Evolutionist scientists say the theory is unscientific and worthless
This chapter is based on pp. 959-998 (Scientists Speak) of Other Evidence (Volume Three of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series), and includes nearly 150 quotations. Not included are a large number of other statements from that chapter. You will find them on our website: evolution-facts.org.
There are reasons why evolutionists are so concerned to hold on to a theory that has no evidence to support it, one which has been repeatedly disproved. These are important reasons. This section explains why these men cling so fanatically to a falsehood.
Objective: Men do not want to be responsible to anyone for their actions.
"[Man] stands alone in the universe, a unique product of a long, unconscious, impersonal, material process with unique understanding and potentialities. These he owes to no one but himself and it is to himself that he is responsible. He is not the creature of uncontrollable and undeterminable forces, but he is his own master. He can and must decide and make his own destiny."—*George G. Simpson, "The World into which Darwin Led Us," in Science, 131 (1980), p. 968.
Objective: Separation from God and identification with the brute.
"The real issue is whether man must think God’s thought after him in order to understand the world correctly or whether man’s mind is the ultimate assigner of meaning to brute and orderless facts . . Evolutionary thought is popular because it is a world view which facilitates man’s attempt to rid himself of all knowledge of the transcendent Creator and promises to secure man’s autonomy."—G.L. Bahnsen, "On Worshipping the Creature Rather Than the Creator," in Journal of Christian Reconstruction, 1 (1974), p. 89.
Objective: Sexual freedom.
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June, 1966, p. 19. [Grandson of evolutionist *Thomas Huxley and brother of evolutionist *Julian Huxley. *Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential writers and philosophers of the 20th century.]
Objective: A way to hide from God.
"Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion. Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any new form of life, there is no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution."—*Julian Huxley, "At Random, A Television Preview," in Evolution after Darwin (1960), p. 41.
Objective: We can choose to live like animals and not mind it.
"In the world of Darwin man has no special status other than his definition as a distinct species of animal. He is in the fullest sense a part of nature and not apart from it. He is akin, not figuratively but literally, to every living thing, be it an ameba, a tapeworm, a flea, a seaweed, an oak tree, or a monkey—even though the degrees of relationship are different and we may feel less empathy for forty-second cousins like the tapeworms than for, comparatively speaking, brothers like the monkeys."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "The World into Which Darwin Led Us," Science 131 (1960), p. 970.
Objective: Men would rather have the forbidden tree than the presence of God.
"With this single argument the mystery of the universe is explained, the deity annulled, and a new era of infinite knowledge ushered in."—*Ernst Haeckel, The Riddle of the Universe (1899), p. 337.
Objective: It will help destroy religion.
"Beyond its impact on traditional science, Darwinism was devastating to conventional theology."—*D. Nelkin, Science Textbook Controversies and the Politics of Equal Time (1977), p. 11.
Throughout this set of books we have found that there are no genuine evidences that any aspect of evolutionary theory is scientifically correct. Yet the evolutionists themselves have, at last, produced five reasons why they believe evolution to be true. Here they are:
1 - We know that evolution is true because living things have parents.
"No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution."—*Tom Bathell, "Agnostic Evolutionists," Harper’s, February 1985, p. 81.
2 - We know that evolution is true because living things have children.
"The theory of neo-Darwinism is a theory of the evolution of the population in respect to leaving offspring and not in respect to anything else . . Everybody has it in the back of his mind that the animals that leave the largest number of offspring are going to be those best adapted also for eating peculiar vegetation or something of this sort, but this is not explicit in the theory . . There you do come to what is, in effect, a vacuous statement: Natural selection is that some things leave more offspring than others; and it is those that leave more offspring [that are being naturally selected], and there is nothing more to it than that. The whole real guts of evolution—which is how do you come to have horses and tigers and things—is outside the mathematical theory."—*C.H. Waddington, quoted by Tom Bethell, in "Darwin’s Mistake," Harper’s Magazine, February 1978, p. 75.
3 - We know that evolution is true because there are perfections.
"So natural selection as a process is okay. We are also pretty sure that it goes on in nature although good examples are surprisingly rare. The best evidence comes from the many cases where it can be shown that biological structures have been optimized—that is, structures that represent optimal engineering solution to the problems that an animal has of feeding or escaping a predator or generally functioning in its environment . . The presence of these optimal structures does not, of course, prove that they developed through natural selection, but it does provide strong circumstantial argument."—*David M. Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin of the Field Museum of Natural History, January 1979, pp. 25-28.
4 - We know that evolution is true because there are imperfections.
"If there were no imperfections, there would be no evidence to favor evolution by natural selection over creation."—*Jeremy Cherfas, "The Difficulties of Darwinism," New Scientist, Vol. 102 (May 17, 1984), p. 29. [*Cherfas was reporting on special lectures by *S.J. Gould at Cambridge University. Notice what this expert said: Apart from imperfections, there is no evidence.]
"The proof of evolution lies in imperfection."—*Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb (1980).
5 - We know that evolution is true because species become extinct.
"The best clincher is extinction. For every species now in existence, roughly ninety-nine have become extinct. The question of why they have become extinct is of enormous importance to evolutionists. It has been studied by many men, but a convincing answer has not been found. It remains unclear why any given species has disappeared."—*David Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979, p. 29.
"[Charles] Darwin wrote to him [Thomas Huxley about his remarks about a certain extinct bird], ‘Your old birds have offered the best support to the theory of evolution.’ "—*G.R Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 119.
Earnest, conscientious scientists have something far different to say about evolutionary theory. These are men, highly competent in their respective fields, who can see the flaws in evolution far better than the man on the street. Here is what they would like to tell you.
After more than a century of research, no one has yet figured out how evolution could have occurred.
"The evolution of the animal and plant worlds is considered by all those entitled to judgment to be a fact for which no further proof is needed. But in spite of nearly a century of work and discussion there is still no unanimity in regard to the details of the means of evolution."—*Richard Goldschmidt, "Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist," in American Scientist, Vol. 409, January 1952, p. 84.
A leading scientist of our time has this to say:
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."—*Ambrose Flemming, president, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.
Evolutionary theory is nothing more than a myth, and concerned scientists recognized it needs to be obliterated in order for science to progress. *Grasse is a leading French scientist:
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
A growing number of scientists consider it the primary work of science to defend this foolish theory. For this reason it is ruining scientific research and conclusions in our modern world.
"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."—*L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).
Not one smallest particle of scientific evidence has been found in support of evolutionary theory.
" ‘Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.’ [Tahmisian called it] a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling."—*Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting *T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].
"The reader . . may be dumbfounded that so much work has settled so few questions."—*Science, January 22, 1965, p. 389.
The truth about the precarious position of the theory, and the falsity of the evidence in its behalf, is kept from science students—and even Ph.D. graduates. An evolutionist who teaches in a university speaks:
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate biology department, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 28.
*Singer admits there is no evidence for such an incredible theory, but he is unwilling to consider any other possibility.
"Evolution is perhaps unique among major scientific theories in that the appeal for its acceptance is not that there is evidence of it, but that any other proposed interpretation of the data is wholly incredible."—*Charles Singer, A Short History of Science to the Nineteenth Century, 1941.
Thinking scientists increasingly question such an obsolete theory.
"Evolution . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."—*James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" Discover, October 1980, p. 88.
*Jastrow, a leading astronomer, admits that the evidence lies with Creation, not with evolution.
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
*Bonner makes a broad admission.
"One is disturbed because what is said gives us the uneasy feeling that we knew it for a long time deep down but were never willing to admit this even to ourselves. It is another one of those cold and uncompromising situations where the naked truth and human nature travel in different directions.
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence of invertebrate phyla. We do not know what group arose from what other group or whether, for instance, the transition from Protozoa occurred once, or twice, or many times . . We have all been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice."—*John T. Bonner, book review of Implications of Evolution by *G.A. Kerkut, in American Scientist, June 1961, p. 240. [*John Bonner is with the California Institute of Technology.]
*Simpson, a leading evolutionist writer of the mid-20th century, says it is time to give up trying to find a mechanism for evolutionary origins or change.
"Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear that evolution has no single cause."—*G.G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.
"It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has status only as a speculation."—*George G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.
Simpson tried harder than most evolutionists to defend evolution. Commenting on one of *Simpson’s earlier efforts to present evolutionary causes, Entomology Studies recognized it as but another in the confusing use of empty words to supply the place of solid evidence.
"When Professor [*George Gaylord] Simpson says that homology is determined by ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of evolutionary reasoning. When he adds that evolutionary developments can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which through so many years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology, has impeded the advance of biology."—*"Evolution and Taxonomy," Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1982, p. 567.
*Thompson, a leading scientist, was asked to write the introduction for a new printing of *Darwin’s Origin of the Species. But Thompson’s Introduction proved to be a stunning attack on evolutionary theory.
"Modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary hypotheses, which, however plausible, are in the nature of things unverifiable . . and the reader is left with the feeling that if the data do not support the theory they really ought to . . This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," Origin of Species; statement reprinted in Journal of the American Affiliation, March 1960.
Although they fear to say too much openly, *Denton reveals that there are a surprising number of biologists who cannot accept the foolishness of Darwinian theory.
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
*Denton says that the evolutionary myth has always been a problem to scientists. The "evolutionary crisis" is nothing new.
"The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more ‘aggressive advocates’ would have us believe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
Kenyon, a West Coast scientist, summarizes some of the evidence against evolutionary theory.
"Laboratory data and theoretic arguments concerning the origin of the first life lead one to doubt the evolution of subsequent forms of life. The fossil record and other lines of evidence confirm this suspicion. In short, when all the available evidence is carefully assessed in toto [in the whole, entirely], the evolutionary story of origins appears significantly less probable than the creationist view."—Dean Kenyon, Creationist View of Biological Origins, NEXA Journal, Spring 1984, p. 33 [San Francisco State University].
*Macbeth says that when men cling to an outworn theory with no supporting evidence, the problem is within the mind. They are entrenched dogmatists, fearful to consider alternative facts and conclusions.
"When the most learned evolutionists can give neither the how nor the why, the marvels seem to show that adaptation is inexplicable. This is a strange situation, only partly ascribable to the rather unscientific conviction that evidence will be found in the future. It is due to a psychological quirk."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 77.
*Bonner declares there is no evidence that any species descended from any other species.
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified, professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—*J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist 49:1961, p. 240.
There are no facts supporting the evolutionary claim that any species ever changed into any other.
"The German zoologist, Bernhard Rensch , was able to provide a long list of leading authorities who have been inclined to the view that macroevolution [changes across species] cannot be explained in terms of microevolutionary processes [changes within species], or any other currently known mechanisms. These dissenters cannot be dismissed as cranks, creationists, or vitalists, for among their ranks are many first-rate biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 86.
All that the evolutionists can point to is change within species; they have no evidence of change across species.
"The very success of the Darwinian model at a microevolutionary [sub-species] level . . only serves to highlight its failure at a macroevolutionary [across species] level."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 344.
There is no evidence on the origin of species.
"The facts fail to give any information regarding the origin of actual species, not to mention the higher categories."—*Richard Goldschmidt, The Natural Basis of Evolution, p. 165.
Instead of intergraded changes from one species to another, we only find distinct species types.
"Increase of knowledge about biology has tended to emphasize the extreme rigidity of type, and more and more to discount the idea of transmutation from one type to another—the essential basis of Darwinism."—*McNair Wilson, "The Witness of Science," in the Oxford Medical Publications (1942).
Evolutionary theory cannot square with scientific facts.
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishman, zoologist.
Evolutionary theory faces a granite wall.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: the Secret of Life," New York Times.
*Toulmin senses that a supernatural power must be at work. The intricate galactic systems, the environment on Earth, the myriads of carefully designed plants and animals; it all points to a super-powerful, massively intelligent Creator.
"It seems to me astronomy has proven that forces are at work in the world that are beyond the present power of scientific description; these are literally supernatural forces, because they are outside the body of natural law."—*S. Toulmin, "Science, Philosophy of," in Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol. 18 (15th ed. 1974), p. 389.
The two great riddles for evolutionists are these: "Nothing cannot become something"—a Big Bang cannot turn nothing into stars.
"Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else."—*G.K. Chesterton (1925).
Not a single fact in nature confirms it.
" ‘The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.’ "—*Dr. Fleishmann, quoted in F. Meldau, Why We Believe in Creation, Not Evolution, p. 10 [Erlangen zoologist].
Evolution, which is supposed to be caused by accidents, is itself headed for a collision.
"For all its acceptance in the scientific works as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 12.
The problems are too severe and unsolvable.
"Nearly all [evolutionist biologists] take an ultimately conservative stand, believing that [the problems] can be explained away by making only minor adjustments to the Darwinian framework. In this book . . I have tried to show why I believe that the problems are too severe and too intractable to offer any hope of resolution in terms of the orthodox Darwinian framework."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 16.
The theory is totally inadequate.
"The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world."—*Sir Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1968), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].
One of the outstanding scientists of the 19th century said this:
" ‘Science positively demands creation.’ "—Lord Kelvin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1988), p. 94.
Biological specialists recognize that the theory is inadequate.
"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary: the theory of evolution is impossible."—*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De l’evolution," Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 8.
It is all one big scientific mistake.
"The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake."—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1986), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor.]
It is a tottering mass of speculation.
"To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.
How to make a pseudoscience:
"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.
A mass of opinions heavily burdened with hypothesis.
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*P.P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
There are so many ways to disprove it.
"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).
Forty years work and completely failed.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
"Not the slightest basis for the assumption."
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
The head of the paleontology department of a major U.S. museum speaks:
"It’s true that for the last eighteen months or so I’ve been kicking around non-evolutionary or even antievolutionary ideas . .
"So that is my first theme: that evolution and creation seem to be sharing remarkable parallels that are increasingly hard to tell apart. The second theme is that evolution not only conveys no knowledge but it seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).
In the study of natural history, we only find degeneration, extinction, and sub-species changes.
"The majority of evolutionary movements are degenerative. Progressive cases are exceptional. Characters appear suddenly that have no meaning toward progress [i.e., that do not evolve into anything else] . . The only thing that could be accomplished by slow changes would be the accumulation of neutral characteristics without value for survival."—*John B.S. Haldane, quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 91 [English geneticist].
More like medieval astrology than 20th-century science.
"Despite the fact that no convincing explanation of how random evolutionary processes could have resulted in such an ordered pattern of diversity, the idea of uniform rates of evolution is presented in the literature as if it were an empirical discovery. The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth-century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists . . We face great, if not insurmountable conceptual, problems in envisaging how the gaps could have been bridged in terms of gradual random processes. We saw this in the fossil record, in the case of the avian [bird] lung, and in the case of the wing of the bat. We saw it again in the case of the origin of life and we see it here in this new area of comparative biochemistry [molecular biochemistry] . . Yet in the face of this extraordinary discovery, the biological community seems content to offer explanations which are no more than apologetic tautologies [circular reasonings]."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1988), p. 308.
Sub-species changes are worlds apart from providing an explanation for cross-species changes.
"The facts of microevolution [change within the species] do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution [theorized change from one species to another]."—*Richard Goldschmidt, Material Basis of Evolution (1940).
Just as much of a puzzle now as ever before . . Only explainable on sociological grounds.
"All in all, evolution remains almost as much of a puzzle as it was before Darwin advanced his thesis. Natural selection explains a small part of what occurs: the bulk remains unexplained. Darwinism is not so much a theory, as a sub-section of some theory as yet unformulated . .
" ‘I for one . . am still at a loss to know why it is of selective advantage for the eels of Comacchio to travel perilously to the Sargasso sea . .’ complains Bertalanffy. ‘I think the fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable . . has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological [not scientific] grounds,’ von Bertalanffy concludes."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), pp. 232-233.
Relying entirely upon the imagination to find a solution.
"How can one confidently assert that one mechanism rather than another was at the origin of the creation of the plans of [evolutionary] organization, if one relies entirely upon the imagination to find a solution? Our ignorance is so great that we can not even assign with any accuracy an ancestral stock to the phyla Protozoa, Arthropoda, Mollusca and Vertebrata . . From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origins of the phyla, it follows that an explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental plans is heavily burdened with hypotheses. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution."—*Pierre P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 178.
*Milner is very much in favor of evolutionary theory, but he does have a few questions that need answering:
"1. Origin of life. How did living matter originate out of non-living matter? . .
"2. Origin of Sex. Why is sexuality so widespread in nature? How did maleness and femaleness arise? . .
"3. Origin of Language. How did human speech originate? We see no examples of primitive languages on Earth today; all mankind’s languages are evolved and complex.
"4. Origin of Phyla. What is the evolutionary relationship between existing phyla and those of the past? . . Transitional forms between phyla are almost unknown.
"5. Cause of Mass Extinction. Asteroids are quite in vogue, but far from proven as a cause of worldwide extinctions . .
"6. Relationship between DNA and Phenotype. Can small steady changes (micromutations) account for evolution, or must there be periodic larger jumps (macromutations)? Is DNA a complete blueprint for the individual? . .
"7. How Much Can Natural Selection Explain? Darwin never claimed natural selection is the only mechanism of evolution. Although he considered it a major explanation, he continued to search for others, and the search continues."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 159-180.
Yes, the search continues. The theory was developed 150 years ago; and men are still searching for evidence in support of it and mechanisms by which it could operate.
4 - SCIENTISTS DECLARE EVOLUTION TO BE UNWORKABLE AND USELESS
Not only is evolution entirely an hypothesis, it is a most peculiar one. This is the conclusion of a number of conscientious scientists. They have spent years trying to work with an unworkable theory, and they want it discarded entirely.
Instead of ignoring the growing opposition to evolutionary theory, researchers need to consider the overwhelming mass of evidence in opposition to it. We need to stop letting this sacred cow walk through our halls of science.
"Fundamental truths about evolution have so far eluded us all, and that uncritical acceptance of Darwinism may be counterproductive as well as expedient. Far from ignoring or ridiculing the ground-swell of opposition to Darwinism that is growing, for example, in the United States, we should welcome it as an opportunity to reexamine our sacred cow more closely."—*B. Storehouse, "Introduction," in *Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 12.
 IT IS AN UNWORKABLE HYPOTHESIS
We know so little now, and apparently little more is likely be learned.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology."—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London 177:8 (1988).
All we have is faith to go on, for there are no facts.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
A leading evolutionist writer says: If it does not fit in with reality, it has nothing to do with science.
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything—or at least they are not science."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science 143 (1964) p. 770.
It is a theory that stands in splendid isolation from experiment and evidence.
"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct, or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus proved."—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).
Does not stand up at all.
"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin’s theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks of Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.
It is an assortment of pipe dreams.
"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.
 IT IS A USELESS HYPOTHESIS
It is only a formula for classifying imaginative ideas.
"I argue that the ‘theory of evolution’ does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
It does not belong in the realm of science.
"A hypothesis is empirical and scientific only if it can be tested by experience . . A hypothesis or theory which cannot be, at least in principle, falsified by empirical observations and experiments does not belong to the realm of science."—*Francis J. Ayala, "Biological Evolution: Natural Selection or Random Walk?" American Scientist, Vol. 82, Nov.-Dec. 1974, p. 700.
Posterity will marvel at 20th-century scientists.
"Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis [Darwinism] could be accepted with the credulity that it has. I think . . this age is one of the most credulous in history."—Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom (1980), p. 59.
Creation fits the facts while evolution has yet to find any that proves it.
"A theory loses credibility if it must be repeatedly modified over years of testing or if it requires excuses being continually made for why its predictions are not consistent with new discoveries of data. It is not a propitious attribute for a theory to have required numerous secondary modifications. Some evolutionists misunderstand this and attempt to point to the continuous string of modifications to evolution theory as a justification for classifying it as the exclusive respectable scientific theory on origins. They often make the strange claim that creation theory could not be scientific because it fits the evidence so perfectly that it never has required any modification. That line of reasoning is like saying that the law of gravity is not scientific since it fits the facts so perfectly that it never needs modification."—Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 31.
The label on the outside of the package may say "knowledge," but inside it is empty.
"I feel that the effect of the hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, ‘Is there one thing you can tell me about evolution?’ The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).
The great myth of our century.
"Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 358.
That which retards scientific study.
"Science has been seriously retarded by the study of what is not worth knowing."—*Johann van Goethe (1749-1832), quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 257.