1,000 Scientists Who Say Evolution Is Wrong

For the past ten years, I have written extensively regarding the unprovable points of Darwinian Theory. I have been joined by many esteemed scientists from cosmology, physics, biology, “artificial intelligence” research, and others.

Of greatest concern is the certainty that random mutation and natural selection cannot scientifically generate the information content in living things.

Dr. Roland Hirsch, Chemistry Said:

“Life as revealed by new technologies is more complicated than the Darwinian viewpoint anticipated. Thus evolutionary theory, which was considered to be a key foundation of biology in 1959, today has a more peripheral role. … modern science makes it possible to be a scientifically informed doubter of Darwinian theories of evolution.”

Dr. Stanley Salthe, Professor Emeritus, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York, Said:

“Darwinian evolutionary theory was my field of specialization in biology. Among other things, I wrote a textbook on the subject thirty years ago. Meanwhile, however I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’s origination myth. Consequently, I certainly agree that biology students at least should have the opportunity to learn about the flaws and limits of Darwin’s theory while they are learning about the theory’s strongest claims.”

Dr. Douglas Axe, Director of Biologic Institute and Maxwell Visiting Professor of Molecular Biology, Biola University, Said:

“Because no scientist can show how Darwin’s mechanism can produce the complexity of life, every scientist should be skeptical. The fact that most won’t admit to this exposes the unhealthy effect of peer pressure on scientific discourse.”

Dr. Marcos Eberlin, member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, founder of the Thomson Mass Spectrometry Laboratory, Said:

“As a (bio)chemist I become most skeptical about Darwinism when I was confronted with the extreme intricacy of the genetic code and its many most intelligent strategies to code, decode and protect its information, such as the U x T and ribose x deoxyribose exchanges for the DNA/RNA pair and the translation of its 4-base language to the 20AA language of life that absolutely relies on a diversity of exquisite molecular machines made by the products of such translation forming a chicken-and-egg dilemma that evolution has no chance at all to answer.”

Dr. Yvonne Boldt, Ph.D. Microbiology, Univ. of Minnesota, Said:

“When Darwinian proponents claim there is no controversy regarding the cohesiveness of the scientific evidence for evolution as creator, they are merely expressing a heartfelt desire. … There is a growing contingent of scientists who have found the evidence for Darwinian evolution wanting, and who are ready and willing to debate Darwinists on scientific grounds.”

This list is growing rapidly and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

“We are 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.”

“There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.”

The Following Is The List Of 1,000 Scientists Who Believe That The Theory Of Evolution Is Flawed:

Scientists Dissent From Darwinism

Categories: Evolution, Evolution of Species, Origin of the Universe, Robert Clifton Robinson, Science and the Bible

Tags: ,

13 replies

  1. Atheists are not atheists because they believe in evolution they are atheists because they have read and understood the Bible.


    • I don’t think you understood the Bible. I was an atheist 45 years ago, a drummer in a touring rock band. I opened a Bible and began reading about Jesus in the New Testament and became a believer. I have spent the last four decades documenting the evidence that proves God exists.


      • But how do you deal with the silly or contradictory parts of the Bible? If you literally don’t perceive those as such, that could explain a great deal about your behavior.


      • You are making assumptions that are not true. This is common amongst people who are untrained in the scriptures.

        There are no contradictory parts of the Bible. I have conducted scholarly study of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures for over four decades. I have never found a contradiction or inconsistency.

        People who think they see these, do so because they don’t understand what they are reading. This is usually the conclusions of atheists and critics.

        No true conservative scholar finds any contradiction.

        You may find the following article of some help to you:


        Also, I thought I recognized your name, Mr Downard. You are a noted scientist and author. I would be interested in your thoughts or an impeachment of an essay I wrote a while back, if you have the time to make a few observations. It is at the following link:



      • And therein lies the matter, Rob. You literally don’t perceive such things (in much the same way those who doubt the evolutionary evidence of transitional forms literally can’t conceptualize such things in their heads). But don’t ever think that outside your box others don’t see it very differently. It is impossible for me to pretend, for example, that the Matthew-Luke train wrecks on the Messianic credentials of genealogy and Bethlehem nativity aren’t there. And no need to reprise the lengthy rationalizations believers offer to get around them, I’m more than familiar with them (I went into some of their arguments in my own writings, Ch 6 of my Old TIP work at http://www.tortucan.wordpress.com). Indeed, most non-believers have studied such things and similarly find them both revealing and unconvincing.


      • It is impossible for me to pretend, for example, that the Matthew-Luke train wrecks on the Messianic credentials of genealogy and Bethlehem nativity aren’t there

        It is, as I said: you don’t understand what you are reading. There are two different genealogies for Jesus because one is showing Jesus’ legal right to be Messiah through David (Joseph), the other, Jesus physical right through Mary.

        Mary’s Genealogy by Luke

        As Matthew gives us the details of Jesus’ genealogy through Joseph, Luke reveals that Jesus is qualified to be the Messiah through Mary’s family line, described in Luke Chapter 3.

        Mary’s genealogy is in reverse, with Jesus being named first, going all the way back to Adam:

        Notice that Abraham and David’s names are listed in Mary’s line, qualifying Jesus to be the Savior of the world. If Jesus could not prove that He was descended from both Abraham and David, He could not be the Messiah, regardless of the other prophecies He has fulfilled.

        The Importance of Jesus’ Genealogy

        According to the Gospel of Matthew—through Joseph’s genealogy, Jesus came from Abraham and David. The Messiah must come from the seed of Abraham and be from the house of David. This genealogy in Matthew, showing that Jesus came through Joseph’s line, proves that Jesus has the legal right to the throne of David.

        Mary’s genealogy, in the Gospel of Luke, traces Jesus’ line all the way back to Adam, validating that He was qualified to be the second Adam and Savior of all men. Mary’s genealogy proves that Jesus has the physical right to be the Messiah.

        Although Joseph was not the physical father of Jesus, he did convey to Jesus the legal right to the throne as the Messiah. Joseph, as His stepfather, was descended from David and Abraham.

        If you carefully examine Joseph’s genealogy, which is given by Matthew, you will see a man by the name of Jeconiah.

        In the Book of Jeremiah 22:30, the Lord pronounces a “curse” upon the entire line of Jeconiah:
        Thus says the LORD: “Write this man down as childless, A man who shall not prosper in his days; For none of his descendants shall prosper, Sitting on the throne of David, And ruling anymore in Judah.”

        In other words: No descendent of Jeconiah could ever be the Messiah.

        This presents a huge problem for the Lord, in that the Messiah must come from the line of David. Jeconiah is from the line of David down to Joseph who is the stepfather of Jesus.

        If Joseph had been the birth father of Jesus, then Jesus would have been disqualified from sitting on the throne of David because He is descended from the line of Jeconiah, in whom no one from his line could sit on the throne of David.

        In Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus, we see this man called “Jeconiah.” Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers about the time they were carried away to Babylon.

        In the Book of Jeremiah, Jeconiah was the king of Israel. He was such an evil king that the Lord cursed his entire line of descendants. As a result of this curse, none of Jeconiah’s future descendants could be the king of Israel.

        As I live,” says the LORD, “though Coniah (nickname for Jeconiah) the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet on My right hand, yet I would pluck you off;” Thus says the LORD: “Write this man down as childless, A man who shall not prosper in his days; For none of his descendants shall prosper, Sitting on the throne of David, And ruling anymore in Judah.

        This presented a problem for the future fulfillment of prophecies that concern the Messiah, who comes from one of the descendants of Jeconiah. We notice that Jesus is from Jeconiah’s line, in Matthew 1:11 of this chapter.
        Matthew 1:11,16: Josiah begot Jeconiah… And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.

        The genealogy that Matthew presents to us is for Joseph, Jesus’ stepfather. According to this curse placed by God upon all of those who come from Jeconiah, neither Joseph nor any of his sons could sit on the throne as the king of Israel. This would disqualify Jesus as the Messiah, except for one important fact: Joseph is not Jesus’ biological father; Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.⁠

        In this prophecy, we see how important the virgin birth of Jesus truly is. Had Joseph been the source of Mary’s conception, it would be impossible for Jesus to fulfill all of the prophecies of the Messiah. The precision and detail to which God made certain that Jesus is uniquely qualified as the Savior is truly amazing.

        It is certain that the reason why the Lord created this scenario in which Jeconiah’s line is cursed—preventing Joseph or one of his sons from being qualified to be the Messiah—is to show us the great power of the Lord to fulfill His word.

        1.The Messiah must prove that He is descended from Abraham and David; God makes prophecies that require this.
2.God curses the line of Jeconiah because of his evil; no descendant can be the king of Israel (the Messiah).

        3.God chooses a line of descendants for the Messiah that includes Jeconiah and Joseph, leading to Jesus.

        4.Jesus is conceived by the Holy Spirit, not by Joseph.
5.Joseph conveys the legal right for Jesus to be the Messiah as His stepfather while avoiding the curse that comes from the bloodline of Jeconiah.
6. Mary’s line of descendants also comes through Abraham and David, but not through Jeconiah.
7. Mary’s conception of Jesus is by the Holy Spirit, allowing Jesus to be born without inheriting the sin of Adam as well as following a line of descendants that excludes Jeconiah.
Now that is extreme engineering!

        You can see how some have misunderstood these two genealogie and thought they were a contradiction. The truth is, these two prove beyond any doubt, from a Jewish perspective, that Jesus is truly qualified to be the Messiah. This was extremely important to the Jewish readers of the New Testament, later.


      • Again, you proceed as if what you present is some news bulletin. I noted I’m already aware of that, the conservative rationalization that the Luke genealogy is that of Mary, never mind that it doesn’t overtly claim that. Skeptics can rightly suspect that the only reason for that rationalization is to resolve the contradiction with Matthew’s list.

        I get it, you are convinced your position is correct. And imagine that those who disagree need only to be apprised of your interpretation to see the light. You continue to illustrate the mindset that has limitless capacity to rationalize internal contradictions. Don’t feel special in this, believers in other faiths do exactly the same thing with their problems, and even out in the world of occultism.


      • The problem with your statements is that you have not considered whether the evidence in the text actually proves that both Genealogies were necessary to prove the legal and physical right of Jesus to be the Messiah.

        You apparently didn’t understand my answer. It is not just that the Genealogy of Luke is for Mary, but what the genealogy proves, and why it is different from Matthew. They are not contradictory, but complimentary.

        The fact that first century men were able to engineer two genealogies that prove Jesus had the right to be Messiah, is extraordinary. Mary gives Jesus the physical right to be Messiah, Joseph the legal right, but Joseph was disqualified from being Jesus’ true birth father because of the curse God pronounced on Jeconiah’s line.

        How extraordinary that God engineered these events with Jesus born of a virgin, as Genesis 3:15, and Isaiah 7:14 predict, so that Jesus could bypass Joseph’s cursed line and still take advantage of his legal conveyance of the right to be Messiah for Jesus as His stepfather.

        This is why we see two different genealogies that demonstrate and prove the facts I stated above. They are not contradictory, both can be true at the same time.

        These are not mere hypotheticals, or subjective opinions, these are the facts of the texts as they are given to us in the extant manuscripts for the New Testament. The fact that you cannot see this is extraordinary to me.


  2. Why waste your time on a site and topic you don’t believe in Herald?
    Is there something you are looking for? Something you can’t seem to find?


  3. The vast majority of the names on this list aren’t even in biology, or related fields! I don’t care what electrical engineers, or a professor of mathematics, thinks about evolution.

    But, just for sake of argument, let’s suppose that evolution is shown to be false tomorrow. This doesn’t make ID, or any other explanation for diversity, any more correct because evolution is false. Any other theory still needs to work to establish that it has credible mechanisms and models to create a good explanation. ID is still pseudoscience no matter the status of evolution.

    I think it’s rather sad that the Discovery Institute spends so much effort trying to make it look like there is some kind of quiet dissent about Evolution, and trying to present the idea that Evolution is in trouble but scientists are just conspiring to prop up the theory. It would be much more productive for them to go out and get real empirical evidence for their claims, and publishing them for peer review.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I am embarrassed for you, Herald. You make observations without actually reading the list of Ph.D’s. In fact, nearly 60 percent are from Biology, Chemistry, and Microbiology; hardly a minority.

      Do you really believe that the other 40 percent achieved a Ph.D., by being illiterate? If you had achieved a Ph.D, you would know that full knowledge of evolution is common amongst those who achieve such status.

      Even without a specific Ph.D. in the categories you demand for expertise, these other Doctoral opinions originate from firsthand knowledge of all the Evolutionary inadequacies that are purported today.

      In reality, there are thousands more who would sign the list but to do so would jeopardize their career, tenure, and ability to publish in the future. You see, Herald, in the real world of Evolutionary thought, anyone who opposes the status quo, is ostracized and excluded, fired, and ridiculed. Though the actual science of evolution is easily disproven, it will take time for the greater numbers to come forward and sign the list.

      As you noted, the list was once just 100, but is, today, over 1,000. We are not moving further from aversion to evolutionary theory, but closer every day. Ten years from now it is likely that there will only be a small minority who hold on to the error of evolution.

      The primary problem that these scientists have with the theory of evolution is its explanation for the origin and mechanics of life. These foundational principles cannot be answered by current evolutionary premise. Modern science has demonstrated the insurmountable obstacle of information which exists in the most basic of cells, that is not possible by an evolutionary process.

      This is the same obstacle that exists in proving the universe by a natural process. There were and are events in the history of the universe that no natural process is capable of. Only intelligence can impute information into a cell, or direct specific outcomes, as with the Cosmos. This is particularly true in the nearly 2,000 physical constants of the universe which makes advanced life on earth possible.

      Many years ago, atheists complained that “no credible Ph.D, supported the idea that evolution was not true.” Today, we have a list of 1,000 esteemed men and women who have signed their name to declare that evolution as an answer for life, cannot be sustained any longer due to rapid advancements in science. To this, you say that it is insignificant because many more say that evolution is true. The interesting thing about time is that it exposes truth and reveals the errors of liars.

      You comments are quite disingenuous and show that you are not, as you claim, a “truth seeking atheist.” You have an agenda and it is skewed by an inability to look at anything that disproves evolution, or the existence of God. There have been many leading atheists who are fair minded and were truth seeking, who followed the evidence from science to its natural conclusion and found that God must exist.

      It does not appear that you are in this category. You argue for the sake of argument, but never make a rational argument that would cause me or any other informed person to believe you.


      • I have yet to hear of any atheist who became a theist, let alone a Christian, for any good intellectual reasons. I find all of their reasons to be faulty in some way, and not based on the evidence.


      • I have yet to hear of any atheist who became a theist, let alone a Christian, for any good intellectual reasons. I find all of their reasons to be faulty in some way, and not based on the evidence.


        If I were to continue this discussion with you, it would not help you to find what you are really looking for. If your need was for more information, I would gladly continue to answer all of your questions. You are not seeking evidence so that you might believe in Christ and be saved, but only to further argue.

        This, of course, will not benefit you in the least. What you need most is a changed heart that is ready to receive all that God has wanted to give you since before He created the universe. God has sent His Son into the world, according to all that the prophets have written.

        Jesus has fulfilled God’s promise to send us a Savior who would die for our sins and make our salvation a reality. This is what you need Herald, not more questions and answers about things that cannot possibly lead you into eternal life.

        Liked by 1 person

Please see, "Guidelines For Debate," at the right-side menu. Post your comment or argument here:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: