Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 3
Chapter 31- Scientists Speak Part 2
EVOLUTIONISTS EXPLAIN
THEIR OBJECTIVE
There are reasons why evolutionists are so concerned to hold on to a theory which was never proved in the first place, and has been repeatedly disproved since then. These are important reasons. This section is an important one, for it 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 manage 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 assignor 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 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.
4 -
THE SCOPE OF EVOLUTION
Evolutionists have sought to take over every field of scientific and social endeavor, and make their theory the foundation and edifice, the basis end the meaning of everything in life!
They are trying to convince every person on earth that it is a universal, all-pervading process.
"The concept of evolution was soon extended into other than biological fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life-histories of stars and the formation of chemical elements on the one hand, and on the other hand subjects like linguistics, social anthropology, and comparative law and religion, began to be studied from an evolutionary angle, until today we are enabled to see evolution as a universal, all-pervading process." *Julian Huxley, "Evolution and Genetics," in J. R. Newman (ed.) What is Science? (1955), p. 272.
It is being touted as the prime mover of all actions in the universe.
"Evolution comprises all the stages of development of the universe: the cosmos, biological, and human a cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life." *Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Changing Man," Science, January 27, 1967, p. 409.
Instead of man having dominion over nature, under God, inanimate and savage forces are given the mastery.
"I am taking a new look at the Darwinian revolution of 1859, perhaps the most fundamental of all intellectual revolutions in the history of mankind. It not only eliminated man's anthropocentrism, but affected every metaphysical and ethical concept, if consistently applied." *Ernst Mayr, "Nature of the Darwinian Revolution," Science, June 2, 1972.
And it is all based on chance, for that is what evolution actually is: random activity.
"Man's world view today is dominated by the knowledge that the universe, the stars, the earth and all living things have evolved through a long history that was not foreordained or programmed." *Ernst Mayr, "Evolution," Scientific American, September 1978, p. 47.
Even the churches are accepting it.
"Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that everything in the cosmos, from heavenly bodies to human beings, has developed and continues to develop through evolutionary processes. The great religions of the West have come to accept a historical view of creation. Evolutionary concepts are applied also in social institutions and in the arts. Indeed, most political parties, as well as schools of theology, sociology, history, or arts, teach these concepts and make them the basis of their doctrines." *Reno Dubos, "Humanistic Biology," American Scientist March 1965, p. 6.
The evolutionary bias is everywhere to be found.
"Twentieth century biology rests on a foundation of evolutionary . . The evolutionary bias is also apparent in peripheral independent fields such as chemistry, geology, physics and astronomy. No central scientific concept is more firmly established in our thinking, our methods, and our interpretation, than that of evolution." *Stanley D. Beck, "Natural Science and Creationist Theology, " Bioscience 32, October 1982, p. 738.
The basic ideologies of civilization are at stake.
"In any case, creation scientists are correct in perceiving that in modern culture 'evolution' often involves far more than biology. The basic ideologies of the civilization, including its entire moral structure, are at issue. Evolution is sometimes the key mythological element in a philosophy that functions as a virtual religion." *George M. Marsden, "No Middle Ground," Nature, October 14 1983, p. 574.
5 -
THE BEST EVIDENCES
OF EVOLUTION
Throughout this set of books we have said there are no genuine evidences that any aspect of evolutionary theory is true. Yet the evolutionists themselves have, at last, produced five reasons why they believe evolution to be true. Here they are:
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 Bethell, "Agnostic Evolutionists,
"Harper's, February 1985, p. 81.
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. WE KNOW THAT EVOLUTION IS TRUE BECAUSE THERE IS PERFECTION "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 problem that an animal
has of feeding or escaping 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. 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
Charles, "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 the expert said: apart from imperfections,
there is no evidence.]
"The proof of evolution lies in
imperfection."
*Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1980). WE KNOW THAT EVOLUTION IS TRUE BECAUSE SPECIES HAVE 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. 6 - EVOLUTIONISTS PRAISE EVOLUTION "How glorious is evolution! and so fully proved by the
time of Charles Darwin that it is the most fixed of all the laws of nature."
Such words of highest praise are spoken by evolutionary writers. Printed for
public consumption, they are read and accepted by millions. Yet, as this
series of books has revealed, the truth is far different. Evolutionists tell us their theory was a scientific
law by the time of Charles Darwin. "When the theory of evolution was first thought of as
an explanation of the family resemblances of plants and animals, it was only
a reasonable guess. But by the time it was developed in its present form by
the English biologist, Darwin, in 1859, it was no longer just a guess. It
was a scientific law proved by many lines of evidence."
*Irvin Adler, How Life Began (1957), p.18. They claim it was a settled fact by the end of the
19th century. "Evolution as a historical fact was proved beyond
reasonable doubt not later than in the closing decades of the 19th century.
No one who takes the trouble to become familiar with the pertinent evidence
has at present a valid reason to disbelieve that the living world, including
man, is a product of evolutionary development."
*Theodosius Dobzhansky. Evolution of Man (t 970), p. 58. They say that scientific facts support evolution
alone. "Setting aside as devoid of scientific foundation the
idea of immediate supernatural intervention in the first production of life,
we are not only justified in believing, but compelled to believe, that
living matter must have owed its origin to causes similar in character to
those which have been instrumental in producing ail other forms of matter in
the universe, in other words, to a process of gradual evolution."
*J. Keosien, Origin of Life, (1988), p. 12. They declare that every type of theory must be molded
by evolutionary concepts in order to be thinkable or true. "The place of biological evolution in human thought
was, according to Dobzhansky, best expressed in a passage that he often
quoted from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. '[Evolution] is a general postulate
to which all theories, all hypotheses, and all systems must henceforward bow
and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is
a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought
must follow." *Francisco Ayala, "Nothing in
Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution: Theodosius Dobzhansky,
1900-1975,"Journal of Heredity, Vol. 88, No. 3, 1977, p. 3. They assure us that only evolution
brings renewed hope, faith, and a knowledge of human destiny. "Many evolutionists believe their position offers
mankind much hope. On the back cover of the book, Evolution in Action, by
Julian Huxley, these comments are made: 'Without some knowledge of evolution
one cannot hope to arrive at a true picture of human destiny. . He has
brought renewed hope and faith that the frontiers are not all closed; that a
new world does lie ahead.' " *Carl Sagan, The
Cosmic Connection, 1973. They say that animals evolved, the dirt evolved, and
our souls evolved. "In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no
longer need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created; it
evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our
human selves, mind and soul, as well as brain and body. So did religion."
*Associated Press Dispatch, November 27, 1959. Happily they declare that randomness, chance, and
unlikely accidents produced everything. "The evolution of life on Earth is a product of random
events, chance mutations, and individually unlikely steps."
*Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection (1973), p. 43. "Humanist" is the 20th century name for an atheist.
They tell us that, by definition, an evolutionist is an atheist. "I use the word humanist to mean someone who believes
that man is just as much a natural phenomenon as an animal or plant; that
his body, mind and soul were not supernaturally created but are products of
evolution, and that he is not under the control or guidance of any
supernatural being or beings, but has to rely on himself and his own
powers." *Julian Huxley, American Humanist
Association, promotional brochure. With no evidence in its favor, evolution is logically
incoherent, yet it is accepted because men dare not accept the alternative. "The theory of evolution (is) a theory universally
accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be
true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly
incredible."
*D.M.S. Watson, "Adaptation," Nature, Vol. 123 p. 233
(1929). Evolutionists admit that evolution is an invisible
process that no human being can observe evidence for. "Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks
of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer. "
*David G. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory, " Evolution, Vol.
28, September 1974, p. 466. This invisible process that cannot be detected (we
will call it "biological changes") is supposed to have changed one-celled
organisms into mankind. "Evolution, in very simple terms, means that life
progressed from one-celled organisms to its highest state, the human being,
by means of a series of biological changes taking place over millions of
years." *Houston Post, August 23, 1964, p.
P-6. Isaac Newton once said, "If I have seen further than
other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants." Poor Newton
would collapse if he could see what modern science has come to. "Evolution is as well established a fact as
gravitation." "That living things evolve is as certain as a scientific fact
can be." *R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution
(1990), pp. 157, 318. Here is how this fully-proven scientific fact is
supposed to have occurred: "When living things came out of the sea to live on
land, fins turned into legs, gills into lungs, scales into fur."
*Rutherford Platt, River of Life (1956), p. vii. Putting the above statements together, we have a
process which proceeds so slowly as to be unnoticed for generations. So it
took hundreds or thousands of years for those fins to turn into legs, and
gills into lungs; all the while the fish were walking about on land! Other
evolutionists declare that evolution is visible, for evolutionary changes
occur in every generation (Lamarckism). "The theory of organic evolution involves these
three main ideas: (1) Living things change from generation to .
producing descendants with new characteristics. (2) This process has
been going on so long that it has produced all the groups and kinds of
things now living, as well as others that lived long ago and have died
out, or become extinct. (3) These different living things are related to
each other." *World Book Encyclopedia,
1966, Vol. 8, p. 330. Evolution, they say, is happening now and can be
studied experimentally. But if that is so, then why does not even one
experiment verify or support it? "[Evolution] is surmised to be of the order of two
billion [2,000,000,000] years.. from causes which now continue to be in
operation, and which therefore can be studied experimentally."
*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species (1951), pp. 3-11.
[Columbia University:] In reality, evolutionary theory is a bigoted concept.
Refusing to accept evidence for Creation, it is left with no evidence at
all. "Evolution had no room for the supernatural. The earth
and its inhabitants were not created, they evolved."
*Julian Huxley, quoted in New York Times, November 29, 1959. Lacking evidence or even rationality, the theory is
repeatedly claimed to be "a fact." Say it often enough and maybe the people
will believe it. Evolution is a fact, because it is the basis of our
thinking. "We all accept the fact of evolution . . The evolution
of life is no longer a theory. It is a fact. It is the basis of all our
thinking." *Sir Julian Huxley, quoted in New
York Times, November 28, 1959. It is a fact, because reputable men say so. "All reputable biologists have agreed that the
evolution of life on the earth is an established fact."
*B. B. Vance and *D. F. Miller, Biology for You (1983), p. 531. It is a fact, because enlightened men say so. "Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that
everything in the cosmos, from heavenly bodies to human beings, has developed
and continues to develop through evolutionary processes."
*Rene Dubois, "Humanistic Biology, " American Scientist, Vol. 53, March
1985, p. -8. It is a fact, even though we don't know how it
happened. "Evolution as a historical fact was proved beyond
reasonable doubt not later than in the closing decades of the nineteenth
century. . There is no doubt that both the historical and the causal aspects
of the evolutionary process are far from completely known . . The causes
which have brought about the development of the human species can be only
dimly discerned." *Theodosius Dobzhansky,
Biological Basis of Human Freedom (1958), pp. 6, 8-9. [Columbia University.! It is a fact, the causes of which we are totally
ignorant. "We are not in the least doubt as to the fact of
evolution . . The evidence by now is overwhelming . . Of the vital processes
which brought about these changes we are as yet ignorant."
*Encyclopedia Britannica, 1948, Vol. 8, pp. 918, 927; Vol. 14, p. 787. It is a fact, accepted by all but the ignorant and
prejudiced. "That evolution, so stated, is an indisputable fact
accepted by all but one or two of those who are accredited experts in the
study of biology . . Of the fact of organic evolution there can at presets
day be no reasonable doubt; the evidences for it are so overwhelming that
those who reject it can only be the victims of ignorance or of prejudice."
*M.J. Kenny, Teach Yourself Evolution (1888), pp. 1, 159 Only the ignorant, dishonest, or prejudiced
reject it. "Only ignorance, neglect of truth, or prejudice could
be the excuse for those who in the present state of knowledge without
discovering new facts in the laboratory or in the file, seek to impugn the
scientific evidence for evolution." *Sir
Gavin de Beer, Handbook of Evolution (1958). [British Museum of Natural
History.] It is a fact, and there is not one scientist in the
world that says or thinks otherwise. "The first point to make about Darwin's theory is that
it is no longer a theory but a fact. No serious scientist would deny the
fact that evolution has occurred, just as he would not deny the earth goes
round the sun . . All scientists agree that evolution is a fact . . There is
absolutely no disagreement." *Evolution after
Darwin, Vol. 3 (1980). A co-promoter of the Piltdown Man fake speaks his
mind: "Will Darwin's victory endure for all time? . . So
strong has his position become that I am convinced that it never can be
shaken." *Sir Arthur Keith, Concerning Man's
Origin, (1927). Darwinists claim that "natural selection" has been
scientifically established as the sole means by which evolution occurred.
But they neglect to mention that even *Darwin later rejected the concept,
and that nearly all modem evolutionists have rejected it as the mechanism or
sole evolutionary mechanism. "Today, a century after the publication of the
"Origin,"
Darwin's great discovery, the universal principle of natural selection,
is firmly and finally established as the sole agency of major evolutionary
change." *Introduction to *Charles Darwin,
Origin of the Species (Mentor edition). They tell us that evolution is inorganic materials
evolving! "Evolution comprises all the stages of the development
of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments.
. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a
product of the evolution of life. " *Theodosius
Dobzansky, "Changing Man," Science, Vol. 155, January 27, 1987, p. 409. In opposition to the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
evolution is said to be a continual increase in the organizational
complexity of inorganic and organic matter. "Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a
directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in
its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high
level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces
us to the view that the whole of reality is evolutional single process of
self-transformation." *Julian Huxley, "Evolution and Genetics," Chap. 8
in What is Science? (1955), p. 272. (Ed.
J. R. Newman) We are told it is "an irrefutable fact." Why then does
the scientific evidence support the other position? "The truth is that evolution is an irrefutable fact."
*Ashley Montague, quoted in *T. Hughes, "The
Fact and the Theory of Evolution, " American Biology Teacher 44 (1982), 27. The statement is made that most "enlightened persons"
accept it, including nearly all Christian and non-Christian religions of
Western civilization. "Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that
everything in the cosmos, from heavenly bodies to human beings, has developed
and continues to develop through evolutionary processes. The great religions
of the West have come to accept a historical view of creation. Evolutionary
concepts are applied also to social institutions and to the arts. Indeed,
most political parties, as wall as schools of theology, sociology, history,
or arts, teach these concepts and make them the basis of their doctrines.
Thus, theoretical biology now pervades all of Western culture indirectly
through the concept of progressive historical change."
*R. Dubos, "Humanistic Biology," in American Scientist, (March, 1985), Vol.
53, p. 8. Evolution, they tell us, is so solid that it is
impossible to falsify it. "I think it was Medawar who said that one thing about
the theory of evolution is (and he quoted Popper) that it is not
falsifiable, that whatever happens you can always explain it."
*V. Weisshopf, "Discussion, " in the Mathematical Challenges to the
Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (1987), p. 84. They explain that the theory has been so thoroughly
proven and established, it no longer need be tested by scientific facts. "Our theory of evolution has become , , one which
cannot be refuted by any possible observations. It is thus 'outside of
empirical science, ' but not necessarily false."
*L. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, "Evolutionary History and Population Biology,"
Nature 218 (1987), p. 352. The theory, they say, can be twisted around to explain
any object or event. "It can, indeed, explain anything. You may be
ingenious or not in proposing a mechanism which looks plausible to human
beings . . but it is still an unfalsifiable theory." *R. World,
"Discussion," in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian
Interpretation of Evolution (1987), p.71. *Charles Darwin provided all the final proofs to
evolution more than a century ago. "He finely and definitely established evolution as a
fact, no longer speculation or an alternative hypothesis for scientific
investigation."
*George Gaylord Simpson (1951). Evolution was universally accepted by scientists
shortly after the publication of *Darwin's book in 1859. "That evolution is a fact and that the astonishing
diversity of animals and plants evolved gradually was accepted quite
universally soon after 1859." *Ernst Mayr
(1978). The evidences are as strong as those governing other
laws of nature. "The origins of races and species by evolution is a
demonstrated fact supported by experimental evidence as strong as the
evidence for the existence of atoms, electrons, protons, and other particles
of matter."
*G. Ledyard Stebbins (1977). Lacking any evidence, we tell you again and again:
Evolution is firmly, yes, firmly, established as a scientific fact. "Evolution is, I believe, firmly established as a
scientific fact." *Donald C. Johanson (1981). 7 - SCIENTISTS SPEAK AGAINST EVOLUTION Earnest, conscientious scientists have something far
different to any 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 have to say. 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 works 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 Grease, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8. Evolutionary theory is ruining scientific research and
conclusions in the 20th century, for far too many men consider it the
primary work of science to defend this foolish theory. "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." LL Cohen, Darwin Was
Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985). Millions of dollars have been invested in thousands of
research projects to salvage the theory, yet it has all been in vain. "The reader. . may be dumbfounded that so much work
has settled so few questions." *Science,
January 22, 1965. P. 389. An understatement: "No one should make the mistake of saying that
evolution is fully understood." *World
Book Encyclopedia, 1968, Vol. 6, p. 334. 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 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. "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. In chapter 10, we quoted 'Julian Huxley's statement
that the mathematical odds are totally against the evolution of the horse;
yet it happened anyway, he concludes. Here is a comment on *Huxley's
statement: "Let us remind you who find such odds ridiculous,
even if you are reassured by Mr. [Julian] Huxley, that this figure was
calculated for the evolution of a horse! How many more volumes of zeros
would be required by Mr. Huxley to produce a human being? "And then you would have just one horse and one
human being, and, unless the mathematician wishes to add in the
probability for the evolution of all the plants and animals that are
necessary to support a horse and a man, you would have a sterile world
where neither could have survived any stage of its supposed evolution!
What have we now, the figure I followed by a thousand volumes of zeros?
Then add another thousand volumes for the improbability of the earth
having all the necessary properties for life built into it. And add
another thousand volumes for the improbability of the sun, and our
orbit, and our daily rotation and the moon and the stars. Add other
thousands for the evolution of all the thoughts that man can have, all
the objective and subjective reality that ebbs and flows in us like part
of the pulse beat of an inscrutable cosmos) "Add them tint, and you have long ago stopped
talking about rational thought, much lees scientific evidence. Yet,
Simpson, Huxley, Dobzhansky, Myer, and dozens of others continue to tell
us that that's the way it had to be! They have retreated from all the
points which ever lent any semblance of credibility to the evolutionary
theory. Now they busy themselves with esoteric mathematical formulations
based on population genetics, random drift, isolation, and other ploys
which have a probability of accounting for life on earth of minus zero!
They duffer our libraries, and press on the minds of people everywhere
an animated waxen image of the theory that has been dead for over a
decade. "Evolution has no claim whatsoever to being a
science. "It is time all this nonsense teed. It is time to
bury the corpse. It is time to shift the books to the humorous fiction
section of the libraries." Marshall and
Sandra Hall, The Truth: God or Evolution? pp. 39-40. *Hanson presents the specter of thousands of desperate
men struggling to uphold a theory, the evidence for which has long ago been
found not to exist. "Facts are always facts about or with respect to or
set out in terms of some theoretical frame work. Should the framework
deliquesce [melt away], the objects, processes, and facts will dissolve
conceptually. Where are the "facts" or alchemy, of the phlogiston
theory? Or must we grant that no observations ever really supported such
frameworks of ideas? . . They are actually once descriptive references
whose supporting rationale has disappeared. Their articulators were, in
their way, dedicated empiricists, groping, struggling, to delineate the
facts concerning in intricacies of a near incomprehensible world. May
not the solid acquisitions of our wonderful laboratory performances yet
grow pale before the chilling winds of new doctrine--doctrine opposed to
our presently accepted theories?" *Norwood
Russell Hanson, " Galileo's Discoveries in Dynamics," in Science, Vol.
14, p. 472. *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 of the Nineteenth Century. 1941. Among thinking scientists a growing rebellion against
such an obsoleted theory is underway. "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 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, after reading
*Kerkut's book. "This is a book with a disturbing message; it points
to some unseemly cracks in the foundations. 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, said this: "Search for the cause of evolution has been
abandoned. It is now clear that evolution has no single cause."
*G. G. Simpson, Major Features, p. 118-119. He also made this statement: "It might be argued that the theory is quite
unsubstantiated and has status only as a speculation."
*George G. Simpson, Major Features, p. 118-119. Commenting on one of *Simpson's efforts to defend
evolutionary theory, 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. But Thompson's
"Introduction"
proved to be an stunning attack on evolutionary theory. "Modern Darwinian paleontologist 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 rigour, 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 (1986), p. 327. With mutations or without them, Darwinian theory is
simply not scientific. By this is meant that there is neither evidence that
it has or is occurring, nor mechanism by which it could occur. "So, at present, we are left with neo-Darwinian
theory: that evolution has occurred, and has been directed mainly by
natural selection, with random contributions from genetic drift, and
perhaps the occasional hopeful monster. In this form, the theory is not
scientific by Popper's standards. Indeed, Popper calls the theory of
evolution not a scientific theory but 'a metaphysical research
programme'." *Colin Patterson, Evolution
(1978), p. 149. * 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
micro--evolutionary 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. "It is my conviction that if any professional
biologist will take adequate time to examine carefully the assumptions
upon which the macro--evolutionary doctrine rests, and the observational
and laboratory evidence that bears on the problem of origins, he/she
will conclude that there are substantial reasons for doubting the truth
of this doctrine. Moreover, I believe that a scientifically sound
creationist view of origins is not only possible, but is to be preferred
over the evolutionary view. "We have seen that evidence often taken to support a
naturalistic chemical origin of life, actually, upon close analysis,
points in another direction, namely, toward the conclusion that the
first life was created. The data of molecular biology, especially the
details of the genetic-coding and protein-synthesizing systems, lend
further powerful support to this view. Probability arguments applied to
the problem of the origin of genetic information also confirm the
creationist view of origins. "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 explains 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 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 [1959), was
able to provide a long list of leading authorities who have been
inclined to the view that macroevolution [changes across spades] cannot
be explained in terms of micro-evolutionary 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
micro-evolutionary [sub-species] level . . only serves to highlight its
failure at a macro-evolutionary [above species] level."
*Michael Denton, Evolution. A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 344. *Goldschmidt, a leading geneticist of several decades
ago, agreed: "The facts fail to give any information regarding
the origin of actual species, not to mention the higher categories."
*R. Goldschmidt, The Natural Basis of Evolution, p. 165. Instead of intergraded changes from one species to
another, we only end distinct species types. "Increase of knowledge about biology has tended to
emphasize the extreme rigidity of type, and more and more discount the
idea of transmutation from one type to anotherthe essential basis of
Darwinism." *McNair Wilson, "The Witness
of Science, "in the Oxford Medical Publications (1942). Evolutionary theory suffers from grave defects. "The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects,
which are more and mare apparent as time advances. It can no longer
square with practical scientific knowledge." *Albert Fleishmann,
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. In a personal letter (quoted in chapter 9), *Charles
Darwin once expressed the wish that a "warm little pond" somewhere might
long ago have produced the first living creature. *Yockey laughs at the
idea. "The `warm little pond' scenario was invented ad
hoc [for a special purpose] to serve as a materialistic reductionist
explanation of the origin of life. It is unsupported by any other
evidence and it will remain ad hoc until such evidence is found.
Even if it existed, as described in the scenario, it nevertheless falls
very short indeed of achieving the purpose of its authors even with the
aid of a deus ex machine [providential intervention]. One must
conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario
describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes
which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet
been written." *H. P. Yockey, "A
Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information
Theory," Journal of the Theory Biology 67 (1977), p. 398. [deus ex
machine = "god out of a machine," referring to a stage trick of the
classical theatrical tragedies, in which a god was lowered in a car onto
the stage to solve problems.] *Toulmin senses that the hand of God 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 Encyclopedia Britannica Vol. 18
(15th ad. 1974), p. 389. The great riddle for evolutionists: "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). *Fleischmann says it all: "'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.] Each species has a basic design, separate from the
others. Within each species are variations, but all clearly belonging to
that species. "In honest moments we must admit that the history of
complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of
basic design than a saga of accumulating excellence." *Stephen Gould.
The Ediscaran Experiment; Natural History, February 1984, p.
22. "Taxonomists" are the scientists who study and
classify plant and animal species. "Cladists" are the taxonomists who
have given up on evolutionary theory, because they clearly see that each
species is too different from each other for cross-species evolution to
have occurred. "So now we can see the full extent of the doubts.
The transformed cladists claim that evolution is totally unnecessary for
good taxonomy; at the same time they are unconvinced by the Darwinian
explanation of how new species arise. To them, therefore, the history of
life is still fiction rather than fact and the Darwinian penchant for
explaining evolution in terms of adaptation and selection is largely
empty rhetoric "For all its acceptance in the scientific world 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. *O'Grady looks closer at the theory: "Descent with modification is one process postulated
to be capable of producing that hierarchy, and natural selection is one
process postulated to be capable of producing descent with modification.
I feel that the undesirable has happened: the model developed to explain
evolution has come to be seen as evolution itself."
*R. OGrady, "Evolutionary Theory and Teleology," Journal of Theoretical
Biology (1984), p. 587. After a century, it is "still very much a theory and
still very much in doubt." "Now, of course, such claims are simply nonsense.
For Darwin's model of evolution is still very much a theory and still
very much in doubt when it comes to macro-evolutionary phenomena.
Furthermore being basically a theory of reconstruction, it is impossible
to verify by experiment or direct observation as is normal in science."
*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 75. The problems are fundamental and serious, severe and
intractable. "Modern evolutionary theory is not an
established fact which has only one or two minor problems over
mechanisms. The problems are
fundamental, and serious, as Michael Denton is forced to admit: " ' . . nearly all [evolutionary 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.' "
A. W. Mehlert Book Review, in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June
1987, p. 32. [Italics and brackets are Mehlert's: quotation from
*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 18.1 The theory is totally inadequate. "'The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to
explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.'
" *Sir Ambrose Flaming, 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. Each of the specialists admits 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, that the theory of evolution,
is impossible." *P. Lemoine,
"Introduction: De L' Evolution?," Encyclopedie Francaise Vol. 5 (1937),
p. 8. The proof is not there. "'Reluctant as he may be, honesty compels the
evolutionist to admit, that there is no absolute proof of organic
evolution.' " *H.N. Newman, quoted in H.
Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1968), p. 139. It is all one big scientific mistake. "'The theory [of evolution] is a scientific
mistake.' "
Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Epoch, 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. Some creatures have survived better than others; yes,
but that is not evolution. "In essence, we contend that neo-Darwinism is a
theory of differential survival and not one of origin . . "We are certainly not arguing here that differential
survival of whole organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen.
The question that we must ask is, does this represent the controlling
dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument be equally well
constructed to 'explain' any frequency distribution? For example,
consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through time.
Clearly the harder rocks are better 'adapted' to survive harsh climatic
conditions. As Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told about
political parties, rumours, jokes, stars and discarded soft drink
containers." *A. J. Hughes and *D. Lambent, "Functionalism,
Structuralism, and `Ways of Seeing', " Journal of Theoretical Biology
787 (1984), pp. 796-797. The making of a pseudo-science: "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
bolo, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudo-science has been
seated. 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. Grease, 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 lads 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. Grease, 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). The statement of a scientist who spent his life trying
to find evidence in favor of the theory: "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), p. 235-236. The head of a major U.S. museum paleontology
department speaks: "It's true that for the last eighteen months or so
I've been kicking around non-evolutionary or even anti-evolutionary
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 antiknowledge."
*Colin Patterson, Address at the American Museum of Natural History
(November 5, 1981). A hundred years of tearing apart science to support a
theory of piled-up assumptions and hypotheses. "The sciences dealing with the past, stand before
the bar of common sense on a different footing. Therefore, a grotesque
account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously
though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions,
ad hoc [invented for a purpose] hypothesis on ad hoc hypothesis, and
tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The
result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."
*James Conant, quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, no. 2, 1982, p. 2.
[Chemist and former president, Harvard University.] In the study of natural history, we only find
degeneration, extinction, and sub-species changes. "The majority of evolutive movements are
degenerative. Progressive cases are exceptional. Characters appear
suddenly that have no meaning toward progress . . 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 problem in
envisaging how the gaps could have been bridged in temps 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 cash 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. Critically close to the danger area.. "It is, of course, a matter of debate as to where
healthy conversation leaves off and dogma begins. Suffice it to say that
the discipline is at least close enough to the danger area to call for
some critical reexamination of its basic tenets." *Ehrlich
and *Holm quoted in J. W. Klotz article, in W. E. Lammerts (ed), Why Not
Creation? (19710), p. 21. Sub-species changes is worlds apart from providing an
explanation for cross-species changes. "The facts of microevolution [actual 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 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,
Arthropods, Molluscs 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
de 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 cute in vogue, but far from proven as a cause of worldwide
extinctions . . "8. 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.
8 -
SCIENTISTS DECLARE
EVOLUTION TO BE
A STRANGE CONCEPT
Not only is evolution all hypothesis, it is a most peculiar one. This is the conclusion of a number of conscientious scientists.
Instead of ignoring the growing opposition to evolutionary theory, the experts 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," to *Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 12.
Scientists should be willing to accept change as new light comes. We should not remain moribund in an imaginary theory without any evidence. If an idea doesn't work out, it isn't worth holding on to.
"Do not think for a moment, though, that you know the 'real' atom. The atom is an idea, a theory, a hypothesis; it is whatever you need to account for the facts of experience . . A good deal will happen in the future and the changes in [our understanding of] the atom will continue. An idea in science, remember, lasts only as long as it is useful." Emmett L Williams and George Mulfinger, Jr, Physical Science for Christian Schools (1974), pp. 62-63 [italics ours.]
IT IS AN UNWORKABLE HYPOTHESIS
We hardly know anything now, and apparently nothing more will 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 Lannean 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.
An understatement:
"No one should make the mistake of saying that evolution is fully understood." *World Book Encyclopedia, 1988. Vol. 8. p. 334.
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 Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).
It is a hypothesis we are still working on.
"There is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic source. This theory can be called the `General Theory of Evolution' and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis." *G.A. Kerkut, Implication of Evolution (1980), p. 157.
Totally apart from fact and evidence, it tries to explain everything.
"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. Upson, "A Physicist Looks of Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.
It is an odd assortment of pipe dreams.
"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardy quality as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardy 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 empirically 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." *Francisco 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 sedulity 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 match it.
"It is generally recognized that the original version of a theory might not be entirely correct but not necessarily false in every respect either. Thus, it is permissible for scientists to attempt to salvage a theory that has flunked a test by making secondary modifications to the theory and trying to make it fit new facts not previously considered. 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 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.
*Goethe sums it up:
"Science has been seriously retarded by the study of what is not worth knowing." *,lohann von Goethe (1749-1832), quoted in Asimov's Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 257.
-9
SCIENTISTS DECLARE THAT
EVOLUTION HINDERS SCIENCE
Thoughtful scientists have concluded that, not only is evolutionary theory a total waste of time, but it has greatly hindered scientific advance as well.
It is totally useless.
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." *Bounoure, Le Monde et la Vie (October 1983). Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France.]
It is a serious obstruction to biological science, and everything must be forced to fit it.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs, as has been repeatedly shown, the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be found to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up." *H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11.
It has resulted in a scientific retreat from factual thinking.
"The doctrine of continuity [evolutionary theory] has always necessitated a retreat from pure empiricism [facts and scientific testing], and contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the antievolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach." *M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 353.
It has held back the progress of science.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fil the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science." *Colin Patterson, The Listener. [Senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London.]
Darwinian theory is choking scientific advancement.
"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).
It has produced a decline in scientific integrity.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity." *W. R. Thompson, Introduction *Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species.
You have just completed
Chapter 31 Scientists Speak Part 2
NEXT Go to the next chapter in this series,
Chapter 31 Scientists Speak Part 3