Predictably, as soon as we announced that the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list had topped 600 doctoral scientists, we were flooded with a wave of scientists wanting to add their names to the list. Well, okay, it was a small wave — 14 in the past four days to be exact — but a wave none the less.

Over at Post-Darwinist, Denyse O’Leary notes that she could probably heat her home with the energy generated by the Darwinist’s voiciferous denunciations of anyone who dares to doubt the veracity of the Darwinian mechanism.

Maybe, as the rage grows, I can offer energy from, like, enormous clusters of Darwinists denouncing specific scientists, in which case I can sign on to an alternative energy provider in Canada, offering “pro-Darwin noise” as an energy source. Goodness knows, given recent American Episcopal Church pronouncements, there is enough of that to turn my modest home – and homes for a six-block radius – into a northern Banana Republic. Hey, if all my neighbours agree to sign up with me for a few evening classes in tropical horticulture (instead of the temperate/near north horticulture we know and love), we could put all our extra bananas and pineapples into the local Food Bank. Cheap at the price, and good citizenship! And at least some use for the Darwinists’ rage, too.

O’Leary also notes that there has been pressure in the past to get medical doctors to support Darwinism.

This issue – demands that doctors support Darwinism – came up while I was writing By Design or by Chance?, when Texas student Micah Spradling had problems qualifying for med school because his prof insisted at that time (scroll down) that students profess faith in Darwinism; otherwise, they might make “poor clinical decisions”.

(As she also points out, polls have shown that there are sizable numbers of doctors who doubt Darwinism — and now a website where they can publicly voice their dissent.)

In spite of the efforts of Darwinists to keep dissenters silent, each time the list is publicized we receive a surge of interest from scientists who want to sign the list. Here’s a few sample comments received just this week. (I’m leaving the names off at this time as we’re still in the verification process for each of these.)

• I agree with your “Dissent from Darwinism” statement and aplaud your efforts to bring the growing scientific doubt in this area to the public’s attention.
• I find neo-Darwinism to be a flawed hypothesis, not a theory.
• I completely agree with your statements. When I was in college, questioning evolution was simply unacceptable. This seemed quite hypocritical to me because literally everything else was fair game.
• I am an academic in the chemistry area who has long been at odds with unlimited evolution and the way it is projected as incontrovertible fact.I will be most happy to sign the dissent list.
• I find that the continual discovery of molecular/genetic evidence that contradicts long established phylogenies derived from morphological and developmental considerations is quite damning to the modern theory of evolution as is the plethora of contradictory trees proposed in almost every phyla of life. Clearly there is also a profound lack of understanding of the interrelationships of the different phyla, something that one would imagine a comprehensive and robust theory of evolution might aim to provide.

And, we’re seeing an increase in the number of graduate students and doctoral candidates who are saying they will sign the list as soon as they receive their PhD.

I realize I’m not eligible to sign the Dissent List without a doctoral degree. But I at least wanted to send a quick message in support of the program, and to thank you for the encouragement that I and others have in seeing this stand for honest scientific discussion and debate.