500 plus renowned scientists jointly share why they reject Darwin’s theory of evolution

 

500 plus renowned scientists jointly share why they reject Darwin’s theory of evolution

In Brief

• The Facts:

  Many scientists around the world have voiced their concerns regarding Darwin's theory of evolution. The science is not adequate to explain life and human creation.

• Reflect On:

  Why is this theory pushed so hard? Is this an example of scientific dogma? Some educational institutions are teaching it as fact. Why aren't we taught to question accepted beliefs regarding the origins of human life? Why are there only two options?

It’s amazing how the theory of evolution is pushed on the populace as fact and sound science, but like Professor Colin Reeves, from the Department of Mathematical Sciences from Coventry University explains, “Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned science the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection’s ability to create complex biological systems – and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour. “

He is one of 500 scientists in several fields that came together a few years to create “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.” Here’s another great quote from one of the scientists, Chris Williams, A Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University:

As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require — or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have — or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life — the foundation of evolution – is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.

Although this seems to be ongoing, and new information has emerged, I’d like to have a discussion about it.

We’re dealing with a controversial topic here, one that has some scientists reprimanded for going against it in some cases. This theory is really being pushed hard on the scientific community, which could be the reason why these scientists chose to voice their concern in such a manner. It’s being taught, in some cases, in schools as fact.

Although the list is an old one, it goes to show that this thought is out there, and this type of thinking is clearly legitimate and exists for several reasons. There are multiple theories out there which we should be discussing, take for example, Francis Crick, a Nobel Prize-winning co-discoverer of the DNA double helix, as Gregg Braden points out, Crick believed that life’s building blocks have to be the result of something more than random mutations a “quirk” of nature…

Crick risked his reputation as a scientist by publicly stating, “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.” In the scientific world, this statement is the equivalent of heresy, suggesting that something more than chance evolution led to our existence.

Crick is was one of many scientists who believed that intelligent intervention had something to do with it, and also postulated an extraterrestrial hypothesis.

Gregg Braden makes another great point,

The feeling that there’s something more to our story is not just a recent phenomenon. Archaeological discoveries show that, almost universally, from the ancient Mayan Popol Vuh and the indigenous traditions of the American desert Southwest to the roots of the world’s major religions, ancient humans felt connected to more than just their immediate surroundings. They sensed that we have our roots in other worlds, some that we can’t even see

It wasn’t long ago when Apollo 15 pilot, Alfred Worden stated,

We are the aliens, but we just think they’re somebody else, but we’re the ones who came from somewhere else. Because somebody else had to survive, and they got in a little spacecraft and they came here and they landed and they started civilization here, that’s what I believe. And if you don’t believe me, go get books on the ancient Sumerians and see what they had to say about it, they’ll tell you right up front.

At the end of the day we simply have to ask ourselves, why is it becoming more and more difficult to question things? Many people live in a state of fear and feel worried about how they will be perceived these days for taking a particular view, be it on human evolution, vaccines, whichever…

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
–Edward Peltzer Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute), Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry

Mainstream education teaches us that 99% of DNA links is indicative of where we came from, but we share approximately 65 percent of our DNA with a Banana, what does that mean?

Human beings aren’t stupid, and this is why in 2014, a Gallup poll revealed that in the United States alone, almost half the population believe that there’s something more to the origins of human existence than the two options that are constantly presented to the masses. They believe that there is something more than Darwin’s theory of evolution.

This tells us that human intuition is pointing us towards something more and some of the greatest scientific minds agree.

It’s also very important to mention the fact that multiple discoveries continue to be left off the record. The discovery of giant skeletons is an excellent example. We have written some heavily sourced articles, displaying a fraction of the evidence that’s out there today, you can access them here.

The point is, there are still many questions left unanswered, and still many discussions to be had.

 REGISTER NOW