I’m With Stupid: Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

by Greg West

Remember the old t-shirt slogan, "I’m with stupid"; you know the one with the arrow pointing at the person beside you? Okay, well, if you do, hold onto that thought for a few moments while I ramble a little bit.

First of all, I am tired of statements that I am constantly seeing put out there by evolutionists, atheists, or whomever, saying something like, "99.9% of all scientists accept evolution as fact". I also grow tiresome of statements such as the following:

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)."    – Richard Dawkins

Let’s take a look at what some other scientists besides ol’ Dick have to say about Darwinian evolution…

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."

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." 

Dr. Raul Leguizamon, M. D., Pathologist, and a professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico:

 "I am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in favour of Darwinian dogma. Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all. Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as George Bernard Shaw used to say."

Dr. Roland Hirsch, Ph.D. 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."

Dr. Michael Egnor professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook:

"We know intuitively that Darwinism can accomplish some things, but not others. The question is what is that boundary? Does the information content in living things exceed that boundary? Darwinists have never faced those questions. They’ve never asked scientifically, can random mutation and natural selection generate the information content in living things."

Dr. Rebecca Keller, Ph.D. Biophysical Chemistry:

"Darwin’s theory needs to be questioned, challenged, and examined in order to maintain its scientific integrity and to protect it from becoming dogma."

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."

Chris Williams, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University:

"As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require – or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have – or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life – the foundation of evolution – is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact."

The above scientists are but a handful of about 700 others who have signed a document titled "Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", which states:

"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."

Now, I don’t know about you, but unless these people are getting their PHDs out of a Cracker Jack box, my bet would be that they’re smarter than your average Joe (or Greg in my case).

If you would like to view the entire document and see the complete list of signors along with their credentials, click on the image below…

I'M WITH STUPID