Did you know that a growing number of scientists doubt the Darwinian theory of evolution?

Over 1000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.

Be sure to subscribe to this channel for more about dissent from Darwin's theory of evolution:

What do you give a great scientist for his birthday when he’s already got everything? He’s got absolutely all the scientists behind his theory. All the media. All the Officially Smart People, as Jay Richards calls them. Well, today is Darwin’s Day, the birthday of the venerated Charles Darwin, whose theory is a fact beyond question. Right? The journal Nature assures its readers, “Scientists can treat evolution by natural selection as, in effect, an established fact.” Or as philosopher Michael Ruse wonderfully put it, “Evolution is a fact, fact, FACT!”

The insistence on this point encourages a certain skepticism, though. As others have pointed out, evolution is supposed to be as certain gravity, yet nobody goes around saying, “Gravity is a fact, fact, FACT!” and nobody says gravity is as certain as evolution.

Against this backdrop, Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture noted last week that the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism has topped 1,000+ names. Today, over at the Dissent from Darwinism website, we’ve added a birthday present for Charles Darwin, a video introduction to some of signers. Check it out!

As I’ve also pointed out, while that number surely represents a scientific minority, it also no doubt vastly understates the number of Darwin-doubting PhD scientists. When it comes to evolution, persecution is an all too well known fact of academic life. Endorsing Darwinian evolution is the safe careerist move, while questioning it can easily mean the end of your career. So for every signer of the Dissent list, there is some multiplier’s worth of private skeptics in science. That is beyond doubt. The multiplier could 2, or 10, or 100. Who knows?

“But scientific truth isn’t determined by lists of names, even of people who hold PhDs,” protests evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne in response. True! “It’s determined by the published work of scientists and whether it’s accepted by the scientific community.” Not quite true! The “scientific community” can be mistaken, dramatically so. See, “How to Think About Minority Science Views — The Case of Plate Tectonics.”

Where there’s a genuine controversy, as there is about Darwinian theory, anyone in search of truth has no choice but to weigh the evidence for himself. The observation that, beyond doubt, thousands of scientists are skeptical and encourage further “careful examination” of the question, is one reason every thoughtful adult owes it to herself to consider the evidence without just passively swallowing the majority view.

As John West notes, the consistently poor quality of Darwinist rejoinders to leading skeptics is another reason. The latest skeptic to demonstrate is Michael Behe, whose new book Darwin Devolves just got a really incompetent pre-publication review from the journal Science. How to celebrate Darwin Day? Pre-ordering Professor Behe’s book is another fine idea!

Check out these other videos exploring doubts about Darwin:

Biologist explains scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution

Conversations with biologist Douglas Axe: When Did You Start to Doubt Evolution?

Conversations with biologist Douglas Axe: Where Did Darwin Go Wrong?

Share this video with a friend:

Subscribe to this channel:

============================

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter:
Twitter: @discoverycsc

Visit other Youtube channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture

[kvjqxzz]

well I am not 'sceptical' at all, mere scepticism is so wildly and weak-mindedly generous that I have thoroughly and absolutely never believed that a theory which boils down to the mere rolling of the molecular dice to produce anything meaningful whatsoever, let alone LIFE, in all its glory as we know it, has the slightest intellectual or philosophical validity in any way, form, or sense. Randomicity-to-life is simply preposterous, I do not spare it the energy to laugh at it, a mere smile of pity is all I will give it.

[keithallver]

And thousands more would sign if not for fear of ridicule and loss of career.

[refusebdcvd]

“I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science. It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaws and holes as sound parts.” —C. Darwin

[iranpopslover]

In the realm of science there's nothing wrong with being skeptical of any claim lol science encourages skepticism science adheres to the truth

[charlesmaeger]

The problem with darwinism is something darwin did not know about. Dna
Every cell even the lowest protozoa require dna to replicate. Dna is a complex biological softwate. In order for the first cells to stay alive and advance into more advanced forms of life they needed to be able to replicate, which requires dna. That dna could have spontaneously arisen for replication to take place requires a great deal of belief.

[davestrongman]

The harm this theory has caused to people all over the world who believed their lives were meaningless and there was no real right or wrong because of this theory is immeasurable. I know, I was one.

[inkristall]

It's interesting how Darwin publicized his theory long before the discovery and understanding of DNA.

[flimsyjimnz]

It's easy for evolutionists to dismiss doubters as religious nuts -but there's a growing number of atheist/agnostic scientists who doubt/reject evolution, they deserve respect.
Recommended viewing: (on YTube) Ben Stein's *'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'*

[lunamaria]

God made the world and everything in it

[briannawood]

OH my god this comments section is brutal, as someone that studies evolution and genetics, the point the the video is making isn't wrong. Darwinism should be questioned because there is a lot recent evidence that adds a layer of complexity into the issue of the the theory of evolution. HOWEVER this doesn't disprove the entire theory there is so much evidence that supports the theory, fossil records and genetic analysis can link closely related species with their hypothesized common ancestors. While we cannot observe macro or microevolution we can discover evidence for it. The recent evidence that is being brought into light does not disprove the theory as a whole but rather the claim that evolutionary is linear and gradual, and Darwin's view on the tree of life. This channel has been purposefully vague about what they are trying to disprove and has absolutely no actual facts or explanations on their claim.

[kalasatwater]

Evolutionists avoid this like the plague

[blacksheep]

I was once an evolutionist and atheist until I was shown different, its hard to grasp at first. I am now a Christian, once you see the deliberate lies dawinists tell you don't even bother with their failed theory any more, its like the little boy who cried wolf. May Yeshua bless each and every atheist out there, for they know not what they do.

[jasonbourne]

there's a difference between doubt and not believing in
doubt is the material that makes up science

[MasterChief-slro]

As one Computer engineer said.. There is so much information packed inside the Nucleus of the cell. It makes modern day computer drives look like Stone Age tablets..

So go figure. It has taken thousands a people with minds. To get us these Stone Age drives. Yet random mutations some how did it with Magic Pixie Dust... Better yet. It was Magic Crystals. I would laugh in your face so hard. If you ever tried that on me...

[adviceforidevice]

*Evolutionists* : We are open-minded and everyone has freedom of speech
*Scientist* : I'm skeptical of darwinian theory of evolution
*Evolutionists* : Ur fired

[kraftmorrison]

104 deslikes of new militants atheists fans of Neil Tyson degrasse

[jeffreycavanaugh]

PRAISE GOD THANK GOD FOR THESE SCIENTISTS COMING OUT

[DootNootem]

Evolution is really just as absurd as believing that Photoshop would have eventually coded itself, after a computer randomly got assembled out of thin air with all the components properly sliding into the motherboard beforehand, you know, randomly, and then just the right amount of electricity from a lightning strike powered it and over millions of years ('cause you know, need time to make it seem plausible) it became its final form... Except that doesn't happen, and never will. All known code comes from an intelligent mind, and in this case (at least), it is not bound by the limits of the world it controls. The same way humans aren't an actual part of the virtual reality that's inside the computer but can still act upon it, God controls the universe without being bound by time and space or anything in it. Everything was carefully coded at the beginning of time; that's exactly what DNA is, and much like how computer programs fail to work when their code is a mess, so does a creature.

[vivliforia]

Intelligent design is fact. Enjoy that.

[insecusfinnicus]

Evolution is not bulletproof. I think, that god created everything and Jesus Christ died for us.❤️