Is Creation Pseudoscience? Check out this List of Darwin Doubters!

Excerpted from the even more extensive Real Science Radio list

Theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) Lawrence Krauss told Real Science Radio that, “all scientists are Darwinists.”

However, he forgot Ben Carson.

Advertisement Below:

And aside from Carson, there are about twenty highly-credentialed anti-creationists at The Third Way who, regardless, acknowledge that the natural selection mechanism of neo-Darwinism cannot account for the diversity of life.
These “Third Way” scientists include molecular biologists, etc., from institutions like Oxford, the University of Chicago, Tel Aviv University, MIT, University of Vienna, University of Bonn, UCLA, Princeton. RSR hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams review their ever-growing list of lists of educated and highly-educated Darwin doubters, including many thousands of Ph.D.s, scientists, and professors. The guys also have fun reporting on astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists who doubt the Big Bang. (Find this show summary at rsr.org/doubters.)

Nobody Doubts Darwin, Except for These Guys:

Those who have gone out of their way to declare their doubt about Darwin include the:
– 100 Ph.D.s listed at Australia’s creation.com
– 200 scientists with master’s degrees or Ph.D.s listed over at AiG
– 300 medical doctors at Physicians & Surgeons for Scientific Integrity
– 500 Ph.D. scientists at the Korean Association of Creation Research
– 600 advanced degreed scientists at the Creation Research Society
– 900 scientists who signified their opposition at DissentFromDarwin.org
– 3,000 scientists and professors (most of whom hold a Ph.D. in some field of science) who reject secular Darwinism to varying degrees as named online by Dr. Jerry Bergman

Another Scholar Doubting Darwin:

A thousand evolutionists have incorrectly referenced Newsweek magazine to claim that 99.86% of scientists affirm Darwinism. In contrast to false reporting, consider that the famed atheist professor Thomas Nagel who wrote Mind and Cosmos: why the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false.
And in addition to the 5,000 or so scientists, Ph.D.s. and scholars above, those who think that almost all educated people affirm Darwin, are forgetting about these folks, all identified by carefully conducted research conducted by pro-Darwin institutions:

• 30,000 U.S. public high school biology teachers do not endorse Darwinism in class
• 100,000 college professors in the U.S. alone who, according to Harvard researchers, agree that “intelligent design IS a serious scientific alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution.”
• 570,000 medical doctors in the U.S., specialists in applied science, say God brought about or directly created humans.

Whereas Darwinism is dominated by storytelling, the field of medicine is an actual applied science within biology that is practiced by highly educated professionals. Thus it is significant that 60% of all U.S. medical doctors reject the strictly secular Darwinist explanation for our existence, with three of five docs agreeing that either God initiated and guided the process that led to human life or that God specially created human beings as we are.

Honorable Mention:

• 2.5 Million U.S. scientists and engineers believe in a personal God. This number comes from the 40% who believe in a personal God as reported by the New York Times in 1997 (see below). That percentage had stayed constant over the 80 years since the survey was first carried out in 1917. If that result has stayed consistent again over the past 20 years, then based on our 2016 population of more than 6.2 million scientists and engineers, two and a half million of them believe in God!
• Consider also the RSR list of the many fathers of the physical sciences, both before and after Darwin, who rejected naturalistic origins, including Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Harvey, Boyle, Huygens, Newton, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Dalton, Faraday, Pasteur, Joule, Kelvin, Lister, and Carver.

Oxford Biology Professor Rejects Neo-Darwinism:

In 2013 a British biology professor, Oxford University’s Dr. Denis Noble, argued against Neo-Darwinism in the journal Experimental Physiology. Of great significance, partly because Noble remains a committed evolutionist, nonetheless, he acknowledged, “that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved.”

Leading Evolutionary Biologist Agrees with Creationist Characterization:

A Royal Society 2017 publication, of all places, has support for the central creationist characterization of Darwinism, that natural selection sometimes explains survival of the fitness but never explains the arrival of the fittest. Enter Austrian evolutionary biologist Gerd Müller who wrote that “current evolutionary theory… largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behavior—whose variation it describes—actually arise in evolution.” Müller also admits what creationists have long observed, something that promoters like Richard Dawkins are blind to, that calls for “a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution… cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists…”

Percent of Faithful Scientists Constant from 1917 to 1997:

The New York Times reported in their article, Survey of Scientists Finds a Stability of Faith in God, on an old survey repeated verbatim 80 years later in 1997. “To the extent that both surveys are accurate readings, traditional Western theism has not lost its place among U.S. scientists, despite their intellectual preoccupation with material reality.” The 1917 atheist who conducted the original research, “predicted that more and more scientists would give up their belief in God, as scientific knowledge replaced what he considered to be superstition.” However, as the NYT updated the story, eight decades later, “A full 40 percent of scientists believe in a personal God and afterlife, according to a 1997 study.”

Advertisement Below:

Summary of the DI’s Scientific Dissent from Darwinism:

The Discovery Institute describes the hundreds of scientists who have signed their statement of dissent as made up of those holding “doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines from such institutions as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Dartmouth, Rutgers, University of Chicago, Stanford and University of California at Berkeley.  Many are also professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as Cambridge, Princeton, MIT, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania, University of Georgia, Tulane, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, and Ben-Gurion University in Israel.”

Non-religious Darwin Skeptics:

As reported by Casey Luskin in the Christian Research Journal, the Non-Religious Skeptics of Darwinian Evolution include Rutgers’ Jerry Fodor, National Academy of Sciences member and biology professor Lynn Margulis, Thomas Nagel, molecular biology post-doctoral fellow at Columbia University David Berlinski, the University of Warwick’s Steve Fuller, and NAS member Philip Skell.

Answering the Atheist’s Argument from Authority:

This list above is not an argument from authority. Rather, it is a REBUTTAL to logical fallacy committed often by evolutionists (including Krauss) when they commonly make their invalid argument from authority. There is nothing wrong with quoting an expert on a topic. But evolutionists frequently use the bait and switch tactic of identifying experts in one topic and then without acknowledging the switch, proceeding as though they were experts in a different field, which is one way of committing the logical fallacy of an invalid argument from authority. Being a pilot doesn’t mean that you know how to make an airplane, let alone gravity. So we should take care not to commit the logical fallacy of argument from an invalid authority, like this:

• Scientists are experts in operational physics, chemistry, and biology.
• Most scientists believe in naturalistic origins.
• Therefore naturalistic origins must be true.

Aside from the severe misrepresentation that “all scientists are Darwinists”, it is also a logical fallacy to imply that success in operational science translates to authority regarding origins.