Real Science Radio's 2014 List of Scholars Doubting Darwin

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
RSR's 2014 List of Scholars Doubting Darwin

This is the show from Friday August 29th, 2014

Summary:

* Nobody Doubts Darwin They Say: Do you remember that theoretical guy, Lawrence Krauss? He told Real Science Radio that, "all scientists are Darwinists." However, he forgot Ben Carson. :) When you hear consensus, consensus, you might have reason to doubt the consensus. Oh, and aside from Carson, there are about twenty highly-credentialed anti-creationists at The Third Way who, regardless, acknowledge that neo-Darwinism and its natural selection cannot account for the diversity of life. (These scientists include molecular biologists, etc., from institutions like Oxford, the University of Chicago, Tel Aviv University, MIT, University of Vienna, University of Bonn, UCLA, Princeton). Bob Enyart and Fred Williams review their ever-growing list of lists of educated and highly-educated Darwin doubters, including many thousands of Ph.D.s, scientists, and professors. The guys also have fun reporting on astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists who doubt the Big Bang. (Find this show summary at rsr.org/doubters.)



* Nobody Doubts Darwin, Except for This Guy
: When anyone claims that all scientists are Darwinists, they are omitting neurosurgeon Ben Carson, and the crew over at The Third Way. And they also omit all the others who have gone out of their way to declare their doubt about Darwin.

* Nobody Doubts Darwin, Except for These Guys:
- 100 Ph.D.s listed at Australia's creation.com
- 200 scientists with master's degrees or Ph.D.s listed over at AiG
- 300 medical doctors at Physicians & Surgeons for Scientific Integrity
- 500 Ph.D. scientists at the Korean Association of Creation Research
- 600 advanced degreed scientist at the Creation Research Society
- 800 scientists who signified their opposition at DissentFromDarwin.org
- 3,000 scientists and professors, nearly, (most of whom hold a Ph.D. in some field of science) who reject secular Darwinism to varying degrees as named online by Dr. Jerry Bergman

* Another Scolar Doubting Darwin: Remember that the famed atheist professor Thomas Nagel wrote Mind and Cosmos: why the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false!

They are also omiting those who doubt Darwin who have been identified by research including:
- 30,000 U.S. public high school biology teachers do not endorse Darwinism in class
- 100,000 college professors in the U.S. alone who, according to Harvard researchers, agree that "intelligent design IS a serious scientific alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution."
- 570,000 medical doctors in the U.S., specialists in applied science, say God brought about or directly created humans. Whereas Darwinsim is dominated by storytelling, the field of medicine is an actual applied science (see definition and applied science section below) within biology that is practiced by highly educated professionals. Thus it is significant that 60% of all U.S. medical doctors reject the strictly secular Darwinist explanation for our existence, with three of five docs agreeing that either God initiated and guided the process that led to human life or that God specially created human beings as we are.

* Honorable Mention: It is observed that "authorities" should not be counted, but weighed. So weigh them. (The two-thirds of a million Ph.D.s, professors, and advanced degreed scientists doubting Darwin listed here would weigh more than 100 million pounds. :) Speaking of gravitas, however, for honorable mention, consider the RSR list of the many fathers of the physical sciences, both before and after Darwin, who rejected naturalistic origins, including Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Harvey, Boyle, Huygens, Newton, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Dalton, Faraday, Pasteur, Joule, Kelvin, Lister, and Carver.

* Answering the Atheist's Argument from Authority: This list above is not an argument from authority. Rather, it is a REBUTTAL to logical fallacy committed often by evolutionists (including Krauss) when they commonly make their invalid argument from authority. There is nothing wrong with quoting an expert on a topic. But evolutionists frequently use the bait and switch tactic of identifying experts in one topic and then without acknowledging the switch, proceeding as though they were experts in a different field, which is one way of commiting the logical fallacy of an invalid argument from authority. Being a pilot doesn't mean that you know how to make an airplane, let alone gravity. So we should take care not to commit the logical fallacy of argument from an invalid authority, like this:

Scientists are experts in operational physics, chemistry, and biology.
Most scientists believe in naturalistic origins.
Therefore naturalistic origins must be true.

Aside from the severe misrepresntation that "all scientists are Darwinists", it is also a logical fallacy to imply that success in operational science translates to deserved trust in origins. Real Science Radio suggests, don't believe lies.


* Summary of the DI's Scientific Dissent from Darwinism: The Discovery Institute describes the hundreds of scientists who have signed their statement of dissent as made up of those holding "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."

* Of Course There's Overlap: Admittedly these lists contain some overlap but the orders of magnitude difference in the numbers indicate that the vast majority are not duplicates.

* Scientists Doubting or Rejecting the Big Bang: Unlike as with Darwinism, big bang cosmology is relatively insulated from real-world feedback because millions of professionals do not work in related fields as with biology. If hundreds of thousands of professionals received actual astronomical feedback in the same way that farmers,

veterinarians, and physicians do daily while working with biological systems, then surveys might show a picture similar to that regarding Darwinism. That is, if professionals interacted daily with all the astronomical data that challenges and undermines the expectations of big bang theory, then the world would likely see a similar percentage of professionals in related scientific fields rejecting the big bang too. Cosmological dogma, further removed from human observation than are theories on anatomy, "benefits" in a backward sense, from the herd mentality that reinforces the tendency to believe authorities because most people lack daily experience with first-hand evidence that may contradicting (or support) the received account. Thus when that theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical), Lawrence Krauss told RSR that, "All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang", he of course was ignoring all the apparently contradictory evidence. So he asks expects everyone to "Trust us", i.e., trust those with the inscrutable knowledge. Scientists who doubt or outright reject the big bang include:
- acclaimed astronomer Fred Hoyle, father of stellar evolution theory (whom Stephen Hawking pointed out also rejected Darwin; see biography, A Life in Science)
- acclaimed astrophysicists Margaret and Geoffrey Burbidge
- the hundreds of members of the young earth Creation Research Society
- the National Academy of Sciences which in 2003 published an alternative model for a bounded universe
- hundreds more scientists who are signing the extraordinary declaration at cosmologystatement.org.



* Meanwhile, Back in the Real World: In 2013, 62% of Americans say that they believe that God either guided the development of, or specially created, human beings. This means, of course, that none of them believe in the central tenet of Darwinism, which is that the diversity of life on Earth is explained by undirected, natural processes.

Today's Resource: If you enjoy Real Science Radio, we need your help to stay on the air! Please purchase one of our science resources, or make a one-time or monthly donation to RSR! You can either:
- Browse through our Science Department in the KGOV Store! Or,
- Donate at rsr.org/donate by way of our KGOV donation page! Or,
- Call us at 1-800-8Enyart (836-9278) to help us stay on the air!

Our Annual September Telethon: Every year Bob Enyart Live (which hosts Real Science Radio) has a telethon to raise the funds that are absolutely vital to help keep RSR on the air! Please help us continue to encourage the troops and to reach more people with the truth that God is our Creator and we can only be reconciled to Him through trusting in the resurrection of Jesus Christ! So please, please, help us!
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Jefferson writes:
In 2013, 62% of Americans say that they believe that God either guided the development of, or specially created, human beings.

I went to Jefferson's link. Here's what it says:

Poll: Majority Of Americans Believe God Played Role In Human Evolution

Only 37 percent think God created humans complete in the last 10,000 years, according to Jefferson's link.

Jefferson writes:
This means, of course, that none of them believe in the central tenet of Darwinism, which is that the diversity of life on Earth is explained by undirected, natural processes.

Hmm... something's wrong with that...

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species

Perhaps "undirected" doesn't mean what Jefferson thinks.

St. Thomas Aquinas explained:
The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.
Summa Theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1

Comparing the list of "Scientists who doubt Darwin" with the list from Project Steve, we find that only about 0.3 percent (not 3 percent, three-tenths of a percent) of people with a doctorate in biology or a related field, doubt evolutionary theory as it is today.

And that says it all.
 

6days

New member
Barbarian said:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.*
Charles Darwin, last sentence of*The Origin of Species




You should also have included Darwins statements in *that same paragraph *exposing his belief that God created using the the process of a**"war of nature, from famine and death."*


Darwin as far as we know never professed faith in Christ as his savior, and Darwin had a very warped view of the Creator. There is no reconciling of Darwins beliefs of a god who created using famine and death with the Creator who proclaimed His creation "very good".
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
(Barbarian notes that Darwin attributed the origin of life to God)

You should also have included Darwins statements in *that same paragraph *exposing his belief that God created using the the process of a**"war of nature, from famine and death."*

Well, let's take a look...


It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life and from use and disuse: a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

We observe this happening. Creationists are appalled that God would have such a creation. But as Darwin pointed out, this process, which Satan might preach a sermon of evil, produces wonderful and beautiful things. Out of this struggle, comes something of great beauty and meaning.

Now, God could have created a universe in which evil would never appear. But He chose not to do that. All the criticism in the world will not affect his will, and as Job says, we have no right at all to even question why He chose to create a universe like this.

Darwin as far as we know never professed faith in Christ as his savior,

He mentions that in The Voyage of the Beagle that the officers of the ship were amused by his orthodox Anglican Christianity.

There is no reconciling of Darwins beliefs of a god who created using famine and death with the Creator who proclaimed His creation "very good".

You might check with Job. Seems that your conception of a very good universe doesn't square much with His.
 
Last edited:

6days

New member
Barbarian said:
6days said:
You should also have included Darwins statements in that same paragraph exposing his belief that God created using the the process of "war of nature, from famine and death."
Creationists are appalled that God would have such a creation. But as Darwin pointed out, this process, which Satan might preach a sermon of evil, produces wonderful and beautiful things. Out of this struggle, comes something of great beauty and meaning.

The evidences of God's perfect creation...now corrupted are abundant.

For you to imagine that God used famine and death to create beauty and meaning is not only illogical but also anti-scripture.

Romans 8:18-21 "I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God."
Barbarian said:
Now, God could have created a universe in which evil would never appear.

It is surprising you use such a flimsy atheist argument. Of course God could have created such a universe, but He wanted a love relationship with us. Notice references to believers being His bride. Love always involves choice. God gave us the choice to love Him.... or reject Him and suffer the consequences of a decaying creation.





Barbarian said:
6days said:
Darwin as far as we know never professed faith in Christ as his savior

He mentions that in The Voyage of the Beagle that the officers of the ship were amused by his orthodox Anglican Christianity.

Being religious is not the same as having a relationship with our Creator, and trusting Him as Savior. I could be amused that you are Catholic, but that doesn't say anything about personal faith in Jesus.







Barbarian said:
6days said:
There is no reconciling of Darwins beliefs of a god who created using famine and death with the Creator who proclaimed His creation "very good".

You might check with Job. Seems that your conception of a very good universe doesn't square much with His.

What I said was "There is no reconciling of Darwins beliefs of a god who created using famine and death with the Creator who proclaimed His creation "very good"."
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
The evidences of God's perfect creation...now corrupted are abundant.

The corruption you imagine is your addition to scripture. The death is a spiritual one. Adam did not force God to punish the animals, and God did not decide to do that because He was angry at Adam. It's highly insulting to Him to suggest He'd do anything like that

For you to imagine that God used famine and death to create beauty and meaning is not only illogical but also anti-scripture.

A cafeteria Christian might think so. But not one who accepts all of Scripture without addition.

Job 40:1 [1] And the Lord answering Job out of the whirlwind, said: [2] Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and do thou tell me. [3] Wilt thou make void my judgment: and condemn me, that thou mayst be justified? [4] And hast thou an arm like God, and canst thou thunder with a voice like him? [5] Clothe thyself with beauty, and set thyself up on high and be glorious, and put on goodly garments.

He's speaking to you, too.

Here's what Paul has to say about your new doctrine that God punished all living things for Adam's sin:

Romans 5:Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

Nothing about animals. You've been convinced by someone who changed it to make it more acceptable to himself.

Barbarian observes:
Now, God could have created a universe in which evil would never appear.

It is surprising you use such a flimsy atheist argument.

It is surprising that you think atheists suppose God is omnipotent, but Christians don't. You're a little confused here.

Of course God could have created such a universe, but He wanted a love relationship with us.

You're willing to go that far, why not accept all of it? He chose to create evil (in the sense of bad things happening) for a purpose.

Isaiah 45:6 That they may know who are from the rising of the sun, and they who are from the west, that there is none besides me. I am the Lord, and there is none else: [7] I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.

Don't decide what God should do.

Originally Posted by 6days
Darwin as far as we know never professed faith in Christ as his savior

Barbarian observes:
He mentions that in The Voyage of the Beagle that the officers of the ship were amused by his orthodox Anglican Christianity.

Being religious is not the same as having a relationship with our Creator, and trusting Him as Savior.

You, for example, are religious, but you don't trust Him. The point is that an Anglican, if he's orthodox, has a relationship with God and trusts him as his savior.

I could be amused that you are Catholic, but that doesn't say anything about personal faith in Jesus.

Being Christian, whether Anglican or Catholic, involves those things. I imagine, if you check out your own denomination, that's true for you, too.

Originally Posted by 6days
There is no reconciling of Darwins beliefs of a god who created using famine and death with the Creator who proclaimed His creation "very good".

Barbarian suggests:
You might check with Job. Seems that your conception of a very good universe doesn't square much with His.

What I said was "There is no reconciling of Darwins beliefs of a god who created using famine and death with the Creator who proclaimed His creation "very good"."

God says He creates evil. Remember, "evil" in the sense of bad things happening, not sin. So I can believe Him, or I can believe you. Not really a choice, is it?
 

6days

New member
Barbarian said:
6days said:
The evidences of God's perfect creation...now corrupted are abundant.
The corruption you imagine is your addition to scripture. The death is a spiritual one.

God's Word tells us that the corruption / decay is to ALL creation.*


Gods Word tell us that physical death and spiritual death are a result of our sin. If physical death was not part of the curse then Christs physical death on the cross was unnessecary. Physical death entered our world because of Sin.


1Cor.15

*13*For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either.*14*And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless.*15*And we apostles would all be lying about God—for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave. But that can’t be true if there is no resurrection of the dead.16*And if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised.17*And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins.*18*In that case, all who have died believing in Christ are lost!19*And if our hope in Christ is only for this life, we are more to be pitied than anyone in the world.

20*But in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead. He is the first of a great harvest of all who have died.

21 So you see, just as death came into the world through a man, now the resurrection*from the dead has begun through another man.
 

resurrected

BANNED
Banned
The corruption you imagine is your addition to scripture. The death is a spiritual one. Adam did not force God to punish the animals, and God did not decide to do that because He was angry at Adam. It's highly insulting to Him to suggest He'd do anything like that

:think:


Gen 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.



barbie's so cute when he pretends to be a Christian :chuckle:
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
What's the hang up with Darwin, anyway? I know creationists can act a bit dim and assume scientists think just like they do, but that's not reality (although creationism by nature defies reality). It's like they assume Darwin's considered infallible.

Science moves on, fellas.
 
Top