9. Why Do People Not Believe that Evolution Happened? ==>
   9.1. Common Misconceptions and Rebuttal ==>
     9.1.1. "It's Just a Theory" ==>
       9.1.1.1. "Its a theory in trouble" ==>

9.1.1.1.1. Famous scientists reject evolution- NOT

THE POINT!

there isn't a single scientific organization that doesn't ACTIVELY support evolution.

The list of scientific organizations that support evolution is diverse and long starting with the National Acadamy of Sciences

See http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024

The following organizations are representative of the many scientific professional organizations that

USE Darwin's theory as a fundamental truth in their discipline.

A White paper supporting evolution prepared and endorsed by these organizations:

American Society of Naturalists,

Society for the Study of Evolution,

Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution,

Ecological Society of America

Society of Systematic Biologists

Genetics Society of America

Animal Behavior Society

Paleontological Society

American Institute of Biological Sciences

can be seen here: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/fulldoc.pdf

American Association for Advancement Of Science http://www.aaas.org/

National Academy of Science Special Section on Evolution @ http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/

American Institute of Biological Sciences http://www.aibs.org/evolution-initiatives/

American Society of Human Genetics http://www.ashg.org/education/darwinday_about.shtml

Darwin's idea is the unifying concept underlying all of genetics, organismal biology, developmental biology, biochemistry, physical anthropology, archaeology, paleontology, and many other disciplines related to how species came to be as they are today</bq target="_blank">>".

Genetics Society of America http://www.genetics-gsa.org/pages/darwin.shtml

The Paleontological Society http://www.paleosoc.org/evolutioncomplete.htm </a>

Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution of course. But note the "Molecular Biology" part! http://www.smbe.org/

American Society of Naturlists http://www.amnat.org/

Geological Society Of America http://www.geosociety.org/

The Geology of Early Humans in the Horn of Africa @http://rock.geosociety.org/Bookstore/toc/spe446.htm
View the table of contents of the journal . There are 10 papers, 17 authors represented in this one (of hundreds) obscure journal.

 

986 of every 1000 reputable scientists support evolution

"Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm) Robinson 1995

This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

A couple hundred years ago, before the theory of evolution was developed and evidence for it was presented, virtually all scientists were creationists, including scientists in relevant fields such as biology and geology. Today, virtually all relevant scientists accept evolution. Such a turnabout could only be caused by overwhelming evidence. The alternative -- that almost all scientists today are thoroughly incompetent -- is preposterous.

The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999).

A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986) This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.

Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.

See Talk Origins rebuttal here http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect.

Concerned by the tendency to de-emphasize the teaching of evolution, the President and Council of the American Astronomical Society issued a formal statement on behalf of the astronomical community in 2000 which provides proof of the age of the Universe. See it @ http://aas.org .

A statement produced by the AAS:

"Research . . . has produced clear, compelling and widely accepted evidence that astronomical objects and systems evolve. That is, their properties change with time, often over very long time scales. Specifically, the scientific evidence clearly indicates that the Universe is 10 to 15 billion years old, and began in a hot, dense state we call the Big Bang.

The science done by all the people represented by these societies is wrong?

Show me your EVIDENCE.