Over 1,000 scientists sign statement expressing skepticism over Darwinism, encouraging new questions about the origins of life
By victoriab // 2019-02-20
Copy
 
Over 1,000 scientists have now joined the growing movement to challenge prevailing evolutionary theory. Under present scientific dictatorship, theories like Darwinism go virtually undisputed; challenging such a widely accepted belief is almost certainly career suicide. But as the "dissent from Darwin" movement shows, even the most "established" of theories should still be subject to scrutiny. To continue to blindly accept a theory, even with evidence to the contrary, is more akin to brain-washing. The true spirit of science, after all, is to question -- not to follow. The aptly-named list, "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism," surpassed 1,000 names in early 2019. Respected professionals from around the country who've earned doctorate degrees from top-tier universities are joining forces to remind the establishment, and the public, that what scientists know, and what they think they know are two different things.

Dissenting from Darwinism

The Dissent from Darwin list was created in 2001 and is maintained by the Discovery Institute. All 1,043 dissenters have signed the same 32-word statement, which reads:
“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.”
This is what radicalism looks like in 2019, and in case you can't tell -- it's also what "common sense" used to look like. The very idea that questioning Darwinism could be so controversial is laughable; if no one ever questioned "prevailing theory," we'd all still believe the Earth was flat. There would be no Darwinism either, for that matter. And yet, here we are: Living in a world where asking too many questions is considered dangerous. Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer, contends in a recent article that the dissenters “have all risked their careers or reputations in signing.”

Scientific dictatorship

As Klinghoffer notes, the threat of reprisal and retribution is too high for most people to sign the document. But if 1,000 people have signed so far, it's reasonable to assume there are many more scientists who agree that Darwinism shouldn't be exempt from scrutiny. Under current scientific dogma, however, such exploration is virtually impossible. Klinghoffer states further:
Such is the power of groupthink. The scientific mainstream will punish you if they can, and the media is wedded to its narrative that ‘the scientists’ are all in agreement and only ‘poets,’ ‘lawyers,’ and other ‘daft rubes’ doubt Darwinian theory. In fact, I’m currently seeking to place an awesome manuscript by a scientist at an Ivy League university with the guts to give his reasons for rejecting Darwinism. The problem is that, as yet, nobody has the guts to publish it.
Klinghoffer posits further that the "dissent from Darwin" list is not significant because of the names and institutions standing behind it, but because of what it says about those who are skeptical and do not sign. By continuing to play ball with the tyrants of mainstream science, skeptical scientists who refuse to sign are propagating scientific dictatorship. Everyone knows that the cost of signing such a document will be great -- but the cost of not signing may be much higher. While those who prefer to fall in line with the mainstream say that questioning Darwinism is "anti-science," or even "dishonorable," it is arguable that questioning what you're told is where science truly begins. Failing to be open-minded enough to even reexamine a decades-old scientific theory "because that's what they tell us to believe" is really the antithesis of scientific spirit. Thought suppression is now commonplace in modern science. Whether we are talking about vaccines, pesticides, climate change or Darwinism, the mainstream science community, along with their media shills and industry puppet masters, are actively silencing anyone who contradicts the chosen narrative. See more coverage of suppressed information at Censored.news. Sources for this article include: TheCollegeFix.com DissentFromDarwin.org
Copy