Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 3 

Chapter 31- Scientists Speak Part 2



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 -


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 -



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:




"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.




"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.




"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.




"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).




"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 -



"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 -



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 -




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.]


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 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.




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