A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

By Prayson Daniel

“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.”

A growing list of signatures signed by world wide scientists with Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or other natural sciences; or  holding  M.D. and serve as professor of medicine refusing Darwinian theory.

Dissent From Darwin: What is it about:

During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, “artificial intelligence” research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism’s central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.

The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names.

The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

“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.”

“There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.”

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism answers the following frequent asked questions:

1) What is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement?

The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a short public statement by scientists expressing their skepticism of Neo-Darwinism’s key claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the primary mechanism for the development of the complexity of life. The full statement 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.” Prominent scientists who have signed the statement include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe; quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia; U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov; and geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, Editor Emeritus of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum and discoverer of genetic recombination in antibiotic-producing Penicillium and Streptomyces.

2) When and why was the statement created?

The statement was drafted and circulated by Discovery Institute in 2001 in response to widespread claims that no credible scientists existed who doubted Neo-Darwinism. Discovery Institute subsequently took out an ad in The New York Review of Books and elsewhere showcasing over 100 scientists who were willing to publicly express their scientific skepticism of Neo-Darwinism. Since 2001 the signatories of the statement have grown to over 700 scientists, both in the United States and around the world.

3) Who is eligible to sign the statement?

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.” If you meet these criteria, please consider signing the statement by emailing contact@Dissentfromdarwin.com.

If you are a medical doctor who is skeptical of Darwinian evolution, please visit Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity at www.doctorsdoubtingdarwin.com and join their statement by doctors who dissent from Darwinism.

4) Why is it necessary to have such a statement?

In recent years there has been a concerted effort on the part of some supporters of modern Darwinian theory to deny the existence of scientific critics of Neo-Darwinism and to discourage open discussion of the scientific evidence for and against Neo-Darwinism. The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement exists to correct the public record by showing that there are scientists who support an open examination of the evidence relating to modern Darwinian theory and who question whether Neo-Darwinism can satisfactorily explain the complexity and diversity of the natural world.

5) By signing the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, are signers endorsing alternative theories such as self-organization, structuralism, or intelligent design?

No. By signing the statement, scientists are simply agreeing with the statement as written.  Signing the statement does not indicate agreement or disagreement with any other scientific theory. It does indicate skepticism about modern Darwinian theory’s central claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life. Signing the statement also indicates support for the careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory.

6) Is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism a political statement?

No.  It is a professional statement by scientists about their assessment of the scientific evidence relating to Neo-Darwinism and an affirmation of the need for careful examination of the evidence for modern Darwinian theory.

7) Are there credible scientists who doubt Neo-Darwinism?

Yes. Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines from such institutions as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Dartmouth, Rutgers, University of Chicago, Stanford and University of California at Berkeley.  Many are also professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as Cambridge, Princeton, MIT, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania, University of Georgia, Tulane, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, and Ben-Gurion University in Israel.

Quotes of Scientists:

Dr. Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University

“Scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well. … Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work.”

“Darwinian evolution — whatever its other virtues — does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”

Dr. Stanley Salthe, Professor Emeritus, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York

“Darwinian evolutionary theory was my field of specialization in biology. Among other things, I wrote a textbook on the subject thirty years ago. Meanwhile, however I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’s origination myth. Consequently, I certainly agree that biology students at least should have the opportunity to learn about the flaws and limits of Darwin’s theory while they are learning about the theory’s strongest claims.”

Dr. Vladimir L. Voeikov, Professor of Bioorganic, Moscow State University; member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems.”

Dr. Michael Egnor, Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook

“Darwinism is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs modern biology.”

Dr. Roland Hirsch, Chemistry

“Life as revealed by new technologies is more complicated than the Darwinian viewpoint anticipated. Thus evolutionary theory, which was considered to be a key foundation of biology in 1959, today has a more peripheral role. … modern science makes it possible to be a scientifically informed doubter of Darwinian theories of evolution.”

Professor Colin Reeves, Dept of Mathematical Sciences Coventry University

“Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection’s ability to create complex biological systems – and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour.”

All adopted from A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

” 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.”

About these ads

About Prayson Daniel

Prayson Daniel is a Tanzanian, married to Lea and a father to Eloise. Reformed theology, philosophy of religion, apologetics and church history are areas he enjoy reading, pondering and sharing with a motto "when love comes first, disagreement follows at its right and proper place".


  1. Pingback: Creationist - What about Evolution you disagree with? - Page 4 - Religious Education Forum

  2. Héhé

    Merry Christmas…

  3. nice article thanks!!

  4. “The problem Brap is that you have already assume that Macro-Evolution is true”

    Is that why you choose not to answer most of the questions I ask about intelligent design? Note that although I believe you assume intelligent design is true, I am perfectly willing to answer your questions about evolution to the extent that I can.

    If you’re curious how I came to my “assumption” that evolution is true, you might like to know that I read the book “The Blind Watchmaker” many years ago, before I knew who Richard Dawkins was, when I was probably more agnostic than anything and didn’t think about religion much at all. I found the case presented there to be sufficient.

    A more recent source that explains why evolution is true in just under an hour is this youtube video by Jerry Coyne. There are several of his on Youtube with essentially the same title, so this may not be the exact same one I watched several months ago. But in his talk he defines what a theory is, how theories are evaluated, and then clearly explains how evolution passes the test. If you take the time to watch it, I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on how intelligent design can account for some of the things you think evolution cannot account for.

    • I am still skeptical about ID, though I agree that its arguments are more plausible than Macro-evolution(which is a huge leap of faith namely Random thus blind, by Chance(Luck), Long Period of time).

      I have post an article that answers some of the question you pause(From the Article, I do not share with him all his premises mostly starting with Adam and Evil gene down). I will try to go through all the questions myself and reanswer your questions.

      I have not engage much in evolution argument on my defense for Existence of God because of Teleological, thus I mostly dismiss it with the fine-tune universe which is required for evolution(if true) to take place.

      I ought to read the Blind Watchmaker, for some reason I read its refutation How Blind is the Watch Maker and Darwin Black Box. I ought to read it for myself then either agree or disagree it premises.

  5. I’m assuming most of these skeptical scientists believe in micro-evolution, since that is observable over much shorter time spans and you only need to look at the different skin colors of humans (or different shapes of finch beaks, or different breeds of dogs) to see the effects of micro-evolution. I’m also assuming they believe an intelligent designer was responsible for abiogenesis. But regarding macro-evolution, do they believe that once life existed on Earth, an intelligent designer was responsible for guiding macro-evolution, and therefore guided various species to evolve into other species, which eventually led to the complexity of life? Or do they believe that one species never evolved into another one or branched into multiple species, but rather new species were sort of poofed into existence, like humans and many other species were in the book of Genesis?

    • It does not matter what they believe or not believe here. What matter is that they are skeptical about evolution and what the theory reviewed.

      • If there were a list of scientists who wanted the theory of gravity or the germ theory of disease reviewed, wouldn’t we ask them what alternate theories they propose?

        If these skeptical scientists believe macro-evolution never occurred (either guided or unguided), then they are basically creationists and there is no point in arguing anything scientific with them.

        If, on the other hand, these skeptical scientists believe in micro-evolution but only in guided macro-evolution, then I would be interested in knowing their answers to a few questions:

        Why can the genetic mutations required for micro-evolution occur randomly without assistance from an intelligent designer, yet the mutations required for macro-evolution cannot? Why does guided macro-evolution need to proceed in the small steps clearly evident in the fossil record? How does one determine when a mutation is random, unguided, micro-evolution vs. guided, purposeful, macro-evolution? Why are there so many extinct species, many of which are obviously the result of guided macro-evolution that didn’t work in the long term? Why did it take so long for humans to evolve, given how long life has existed on Earth? Why are there so many poor design elements of the human body that appear to be the result of macro-evolution?

        Shouldn’t an intelligent designer, capable of continuously causing genetic mutations at the point of conception in billions of creatures over millions of years, be able to do a better job?

      • The problem Brap is that you have already assume that Macro-Evolution is true

  6. Héhé

    Héhé…really? Haven’t you read the wikipedia article the other commenter on your other post was recommending? Or maybe you have dismissed the claims in there, I think you call that ad hominem, or something, in philosophy…Why do mathematicians and others who have no expertise in the matter get to sign? Did you hear about the “Steve”-thing that was done in response? Here’s a (somewhat rude towards creationists, I’ll admit) video I watched some time ago (I already knew about this list)?…:

    Youtube Blog Adim: “This is a red herring”

    There are some aspects of the theory of evolution that are being debated, if I have that right…the builders of that list pretend that all those who sign it doubt that evolution occurs, while many probably simply disagree about the specifics of it…It seems that less than 1/5 of the people on the list are actually biologists…and of course, pretending that there is a scientific debate about the very occurrence of evolution (even if we pretended everyone single person on the list was qualified and actually rejected evolution, it would still be a small minority), which there isn’t, you would most assuredly side with the minority that rejects it…why is that? Do you have sufficient knowledge of biology to side with the minority? According to this page…:

    Yahoo Answers

    …there are over 3,000,000 biologists in the world…let’s divide that by 3 (we’re leaving out 2,000,000) and round the number of scientists in the your list to 1000 (they say “hundreds have signed”) and pretend they are all biologists…there is still a 1000-1 support for evolution (assuming that those not on your list support evolution, I know it’s not a 100% valid assumption, you can probably outline another fallacy here too)…but I’m sure you would probably agree with the 0.1% while rejecting the claims of the 99.9%…doesn’t seem that very reasonable to me, though that’s just me…

    • The truth remain, a growing list of world wide Scientists are skeptical about Evolution.

      Again, Yahoo Answer, Youtube videos or Wikipedia aricles most are full of bias depending on the author preconceived view. If Atheist of cause we give the account according to His/her atheistic belief favor and if Theist same thing. The question comes, what are the proof(Arguments) in favor of one preconceived view?

      How can we know the true claim then, Answer: Get Busy. Read both side, watch full debates of Christians vs atheists. Ponder the premises, and form your own conclusion. Support your claims with reliable sources, present your case with logical arguments.

      “The problem of this new generation is academical laziness.”

      Prayson Daniel

      • Héhé

        Héhé…again, they’re the top results when you do a search, I was presenting my top results…for instance, I said “according to this page”, I wasn’t presenting that as a fact, I just wanted to make a point…

        Are you telling me that you would change your mind if I had presenting reliable sources?

        Laymen are not qualified to dismiss (or give support for either) scientific issues they hardly understand; if you are concerned about authenticity, you shouldn’t form your opinions about evolution by listening to debates between the unqualified (though often the “unqualification” is only on one side, no need to say which)…

      • So if the top result in google say 2 + 2 = 5, would you fall for it? If you do then you would be making/presenting a false fact.

        It is not about qualification, but about Logic. I list to debates, read books, articles, journals reason, reflect, and then form a conclusion.

        Thus it does not matter if William Lane Craig, a top Christian philosopher suddenly change his mind and say their is no God, or humans do not exist or 2 +2 =5, or the Universe all that it is, or the great atheist voice Richard Dawkin change his mind and say there is a God as did Antony Flew. What matter is WHY do they reach those conclusions?

        What matter is what are the argument for holding that certain position? Not who is holding that position!

        What matter is, is it LOGICAL? Are the premises truer than their negation? Does the conclusion follow from the pemises if the premises are truer than there negations. Is the argument sound?

        Thus, I listen to a Laymen/Professionals on scientific or religious issue, as long as they pass the rules of Logic.

        My change of mind will come from reasoning, not people in a list. I changed from Atheism to Christianity because of reasons, Arguments for God, and that much atheism is illogical.

      • Héhé

        It might get a little confusing, but I’m replying to your comment below this, there’s no “reply” link…

        Qualification matters when one is speaking about something one has to experience in order to understand (theology, reason, philosophy don’t need experimentation , I can understand a layman coming in and talking about them)…

        Often enough, it’s difficult to even understand an expert’s reasons for believing in something…to be 100% sure you’d have to go to his lab and verify everything…the best bet is to trust what the majority supports after research and discussion, while it’s always good to research oneself and discover why they have such a conclusion…

        Arguing about religious issues is fine, but leave science to experimentation…it has contradicted our intuitions on countless occasions (even math can be counter intuitive at times)…”making sense” actually has a whole lot less importance than you’d think, in science…quantum mechanics demonstrate that pretty well…Stephen Hawking was right to say “Philosophy is dead”…

Comments are closed.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,838 other followers

%d bloggers like this: