More than 500 famous scientists reject Darwin's theory of evolution.
- The Facts: Many scientists around the world have expressed their concerns about Darwin's theory of evolution. Science is unable to explain human life and creation.
- Reflection: Why is this theory so pressing? Is this an example of an imposed dogma? Educational institutions teach it as fact. Why are we not taught to question accepted beliefs about the origin of human life? Why are there only two options?
It is surprising that the theory of evolution is still presented to the world as fact and voiced by mainstream science, but as Professor Colin Reeves of the Department of Mathematical Sciences at Coventry University explains, “Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when these explanations were more or less plausible. a suitable scientific framework into which we can fit the biological facts. However, what science has learned since Darwin casts doubt on the ability of natural selection to create complex biological systems - and we still only have hand waving as an argument for it."
He is one of 500 scientists from several fields who came together to create Scientific Disagreement with Darwinism. Here's another great quote from one of the scientists, Chris Williams, Ph. D. from Ohio State University of Biochemistry:
“As a biochemist and software developer working in the field of genetic and metabolic screening, I am constantly amazed at the incredible complexity of life. For example, we each have an extensive "computer program" of six billion DNA bases in each cell that guides our development from a fertilized egg, determines how to make over 200 types of tissue, and ties it all together in numerous highly functional organ systems.
Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still cannot provide any significant details about the origin of life, and especially about the origin of genetic information in the first self-reproducing organism. What genes did he need - or did he have genes at all? How much DNA and RNA did he have - or were there nucleic acids at all? How did the huge information-rich molecules come about before natural selection? How exactly did the genetic code that links nucleic acids to the amino acid sequence originate? It is obvious that the origin of life is the basis of evolution - as before, almost everything consists of assumptions and speculation, and has little evidence."
Although this all continues, and new information has emerged, I would like to discuss it.
We are dealing with a controversial topic that some scientists no longer recognize and in some cases go against it. This theory really puts a lot of pressure on the scientific community, which may be the reason why these scientists chose to express their concerns in this way. It is presented in schools as a fact.
Although this teaching is hammered into the head, but as we can see, new thinking has appeared on this issue and this type of thinking is clearly legitimate and exists for several reasons. There are several theories that we need to discuss, such as the opinion of Francis Crick, the Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of the DNA double helix. As Gregg Braden points out, Crick believed that the building blocks of life must be the result of something more than random mutations, a "quirk" of nature …
Promotional video:
“Krik risked his reputation as a scientist by publicly stating: 'An honest man, armed with all the knowledge we now have, can only claim that in a sense, the origin of life seems almost miraculous at this moment.” In the scientific world, this statement is equivalent to heresy, suggesting that something more than random evolution led to our existence."
Crick was one of many scientists who believed that intelligent interference had something to do with this, and also assumed an extraterrestrial hypothesis.
Gregg Braden draws attention to another remarkable point:
“The feeling that there is something more in our history is not just a modern phenomenon. Archaeological discoveries show that almost everywhere, from the ancient Maya and indigenous traditions of the American desert in the southwest, to the roots of the world's major religions, ancient people felt connected to more than just their immediate environment. They felt that we have roots in other worlds, some of which we cannot even see.”
It was not too long ago when Alfred Warden stated:
“We are aliens ourselves, we just think they are someone else, but we are the ones who came here from somewhere. Because somebody else had to survive, and they got into a spaceship, and they flew here, and they landed, and they started civilization here, that's what I believe in. And if you don't believe me, go for books about the ancient Sumerians and see what they said about it, they will tell you everything”.
After all, we just have to ask ourselves, why is it getting harder to ask questions? Many people live in a state of fear and worry about how they will be perceived today for their individual opinions on a number of issues, be it human evolution, vaccines, etc.
“As a chemist, the most fascinating question for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry - and chemistry is the same for all times. What works (or not) today worked (or not) in the beginning. So, our understanding of what happened on Earth before the emergence of life is highly tested in the laboratory. And what we have seen so far, when reactions remain uncontrollable, as if they were in the natural world, is not so much. Indeed, decomposition reactions and competing reactions go far beyond synthetic reactions.
It is only when an intelligent agent (for example, a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tunes” the reaction conditions “just right” that we see any progress at all, and even then it is still rather limited and very far from what we need to get …
Thus, it is chemistry that speaks of the need for something more than just time and chance. And whether this will simply be a well-defined set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continuous guidance until life eventually emerges remains to be seen.
But what we do know is that random chemical reactions are grossly inadequate and often work against the paths necessary for success. For these reasons, I have serious doubts that the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make further progress in this area.” - Edward Peltzer, Professor, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute), Basic education teaches us that 99% of DNA bonds point to where we came from, but we share roughly 65% of our DNA with a banana, what does that mean?
Human beings are not stupid, which is why a 2014 Gallup poll found that in the United States alone, nearly half of the population believes there is more to human origins than the two options that are constantly presented to the masses. They believe there is more to Darwin's theory of evolution.
This tells us that human intuition points us to something more, and some of the greatest scientific minds agree.
It is also very important to note the fact that numerous discoveries still remain hidden. The discovery of giant skeletons is a great example. We have written several articles with many sources, showing some of the evidence that is there today, you can access it here.
The point is that there are still many unanswered questions, and there are still many discussions.