Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dissenting from Darwin

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Increasinginly I find that those with doctorates in the natural and engineering sciences are asking, “What can I do to help in the fight against Darwinism?” For some this will involve research bearing directly on Darwinian theory. But there is also another way to help. Many in the media and the public still do not know that there is scientific dissent from Darwinism. They have no idea that MANY scientists are skeptical of neo-Darwinian theory.

So one way you can help is to put your head on the chopping block and voice your skepticism of Darwinism (if you do, trust me, Darwin’s dogmatic defenders will try to chop off your head). This is why Discovery Institute created their statement “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.” It states: “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 original list of 100 scientists has now grown to nearly 700. To learn more about the list and if you are eligible to help overturning Darwinism and publically voice your skepticism, see www.dissentfromdarwin.org. You can also view a PDF copy of the current list at this site.

Comments
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy - are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.--CS Lewis
Joseph
January 25, 2007
January
01
Jan
25
25
2007
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
amadan Great comment. Welcome.DaveScot
January 25, 2007
January
01
Jan
25
25
2007
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT
The DI list is about to over take the StevoMeter Bergman's list is alread has 1940 names listed publicly. I mentioned, Bergman's list here: Bergman’s Dissent from Darwin List at 3,000-10,000. UD commentor bhinton gave that figure 1940 not 3000. But 1940 is still a decent number. Further, Bergman's list does not encompass all the names on the DI 700 list.scordova
January 24, 2007
January
01
Jan
24
24
2007
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
Just a brief note: When I first started writing By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy, I came across a young cognitive scientist who told me that he found Darwinism a significant constraint in his work, as follows: In order to justify an explanation of how a system in the human brain works, he was required to demonstrate how such a mechanism might have evolved. Otherwise, he could not advance it. Now, an engineer will likely see the obvious problem here: It is much easier to determine how a system works than to determine how it evolved. Perhaps a given system went through 13 iterations before the current model - but perhaps it didn't. If any previous iterations ever existed, the evidence for them may be lost. So one ends, of course, by making up stories - just-so stories about what the dim Pleistocene cave man and his lady of limited patience "would have done" - a strange and clumsy grammatical tense indeed, signifying a strange and clumsy view of our history. At this point, Darwinism is a net suppressor of creative ideas.O'Leary
January 24, 2007
January
01
Jan
24
24
2007
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
You're making progress. Pro ID editorial in Pa. tribune7
January 24, 2007
January
01
Jan
24
24
2007
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
[...] Dissenting from Darwin: it would help if those dissenting did not get tripped up by the induced suggestion that ID is the only alternative. Increasinginly I find that those with doctorates in the natural and engineering sciences are asking, “What can I do to help in the fight against Darwinism?” For some this will involve research bearing directly on Darwinian theory. But there is also another way to help. Many in the media and the public still do not know that there is scientific dissent from Darwinism. They have no idea that MANY scientists are skeptical of neo-Darwinian theory. [...]Darwiniana » Dissent, and dissent on dissent, on Darwinism
January 24, 2007
January
01
Jan
24
24
2007
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply