Scientific Dissent From Darwin

Over 900 PhD’s have signed the Dissent from Darwinism petition—"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
For more information along with testimonials from scientists about why they doubt Darwinian Evolution, visit the official web site:

There are four main areas Scientists are particularly pointing out as problem areas for Darwinian Evolution:

Genetics -- Mutations Cause Harm and Do Not Build Complexity:

Darwinian evolution relies on random mutations that are selected by a blind, unguided process of natural selection. This undirected process has no goals. Being random, it tends to harm organisms and does not improve them or build complexity. As biologist Lynn Margulis said: "New mutations don't create new species; they create offspring that are impaired." Similarly, the past president of the French Academy of Sciences, Pierre-Paul Grasse, contended that "[m]utations have a very limited 'constructive capacity'" because "[n]o matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."

Weddle Commentary: Science itself says all things go from order to disorder. Yet there is no observable proof that mutations in animals improve them. They may drop stuff they don't need anymore, they may change the shape of a beak, or color of a wing, but there is no evidence of a species adapting something better. In observation of thousands of generations of bacteria, there is no proof of bacteria mutating by adding something. All that mutation can do is eliminate what was already there. Almost as if all things started in perfection and mutated down, kind of like what the Bible says!

Biochemistry -- Unguided and Random Processes Cannot Produce Cellular Complexity:

Our cells are like miniature factories using machine technology but dwarfing the complexity and efficiency of anything produced by humans. Cells use miniature circuits, motors, feedback loops, encoded language, and even error-checking machinery to decode and repair our DNA. Darwinian evolution struggles to explain the origin of this type of integrated complexity. Biochemist Franklin Harold admits: "There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

Weddle Commentary: Scientists in Darwin's day had a very fuzzy notion of the cell. With advanced technology, scientists have been able to discover amazing components of the cell that are mind blowing. Many of these scientists have been forced to conclude that there is no way Darwinian Evolution can explain these complex miniature machines.

Paleontology -- The Fossil Record Lacks Intermediate Fossils:

The fossil record's overall pattern is one of abrupt explosions of new biological forms, and generally lacks plausible candidates for transitional fossils, contradicting the pattern of gradual evolution predicted by Darwinian theory. This non-Darwinian pattern has been recognized by many paleontologists. University of Pittsburgh anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz states: "We are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus -- full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin's depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations." Likewise the great evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr explained that "[n]ew species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."

Weddle Commentary: When Darwin proposed his brand of evolution, he said if his theory were true we would find transition animals in the fossil record. Now, 150 years later and many a fossil found, there is zero evidence of transition critters in the fossil record. If these transition fossils don't exist, Darwin is wrong. Many Paleontologists are admitting this. Instead, what the fossil record clearly shows, are new species popping up, most famously in what is known as The Cambrian Explosion. Darwinian Evolution cannot explain sudden appearances of fully developed species.

Neo-Darwinian Evolution Has Been and Continues to Be Critiqued by Mainstream Scientists:

Everyone agrees that microevolution occurs. But mainstream scientific and academic literature is saturated with skepticism about the neo-Darwinian claim that microevolution offers an adequate basis for justifying macroevolutionary claims. A 2011 paper in Biological Theory stated, "Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty much reached the end of its rope," and in 2012, the noted atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel argued in an Oxford University Press book that "the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false."

Evolutionary biologist Stanley Salthe likewise describes himself as "a critic of Darwinian evolutionary theory," which he insists "cannot explain origins, or the actual presence of forms and behaviors" in organisms. Biologist Scott Gilbert has stated in a report in Nature that "[t]he modern synthesis is remarkably good at modeling the survival of the fittest, but not good at modeling the arrival of the fittest," and evolutionary paleobiologist Graham Budd admits: "When the public thinks about evolution, they think about the origin of wings and the invasion of the land, . . . [b]ut these are things that evolutionary theory has told us little about." Eugene Koonin writes in Trends in Genetics about the increasingly undeniable reasons to doubt core neo-Darwinian tenets, such as view that "natural selection is the main driving force of evolution," indicating that "the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair" and "all major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution." He concludes: "Not to mince words, the modern synthesis is gone." Because of such criticisms, Cornell evolutionary biologist William Provine believes the Darwinian claim that "Macroevolution was a simple extension of microevolution" is "false."

Weddle Commentary: You will not hear Bill Nye or Neil Degrasse Tyson talking about this stuff. You won't see this in text books, in museums, or on documentaries. But when you get to where scientists are talking to scientists, past the popular brand of "science falsely so called," there are huge problems for Darwinian Evolution. Too many people have staked too much on the theory though, so it will die hard. People often bash the Bible as anti-science, and believers as inept, foolish, morons, yet the Bible is standing the test of science quite well.

For a fuller explanation, click on this link.

Featured Posts
Posts Are Coming Soon
Stay tuned...
Recent Posts
Search By Tags
No tags yet.
Follow Us
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square
  • Facebook Social Icon
  • Twitter Social Icon
  • Google+ Social Icon