Earlier this month, a long kept list of Ph.D. scientists who “dissent from Darwinism” reached a milestone — it crossed the threshold of 1,000 signatories.
“There are 1,043 scientists on the ‘A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism’ list. It passed the 1,000 mark this month,” said Sarah Chaffee, a program officer for the Discovery Institute, which maintains the list.
“A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism” is a simple, 32-word statement that 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.”
Launched in 2001, the list continues to collect support from scientists from universities across America and globally. Signers have earned their Ph.D.s at institutions that include Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Cornell, Princeton, Brown, Dartmouth and the University of Pennsylvania. Others on the list earned their doctorates at Clemson, UT Austin, Ohio State, UCLA, Duke, Stanford, Emory, UNC Chapel Hill and many others universities. Still other signers are currently employed as professors across the nation.
Those who sign it “must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine,” according to the institute.
The group points out that signing the statement does not mean these scholars endorse “alternative theories such as self-organization, structuralism, or intelligent design,” but rather simply indicates “skepticism about modern Darwinian theories central claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life.”
According to Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer, the signers “have all risked their careers or reputations in signing.”
“Such is the power of groupthink,” he wrote. “The scientific mainstream will punish you if they can, and the media is wedded to its narrative that ‘the scientists’ are all in agreement and only ‘poets,’ ‘lawyers,’ and other ‘daft rubes’ doubt Darwinian theory. In fact, I’m currently seeking to place an awesome manuscript by a scientist at an Ivy League university with the guts to give his reasons for rejecting Darwinism. The problem is that, as yet, nobody has the guts to publish it.”
In interviews with The College Fix, some of the list’s signers explained why they were willing to go public with their skepticism.
“[Darwin’s theory] claimed to explain all major features of life and I think that’s very unlikely. Nonetheless, I think Darwinism has gotten to be kind of an orthodoxy, that is it’s accepted in the scientific community unthinkingly and it’s taught to kids unthinkingly,” said Michael Behe, a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University.
“Getting a list of scientists who point out that they don’t believe the orthodoxy can kind of open up some minds hopefully,” he said.
“It is clearly a growing trend with biology to think that Darwin missed a whole lot of biology and cannot explain a good deal of evolution,” Behe added.
There is nothing “scientific” about the theory of evolution.
Evolution is a metaphysical proposition that is impossible to prove through objective experimentation.
There has never been a reproducible experiment that supports the contention that lower life forms “evolve” into different or higher life forms.
And yet evolution is always taught as a “fact” rather than as a theory, and students fall for this shell game because they learn about evolution under the credible guise of biology class.
The purpose of evolution has always been to demoralize the humans — especially White Europeans — by convincing them that they are nothing more than highly evolved natural brute beasts whose existence can be reduced to the pure chance of random mutations.
And since 99.99% of all mutations are lethal, we are then supposed to believe that evolution “works” despite the fact that the very nature of DNA requires that it is stable and resistant to any changes.
Science and evolution are mutually exclusive, and these scientists are risking their careers to warn the public.
Charles Darwin was an English scientist who studied nature. He is known for his theory of evolution by natural selection. According to this theory, all living things are struggling to survive.
There are over 1/2 million scientists in the USA alone. The vast majority of them support Evolution.
So you believe that the democratic majority rules when it comes to science? If most people believe something, then it must be true? Since when is truth up for a vote? And since when has the majority ever been right about anything? Even Darwin himself doubted the truth of his own theories, but you believe them? Makes sense.
And apparently about half a billion people believe the jews are the “Chosen Ones” of the Bible. Which group is more ignorant of the truth? The scientific community is well known to be dominated by atheists. Should I believe their INTERPRETATION of natural law devoid of a creator, or do I have the faith of a mustard seed and believe the Word of my God? There was a time when scientific proofs only held up when supported by the Scriptures, that science was actually predicated on the Scriptures. Now, science is dominated by jews who use it to try to disprove the Bible at every turn. So science has been reduced to smoke and mirrors, obscuring the truth to ‘wow’ a captive audience but for a short time…
Darwinism in and of itself is nothing short of an atheistic religion, as you must have faith in it to be true since there has been absolutely no scientific evidence available to fully support the THEORY, let alone enough proof for it to be considered a NATURAL LAW. Having a scientific backround, I fully understand what it takes to graduate from a hypothesis, to a theory, to a law…so I honestly never really fell for it, especially when I realized how the establishment has been pushing this ‘theory’ (and many other ‘theories’) as a law. Their ‘proof’ only comes in the form of ‘micro-evolution’ which is in fact nothing more than simple adaptation. ‘Evolution’, as per Darwin, claims that, given the right circumstances, a cat can evolve into a dog. There is utterly NO evidence to support this, let alone white humans evolving from apes. While it is obviously more likely that blacks are related to apes, that does not mean they evolved from them either. It just means that their ancestors had to have mated with them somehow…see the Book of Enoch for examples…
By the time we have to resort to Cheddar Man , the jig is up.
Yes, Cheddar Man was another Piltdown debacle. Both frauds, and both promoted to convince the British public that their earliest ancestors were Black monkeys, just like the new ones arriving every day from the Third World.
I believed what I was taught about evolution, all the way through college. And then I came across some articles where serious scientists questioned many of the premises and mechanisms of evolution, and I became convinced that there are multiple problems with it. And here we have over 1,000 scientists that are warning the pubic about it. Fair-minded people should at least listen to what these scientists are saying….but most people really want to insist that they are monkeys, I guess.
Darwinism is nonsensical metaphysics posing as natural science, teleology or ‘intentionality’ is a feature of every cause (as first and final cause), even in the physical processes found in the natural world. Even if the physical stuff itself doesn’t intend anything, the originator of nature most definitely acted intentionally.