REAL Scientists say evolution flawed, are you evolution knee pad pukes MIT, UCLA etc. educated?

Question

It's for those who have reached the epitome of their fields, but still are questioning the validity of the Darwinian philosophy and want to put their concerns in writing.

The names include top scientists as MIT, UCLA, Ohio State, University of Washington, University of Pennsylvania, University of Georgia, Harvard, the College of Judea and Samaria, Johns Hopkins, Texas A&M, Duke, University of Peruglia in Italy, the British Museum and others.

"Darwinism is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs modern biology," said Michael Egnor, a professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook, and an award-winning brain surgeon who was picked as one of New York's top doctors by "New York Magazine."

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

remember evolutionary knee pad crowd, these are REAL SCIENTISTS, hundreds of them. have a nice day.

Answer 1

Yeah, that must mean that their right.

Answer 2

I see the list includes Michael Behe. Oh dear. Didn't he get scuttled in court at a place called Dover? Did he not confess to not having read the papers on immunology that were part of the evidence?

Look, it is not whether Darwin was bang on the money, it is whether some of the alternatives are valid. They clearly are not.

There are several cases where it is known that some creationists have lied and continued to lie even after public correction about their lies. These people are no better than those who promote the "Americans did not go to the Moon" hoax.

Your professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics will have more idea than the postman, but he is not necessarily an expert of all the ins and outs of evolutionary theory. Neither are the experts on quantum computing, mathematics or astronomy.

However many hundred scientists you list, the fact remains that evolution does happen. Whether any theory of it turns out to be correct only time will tell. So far, despite corrections, it appears that Darwin's central idea holds up pretty well.

Even if Darwin might not have been 100% correct, and he wasn't, the young and middle aged Earth creationist imbeciles and liars are 100% wrong and some of them know it.

Answer 3

Sure there's a lot of scientists who are not sure about Darwinism, but there are also a lot who believe in Darwinism, possibly more than those who don't. What you're saying doesn't prove anything to anyone. All theory's have people who believe in them and those who don't it's just the way of things.
By the way your argument is invalid. It's a fallacy known as argument from authority, you're saying that because all of these great scientists say it's untrue means it must be untrue. Sorry :)

Answer 4

It may be a trivial idea but it is the best theory we have and it seems to work very well most of the time.

For each one of those scientists there will be 99 who think that evolution is the best theory so far.

Your link doesn't even suggest a better theory, but reading between the lines it looks like a bunch of Creationists flying in the face of logic.

Answer 5

Logical fallacies, poor citations. You're not even worth arguing with. I guess you didn't read the large headline that states that those scientists doubt the ability of Darwinian evolution to explain the complexity of life. Not a single line says that they doubt evolution in its entirety, but I wouldn't expect someone who can't even spell peer review to understand how science works. Just continue citing hacks and an overrated neurosurgeon who owes his career to the work of his students and assistants. You'll never actually have to do the least bit of critical thinking when you suck at the dry teets of these pathetic people.

Answer 6

All they seem to be doing is professing their skepticism. Notice how they can't provide scientific reasons not to accept it though. Like a mechanism that would hinder the small changes we see in populations (what you call micro-evolution) from adding up to large scale species changes (what you call macro-evolution). All they can do is voice their skepticism, which other scientists continue to support the theory with science.

Answer 7

The Discovery Institute is just another way of trying to peddle Intelligent Design as science. I suggest you take a look at the church of the flying spaghetti monster. They have as many scientists supporting their theory. See the evidence section.

Answer 8

I'll see your hundreds of "top scientists" and raise you 830, mostly biologists, JUST NAMED STEVE (which is only about 1% of all scientists). REAL scientists say your "real scientist lists" are flawed.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp

"Project Steve mocks this practice with a bit of humor, and because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it incidentally makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, NCSE supporter and friend. "

Gee, my scientist list is bigger than yours.
Have a nice day, yourself.

Answer 9

You are " arguing from authority " and that, in itself, is a fallacy. The rest of your rant is just incoherent.

Answer 10

If a neurosurgeon is stupid enough to say something like that, he's not touching me. . . .