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]

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.

There is Wells.. of course, he was a creationist before he went got his PHD, funded by Sun Yen Moon, for the specific purpose of "refuting evolution"

[McCulloch]

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

There is Wells.. of course, he was a creationist before he went got his PHD, funded by Sun Yen Moon, for the specific purpose of "refuting evolution"

I have to admit ignorance. I don't know this Wells. Does he have a first name? Is he a biologist? However the claim by Truth Prevails is that there are many, not just one, who used to be evolutionists and are now creationists. Wells, from what I see, does not qualify.

If there are many, they should not be that hard to find. After all, there really are many creationist apologist sites. Surely such a list would be a valuable tool in their efforts to legitimize their claims.

I'll wait.

[Goat]

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

There is Wells.. of course, he was a creationist before he went got his PHD, funded by Sun Yen Moon, for the specific purpose of "refuting evolution"

I have to admit ignorance. I don't know this Wells. Does he have a first name? Is he a biologist? However the claim by Truth Prevails is that there are many, not just one, who used to be evolutionists and are now creationists. Wells, from what I see, does not qualify.

If there are many, they should not be that hard to find. After all, there really are many creationist apologist sites. Surely such a list would be a valuable tool in their efforts to legitimize their claims.

I'll wait.

It would be 'Doctor Jonathan Wells" of the Discovery Institute. Besides pushing
"intelligent design" , he also denies the link between HIV and AIDS.

He is noted for his book "Icons of evolution, science or myth" in which is misrepesents a lot of science.

[Rathpig]

In response to the obvious overstating of a few "scientists" who may be "anti-evolution" and are often touted and grossly inflated in number by the Creationist adherents, let's turn to the National Center for Science Education's ongoing Project Steve:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articl ... 6_2003.asp

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/meter.html

It seems the Steve-o-Meter is up to 847 working scientists, with degrees and institutions peer-reviewed for accurate representation by NCSE, who have publicly signed the following statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

Since only about 1% of scientists are named "Steve", or derivation thereof, this is an ample display of the overwhelming acceptance of the factual nature concerning the theory of evolution. As has been said a thousand times, I challenge the Creationist Lobby to present a list of 800+ working scientists, with degrees and institutions peer-reviewed for legitimacy, that disagree with the NCSE statement.


And to disclaim a very common response, the fallacy of ad populum is stating that truth is derived from popularity. The support among actual working scientists for the theory of evolution is the exact opposite of this since popularity has been derived from truth. The theory of evolution passes the test of continual review and research among the overwhelming majority of actual working scientists.

[QED]

I have to admit ignorance. I don't know this Wells. Does he have a first name? Is he a biologist? However the claim by Truth Prevails is that there are many, not just one, who used to be evolutionists and are now creationists. Wells, from what I see, does not qualify.

More to the point was he formerly convinced that evolution was the best explanation for the origin of species? I doubt that he ever was.

[Goat]

I have to admit ignorance. I don't know this Wells. Does he have a first name? Is he a biologist? However the claim by Truth Prevails is that there are many, not just one, who used to be evolutionists and are now creationists. Wells, from what I see, does not qualify.

More to the point was he formerly convinced that evolution was the best explanation for the origin of species? I doubt that he ever was.

No, he was not. I am not sure about the status of Behe on that subject, but when it comes to his claims for I.D., he has his proverbial rear handed to him in the Dover trial where he actually had to face cross examination about what he said.

Most of the 'scientists' that signed the discovery web site list are not in the biological sciences. Of the ones that are, I am not sure if they went through a 'conversion'

[Openmind]

I seem to remember Easyrider giving me a link to a petition of 700 or so scientists that rejected the evolution via natural selection as a valid scientific principle. The problem was, many were Christian Evangelists, and only 14% were biologists. It is rather absurd to even listen to an engineer of a mathematician, as smart as they undoubtedly are, who seeks to comment in a field they are not qualified in. No one would pay attention to a Chemist who sought to refute Freudian psychology...

Oh and another thing! I remember one of the signatories, a retired Christian Professor of Biology, asked for his name to be removed, and said that they had decieved him! In his words, there was "no real debate" as to whether the Theory was true.

[Revelations won]

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.

Whether one has a PHD or not does in no way change the facts.

Maybe we should look at the beginning of the so called evolutionary life forms.

Evolution ?

Many single celled forms of life exist.

Who can show any evidence of 2, 3, 4 or 5 cell forms of animal life ?

[Goat]

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.

Whether one has a PHD or not does in no way change the facts.

Maybe we should look at the beginning of the so called evolutionary life forms.

Evolution ?

Many single celled forms of life exist.

Who can show any evidence of 2, 3, 4 or 5 cell forms of animal life ?

We can show that some single celled animals form colonies in stress. If you are not
just being factious, you may read

Boraas, M.E., Seale, D.B., and Boxhorn, J.E. (1998) Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity. Evolutionary Ecology 12:153-164.

The abstract given in Talkorigins is

Predation was a powerful selective force promoting increased morphological complexity in a unicellular prey held in constant environmental conditions. The green alga, Chlorella vulgaris, is a well-studied eukaryote, which has retained its normal unicellular form in cultures in our laboratories for thousands of generations. For the experiments reported here, steady-state unicellular C. vulgaris continuous cultures were inoculated with the predator Ochromonas vallescia, a phagotrophic flagellated protist ("flagellate"). Within less than 100 generations of the prey, a multicellular Chlorella growth form became dominant in the culture (subsequently repeated in other cultures). The prey Chlorella first formed globose clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. After about 10-20 generations in the presence of the phagotroph, eight-celled colonies predominated. These colonies retained the eight-celled form indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. These self-replicating, stable colonies were virtually immune to predation by the flagellate, but small enough that each Chlorella cell was exposed directly to the nutrient medium.