Which scientists are questioning evolution?

Question

No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.

Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.

Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted.

"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.

In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific enquiry, such answers shut it down.

A farse of the highest order, yet still they believe.

Answer 1

www.sharegive.org............

pages 6-20................

and the truth(non-relative, of course) shall help those with their heads up their asses to see.............

Answer 2

Few creationist manuscripts are submitted because the potential authors are aware that such are unlikely to be accepted. This obtains because you cannot do acceptable science without evidence, and the creationists can't present any. In any event, evolution is now a proven fact, for details, use my avatar to reach an answer to the question "Do you know what a scientific theory is?", which I have put on my Star list.

Answer 3

I read a magazine called Answers that has a website AnswersMagazine.com. (I like the magazine better than the website, but try the website anyway.) The people that produce the magazine also produce a quarterly scientific journal. I don't have all the details with me (what it's called; who writes it) at the moment, but maybe a search of the website would turn it up. In just a matter of moments you should be able to find many names of creationist scientists.

I appreciate that you were trying to be calm and factual with your question. Sometimes anti-creationists can get so nasty. The information is there, though. I've read tons of books by and about creationist scientists. It's definitely not the main-stream viewpoint right now, but it is gaining momentum. And if you keep an open mind who knows what changes you may make in your concept of the world.

Answer 4

here is a website of scientists which according to the website accept the biblical account of creation.
I've only looked some of them up, some do not work in fields related to evolution and seem to be able to do prolific work, though I am not able to judge the quality, not being familar with their field, but for all I know it may be good - but then evolution doesn't come into it.
Some others did not seem to publish much at all and teach at christian colleges. Though I only looked up a few.
I guess you could contact them and ask them why they agree to be published on this website.
I remember that I read some online articles by one of the scientists (Kurt Wise) about the work of other scientists about the evolution of trilobite eye of which I had read the original paper. Either he didn't understand it, or he intentionlly misrepresented it. But he has a PhD with Stephen Gould as thesis advisor, go figure...

Though I have to say, that I really like section of the website which is about arguments they don't recommend creationists to use (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp), as this is a collection of about common but frequently asked but stupid question, it is nice to have a creationist source saying that they aren't good arguments.

Answer 5

Creation scientists are trying to create some of the trappings of science - a shadow government, if you will.

http://www.icr.edu/ijcr/index.html
The Institute for Creation Research is trying to set up a peer review system here.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119937.html
Blog where I read the about the article, complete with (well deserved) snarky commentary.

Answer 6

Of course scientists question evolution. That is the very thing that separates scientists from religious zealots. Scientists should and do question EVERYTHING! It is through this questioning, investigating, theorizing, experimenting and continuous evaluation that produced what we know as science today. Those that base facts of the universe on doctrine without questioning origin are called theologians.

Answer 7

nicely, in my own opinion if there ever be a certainty to that fact approximately evolution, what's important is that the tip effect became good. If humanity is a effect of evolution , atleast the tip area is sweet. Humanity...... they only have a very good kind of person differences that is very goodm, or undesirable. yet they have the intelligence different species won't very own.. in spite of the undeniable fact that, if we got here from one race and differences the complexion , top , sort, and so forth. because of the fact of temperature or environment..... that keeps to be to be a query and the respond is yet unknown.....

Answer 8

It's already been questioned for over 100 years with now countless pieces of evidence, some enough to prove evolution on their own, no debate in the community by real scientists anymore.

Answer 9

I see alot of questions on evolution on this forum I guess because so many of the religious are against it's precepts. I am not one of them, simply because many of the present religions themselves went through their own EVOLUTION. What many in Judaism believe today is NOT what their ancestors believed, say 2600 years ago, and Christianity has ALSO evolved into what it is today. I am of faith myself, but don't understand why so many think evolution has anything to do with discrediting FAITH. If anything the evolutional facts substantiate the complexity of everything in creation and that just EVOLUTION itself could not have created everything on it's own..............

Answer 10

Evolution is a Theory with a firm base of speculation and assumption.

It was created as an alternative to believeing in God.

It is widely accepted by those who will believe anything short of insanity than in God, even if it goes against all odds.

Here's to the believers[evolutionist]

Still believing in an 18th century athiest fairytale.


You have more faith than us.


The Universe banged itself into existance from nothing, by oddless chance...

laws formed from caose, atoms up and came to be, like magic.

what a sound, "prooven science" Evolution is.


My hat's off to ya.

I'll put my trust in more plausible things, while yall continue to believe in whatever tale that you call "Science".


-Splinter_In_Finger

Answer 11

This isn't a science posting board. This is religion and spirituality. Your question belongs elsewhere.