Many former evolutionist scientists.

[McCulloch]

There are many scientists who use to be evolutionist and are now creationists. They have PhDs and are known for their work.

Evolution is part of the science of biology. I now challenge Truth Prevails to provide a list of many PhDs in biology who are now creationists, or withdraw your claim.

[Goat]

This is not exactly a list of former evolutionists necessarily, but it is a decent size list of scientists that advocate ID and/or creationism:

A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism

"I am 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."

How could any scientist disagree with this statement. Of course careful examination of the evidence for any scientific theory should be encouraged. That is what science is.

Please don't make me do the work of validating Truth Prevails claim. Please remove from the list all of those who are not PhDs in biology and those who are not creationists.

Unless you put this list together yourself, you should provide a link to its source.

The source is here http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pr ... ntists.php

[Cathar1950]

This is not exactly a list of former evolutionists necessarily, but it is a decent size list of scientists that advocate ID and/or creationism:

A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism

"I am 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."

How could any scientist disagree with this statement. Of course careful examination of the evidence for any scientific theory should be encouraged. That is what science is.

Please don't make me do the work of validating Truth Prevails claim. Please remove from the list all of those who are not PhDs in biology and those who are not creationists.

Unless you put this list together yourself, you should provide a link to its source.

The source is here http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pr ... ntists.php

"I am 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.

It sounds like sound science to me, at least the careful examination or even critical aspects. Sounds like healthy science to me. Random mutation and natural selection are major players but there is DNA, the environment,environment accidents and other possible reasons for extinctions that all play a part in evolution.
I am sure more things will turn up as we keep trying to understand.
Evolution or change is obvious where no change or evolution might be rather limiting.

[Lionspoint]

With regard to Behe and Wells, etc... the best video to watch is The Case For A Creator. This documentary by Lee Strobel will illuminate just how stranded the religious "wonderful" people are to get science to line up with their "wonderful" burning bush that talks. If you believe there ever was a burning talking bush then why would you be against hallucinogens? Smoke some serious hash in the woods and you will likely be talking to burning bushes, too. The path to knowing god's mind: THC baby!!! God bless. VERY IMPORTANT: Do not abuse drugs. Do not. Just thought I should put that out there in case someone actually thought they might be closer to god if they did drugs.

[byofrcs]

This is not exactly a list of former evolutionists necessarily, but it is a decent size list of scientists that advocate ID and/or creationism:

A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism

"I am 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."

How could any scientist disagree with this statement. Of course careful examination of the evidence for any scientific theory should be encouraged. That is what science is.

Please don't make me do the work of validating Truth Prevails claim. Please remove from the list all of those who are not PhDs in biology and those who are not creationists.

Unless you put this list together yourself, you should provide a link to its source.

The source is here http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pr ... ntists.php

"I am 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.

It sounds like sound science to me, at least the careful examination or even critical aspects. Sounds like healthy science to me. Random mutation and natural selection are major players but there is DNA, the environment,environment accidents and other possible reasons for extinctions that all play a part in evolution.
I am sure more things will turn up as we keep trying to understand.
Evolution or change is obvious where no change or evolution might be rather limiting.

...and Sex. Everyone seems to forget recombination even though the mechanics leading up to this is on the mind of the average male for most of their life. Sex is important to mix the parents DNA and evidence suggests it avoids the problem of deleterious mutations (your mileage may vary if it's near kin !).

Anyway, at least there is evidence for Darwinian (I guess they mean Evolution) unlike some of the other fantasy theories involving Gods, turtles or mice. In the end even I would be "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". Talk about a disingenuous poll.


OK we have huge amounts of evidence for Darwinian theory, we just how need the evidence for God. That's so funny as their is none

[Quixotic]

Hi everyone,

Can I just say (not really contributing to this 'debate (ok that's kind of the point) ) that once again the Christians on this forum (frankly the most important part according to the title) have once again failed to back up their position with any amount of credible evidence, or even reasoned argument.

It seems to be a common theme.

Personally I think this is a shame.

Where is the debate?

I am 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.

Im also frankly amazed that more people did not sign up to the above. I would (im not a scientist btw) 100% agree with the statement. Science IS to be skeptical of all claims and carefully examine all evidence for (and against!!!) any claim. Thats the point of the scientific process, to examine and challenge claims to get to real credible and useful answers. The point here is that this has been done...many times and the same basic conclusion is reached by those who actually do the studying and study other peoples work in depth.

The fact that we have such technologies as cloning and genetic manipulation is testament to the accuracy of biological research, if the basic principals of biology were not correct any such advances would not exist. I fail to understand how anyone who looks closely at biology can come to the conclusion that evolution does not exist.

The best part it seems is that although Creationists band about these lists of people who disagree with evolution these lists themselves have failed to materialize.

Why even use this as a point in your argument when you know it is flawed.

If I had signed this list and it was put forward as a list of people who disagree with evolution I would be furious!!! let alone as someone who (based soley on the above statement) actually supports ID/Creationism!!!

In fact I propose an experiment. Im going to write to one of the people at random to see what they actually think.

Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas

Ok ill open a new thread post my email to him and will await his response.