Intelligent Design

Bergman’s Dissent from Darwin List at 3,000-10,000

Spread the love

(thank you to Denyse O’Leary for finding this and reporting it at ARN)

If one combines Discovery Institute’s list of dissenters from Darwin along with other lists (such as that maintained by ICR), one can create a list about 20 times as large as the Dicovery Institute’s list. Bergman estimates he could easily get 10,000 names. He has in the interim published 3,000 names.

There are many PhD’s whom I wish were on the DI’s list but are only on the ICR list. For example:

Kelly Hollowell, JD, PhD in Molecular Biology
Georgia Purdom, PhD in Molecular Biology

Then there are some indpendents like my favorite scientist, Walter Brown, PhD MIT, who is on no one’s list! He’s the greatest YEC on Earth, and he’s on no one’s list (sniff). These examples underscore the fact there is still a bit of a rift between the Creationist communities and the ID communities, and even competing creationist communities (like Brown’s CFCS and John Morris’ ICR).

Jerry Bergman at Revolution Against Evolution

A Select List of Academics, Scientists and Scholars Involved in Various Creationist Movements and Intelligent Design.

On this list I have well over 3,000 names but, unfortunately, a large number of persons that could be added to this list, including many college professors, did not want their name listed on the published list because of real concerns over possible retaliation or harm to their careers. Many of those who did not want their names on this 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 exists. 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 but 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.

Earl M. J. Aagaard PhD. Professor of Biology at Southern Adventist University. His BA and MA are both in biology from Pacific Union College and his PhD is in Fish and Wildlife Biology from Colorado State University.

Gerald E. Aardsma Ph.D. a research scientist, earned a BS and MS in Physics, and a Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics from the University of Toronto in 1984 for his research in accelerator mass spectrometry.

Benjamin L. Aaron M.D. is Professor Emeritus of Surgery of George Washington University and Chief of Cardiothoracic Surgery at the George Washington University Hospital in Washington, D.C. He received his premed degree (Phi Beta Kappa) from the University of Missouri and his M.D. from the University of Texas. He has held post-doctoral fellowships at the Medical College of Virginia and the University of Alabama. He is most well known for heading the surgical team that saved the life of president Ronald Reagan.

Donald Abb M.S. has a BS from Delaware Valley College in Doylestonwn, PA in Biology and a MS from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, IL in Ecology and Ornithology (Zoology) and. He was a tenured Assistant Professor of Biology at The Kings College in New York.

Charles Abei Ph.D. is Professor Emeritus at Ohio Valley College, where he served as a professor from 1964 to 1998.

S.Thomas Abraham PhD Assistant Professor Pharmacology and Toxicology Campbell University of Pharmacy.

Dr. Abrams DNM.

Gary L. Achtemeier Ph.D. is a USDA Forest Service scientist and Director of the Southern High-Resolution Modeling Consortium. He has a Ph.D. in Meteorology from Florida State University.

Paul D. Ackerman Ph.D. is Assistant Chairperson since 1990, and Assistant Professor of Psychology since 1968, in the Psychology Department at Wichita State University. Dr. Ackerman received his BA, his MA, and his Ph.D. in Social Psychology, all from the University of Kansas.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Yuri Zharikov is Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at Simon Fraser University in Canada. His Ph.D. is in Zoology.

Robert D. Zimmer Ph.D. has a Ph.D. in Environmental Sciences from Rutgers University.

Dean Zimmerman PhD. A research scientist, he has his BS in chemical engineering and his PhD in Macromolecular science, both from Case Western University in Cleveland, OH.

Zhalko-Titarenko is curator of the Joahua C. Turner Arboretum, an affiliate of Nebraska Statewide Arboretum.

John Frederick Zino Ph.D. has a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology.

Merlin Wayne Zook Ph.D. Has a degree in Physical Science from Goshen College, and a Ph.D. in Synoptic Meteorology from Pennsylvania State University.

Frederick T. Zugibe MD is Emeritus Adjunct Associate Professor of Pathology at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Henry Zuill Ph.D. is Professor of Biology at Union College, Nebraska. His B.A. in biology is from Atlantic Union College, his M.A. and Ph.D. are both from Loma Linda University, in Biology. He also serves as curator of the Joshua C. Turner Arboretum, which is an affiliate of the Nebraska Statewide Arboretum.

24 Replies to “Bergman’s Dissent from Darwin List at 3,000-10,000

  1. 1
    russ says:

    I counted 27 “Steve’s” on the above list. Not enough to compete with the NCSE’s “Steve Project” at 720, but not bad considering the former is also a professional blacklist.

  2. 2
    russ says:

    Plus 6 from the DI’s Dissenters from Darwin list = 33.

  3. 3
    scordova says:

    If I recall correctly, From the NCSE on poll in academia in Ohio shows support for ID among college science professors from 2% to 7%.

    Someone is invited to look that up. (hint hint)

  4. 4
    David vun Kannon says:

    Hi Sal,

    “These examples underscore the fact there is still a bit of a rift between the Creationist communities and the ID communities…”

    I saw a similar reference to a separation between ID and Christian faith groups on another of your recent posts. As a relative newcomer to following ID issues, I have to say I’m surprised to hear this. For the sake of the general public’s understanding of ID as a scientific enterprise, this should be openly discussed and better understood. Can you make a separate post on this topic?

  5. 5
    scordova says:

    I would be happy to, David.

  6. 6
    DharmaBum says:

    scordova:

    I have never met a person in the real world who professed belief in intelligent design. But I know many people in the real world who proclaim their belief in the Creator. Referring to Him as such is part of their witness to the world. I think this is a good indication of why creationists are not flocking to the Big Tent. For most people, the ends do not justify the means.

  7. 7
    Larry Fafarman says:

    Jerry Bergman wrote —

    On this list I have well over 3,000 names but, unfortunately, a large number of persons that could be added to this list, including many college professors, did not want their name listed on the published list because of real concerns over possible retaliation or harm to their careers. Many of those who did not want their names on this list are young academics without tenure, or academics who are concerned about if outing them could damage their career.

    That’s one reason why we need up-to-date anonymous formal random polls of biologists’ opinions about evolution — see
    http://im-from-missouri.blogsp.....inism.html

    Also, Bergman’s list is subject to being criticized for having such a large proportion of non-biologists.

  8. 8
    Chris Hyland says:

    The main problem here is I look at a long list of scientists who support ID an the first thing that comes to my mind is ‘what research have these people done to convince the scientific community of their ideas?’ It seems like there is enough people to get a lot done.

  9. 9
    johnnyb says:

    “It seems like there is enough people to get a lot done.”

    It takes money and institutional support. Most people don’t have the money to go out and build a multimillion dollar lab they can run themselves. The DI has been funding a little research, and the CRS and ICR have been funding Creationist research, but other than that there isn’t much money.

    But it is amazing what has been done with so little. The following are the research projects in ID that I am aware of (Creationists that are mentioned are mentioned in their work that applies to both ID and Creationism)

    Jeffrey Schwartz has been researching the mind/brain problem, which is fundamental to ID.

    Douglas Axe has been researching issues in large-scale amino acid changes in proteins.

    Dembski has been researching mathematical methods of design detection and

    Behe, Snoke, Minnich, and Meyer have been reseasrching irreducible complexity.

    Lonnig and Wood have both done research on plant transposons and front-loaded evolution. Lonnig even published a peer-reviewed book called “Dynamical Genetics” about genetics as dynamical systems.

    Remine has been working on the cost of natural selection.

    John Davison has been publishing on his prescribed evolutionary hypothesis.

    Jonathan Wells has been working on showing how design principles can better explain the mechanism of living systems than historic principles.

    Cavanaugh is working on empirical methods for non-evolutionary taxonomy.

    Paul Nelson has been working on ontogenic depth, though I am mostly unaware of this research.

    I also am aware of some people doing research on symbiogenesis as a primary driver of novelty of form, but am not totally sure who is working on it and whether they would want me to speak their names.

    For my own teeny tiny part I am looking into the behavior of genes as following design principles for computer software design, specifically with regards to metaprogramming. I’m planning on attempting to publish this eventually, but am looking for a biologist to partner with, especially as I have no knowledge into the inner-workings of the biology research and publishing industry.

    I also imagine there are a number of people doing research who (a) believe that their research supports Intelligent Design or Creationism, but (b) can’t say so publicly because of risk to jobs. I often get that feeling when reading biology papers. For example, I know of one Creationist who published their Young-Earth Creationism research in a secular geology journal, but just didn’t make the tie-in to YEC specific (what’s amusing is that the paper was actually rejected by a Creationist journal first :] ).

    Of course, if you wanted to get into Creationism there’s a whole lot more research projects I could point you to.

  10. 10
    johnnyb says:

    In fact, now that I think about it, Creationary work on Creationist ideas actually led to a front-cover paper in the journal Geology. ID hasn’t had this yet, or has it? We may yet find out that some of our major breakthroughs were done by people who are ID-friendly, working from an ID perspective. Sorry for the discourse into Creationism. I know it’s offtopic, but it is one of my primary interests.

  11. 11
    Tim Sverduk says:

    Reading Walt Brown’s website really challenged my thinking. The root issue is the question: Were the majority of fossils formed in Noah’s flood – or were they formed over millions of years? Walt’s idea of sorting by liquefaction does seem crazy – yes, but so does the idea that there were millions of years of separation between fossil layers. Wouldn’t erosion, earthquakes, etc cause disruptions in the layers? My understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) is that in many cases (not all – but many) there are multiple thin, stacked layers of fossils spread out over very large areas. Very wide, very flat, very thin and very many layers. Liquefaction in a global flood would explain it. I also liked his comments about insect metamorphosis. It seems like an overwhelmingly strong dis-proof of evolution. He also has a great explanation for salt-domes and frozen Mammoths. I highly recommend his website: http://www.creationscience.com

  12. 12
    russ says:

    DharmaBum // Oct 12th 2006 at 4:15 pm

    scordova:

    I have never met a person in the real world who professed belief in intelligent design. But I know many people in the real world who proclaim their belief in the Creator. Referring to Him as such is part of their witness to the world. I think this is a good indication of why creationists are not flocking to the Big Tent. For most people, the ends do not justify the means.

    Comment by DharmaBum — October 12, 2006 @ 4:15 pm

    The best missionaries start with the target culture as it is. They don’t try to wipe the slate clean and replace everything. They find those elements in the culture that point to the message they are trying to convey and build from there.

    It seems to me that some creationists want to start from scratch on THEIR terms, rather than finding those elements in “science culture” that confirm first design, then ultimately the Creator.

  13. 13
    scordova says:

    I know of one Creationist who published their Young-Earth Creationism research in a secular geology journal, but just didn’t make the tie-in to YEC specific (what’s amusing is that the paper was actually rejected by a Creationist journal first :] ).

    ROTFL!

  14. 14
    bhinton says:

    I counted 1940 names on Bergman’s list (copy, paste into TextPad, look at line count).

    Seems to be a few short of 3000.

  15. 15
    scordova says:

    bhinton,

    Thanks for pointing that out. Does any one else concur? Can any account for the discrepancy?

    Sal

  16. 16
    Chris Hyland says:

    “It takes money and institutional support. Most people don’t have the money to go out and build a multimillion dollar lab they can run themselves.”

    True but a great deal of research these days involves analysing the massive amounts of data that has been generated by experimental biologists. This is really the kind of thing Im thinking of, where you would use ID to make predictions of what you are going to find. I think the stumbling block at the moment is that the theory needs to be slightly more specific, ideas about frontloading though are a step in the right direction, but I would of thought what was needed is to refine the ideas with some data analysis. In terms of current research, I haven’t read the work of several of those people, but the ones I have Im not sure Ive seen anything that is a big step in the right direction. As far as researching IC goes, I would have thought the best way to go would be to say ‘if we assume that the system couldnt have evolved, what way could the information have been added (eg frontloading), and how does this allow us to explain the systems better.’ In terms of CSI what is probably needed is some kind of large scale computational validation of the ideas. Ive read the recent Behe and Axe papers that have been mentioned here, but neither of them contained results that surprised me and Im not sure how they support ID. Although I found JADs papers very interesting I disagree that you can conclude design from the evidence. I havent really heard of the research of the others but I will be looking up the Lonnig and Wood stuff it sounds quite interesting.

    “I also imagine there are a number of people doing research who (a) believe that their research supports Intelligent Design or Creationism, but (b) can’t say so publicly because of risk to jobs.”

    That was my original point, those people who have publicy signed these lists no longer have anything to fear.

    “I often get that feeling when reading biology papers.”

    I often think people here read too much into language used by biologists in papers. Do you have any specific examples of what you mean?

  17. 17
    scordova says:

    I have laid one particular grand quest which will take alot of money in the biological sciences. It will be supportive of evo-devo, PEH, and various front-loading scenarios. Even the YECs would have interest in it:

    Marsupials and Placentals: a case of front-loaded, pre-programmed, designed evolution?

    The magnitude of the effort would probably be at least in the 10’s of milliions if not hundreds of millions. If all parties involved (YECs to evo-devos) could find a way to get along, they might solve the enigma.

    I honestly don’t think the convergence was due to natural selection, it seems to much of a stretch.

    Sal

  18. 18
    johnnyb says:

    “I would have thought the best way to go would be to say ‘if we assume that the system couldnt have evolved, what way could the information have been added (eg frontloading), and how does this allow us to explain the systems better.’”

    Actually, Dembski’s work on searches is pivotal to an understanding of front-loading. Ultimately, Dembski’s analysis of search algorithms points to the need for front-loading of evolutionary searches.

    As far as the biological aspect, there are several people are actually working on this. Todd Wood, Lonnig, “Mike Gene” (presumably, at least), and myself in a small way, just to name a few. Actually, I would like to throw James Shapiro into this mix, except that he doesn’t view origin-of-life (where the frontloading would occur) as a scientific view (at least as far as I’m aware), but takes the front-loading ideas as an assumption and goes forward. You should listen to his Natural Genetic Engineering talks. I think there are others in this camp who aren’t necessarily ID’ers, but mostly for the perspective that they don’t view the origin of life as scientific. I think we could fairly safely throw Yockey into this category. He assumes the front-loading of the symbolic coding system as an “axiom” which is not amenable to scientific inquiry, and in fact, Voie has contributed a mathematical paper which essentially shows that Godel’s incompleteness theorems require as much.

    As for papers which make me wonder if they are ID, the ones that I think of first are (1) IBM’s paper on noncoding DNA, (2) Barbara Wright’s work, and (3) Barry Hall‘s work.

    I’ve read others that I thought this about, and at least once I’ve been really wrong (such as Gilbert’s work — Gilbert has been very adamant about his Darwinism, but I still think his work points in the other direction).

  19. 19
    Fross says:

    the placental/marsupial convergences are only by looks. It’s not DNA convergence, and the similar anatomy is dictated by the selection pressure of the environments. All these similar looking mammals adapted to similar environments. (went through similar filters) I really don’t see how it is much of a stretch for natural selection.

  20. 20
    johnnyb says:

    “the placental/marsupial convergences are only by looks. It’s not DNA convergence”

    But as we’ve seen with voles, DNA isn’t that much of an issue with regards to either ancestry or animal form.

    “All these similar looking mammals adapted to similar environments.”

    Incorrect. The environments of marsupials (Australia) is much different of that of most similar placentals.

  21. 21
    Forthekids says:

    ” have never met a person in the real world who professed belief in intelligent design. But I know many people in the real world who proclaim their belief in the Creator. Referring to Him as such is part of their witness to the world. I think this is a good indication of why creationists are not flocking to the Big Tent. For most people, the ends do not justify the means. ”

    I’m a creationist who supports ID because I am cautious about how much creation science I am willing to throw into a public school science class. The quickest way to create a real mess would be to shove a particular religious ideal in a science classroom.

    ID allows our students the opportunity to consider that there is obviously design in nature, yet also allows for all religions their own personal belief in what or who that designer/God/ET/ actually is.

    We aren’t going to convert anyone to a certain religious belief in a public school science class, but we can allow our students the opportunity to consider a God, rather than rejecting God due to how evolution is presented in a secular setting.

    Although, I would dearly love to see some of Walt Brown’s work considered in a science class at some point!

  22. 22
    Chris Hyland says:

    “Actually, Dembski’s work on searches is pivotal to an understanding of front-loading. Ultimately, Dembski’s analysis of search algorithms points to the need for front-loading of evolutionary searches.”

    Possibly, but there’s a lot more that needs to be done to show that his ideas apply to biological evolution.

    “Actually, I would like to throw James Shapiro into this mix, except that he doesn’t view origin-of-life (where the frontloading would occur) as a scientific view (at least as far as I’m aware), but takes the front-loading ideas as an assumption and goes forward.”

    That is an interesting view. Does he not argue that these features evolved?

    “I think there are others in this camp who aren’t necessarily ID’ers, but mostly for the perspective that they don’t view the origin of life as scientific.”

    I view it as a protoscience at best, and there is a chance it will stay that way for ever. Even if one thinks it us unknowable I’m not sure how that is proof for ID.

    “As for papers which make me wonder if they are ID, the ones that I think of first are (1) IBM’s paper on noncoding DNA, (2) Barbara Wright’s work, and (3) Barry Hall’s work.” Ive seen dozens of papers similar to the IBM one over the years, there’s nothing in that that surprised me. The other two aren’t standard neoDarwinian fare to be sure, but neither are a lot of papers that come out these days. I can’t see any indication that the authors support ID, and for the content to provide circumstantial support for ID I would etiher need to see: evidence that this kind of nonrandom change drove a great deal of adaptive evolution and evidence that there was a great deal of foresight involved, or if these ideas were incorporated into some kind of ID theory that makes predictions etc etc.

  23. 23

    […] Here is the post where David asked his question: Bergman’s List, Post #4 […]

  24. 24
    gpurdom97 says:

    FYI. I checked and my name (Georgia Purdom) is on the Dissent from Darwinism list. I’m not sure why someone earlier said it was not.

Leave a Reply