Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

500 Courageous Individuals


I felt it appropriate to honor those who have stepped forward at the risk of their professions and reputations to stand up for free and open inquiry. I would like to also honor those who would wish to have their names put on the list today, but who must wait until the time is right.

On behalf of all of us at UncommonDescent, to the 500, thank you!

Over 500 Scientists Declare Their Doubts Over Darwin

morpheusfaith, My dear friend, it is good to hear from you too. Thank you for offering your thoughts. regards, Salvador scordova
Here's an article that supports my previous post: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/02/all_the_news_that_fits_the_nyt.html#more morpheusfaith

Dear fellow IDers,

I am pleased to see that some scientists are thinking freely as is both their right and their duty to the scientific cause. However, two points must be borne in mind:

1 - The number of scientific supporters does not affect the validity of a theory. This makes any kind of list no more than a PR exercise and nothing whatsoever to do with science. Neither side should therefore be using it.

2 - The NCSE has over 700 Steves compared to the DI's more than 500 scientists, so not only are we using a futile strategy but we aren't even winning with it.

Best wishes,


Change the name you are posting under to something unoffensive if you wish to continue commenting here, Chris. -ds offensive_name_deleted
To Red Reader, I believe your intuition is correct. "The RNA World" was borne out of necessity. IOW scientists finally understood that DNA could NOT have come first in any non-ID scenario. Then they observed RNA and all bets were placed on it. It's their ONLY horse and I welcome them to ride until it can no longer carry the weight of reality. Joseph
Thank you all for the comments. I should mention, there are far more than 500 who wish to be on the list, but have chosen not to. For some, it is not because they lack courage, but becuase they realize by keeping a low profile, they are in the best position to quietly get ID friendly students through the college system! Recall, 18 to 33% of freshman bio students are sympathetic to ID, perhaps 75% are willing to at least give it a fair hearing (rather than dismissing it offhand). If we see these student through to graduation, ID will have a chance at a fair hearing eventually. These brave 500 stand as a testament and example to these students. In addition to these 500, several Nobel Laureates who have expressed sympathy in one way or another to ID. These include: Richard Smalley (1996, chemistry), Ernst Chain (medicine), Eugene Wigner (Physics), Charles Townes (Physics), Christian Anfinsun (medicine), etc. Check out: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/index.php/archives/159 and https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/index.php/archives/447 scordova
Something is not right! From the article: "Dr. John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture said “Darwinist efforts to use the courts, the media and academic tenure committees to suppress dissent and stifle discussion are in fact fueling even more dissent and inspiring more scientists to ask to be added to the list.”" I thought the Dover trial settled the controversey over whether there were any doubts about Darwinism. Yet, the list of dissenters has grown from 400 to 500 in less than a year. .... Joseph, I read the articles you references in #1 above: Then as morpheusfaith pointed out in #2 above: "In like manner, just-so stories in favor of Darwinism are conveniently elevated to scientific - or even fact-based - stories for no other reason than that they . . . support Darwinism." This quote from "RNA world" referenced by Joseph jumped out at me: "RNA has the ability to act as both genes and enzymes. This property could offer a way around the "chicken-and-egg" problem. (Genes require enzymes; enzymes require genes.) Furthermore, RNA can be transcribed into DNA, in reverse of the normal process of transcription. These facts are reasons to consider that the RNA world could be the original pathway to cells. James Watson enthusiastically praises Sir Francis Crick for having suggested this possibility..." They SEE the chicken and egg problem, but it doesn't phase them. In support of the RNA to DNA theory, they quote Watson praising Crick and PRESTO! that settles it. The problem is...well, it doesn't! DNA, whatever else it is, is a highly complex specification. For RNA to have developed the specification for DNA, RNA would have to be the "Intelligent Designer" of DNA. Thus, they have successfully converted "the chicken and the egg" problem into "the egg and the chicken" problem. Red Reader
Hey morpheusfaith- ID's bulldog says "watzup" Joseph
It just keeps gettin' longer! :) I wonder how many more scientists there are out there who are closet IDists. The DI's list can only encourage them. Thank you, signatories!!! crandaddy
Sal, my dear friend. By the commonly applied illogic of Darwinists, there are - in fact - 0 scientists on this list, because we all know that no scientist dissents from Darwinism. In fact, being a proponent of Darwinism is the measure by which scientists are identified. In other words, if you dissent from Darwinism, you cannot be a scientist by definition. This illogic follows with one's arguments as well. An argument made against Darwinism is ipso facto "unscientific", regardless of the persuasiveness of the argument itself. In like manner, just-so stories in favor of Darwinism are conveniently elevated to scientific - or even fact-based - stories for no other reason than that they . . . support Darwinism. Therefore, providing a list of 500+ individuals with education in science-related fields (and articles published in peer reviewed journals) means nothing because in making their dissent from Darwinism, these individuals are automatically excommunicated from the scientific community and can no longer make scientific arguments. In any case, these 500+ former-scientists only represent a drop in the bucket. As we all know, the only theories we should study are the ones supported by the majority of practicing scientists. We will conveniently ignore, of course, the fact that every current orthodox theory was at one time supported by a very few scientists in the past. We will also ignore - quite conveniently - that many falsified/superceded scientific theories were at one point in time supported by the vast majority of practicing scientists. ID is not science, regardless of being supported by scientists who publish in scientific peer-reviewed journals that make thoroughly scientific arguments based on a massive amount of scientific evidence. Remember, ID claims Darwinism to be insufficient for explaining certain phenomena, and therefore all of this science magically becomes non-science. It's religion. It's an attempt to usher back in the dark ages of ignorance and superstition - an attempt that is spearheaded by . . . a large number of Phd. graduates morpheusfaith
Thank you indeed. They have the good fortune of knowing their doubts are justified: Essential genes of a minimal bacterium 430 and counting: These data suggest that a genome constructed to encode 387 protein-coding and 43 structural RNA genes could sustain a viable synthetic cell, a Mycoplasma laboratorium (22). Rapid advances in gene synthesis technology and efforts at developing genome transplantation methods set the stage for experimental determination of how close this M. genitalium essential gene set based on disruption of individual genes comes to being the minimal set of genes needed to support cellular growth. A Cell is like a computer RNA World Joseph

Leave a Reply