It's normal to question the dogma of natural selection

[LivingEarth]

This is a list of mostly non-religious scientists who have all spoken out against the Darwinian mechanisms of evolution - natural selection and random mutation and have questioned the role of it in evolution:

James A. Shapiro,
Alfred Russel Wallace,
Lev Berg,
Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger,
Michael Denton,
Michael Pitman,
David Berlinski,
Periannan Senapathy,
Chandra Wickramasighe,
Murray Eden,
Stanly Salthe,
Christian Schwabe,
Gerald Kerkut,
Lime-De-Faria,
Pierre Grasse,
Soren Lovtrop,
Fred Hoyle,
Stuart Pivar,
Guy Berthault,
Roberto Fondi,
Giuseppe Sermonti,
Edward Sisson,
Richard Sternberg,
Frank Tipler,
Brian Goodwin,
Peter Saunders,
Richard Milton,
Robert Wesson,
Francis Hitching,
Frank Ryan,
Gordon Rattray Taylor,
James Lovelock,
Lynn Margulis,
Rhawn Joseph,
Henry Fairfield Osborn,
Charles Otis Whitman,
Austin Hobart Clark,
Theodor Eimer,
Erwin Schrödinger,
Hans Dreisch,
John Scott Haldane,
James Le Fanu,
Johannes Reinke,
Guy Coburn Robson,
Rupert Sheldrake,
Robert Broom,
Thomas Hunt Morgan,
William Bateson,
Edward Drinker Cope,
Richard Owen,
George Henslow,
Carl Von Nageli,
Karl Von Baer,
Wilhelm Haacke,
William Lang,
Hans Prizibram,
Otto Schindewolf,
Daniel de Rosa,
Paul Davies,
Robert Lanza,
George Greenstein,
Mae-Wan Ho,
JohnJoe McFadden,
Bruce Lipton,
Ervin Lazlo,
Amit Goswami,
Hubert Yockey,
David Stove,
Jerry Fodor,
James N. Gardner,
Jean Staune,
Lee Spetner,
Antony Flew,
Bradley Monton

As you can see, it is perfectly normal to question natural selection and random mutation as the mechanisms of evolution, you do not have to be a creationist, religious etc. Don't just accept it at face value, explore the other theories of evolution.

 

[Photonic]

This is a list of mostly non-religious scientists who have all spoken out against the Darwinian mechanisms of evolution - natural selection and random mutation and have questioned the role of it in evolution:

James A. Shapiro,
Alfred Russel Wallace,
Lev Berg,
Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger,
Michael Denton,
Michael Pitman,
David Berlinski,
Periannan Senapathy,
Chandra Wickramasighe,
Murray Eden,
Stanly Salthe,
Christian Schwabe,
Gerald Kerkut,
Lime-De-Faria,
Pierre Grasse,
Soren Lovtrop,
Fred Hoyle,
Stuart Pivar,
Guy Berthault,
Roberto Fondi,
Giuseppe Sermonti,
Edward Sisson,
Richard Sternberg,
Frank Tipler,
Brian Goodwin,
Peter Saunders,
Richard Milton,
Robert Wesson,
Francis Hitching,
Frank Ryan,
Gordon Rattray Taylor,
James Lovelock,
Lynn Margulis,
Rhawn Joseph,
Henry Fairfield Osborn,
Charles Otis Whitman,
Austin Hobart Clark,
Theodor Eimer,
Erwin Schrödinger,
Hans Dreisch,
John Scott Haldane,
James Le Fanu,
Johannes Reinke,
Guy Coburn Robson,
Rupert Sheldrake,
Robert Broom,
Thomas Hunt Morgan,
William Bateson,
Edward Drinker Cope,
Richard Owen,
George Henslow,
Carl Von Nageli,
Karl Von Baer,
Wilhelm Haacke,
William Lang,
Hans Prizibram,
Otto Schindewolf,
Daniel de Rosa,
Paul Davies,
Robert Lanza,
George Greenstein,
Mae-Wan Ho,
JohnJoe McFadden,
Bruce Lipton,
Ervin Lazlo,
Amit Goswami,
Hubert Yockey,
David Stove,
Jerry Fodor,
James N. Gardner,
Jean Staune,
Lee Spetner,
Antony Flew,
Bradley Monton

As you can see, it is perfectly normal to question natural selection and random mutation as the mechanisms of evolution, you do not have to be a creationist, religious etc. Don't just accept it at face value, explore the other theories of evolution.

Except...you know, they are about 100 people out of several hundred thousand.

 

[Breathe]

Except...you know, they are about 100 people out of several hundred thousand.

^ This.

@ OP, the list you've given is tiny, in reality. It's most probably less than 1%.
Is it really that normal when it's <1%?

 

[freethinker44]

This is a list of mostly non-religious scientists who have all spoken out against the Darwinian mechanisms of evolution - natural selection and random mutation and have questioned the role of it in evolution:

I assume you have never heard of "Project Steve".

Project Steve | NCSE

While limiting their search to only scientists named Steve, they have been able to gather over 1100 scientists who are accept this statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

All of this is actually meaningless though. It doesn't matter how many people agree with or disagree with truth. IT IS STILL TRUE EITHER WAY. You could present a list of 100 billion people that believe something one guy knows to be false, and as long as he isn't weak minded, the list is pointless.

 

[freethinker44]

This is a list of mostly non-religious scientists who have all spoken out against the Darwinian mechanisms of evolution - natural selection and random mutation and have questioned the role of it in evolution:

James A. Shapiro,
Alfred Russel Wallace,
Lev Berg,....

As you can see, it is perfectly normal to question natural selection and random mutation as the mechanisms of evolution, you do not have to be a creationist, religious etc. Don't just accept it at face value, explore the other theories of evolution.

Sorry, I just noticed this.

Alfred Wallace. The scientist who was mentored by Darwin and discovered natural selection independently of Darwins research, and wrote the the book Darwinism which defends and explains natural selection and obviously named it after Darwin? You are saying this guy is skeptical of evolution? Not that it would matter anyways, the theory of evolution today is so advanced compared to his era that his opinions on it are almost uneducated. How many of those scientist on your list are still living or at least have lived most of their life in the 20th century?

 

[Revoltingest]

A list of names.....I'm convinced!

 

[Twilight Hue]

How many of those scientist on your list are still living or at least have lived most of their life in the 20th century?

Beat me to the punch.

Not to mention as well that it's proper and normal for any scientific theory to be challenged and scrutinized and subsquently peer reviewed till the cows come home. Par for course in science. It changes direction once new reliable information is comfirmed forthright.

I dont really get the gist what the OP is driving at other than usage of the loaded term "Dogma" which offers a clue. I never heard of dogmatic science at all. LOL

A little bit of education is in order.

[youtube]eA86N8K4VBI[/youtube]
Dawkins gives an example of the anti-dogmatism of science - YouTube

 

[LivingEarth]

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences

I do not deny this. I accept evolution, and so does every other scientist mentioned on that list, just not Darwins theory of evolution natural selection.

Alfred Wallace. The scientist who was mentored by Darwin and discovered natural selection independently of Darwins research, and wrote the the book Darwinism which defends and explains natural selection and obviously named it after Darwin? You are saying this guy is skeptical of evolution?

Yes Alfred Wallace actually came up with the idea of natural selection before Darwin. Later on in his life however, Alfred Wallace came to question natural selection and the role of natural selection in evolution. Later Wallace was rather critical of natural selection. In his book "Darwinism", Wallace defends natural selection in the animal kingdom but also in the same book criticised it when it comes to man. According to Wallace natural selection had no impact on mans spiritual, moral nature etc. Wallace claimed natural selection could not explain the origin of consciousness etc.

Even later, Wallace wrote his own evolutionary theory as opposed to Darwins, he called his theory "Intelligent Evolution". Wallace later claimed natural selection had nothing at all do with man.

Wallace argued in his 1911 book World of life for a spiritual approach to evolution and described evolution as “creative power, directive mind and ultimate purpose”. Wallace believed natural selection could not explain intelligence or morality in the human being so suggested that non-material spiritual forces accounted for these. Wallace believed the spiritual nature of man could not of come about by natural selection alone, the origins of the spiritual nature must originate “in the unseen universe of spirit”.

You are saying this guy is skeptical of evolution

No, as mentioned none of the list are. They are skeptical of the role of natural selection, not evolution.

Darwins theory of evolution is just that - an interpretation of evolution, not evolution itself. Not questioning evolution, evolution is solid confirmed by science, what is not confirmed is the mechanisms driving evolution, and especially the role of natural selection, also theres still a big debate, did evolution happen gradually or more faster, in bursts?. The problem arises when people equate evolution with Darwin, that simply is not the case, Lamarck and Buffon etc predated Darwin by many years and they both had their own evolutionary theory. I know scientists many of which in the list who are more anti-Darwinian than creationists, they accept evolution and defend evolution but are critical of the Darwinian mechanisms driving evolution. If evolution does not happen by natural selection, then alternative mechanisms can be and have been put across, and they are more reliable and demonstrable than natural selection.

 

[Noaidi]

As you can see, it is perfectly normal to question natural selection and random mutation as the mechanisms of evolution, you do not have to be a creationist, religious etc. Don't just accept it at face value, explore the other theories of evolution.

I fully agree. Nothing should be accepted at face value. That is the nature of enquiry. However, I've yet to see compelling evidence that overturns the currently accepted model of evolution and the pivotal role natural selection plays in the process.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is a list of mostly non-religious scientists who have all spoken out against the Darwinian mechanisms of evolution - natural selection and random mutation and have questioned the role of it in evolution:

[...]
Alfred Russel Wallace,
[...]

This one stuck out for me.

You think that Alfred Russel Wallace didn't accept evolution?

Alfred Russel Wallace, who wrote the paper "On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from their Original Type", championing natural selection as the driving force behind speciation (which was so similar to Darwin's own theory that when Darwin read it, it spurred him to publish immediately rather than hold onto his own paper and look like a Johnny-come-lately later), and who wrote extensively in his later life defending Darwin's theories, didn't accept evolution?

Are you joking?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In his book "Darwinism", Wallace defends natural selection in the animal kingdom but also in the same book criticised it when it comes to man. According to Wallace natural selection had no impact on mans spiritual, moral nature etc. Wallace claimed natural selection could not explain the origin of consciousness etc.

Here's a link to the text of Darwinism online (thank you, project Gutenberg!):

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Darwinism, by Alfred Russel Wallace.

Can you point out to us exactly where in the book Wallace says this?

You weren't thinking of this passage, were you?

The evidence we now possess of the exact nature of the resemblance of man to the various species of anthropoid apes, shows us that he has little special affinity for any one rather than another species, while he differs from them all in several important characters in which they agree with each other. The conclusion to be drawn from these facts is, that his points of affinity connect him with the whole group, while his special peculiarities equally separate him from the whole group, and that he must, therefore, have diverged from the common ancestral form before the existing types of anthropoid apes had diverged from each other. Now, this divergence almost certainly took place as early as the Miocene period, because in the Upper Miocene deposits of Western Europe remains of two species of ape have been found allied to the gibbons, one of them, Dryopithecus, nearly as large as a man, and believed by M. Lartet to have approached man in its dentition more than the existing apes. We seem hardly, therefore, to have reached, in the Upper Miocene, the epoch of the common ancestor of man and the anthropoids.

... because this part of where he discusses evolution and natural selection in relation to humans, it sounds very much like he's saying that human beings most certainly did evolve.

BTW - later on in the same chapter, Wallace does talk a bit about what you're saying, but he doesn't place this supposed divide between human beings and non-human animals; he places it between "civilized men" and "savages". He had no problem whatsoever with the idea that the characteristics of many (most?) members of the species homo sapiens arose from natural selection alone.

 

[waitasec]

Bradley Monton

As you can see, it is perfectly normal to question natural selection and random mutation as the mechanisms of evolution, you do not have to be a creationist, religious etc. Don't just accept it at face value, explore the other theories of evolution.

you have an interesting definition of the word normal.
how do you qualify that word?

 

[outhouse]

This is a list of mostly non-religious scientists who have all spoken out against the Darwinian mechanisms of evolution - natural selection and random mutation and have questioned the role of it in evolution:

James A. Shapiro,
Alfred Russel Wallace,
Lev Berg,
Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger,
Michael Denton,
Michael Pitman,
David Berlinski,
Periannan Senapathy,
Chandra Wickramasighe,
Murray Eden,
Stanly Salthe,
Christian Schwabe,
Gerald Kerkut,
Lime-De-Faria,
Pierre Grasse,
Soren Lovtrop,
Fred Hoyle,
Stuart Pivar,
Guy Berthault,
Roberto Fondi,
Giuseppe Sermonti,
Edward Sisson,
Richard Sternberg,
Frank Tipler,
Brian Goodwin,
Peter Saunders,
Richard Milton,
Robert Wesson,
Francis Hitching,
Frank Ryan,
Gordon Rattray Taylor,
James Lovelock,
Lynn Margulis,
Rhawn Joseph,
Henry Fairfield Osborn,
Charles Otis Whitman,
Austin Hobart Clark,
Theodor Eimer,
Erwin Schrödinger,
Hans Dreisch,
John Scott Haldane,
James Le Fanu,
Johannes Reinke,
Guy Coburn Robson,
Rupert Sheldrake,
Robert Broom,
Thomas Hunt Morgan,
William Bateson,
Edward Drinker Cope,
Richard Owen,
George Henslow,
Carl Von Nageli,
Karl Von Baer,
Wilhelm Haacke,
William Lang,
Hans Prizibram,
Otto Schindewolf,
Daniel de Rosa,
Paul Davies,
Robert Lanza,
George Greenstein,
Mae-Wan Ho,
JohnJoe McFadden,
Bruce Lipton,
Ervin Lazlo,
Amit Goswami,
Hubert Yockey,
David Stove,
Jerry Fodor,
James N. Gardner,
Jean Staune,
Lee Spetner,
Antony Flew,
Bradley Monton

As you can see, it is perfectly normal to question natural selection and random mutation as the mechanisms of evolution, you do not have to be a creationist, religious etc. Don't just accept it at face value, explore the other theories of evolution.

I think yout full of beans and have a fabricated list

this is the first name on the list

James A. Shapiro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

James A. Shapiro is an American biologist, an expert in bacterial genetics and a professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Chicago



The second name

Alfred Russel Wallace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alfred Russel Wallace, OM, FRS (8 January 1823 – 7 November 1913) was a British naturalist, explorer, geographer, anthropologist and biologist. He is best known for independently proposing a theory of evolution due to natural selection that prompted Charles Darwin to publish his own theory.

 

[Skwim]

This is a list of mostly non-religious scientists who have all spoken out against the Darwinian mechanisms of evolution - natural selection and random mutation and have questioned the role of it in evolution:

Interesting list; however, I have to tell you that plagiarism is a no no here on RF. In particular, your:

"This is a list of non-religious scientists who have all spoken out against the Darwinian mechanisms of evolution:

Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger,
Michael Denton,
Michael Pitman,
David Berlinski,
Periannan Senapathy,
Chandra Wickramasighe,
Murray Eden,
Stanly Salthe,
Christian Schwabe,
Gerald Kerkut,
Lime-De-Faria,
Pierre Grasse,
Soren Lovtrop,
Fred Hoyle,
Stuart Pivar,
Guy Berthault,
Roberto Fondi,
Wolfgang Smith,
Giuseppe Sermonti
Edward Sisson,
Richard Sternberg,
Frank Tipler,
Brian Goodwin,
Peter Saunders.
source

​

On to the particulars.

In as much as you obviously didn't construct the list yourself it comes as no surprise that you included people who in no way belong on it. I only bothered to check the first half (50) but found 16 who don't qualify as "[having] all spoken out against the Darwinian mechanisms of evolution - natural selection and random mutation. . . .' I purposely left out your qualification "and have questioned the role of it in evolution." because questioning any aspect of science is a normal function of a good scientist. Given that your list contains 100 names, the 16 I found implies that 32% of the names on your list shouldn't be there. That's bad, LivingEarth. REAL bad!!

OH YES, several here have pointed out the difference in percentage of scientists who today subscribe to evolution, and in particular natural selection, and those who don't. So I must emphasize that your list not only contains the living but the dead, some of which died in the 19th century. So for a fair comparison we should also include all those dead scientist who believed in evolution.

Back to your list. You will note that some of the names are in red, these are people who simply do/did not qualify as scientists. Gotta check crap out before you post it,

The 50 I checked out and those I found who do not belong, and why (in particular on the post that follows).

James A. Shapiro,
Alfred Russel Wallace,
Lev Berg,
Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger,
Michael Denton,
Michael Pitman,
David Berlinski,
Periannan Senapathy,
Chandra Wickramasighe,
Murray Eden,
Stanly Salthe,
Christian Schwabe,
Gerald Kerkut,
Lime-De-Faria,
Pierre Grasse,
Soren Lovtrop,
Fred Hoyle,
Stuart Pivar,
Guy Berthault,
Roberto Fondi,
Giuseppe Sermonti,
Edward Sisson,
Richard Sternberg,
Frank Tipler,
Brian Goodwin,
Peter Saunders,
Richard Milton,
Robert Wesson,
Francis Hitching,
Frank Ryan,
Gordon Rattray Taylor,
James Lovelock,
Lynn Margulis,
Rhawn Joseph,
Henry Fairfield Osborn,
Charles Otis Whitman,
Austin Hobart Clark,
Theodor Eimer,
Erwin Schrödinger,
Hans Dreisch,
John Scott Haldane,
James Le Fanu,
Johannes Reinke,
Guy Coburn Robson,
Rupert Sheldrake,
Robert Broom,
Thomas Hunt Morgan,
William Bateson,
Edward Drinker Cope,
Richard Owen,
​

Continued on next post

 

[Skwim]

THE SPECIFICS
​

Chandra Wickramasinghe
The idea of natural selection is really no more than a tautology. If among the varieties of a species there is one better able to survive in the natural environment, that particular variety will be one which best survives"
source

Alfred Russel Wallace
"He is best known for independently proposing a theory of evolution due to natural selection that prompted Charles Darwin to publish his own theory."
"Wallace was one of the leading evolutionary thinkers of the 19th century and made a number of other contributions to the development of evolutionary theory besides being co-discoverer of natural selection."
Source: Wikipedia

David Berlinski is a mathematician, not a scientist

Periannan Senapathy
"The power of common descent is the accumulation of inventions and the power of natural selection is selection of small variations of proven successful individuals. I only realised the powerful advantages of common descent and natural selection when I compared them with independent origin."
source

stanley salthe
"Oh sure natural selection's been demonstrated . . . "
source

Edward Sisson is a lawyer, not a scientist

Frank Tipler
"Frank Tipler, Like Richard Dawkins, Uses a Golden Hammer
Tipler also uses a Golden Hammer. He takes on Darwinian Theory, which is Dawkins specialty, of course. Tipler agrees that natural selection is the likely process for evolution. He agrees with gene-level mutation, as well. He agrees with common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees at some time about five to six million years ago."
source

Brian Goodwin
"A key collaborator in these experiments was Gerry Webster, with whom Goodwin wrote Form and Transformation: Generative and Relational Principles in Biology, which laid the foundations of the structuralist movement in biology. The focus here was on how self-organising dynamics at the molecular and cellular levels give organisms their astonishing capacity to generate form with no need for natural selection, at least in the first instance." [note the qualification here at the end.]
source

Richard Milton is a journalist/engineer, not a scientist

James Lovelock Taylor
"The principal objection to Gaia or the geophysiological approach is that it is teleological. That is, the regulation of the climate or chemical composition on a planetary scale would require some kind of forecasting or clairvoyance by the biota. I will now try to show that this objection is wrong and that geophysiological regulation requires neither foresight nor planning. It is in fact a simple consequence of Darwinian natural selection. The evolution of the species is not independent of the evolution of their environment. The two evolutionary processes are in fact tightly coupled."
source

Lynn Margulis
"Observable inherited variation appears in all organisms that are hatched, born, budded off, or produced by division, and some variants do outgrow and outreproduce others. These are the tenets of Darwinian evolution and natural selection. All thinking scientists are in complete agreement with these basic ideas, since they're supported by vast amounts of evidence."
source

Erwin Schrödinger
"If there were no exceptions to the likeness between children and
parents, we should have been deprived not only
of all those beautiful experiments which have
revealed to us the detailed mechanism of
heredity, but also of that grand, million-fold
experiment of Nature, which forges the species
by natural selection and survival of the fittest."
source

John Scott Haldane
"His greatest contribution was in a series of ten papers on "A Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection" which was the major series of papers on the mathematical theory of natural selection. It treated many major cases for the first time, showing the direction and rates of changes of gene frequencies. It also pioneered in investigating the interaction of natural selection with mutation and with migration. Haldane's book, The Causes of Evolution (1932), summarized these results, especially in its extensive appendix. This body of work was a component of what came to be known as the "modern evolutionary synthesis", re-establishing natural selection as the premier mechanism of evolution by explaining it in terms of the mathematical consequences of Mendelian genetics."
source

James Le Fanu is medical doctor, not a scientist

Rupert Sheldrake
"I believe that the natural selection of habits will play an essential part in any integrated theory of evolution, including not just biological evolution, but also physical, chemical, cosmic, social, mental and cultural evolution"
source

Edward Drinker Cope
"NATURAL SELECTION is the process of discrimination of variations, by which those which are most in harmony with the environment survive. It is, in short, as expressed by Spencer, "the survival of the fittest." Fitness is of various kinds, and is only determined by the nature of the environment. The success of a variety which appears in aquatic surroundings will depend on characters different from those which bring success in a forest. Variations which favor survival and increase among carnivorous animals differ from those useful to the life of herbivorous forms."
source

By the way, welcome to the site.

 

[LivingEarth]

Here's a link to the text of Darwinism online (thank you, project Gutenberg!):

Can you point out to us exactly where in the book Wallace says this?

You weren't thinking of this passage, were you?


... because this part of where he discusses evolution and natural selection in relation to humans, it sounds very much like he's saying that human beings most certainly did evolve.

BTW - later on in the same chapter, Wallace does talk a bit about what you're saying, but he doesn't place this supposed divide between human beings and non-human animals; he places it between "civilized men" and "savages". He had no problem whatsoever with the idea that the characteristics of many (most?) members of the species homo sapiens arose from natural selection alone.

Let me go through some of the sources to clear up this issue:

According to Camerini in Wallace's field writings:

By 1869, Wallace had come to believe that natural selection could not account for the origin of man&#8217;s large brain and what he referred to as man&#8217;s &#8220;higher mental capacities&#8221;. Instead Wallace spoke of some unknown higher law, a superior intelligence, a spiritual influx, that makes matter, life, consciousness, and intellectual life possible.

Source Alfred Russel Wallace reader: a selection of writings from the field by Alfred Russel Wallace, Jane R Camerini pages. 154- 155

Wallace had also claimed the erect posture of man was caused by a "spiritual force" and not natural selection.

Camerini further writes:

Beginning in 1870 and continuing for the rest of his life, he expanded these ideas in several long essays, modifying his views to the point where he saw only mental traits, not physical ones, as inexplicable by the theory of natural selection; he held firm in his belief in a purposeful universe guided by a superior mind.

page 155

This is what another source says:

Wallace forthrightly claimed that a conversion to spiritualism proximately caused his rejection of natural selection as an adequate principle to explain human evolution.

Darwin and the emergence of evolutionary theories of mind and behavior
By Robert J. Richards. Page. 181

Stanley A. Rice in his Encyclopedia of Evolution, page 415 writes:

The publication of Wallace's first article about natural selection jointly with Charles Darwin in 1858 created the impression that Darwin and Wallace believed the same things about evolution. Wallace distinguished between the material process of natural selection that produced the human body, and a spiritual one that produced the human mind, a distinction Darwin never made.

As you can see Wallace was advocating another evolutionary mechanism for the consciousness of man etc which was not material based.

As for the quotes regarding Wallace and his book Darwinism, see pages 397-398. Where he says he accepts natural selection for the body of man, but there must be another origin for the intellectual and moral falculties of man and that "we can only find an adequate cause in the unseen universe of the spirit". Wallace first here admitted that the Darwinian theory would not go against this other spiritual mechanism, however later Wallace became a critic of natural selection and even the role of the human body, these views can be found in his book The World of Life.

Another interesting fact, the book Darwinism was one of the first books to use the words "intelligent design". In recent years Intelligent design proponents have advocated the work of Wallace. See the book Alfred Russel Wallace's Theory of Intelligent Evolution by Michael A. Flannery which lists all the anti-Darwinian quotes of Wallace etc and arguement for intelligence and design in the evolutionary process.

 

[LivingEarth]

In as much as you obviously didn't construct the list yourself it comes as no surprise that you included people who in no way belong on it.

I did construct the list myself, for an essay at college.

Please see the first post:

This is a list of mostly non-religious scientists

I said mostly not all. And I never said all of them have rejected natural selection, the majority have downgraded the role of NS and questioned the role of NS in evolution, most have claimed NS is not the main driving force in evolution.

Brian Goodwin for example:

Clearly something is missing from biology. It appears that
Darwin's theory works for the small-scale aspects of evolution:
it can explain the variations and the adaptations within
species that produce fine-tuning of varieties to different
habitats. The large-scale differences of form between types of
organism that are the foundation of biological classification
systems seem to require a principle other than natural
selection operating on small variations, some process that
gives rise to distinctly different forms of organism. This is
the problem of emergent order in evolution, the origins of
novel structures in organisms that has always been a primary
interest in biology." - Goodwin, Brian "How The Leopard Changed Its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity," 1994

 

[LivingEarth]

There are many other examples of ironic science that you have probably heard of, in part because science journalists like myself enjoy writing about them so much. Cosmology, for example, has given rise to all kinds of theories involving parallel universes, which are supposedly connected to our universe by aneurysms in space-time called wormholes. In biology, we have the Gaia hypothesis of Lynn Margulis and James Lovelock, which suggests that all organisms somehow cooperate to ensure their self-perpetuation. Then there are the anti-Darwinian proposals of Brian Goodwin and Stuart Kauffman, who think life stems not primarily from natural selection but from some mysterious "laws of complexity" that they have glimpsed in their computer simulations.

Source - Why I Think Science Is Ending. A Talk With John Horgan

Lynn Margulis was a non-Darwinian scientist by the way, putting forword the mechanism of symbiosis as opposed natural selection, she claims natural selection creates nothing, it has little to do with evolution to her:

We agree that very few potential offspring ever survive to reproduce and that populations do change through time, and that therefore natural selection is of critical importance to the evolutionary process. But this Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric. Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement. One mutation confers resistance to malaria but also makes happy blood cells into the deficient oxygen carriers of sickle cell anemics. Another converts a gorgeous newborn into a cystic fibrosis patient or a victim of early onset diabetes. One mutation causes a flighty red-eyed fruit fly to fail to take wing. Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit, a woody stem, or a claw appear. Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambigious evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation. Then how do new species come into being? How do cauliflowers descend from tiny, wild Mediterranean cabbagelike plants, or pigs from wild boars?"

(Lynn Margulis & Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of the Species, p. 29 (Basic Books, 2003).)

From an interview with Lynn Margulis:

All scientists agree that evolution has occurred&#8230; The question is, is natural selection enough to explain evolution? &#8230; This is the problem I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection&#8230; Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn&#8217;t create. &#8230;
I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change &#8212; led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence. &#8230;

There is no gradualism in the fossil record&#8230; &#8216;Punctuated equilibrium&#8217; was invented to describe the discontinuity. &#8230;

The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It&#8217;s just that they&#8217;ve got nothing to offer but intelligent design or &#8216;God did it.&#8217; They have no alternatives that are scientific. &#8230;

The evolutionary biologists believe the evolutionary pattern is a tree. It&#8217;s not. The evolutionary pattern is a web

nuff said.

 

[outhouse]

Source - Why I Think Science Is Ending. A Talk With John Horgan

Lynn Margulis was a non-Darwinian scientist by the way, putting forword the mechanism of symbiosis as opposed natural selection, she claims natural selection creates nothing, it has little to do with evolution to her:



(Lynn Margulis & Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of the Species, p. 29 (Basic Books, 2003).)

From an interview with Lynn Margulis:



nuff said.

enough said??

You find quacks and post garbage

here is this on lynn wrom wiki


Margulis later argued that "there's no evidence that HIV is an infectious virus" and that AIDS symptoms "overlap ... completely" with those of syphilis


she is a goof ball nuff said

 

[outhouse]

Finding nut jobs with no credibility and twisting key phrases will only give you the F grade you deserve for shoddy research