Doubts About Darwin Stem from Science Not Religion
Every so often the Darwinists get all riled up about the Scientific Dissent From Darwin list, which lists over 700 PhD scientists who publicly affirm: "We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian Theory should be encouraged." As statements go, it's simple and straightforward. And that perhaps is what concerns Darwinists. People instantly understand what it is saying, what the scientists are courageously endorsing, and why it matters.
In 2006, New York Times science writer Ken Chang wrote an article claiming "Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition," which turned out to be not true on both counts. This perfectly fits with the agenda of Darwinists seeking to show that all skepticism of Darwinian evolution is religiously based, but that simply isn't the case.
Signers of the Dissent List have signed the list because it is their professional opinion that the evidence is lacking for the claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Period. Nothing more, and nothing less.
It is not a political statement. It is not an educational policy statement. Signing doesn't make one a proponent of intelligent design.
Over at Post-Darwinist Denyse O'Leary writes about another question she's received recently about how many Discovery Institute Fellows are evangelical Christians. (As if she would know, or as if it even mattered. No one asks how many staffers at the NCSE are atheists, so why should anyone care about Discovery Fellows?) We get questions like thisperiodically. And the answer is, we don't keep count. Like the Dissent list, Discovery doesn't have a religious litmus test for Fellows. Nor any other litmus test.