Jump to content

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 406232336 by Mikearion (talk)MOS
Mikearion (talk | contribs)
192 edits
Line 29: Line 29:


In 2008 a [[Cybercast News Service]] article cited it in reference to a rebuttal issued by Rob Crowther, director of communications for the Discovery Institute, responding to a study which indicated that that the majority of Americans support evolution, its role in science, and the importance of teaching evolution in schools,<ref>''[http://www.ashg.org/pdf/'New%20Survey%20Supports%20Evolution'%20-%20CNSnews.com.pdf New Survey Supports Evolution, But Critics Disagree]'' by Penny Starr, CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer, [[Cybercast News Service]], January 09, 2008</ref> and ''The Leader's Guide'' for the 2008 movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' includes the assertion that more than 700 scientists have signed the statement ''A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism'' on a page alleging that a largely atheistic scientific establishment was ignoring the facts about intelligent design.<ref name=LG/>
In 2008 a [[Cybercast News Service]] article cited it in reference to a rebuttal issued by Rob Crowther, director of communications for the Discovery Institute, responding to a study which indicated that that the majority of Americans support evolution, its role in science, and the importance of teaching evolution in schools,<ref>''[http://www.ashg.org/pdf/'New%20Survey%20Supports%20Evolution'%20-%20CNSnews.com.pdf New Survey Supports Evolution, But Critics Disagree]'' by Penny Starr, CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer, [[Cybercast News Service]], January 09, 2008</ref> and ''The Leader's Guide'' for the 2008 movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' includes the assertion that more than 700 scientists have signed the statement ''A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism'' on a page alleging that a largely atheistic scientific establishment was ignoring the facts about intelligent design.<ref name=LG/>

==Signatories to the Dissent From Darwinism Document==

The document is maintained and updated by the Discovery Institute. As of January 2010 update to the document there were over 700 signatories to "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" [1]. There were 38 fellows of the Discovery Institute as of January 2011, several of which were signatories as of the 2010 update maintained by the organization.

Per the Discovery Institute Maintained Website[2]. "Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism 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. Signers must also agree with the following statement:"

"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."


==Responses==
==Responses==

Revision as of 06:31, 6 January 2011

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism (or Dissent From Darwinism) is a statement issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a conservative non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, USA, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design. The statement expresses skepticism about the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encourages careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinism," a term "intelligent design proponents" use to refer to evolution.[1][2]

The statement was published in advertisements under an introduction which stated that its signatories dispute the assertion that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things, and dispute that "all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution".[3][4] Further names of signatories have been added at intervals,[5] and as of the August 2008 update, it contains 761 names. The list continues to be used in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns in an attempt to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support.[6][7][8]

The claims made in the document have been rejected by the scientific community.[9][10] Robert T. Pennock says that intelligent design proponents are "manufacturing dissent" in order to explain the absence of scientific debate of their claims: "The "scientific" claims of such neo-creationists as Johnson, Denton, and Behe rely, in part, on the notion that these issues [surrounding evolution] are the subject of suppressed debate among biologists. " ... "according to neo-creationists, the apparent absence of this discussion and the nearly universal rejection of neo-creationist claims must be due to the conspiracy among professional biologists instead of a lack of scientific merit."[11] The statement in the document is described as artfully phrased to represent a diverse range of opinions, set in a context which gives it a misleading spin to confuse the public.[12] The listed affiliations and areas of expertise of the signatories have also been criticized.[1][5][13]

Statement

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism states that:

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 statement, and its title, refer to evolution as "Darwinism" or "Darwinian theory", both of which are ambiguous and can lead to confusion due to the terms having various meanings, and commonly meaning evolution due to the mechanism of natural selection rather than other mechanisms of evolution.[12] The terms have meant different things to different people at different times.[14] In terms of the history of evolutionary thought, both "Darwinism" and "neo-Darwinism" are predecessors of the current evolutionary theory, the modern evolutionary synthesis.[15][16] However, in the context of the creation-evolution controversy, the term "Darwinism" is commonly used by creationists to describe scientists and science teachers who oppose them,[17] and to claim that scientific disagreements about the specific mechanism can be equated to rejection of evolution as a whole. Intelligent design proponents use the term in all these ways, including the idea that it is a materialist ideology,[18] and the claim that as it proposes natural processes as an explanation for evolution, Darwinism can be equated with atheism and presented as being incompatible with Christianity.[19]

Charles Darwin himself described natural selection as being "the main but not exclusive means of modification" of species.[20] The modern theory of evolution additionally includes recombination as a source of variation and genetic drift and gene flow as mechanisms, meaning that the current theory of evolution, the modern evolutionary synthesis, does not in fact claim "the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." Southeastern Louisiana University philosophy professor Barbara Forrest and deputy director of the National Center for Science Education Glenn Branch comment on the ambiguity of the statement and its use in the original advert:

Such a statement could easily be agreed to by scientists who have no doubts about evolution itself, but dispute the exclusiveness of "Darwinism," that is, natural selection, when other mechanisms such as genetic drift and gene flow are being actively debated. To the layman, however, the ad gives the distinct impression that the 100 scientists question evolution itself.[4]

Skip Evans, also of the National Center for Science Education, suggests that this confusion has in fact been carefully engineered.[12]

Discovery Institute usage

By promoting a perception that evolution is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community, whereas in fact evolution is overwhelmingly supported by science,[21][22] the list is used to lend support to other Discovery Institute campaigns promoting intelligent design,[23][24] including "Teach the Controversy", "Critical Analysis of Evolution", "Free Speech on Evolution", and "Stand Up For Science".[25] For example, in its "Teach the Controversy" campaign, the Institute claims that "evolution is a theory in crisis" and that many scientists criticize evolution and citing the list as evidence or a resource.[25] This Discovery Institute also asserts that this information is being withheld from students in public high school science classes along with "alternatives" to evolution such as intelligent design.[26] The Institute uses A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism as evidence to support its claim that evolution is disputed widely within the scientific community.[6][27][28] In 2002 Stephen C. Meyer presented the list as evidence to Ohio Board of Education to promote "Teach the Controversy", claiming that it showed that there was a genuine controversy over Darwinian evolution,[7] and in the 2005 Kansas evolution hearings the list was cited by Stephen C. Meyer as supporting his assertion that there was "significant scientific dissent from Darwinism" that students should be informed about.[29]

The list was advertised in prominent periodicals such as The New York Review of Books, The New Republic, and The Weekly Standard in October and November 2001, "to rebut bogus claims by Darwinists that no reputable scientists are skeptical of Darwinism" by "producing a list of 100 scientific dissenters."[3][30] Its initial release was timed to coincide with the airing of the PBS evolution series at the end of 2001.

The Discovery Institute has continued to collect signatures, reporting 300 in 2004,[31] over 400 in 2005,[32] over 600 in 2006 (in 2006 the Discovery Institute began to include scientists from outside of the United States),[33] and over 700 in 2007.[28][34] The Discovery Institute includes a description of the list in a response to one of its "Top Questions".[35]

The Discovery Institute-related organization Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity manages "Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism", a similar list for medical professionals. The Discovery Institute compiled and distributed other similarly confusing and misleading lists of local scientists during controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas.[1][36]

In 2008 a Cybercast News Service article cited it in reference to a rebuttal issued by Rob Crowther, director of communications for the Discovery Institute, responding to a study which indicated that that the majority of Americans support evolution, its role in science, and the importance of teaching evolution in schools,[37] and The Leader's Guide for the 2008 movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed includes the assertion that more than 700 scientists have signed the statement A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism on a page alleging that a largely atheistic scientific establishment was ignoring the facts about intelligent design.[8]

Signatories to the Dissent From Darwinism Document

The document is maintained and updated by the Discovery Institute. As of January 2010 update to the document there were over 700 signatories to "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" [1]. There were 38 fellows of the Discovery Institute as of January 2011, several of which were signatories as of the 2010 update maintained by the organization.

Per the Discovery Institute Maintained Website[2]. "Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism 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. Signers must also agree with the following statement:"

"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."

Responses

The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism document has been widely criticized on several different grounds. First, similar to previous lists produced by other creationists, the professional expertise of those listed is not always apparent and is alleged to be deficient.[38] Also, the professional affiliations and credentials that are claimed for some of the signatories has been questioned. Finally, there appear to be a few who appear on the list who are not firmly committed to the agenda advanced by the Discovery Institute, and who have been misled into signing or who have changed their minds. Russell D. Renka, a political scientist, said that the Discovery Institute presented the list in an appeal to authority to support its anti-evolution viewpoint.[39]

A paper from a think tank, the Center for Inquiry said that Dissent From Darwinism is one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by creating the impression that evolution lacks broad scientific support.[40]

In November 2001, the National Center for Science Education stated that the then current version of the document appeared "to be very artfully phrased" to represent a diverse range of opinions, set in a context which gives it a misleading spin to confuse the public.[12]

Expertise relevance

The listed affiliations and areas of expertise of the signatories have also been criticized.[1][5][13]

In addition, the list was signed by only about 0.01% of scientists in the relevant fields[which?]. According to the National Science Foundation, there were approximately 955,300 biological scientists in the United States in 1999.[41] The theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted throughout the scientific community.[21] Professor Brian Alters of McGill University, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[22]

The list has been criticized by many organizations and publications for lacking any true experts in the relevant fields of research, primarily biology. Critics have noted that of the 105 "scientists" listed on the original 2001 petition, fewer than 20% were biologists, with few of the remainder having the necessary expertise to contribute meaningfully to a discussion of the role of natural selection in evolution.[12][13]

Other criticisms

Critics have also noted that the wording and advertising of the original statement was, and remains, misleading,[12] and that a review of the signatories suggested many doubt evolution due to religious, rather than scientific beliefs.[13] The claims made for the importance of the list have also been called intellectually dishonest because it represents only a small fraction of the scientific community,[5] and includes an even smaller number of relevant experts.[42] The Discovery Institute has responded to some of these criticisms.[43][44]

Affiliations and credentials

Barbara Forrest and Glenn Branch say the Discovery Institute deliberately misrepresents the institutional affiliations of signatories of the statement A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. The institutions appearing in the list are the result of a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute to only present the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual. For example, if someone was trained at a more prestigious institution than the one they are presently affiliated with, the school they graduated from will more often be listed, without the distinction being made clear in the list. This is contrary to standard academic and professional practice and, according to Forrest and Branch, is deliberately misleading.[1]

For example, the institutions listed for Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells, were the University of Texas at Dallas, Ohio University, and the University of California, Berkeley respectively, the schools from which they obtained their Ph.D. degrees. However, their present affiliations are quite different: Probe Ministries for Bohlin, the Reasons to Believe Ministry for Rana, and the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture for Wells.[1]

Many of those who have signed the list are not currently active scientists, and some have never worked as scientists.

Also, if a signatory was previously the head of a department or the president of an institute, their past and most prestigious position will be listed, not their current position. For example, Ferenc Jeszenszky is a physicist in Budapest who handles the "Hungarian Creation Research" videos, but appears instead on the list as "Former Head of the Center of Research Groups, Hungarian Academy of Sciences".[citation needed]

Visitors at prestigious institutions will have that affiliation listed, not their more humble home institutions. For example, Bernard d'Abrera, a writer and publisher of books on butterflies, appears on the list as "Visiting Scholar, Department of Entomology British Museum (Natural History)", in spite of the fact that this museum had become independent of the British Museum three decades previously and had formally changed its name to the Natural History Museum almost a decade before the petition. d'Abrera's primary affiliation is with his publishing company, Hill House Publishers. d'Abrera does not have a PhD either, nor any formal scientific qualification (his undergraduate degree was a double major in History & Philosophy of Science, and History), although creationists often call him "Dr. d'Abrera".[45][46] The Discovery Institute currently recruits people with PhDs to sign the Dissent petition.[47]

At least one other signatory, Forrest Mims, has neither a PhD nor any formal academic training in science. Additionally, at least seven signatories have their advanced degrees from outside the areas of "engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences" that are currently being recruited: Ronald R. Crawford has his Ed.D. in Science Education, David Berlinski has his PhD in Philosophy, Tom McMullen has his PhD in the History & Philosophy of Science, Angus Menuge has his PhD in the Philosophy of Psychology, Stephen Meyer has his PhD in the Philosophy of Science, Tony Prato has his PhD in Agricultural Economics,[48] and Tianyou Wang has his PhD in Education[49] and at least six, Jeffrey M. Schwartz, Ricardo León Borquez[50] (incorrectly listed as "Ricardo Leon"), Gage Blackstone, Daniel Galassini, Mary A. Brown and Thomas C. Majerus, have professional doctorates (such as an MD, DVM or PharmD), rather than holding a research doctorate (such as a PhD).[improper synthesis?]

Also, in early editions of the list, Richard Sternberg was described as "Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution" though Sternberg was never a Smithsonian staff member, but an unpaid research associate.[3] At the time of signing the list Sternberg was the outgoing editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a minor biology journal, where he played a central role in the Sternberg peer review controversy. Later versions of the list dropped mention of Sternberg's affiliation with the Smithsonian[51] in favor of Sternberg's alma maters, Florida International University and Binghamton University. At present Sternberg is a Staff Scientist with GenBank, the genetic database at the National Institutes of Health.[52][improper synthesis?]

Critics also say the Discovery Institute inflates the academic credentials and affiliations of signatories such as Henry F. Schaefer. The institute prominently and frequently asserts that Schaefer has been nominated for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.[3][53] Barbara Forrest and others allege that the Discovery Institute is inflating his reputation by constantly referring to him as a "five-time nominee for the Nobel Prize" despite that Nobel Prize nominations remain confidential for fifty years[1] and there being about 250-300 nominations per prize per year.[54]

By analysing the data for 34 British, or British-trained signatories of the Dissent list, the anti-creationist British Centre for Science Education raised doubts about the claimed affiliations and relevant expertise of those on the list.[55]

Defections and disagreements

The National Center for Science Education interviewed a sample of the signatories, and found that some were less critical of "Darwinism" than the advertisement claimed.[12][56] For example, Stanley N. Salthe, a visiting scientist at Binghamton University, State University of New York, who signed but describes himself as an atheist, said that when he endorsed a petition he had no idea what the Discovery Institute was. Salthe stated, “I signed it in irritation”, and said that evolutionary biologists were being unfair in suppressing competing ideas. He said that "They deserve to be prodded, as it were. It was my way of thumbing my nose at them", but was unconvinced by intelligent design and concluded "From my point of view, it's a plague on both your houses".[57]

At least one signatory of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism has abandoned the list, saying he felt misled. Robert C. Davidson, a Christian, scientist, doctor, and retired nephrology professor at the University of Washington medical school said after having signed he was shocked when he discovered that the Discovery Institute was calling evolution a "theory in crisis". "It's laughable: There have been millions of experiments over more than a century that support evolution," said Davidson. "There's always questions being asked about parts of the theory, as there are with any theory, but there's no real scientific controversy about it. ... When I joined I didn't think they were about bashing evolution. It's pseudo-science, at best. ... What they're doing is instigating a conflict between science and religion."[58]

Counter-petitions

Responding in the form of a humorous parody, the National Center for Science Education produced Project Steve listing scientists named "Steve", or its equivalent (such as "Stephanie" or "Esteban"), who had signed a pro-evolution statement.[59] A Discovery Institute spokesperson responded that "if Project Steve was meant to show that a considerable majority of the scientific community accepts a naturalistic conception of evolution, then the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) could have saved its energies -- that fact was never in question. The more interesting question was whether any serious scientists reject a naturalistic conception of evolution".[60]

After the Discovery Institute presented the petition as part of an amicus curiae brief in the Kitzmiller v. Dover intelligent design court case in October 2005, a counter-petition, A Scientific Support For Darwinism, was organized and gathered 7,733 signatures from scientists in four days.

The Clergy Letter Project has collected signatures of over 10,000 American clergy who "believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist."[61]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g "As I stated earlier, Johnson, Dembski, and their associates have assumed the task of destroying 'Darwinism,' 'evolutionary naturalism,' 'scientific materialism,' 'methodological naturalism,' 'philosophical naturalism,' and other 'isms' they use as synonyms for evolution." Barbara Forrest’s Letter to Simon Blackburn Barbara Forrest. March 2000. Quoted in Rebuttal to Reports by Opposing Expert Witnesses William A. Dembski. May 14, 2005 Cite error: The named reference "Forrest" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals Barbara Forrest. The Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy. May 2007
  3. ^ a b c d "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" (pdf). 2001. Retrieved 2007-10-30. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); original "100 Scientists" advertisement.
  4. ^ a b Forrest, B.C. and Gross, P.R., 2004, Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent, Oxford University Press, page 172, ISBN 0195157427
  5. ^ a b c d Lemonick, Michael (2007-02-09). "More Spin from the Anti-Evolutionists". Time. Retrieved 2008-05-20. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  6. ^ a b edited by Mark Isaak (2005). "CA112: Many scientists find problems with evolution". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2008-08-28. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  7. ^ a b Eldredge, Niles; Eugenie C. Scott (2005). Evolution vs. Creationism : An Introduction. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-24650-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ a b The Leader's Guide for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (pdf)
  9. ^ Statements from Scientific Organizations National Center for Science Education.
  10. ^ Voices for Evolution. Carrie Sager. National Center for Science Education, 2008.
  11. ^ Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives Robert T. Pennock. MIT Press, 2001. Page 322.
  12. ^ a b c d e f g Evans, Skip (2001-11-29). "Doubting Darwinism Through Creative License". NCSE. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Cite error: The named reference "Evans" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  13. ^ a b c d Chang, Kenneth (2006-02-21). "Few Biologists But Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-01-04.; available without login
  14. ^ John Wilkins (1998). "How to be Anti-Darwinian". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2008-07-31.
  15. ^ Pigliucci, M. (2007). "Do We Need An Extended Evolutionary Synthesis?". Evolution. 61 (12): 2743–2749. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00246.x. PMID 17924956.
  16. ^ Kutschera U, Niklas KJ (2004). "The modern theory of biological evolution: an expanded synthesis". Naturwissenschaften. 91 (6): 255–76. doi:10.1007/s00114-004-0515-y. PMID 15241603.
  17. ^ From the Beagle to the School Board: God Goes Back to School, Morris Sullivan, Impact Press, Spring 2005.
  18. ^ Larry Moran (2008-07-12). "Sandwalk: Good Science Writers: Eugenie Scott". Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Retrieved 2008-07-31. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  19. ^ "Charles Hodge and His Objection to Darwinism: The Exclusion of Intelligent Design". Retrieved 2008-07-31.
  20. ^ Darwin, Charles (1859). [[On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life]]. London: John Murray. p. 6. {{cite book}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
  21. ^ a b Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83
  22. ^ a b Finding the Evolution in Medicine, Cynthia Delgado, NIH Record, National Institutes of Health, Vol. LVIII, No. 15, July 28, 2006
  23. ^ Questioning Evolution Letter by Bruce Chapman, President of the Discovery Institute to the New York Times, December 10, 2005.
  24. ^ Ward, Jon (2005-04-20). "Religion vs. science on D.C. education". The Washington Times. Retrieved 2008-05-07.
  25. ^ a b Key Resources for Parents and School Board Members Discovery Institute, August 21, 2007.
  26. ^ Chapman, Bruce (2003-09-21). "How Should Schools Teach Evolution? Don't Forget Weaknesses in Theory". Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-10-30.
  27. ^ "Academic Freedom Under Attack in NCSE Letter Seeking to Limit Teaching of Evolution". Discovery Institute. 2005-09-29. Retrieved 2007-10-30.
  28. ^ a b Staff, Discovery Institute (2007-03-08). "Ranks of Scientists Doubting Darwin's Theory on the Rise". Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-10-30.
  29. ^ "Kansas Evolution Hearings: Stephen Meyer and Angus Menuge". TalkOrigins Archive. 2005. Retrieved 2008-08-28.
  30. ^ Edwards, Mark (2001-09-24). "100 Scientists, National Poll Challenge Darwinism" (php). Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-10-30.
  31. ^ "Doubts Over Evolution Mount With Over 300 Scientists Expressing Skepticism With Central Tenet of Darwin's Theory". Discovery Institute. 2004-05-01. Retrieved 2007-10-30.
  32. ^ "Over 400 Eminent Scientists Sign "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". lifesite.net. 2005-07-22. Retrieved 2007-10-30.
  33. ^ Crowther, Robert (2006-06-21). "Dissent From Darwinism "Goes Global" as Over 600 Scientists Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwinian Evolution". Retrieved 2007-10-30.
  34. ^ "'Who's Who' list challenging Darwin grows: 100 more of the world's top scientists express skepticism of theory". WorldNetDaily.com. 2007-03-11. Retrieved 2007-10-30.
  35. ^ "Discovery Institute Top Questions" (php). Discovery Institute.
  36. ^ Schafersman, Steven (2003-09-02). "Texas Citizens for Science Responds to Latest Discovery Institute Challenge". Retrieved 2007-10-30.
  37. ^ New Survey Supports Evolution, But Critics Disagree by Penny Starr, CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer, Cybercast News Service, January 09, 2008
  38. ^ See the criticism of other lists, especially of 21 Scientists Who Believe in Creation and In Six Days : Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, described at level of support for evolution, for example.
  39. ^ Russell D. Renka, Professor of Political Science (2005-11-16). "The Political Design of Intelligent Design". Southeast Missouri State University. Retrieved 2007-08-25.
  40. ^ Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Barbara Forrest. May, 2007.
  41. ^ National Science Foundation/Science Resources Statistics Division, 1999 SESTAT (Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data) Table C-1). Only about 1/4 of the approximately 700 Darwin Dissenters in 2007 are biologists, according to Kenneth Chang of the New York Times (Chang, 2006). Approximately 40% of the Darwin Dissenters are not identified as residing in the United States, so in 2007, there were about 105 US biologists among the Darwin Dissenters, representing about 0.01% of the total number of US biologists that existed in 1999 (which is probably an underestimate of the figure in 2007).
  42. ^ Myers, PZ (2007-02-18). "Dr Michael Egnor challenges evolution!". Pharyngula. Retrieved 2008-01-04.
  43. ^ Crowther, Robert (2006-02-16). "Time's Darwinist Thought-Cop Accuses Pro-ID Brain Surgeon of Committing "Intellectual Fraud". Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2008-01-04.
  44. ^ Crowther, Robert (2006-02-21). "Predictable as Clockwork, the New York Times Misses The News In Reporting On Scientists Dissenting From Darwinism". Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2008-01-04.
  45. ^ Bernard d'Abrera - a brief biography, Bernard d'Abrera, Learn about Butterflies website (maintained by Adrian Hoskins), 2007.
  46. ^ Butterfly blast, Carl Wieland, Creation 25(3):16–19 June 2003.
  47. ^ A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, official webpage, Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute
  48. ^ Tony Prato Vita, Center for Agricultural, Resource and Environmental Systems, University of Missouri website
  49. ^ Tianyou Wang, Research Scientist Vita, College of Education, University of Iowa website.
  50. ^ Message from Ricardo León Borquez, MD, M.S.A., Ricardo León Borquez, Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara School of Medicine website
  51. ^ A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism (current)
  52. ^ Homepage of Dr. Richard Sternberg
  53. ^ Intelligent Design -- A Scientific, Academic and Philosophical Controversy Paul M. Weyrich. American Daily, December 6, 2005.
  54. ^ Nomination Facts, Nobel Prize website
  55. ^ Intelligent Design Advocates: List of People with PhDs from UK Universities who Have Signed the DI Statement, Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education official website.
  56. ^ The Steve Project, radio show transcript, The Science Show, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, March 8, 2003.
  57. ^ Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition, Kenneth Chang, New York Times, February 21, 2006
  58. ^ Danny Westneat (2005-08-24). "Evolving opinion of one man". The Seattle Times.
  59. ^ "Project Steve: FAQs"., National Center for Science Education website, February 16, 2003, last updated December 28, 2005
  60. ^ Project Steve - Establishing the Obvious: A response to the NCSE, William Dembski, Discovery Institute, March 19, 2003.
  61. ^ Clergy Letter Project, hosted by Michael Zimmerman (Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Butler University)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Scientific_Dissent_from_Darwinism&oldid=406235629"