Thank you for your very thoughtful response.
James Tour
Stephen C. Meyer
Michael Egnor
Michael Behe
David Berlinski
https://dissentfromdarwin.org/
Includes a list of over 1,000 Scientists.
Dr. James Tour is particularly well suited to speak on the subject currently, if you are interested.
Here are a few more just for fun...
Joseph Lister
Louis Pasteur
Isaac Newton
Johann Kepler
Robert Boyle
Georges Cuvier
Charles Babbage
Lord Kelvin
Leonardo Da Vinci
Blaise Pascal
Francis Bacon
The sad thing is that you are serious with that claptrap. If you are going to argue your case you need to do it with material that is not an embarassment to Creationists specifically and the human race in general. Let's take your first pathetic list.
Only a handful of the scientists on that list are relevant, since few are biologists, palaeontologists, genetecists, or those with similar backgrounds, backgrounds that are pertinent to evolution and the Origin of Man. The list has been parodied by
Project Steve, which lists scientists who accept evolutionary theory and thus "where we came from". The list was up to 1,449 signatories named Steve by June of this year. This shows how ridiculous the supposedly "impressive" list from the Discovery Institute is.
As noted in the link to Project Steve above,
A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time." The poll also notes that 87% of all scientists believe that evolution of humans over time is natural. You may initially take some comfort in that, asserting that this means some scientists believe there was supernatural guidance/intervention. However, you also need to recognise that the doubters contain few biologists and the poll of is of Americans. America stands out in the so-called Western World by its prevalence of evolution doubters in the population at large.
Your second list is, amazingly, even more ridiculous and makes you appear like a fool. Science has advanced a considerable distance since all of those on that list. More to the point, it is discourteous to provide a list of names with absolutely no reference to their writings that demonstrate their rejection of "Where we came from". I suspect you don't even know what their objections were, but are merely parroting a list you have read elsewhere. That is intellectually dishonest. Shame on you.
Oh, and look,
here is the list in plain sight. Ironic that it is located on a websight called inplainsight.org. You have omitted many of the names and excluded the fields they are associated with, but the order is the same. (I suppose omitting their specialities helped to conceal the fact that hardly any of them were biologists.) Now, I've looked and I've looked and I've looked again, but you don't appear to have credited your source. That's an offence called
plagiarism. It is discourteous, dishonest and illegal. Shame on you.
I'll give you a chance to redeem your reputation: provide links to the specific objections of each of the names on your list, or at least to a handful of them. Then I might just be able to accord your claims a modicum of attention.
!!!