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: ,

5 replies

  1. 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?


  2. 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

Post your comment or argument.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter 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.