanation for the diversity of life—especially creationism” (http://atheism.about.com/b/a/063194.htm. Accessed May 28, 2004, p. 1).
This view is not an isolated example. The late Ernst Mayr, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, is “one of the most influential evolutionary theorists of our time” (Ferris, 2001, p. 326). Mayr declared that “no educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact” (Mayr, 2001, p. 141). He has been claiming this for over 40 years—in 1967 he wrote that “evolution is accepted by every scientist” and for this reason it is no longer necessary to “enumerate painstakingly the proofs for evolution” Mayr, 1967. p. v). In 1971 Mayr claimed that he did “not know of a single well-informed person who questions the factuality of evolution” (p. 49). Not one person! Mayr defines evolution, which he calls “Darwinism,” as the rejection of “all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as creator or designer” (2001, p. 138).
Mayr adds that “eliminating God from science made room for strictly scientific explanations of all natural phenomena” (2001, p. 138). Furthermore, Mayr concludes, the “truly outstanding achievement” of Darwinism is that his theory “makes unnecessary the invocation of ‘final causes’—that is, any teleological forces” (2001, p. 136). I was able to, with little difficulty, assemble a list of almost 3,000 scientists and professors who reject evolutionary naturalism, most of whom hold the Ph.D. degree in science. This is a small percent of the estimated 113,000 Darwin skeptics in the United States alone accordingly to Harvard researcher
The following scientists and educators all reject “Darwinism” according to this definition of Evolutionism and Darwinism, proving Mayr’s claim that “no educated person any longer questions the validity” of Darwinism, as Mayr defines it, to be not only false, but grossly irresponsible. Yet, Mayr admitted evolution is an historical science, not an empirical science:
Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain (2001, p. 135).
Given his acknowledgement of this fact, it is all the more surprising that Mayr would be so dogmatic as to the validity of Darwinism. And to give one more example, Joseph McInerney, the director of Biological Sciences Curriculum Study which publishes Biological Science: An Ecological Approach, said “creationists maintain that ‘scientists disagree about evolution.’ That is a deliberate misrepresentation of biology. In fact, all scientists accept the reality of evolution” (quoted in Hill, 1996, pp. 5,7, emphasis mine). This erroneous view has been accepted at least since 1922 when Professor George Duncan claimed that
Evolution is well-nigh universally accepted by all scientific men as the best explanation for the facts of life. The American Association for the Advance of Science with over 1400 members, comprising most of the scientific men of the United States and Canada, affirmed, in December, 1922, without a dissenting vote, the following: “No scientific generalization is more strongly supported by thoroughly tested evidences than is that of evolution. The evidences for the evolution of man are sufficient to convince every scientist of not in the world.” ...H.F. Osborn of Columbia University writes: “Evolution has long since passed out of the domain of speculation, of hypothesis, and even of theory. It is a law of living nature as firmly and incontrovertibly established as the law of gravitation in respect to the celestial spheres” (Duncan, 1931, pp. 31-32).
Others acknowledge that some Darwin skeptic scientists exist, but conclude that the number is very small. For example, Samuel Kounaves argues evolutionary naturalists include “99.9999 percent of the scientific community” (2005, p. 1). One would think that scientists would consult the scientific literature before they make such outrageous claims. No shortage of empirical studies on this topic exists, so it would be easy to determine Mayr’s and these other claims are false.
The sources of this list include primarily persons of the editors acquaintance, or from their involvement in creationist or Darwin doubter organizations, or books that they have written. The list is very incomplete, and I apologize for the many omissions. I estimate that, given the time and resources, I could easily complete a list of 10,000 names. I am also on three discussion groups involving close to 400 creationists, mostly professionals or professors in the area of science, that could add another several hundred names to this list. I did not add names unless the person was out of the closet or gave his or her permission.
On my list I have well over 3,000 names including Nobel Prize winners but, unfortunately, a large number of persons that could be added to the public list, including many college professors, did not want their name listed because of real concerns over possible retaliation or harm to their careers. Many of those who did not want their names on the public list are young academics without tenure, or academics who are concerned about if outing them could damage their career. Many on this list are secure tenured professors, teach at Christian Universities that protect their academic freedom to criticize Darwinism, or are in industry, or in a medical field where less antagonism exists to questioning Darwin. Some on this list are now involved full time in speaking and writing on origins, and no longer depend on secular employment to put bread on the family table. Many are also retired, thus no longer face retaliation for their doubts about Darwin. Some consented to include their names only if their current employment was not listed. This is an ongoing project and I greatly appreciate the contributions of the many persons who have helped me in this several year long project. I contacted most of those on this list. If they have published books or articles that clearly express doubts about Darwinism, or were active in various creation or ID movements, I did not always contact them.
The list and the source:
http://www.rae.org/darwinskeptics.html
[/pie]
Here is another very interesting website:
[PIE]
A Scientific Dissent From DarwinismDuring 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."
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
[/PIE]
Last edited:
