8/24/2014 Darwin Skeptics A Select List of Science Academics, Scientists, and Scholars Who are Skeptical of Darwinism Compiled by Jerry Bergman PhD. It is commonly claimed that no scientist rejects macroevolution or Darwinism (by which is meant evolutionary naturalism, or the view that variation caused by mutations plus natural selection accounts for all life forms). For example, Dr. Steve Jones, Professor of Genetics at University College of London, wrote that “no scientist denies the central truth of The Origin, the idea of descent with modification... plants, animals and everything else descended from a common ancestor” (Jones, 2000, pp. xvii, xxiii). Other writers avoid the words “all” or “no scientist” and claim instead that “almost no scientist” rejects Darwinism as defined above. In an article refuting “wiccan creationism,” the author claimed that evolutionary theory has been confirmed to such a high degree and has such great explanatory power that it is the central organizing principle of the biological sciences today. Modern biology is basically unthinkable outside of the context of evolution and that is why it is accepted without reservations by pretty much every working scientists [sic] in the life sciences. It also isn’t really questioned in the other natural sciences, either, like physics or chemistry. The author then makes the following absolutist statement: Evolution is taken as a fact—and while there might be disagreements about some of the details of how evolution proceeds, there are no disagreements about the idea that it does occur and that it is the explanation for the diversity of life on our planet. Ashtaroth’s claim is exactly the opposite of the truth, which is that “almost no scientist puts any stock in any other attempted explanation for the diversity of life—especially creationism” (http://atheism.about.com/b/a/063194.htm accessed May 28, 2004, p. 1). This view is not an isolated example. The late Ernst Mayr, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, is “one of the most influential evolutionary theorists of our time” (Ferris, 2001, p. 326). Mayr declared that “no educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact” (Mayr, 2001, p. 141). He has been claiming this for over 40 years—in 1967 he wrote that “evolution is accepted by every scientist” and for this reason it is no longer necessary to “enumerate painstakingly the proofs for evolution” (Mayr, 1967, p. v). In 1971, Mayr claimed that he did “not know of a single well-informed person who questions the factuality of evolution” (Mayr, 1971, p. 49). Not a single person! Mayr defines evolution, which he calls “Darwinism,” as the rejection of all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as creator or designer (Mayr 2001, p. 138). Mayr adds that “eliminating God from science made room for strictly scientific explanations of all natural phenomena” (Mayr 2001, p. 138). Furthermore, Mayr concludes, the “truly outstanding achievement” of Darwinism is that his theory “makes unnecessary the invocation of ‘final causes’—that is, any teleological forces” (Mayr 2001, p. 136). This claim is common. Evolutionary biologist of Brandt University Dr Gary Huxley wrote “Evolution is a fact and no educated scientist doubts it” (quoted in McDorman, 2011, p. 1). Yet, in spite of these claims, I was able to with little difficulty assemble a list of almost 3,000 scientists and professors who reject Darwinism as defined as variation caused by mutations plus natural selection ultimately accounts for all life forms, most of whom hold a Ph.D. degree in some field of science. This is but a small percentage of the estimated 113,000 Darwin Skeptic scientists and academics in the 1 United States alone, accordingly to a Harvard researcher (Gross and Simmons, 2006). Yet, Mayr admitted evolution is an historical, not an empirical science: Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain (2001, p. 135). Given his acknowledgement of this fact, it is all the more surprising that Mayr would be so dogmatic as to insist upon the unquestionable, unequivocal validity of Darwinism. Joseph McInerney, the director of Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, which publishes the textbook Biological Science: An Ecological Approach, wrote that creationists maintain that ‘scientists disagree about evolution.’ That is a deliberate misrepresentation of biology. In fact, all scientists accept the reality of evolution” (quoted in Hill, 1996, pp. 5,7, emphasis added). This erroneous view has been widely promoted and accepted at least since 1922 when Professor George Duncan claimed that Evolution is well-nigh universally accepted by all scientific men as the best explanation for the facts of life. The American Association for the Advance of Science with over 1400 members, comprising most of the scientific men of the United States and Canada, affirmed, in December, 1922, without a dissenting vote, the following: “No scientific generalization is more strongly supported by thoroughly tested evidences than is that of evolution. The evidences for the evolution of man are sufficient to convince every scientist of note in the world.” ...H.F. Osborn of Columbia University writes: “Evolution has long since passed out of the domain of speculation, of hypothesis, and even of theory. It is a law of living nature as firmly and incontrovertibly established as the law of gravitation in respect to the celestial spheres” (Duncan, 1931, pp. 31-32). Others acknowledge that some Darwin Skeptic scientists exist, but conclude that the number is very small. For example, Samuel Kounaves argues evolutionary naturalists include “99.9999 percent of the scientific community” (Kounaves 2005, p. 1). The sources for the members of this list include primarily persons of my acquaintance, from their involvement in creationist or Darwin Doubter organizations, or books that they have written. The list is very incomplete, and I apologize for the many omissions. I estimate that, if I had the time and resources, I could easily complete a list of over 10,000 names. I am also a member of three discussion groups involving over to 400 creationists and Intelligent Design (ID) advocates, many of whom are not included in this list because of their justifiable concern that revealing their sympathies in this area could adversely impact their careers. I did not add names unless the person was out-of-the-closet or gave his or her permission. On my public list, I have close to 3,000 names, including about a dozen Nobel Prize winners but, unfortunately, a large number of persons that could be added to the public list, including many college professors, did not want their name listed 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 that “outing” them could seriously damage their career. This is a valid concern. For this reason I have a private list with well over a 1,000 names. 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 when it comes to questioning Darwin. 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 now six year long effort. I contacted 2 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. Most of the following worldwide scientists and educators (by the time this list was published some may be deceased) all reject “Darwinism” according to the following definition: The belief that evolution and common decent can account for the existence of all life. A few accept common decent but reject the Darwinisn mechanism. Most all persons on this list are also skeptical of the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Furthermore, all stressed that careful examination of the evidence for Darwinism should be encouraged. This list proves Mayr’s claim that “no educated person any longer questions the validity” of Darwinism, as Mayr defines it, to be not only false, but grossly irresponsible. Furthermore, many of these scientists and academics have published in the scientific literature, some extensively. In one survey, Elliott (1990) concluded that approximately half of the current Creation Research Society Board members have published research that was cited by other scientists. Thus “it seems reasonable to conclude that most CRS Board members are serious, if not notable, scientists.” References Anonymous. 2006. “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.” www.dissentfromdarwin.com, February. ______. 2006. “Over 5000 Scientists Proclaim their Doubts about Darwin’s Theory, Scientific Dissent from Darwinism Continues to Grow, Say Experts.” Available on www.dissentfromdarwin.com.