Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 3 

Chapter 31 SCIENTISTS SPEAK Part 3


In this section we shall listen as (1) "Charles Darwin speaks, (2) others in his time speak about and to him, and (3) as scientists today speak about Darwin.

*Simpson eulogizes *Darwin as the great man who proved evolutionary theory.

"Darwin . . finally and definitely established evolution as a fact." *George Gaylord Simpson.

*John Dewey, the leader of "progressive education" and a confirmed evolutionist, said that * Darwin's book affected all future views towards morals, politics, and religion.

"The Origin of Species introduced a mode of thinking that in the end was bound to transform the logic of knowledge, and hence the treatment of morals, politics, and religion." *John Dewey, "The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy," in Great Essays in Science, p. 18, (1957).

* Raven declares that *Darwin's concepts were so revolutionary because they dealt with the origins of man and thus with religion.

"In Darwin's case the consequences were still more revolutionary; for his doctrine dealt not with the laws governing inanimate objects, not with physics and chemistry, but with living creatures, with man's position in the scheme of things, and with religion." *C. Haven, "Darwin and His Universe," in A Short History of Science (1951), p. 103.

*More explains that all of Darwin's theories runs counter to the facts.

"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature. . It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts." *T. More, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.

*Darwin's theory in relation to fossils, is a theory and nothing more.

"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study." *Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1882), pp. 181-2.

*Darwin called assumptions facts, and tried to change theories into laws.

"It is Darwin's habit of confusing the provable with the unprovable which constituted to my mind, his unforgivable offence against science." Dr. L. M. Davies, The Bible and Modern Science (1953), p. 8.

"Maybe" and "perhaps" is the basis of *Darwin's book.

"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as 'Let us assume,' or 'We may well suppose,' etc) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone. " L Menson Davies, The Bible and Modern Science (1953), p. 7 [British scientist]

Those who accept his piled-up conjectures are only damaged by them.

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the sums of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity." *Dr. W. R Thompson, Introduction, *Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, (Everyman's Library Centennial Edition of Darwin, 1983). (Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ontario, Canada].

If one tiger is "fitter" than another, that does not prove that it evolved from something, or is evolving into something else.

"Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such . . One organism may indeed be 'fitter' than another. . This, of course, is not something which helps create the organism, . . It is clear, I think that there was something very, very wrong with such an idea." "As I see it the conclusion is pretty staggering: Darwin's theory, l believe, is on the verge of collapse." *Tom Bothell, "Darwin's Mistake," Harper, February 1978, pp. 72, 75.

* Darwin tried hard to provide us with a comprehensive theory, and that is all that can be said in its favor. *Macbeth says it well:

"Darwinism has had to compete with various rival theories, each of which aimed to be more or less complete explanation. . The Darwinians have shown that none of these theories is any good . . Thus the Darwinians are able to say that Darwin made a better try than anyone else, and they find real comfort in this.

"Does this mean that Darwinism is correct? No. Sir Julian Huxley says that, once the hypothesis of special creation is ruled out, adaptation can only be ascribed to natural selection, but this is utterly unjustified. He should say only that Darwinism is better than the others. But when the others are no good, this is faint praise. Is there any glory in outrunning a cripple in a foot race?

"It seems that the standards of the evolutionary theorists are relative or comparative rather than absolute. If such a theorist makes a suggestion that is better than other suggestions, or better than nothing, he feels that he has accomplished something even if his suggestion will obviously not hold water. He does not believe that he must meet any objective standards of logic, reason, or probability." *Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 71-78.

His theories have been found to be inadequate, outmoded, and invalid.

"I assert only that the mechanism of evolution suggested by Charles Darwin has been found inadequate by the professionals, and that they have moved on to other views and problems. In brief, classical Darwinism is no longer considered valid by qualified biologists." *N. Macbeth, Darwin Retied (1971).

Since the theory has been falsified, why has it not been abandoned?

"After this step-wise elimination, only one possibility remains: the Darwinian theory of natural selection, whether a not coupled with Mendelism, is false. I have already shown that the arguments advanced by the early champions were not very compelling, and that there are now considerable numbers of empirical facts which do not fit with the theory. Hence, to all intents and purposes the theory has been falsified, so why has it not been abandoned?

"I think the answer to this question is that current evolutionists follow Darwin's examplethey refuse to accept falsifying evidence." *S Lovtrup, Darwinism. The Refutation of a Myth (1987), p. 352.

*Darwin himself admitted that the evidence for evolution, which should be found in the fossil strata, simply was not there.

"Charles Darwin, himself the father of evolution in his later days, gradually became aware of the lack of real evidence for his evolutionary speculation and wrote: 'As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well defined species?' " H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation 7, (1968), p. 139.

Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence.

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify, Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence." *R. Kirk "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 841.

*Darwin launched science into a maze of research in an effort to end proof for his theory, yet it is but the pursuit of a will-o-the-wisp.

"A great deal of this work [research work stimulated by Darwinism] was directed into unprofitable channels or devoted to the pursuit of will-o-the-wisps." * W R. Thompson, (Introduction,), Darwin's Origin of Species, (1983), p. 20.

*Darwin's underlying objective was to fight against God.

"Darwin wrote in his autobiography: `I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true . ." *M. Grano, "The Faith of Darwinism, " Encounter, November 1959, p. 48

Theories unsupported by facts ought not to be admitted into science.

"The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in science." L Agassiz on the Origin of Species, American Journal of Science 30 (1880), p. 154.

All the evidence which *Darwin's theory really concerns itself with is changes within species.

"And if one returns to the Origin [of Species] with these criticisms in mind, one finds, indeed, that after all the brilliance of its hypotheses piled on hypotheses, for all the splendid simplicity of the 'mechanism' by which it 'explains' so many and so varied phenomena, it simply is not about the origin of species, let alone of the great orders and classes and phyla, at all. Its argument mores in a different direction altogether, in the direction of minute specialized adaptations, which lead, unless to extinction, nowhere.. How from single-celled (and for that matter from inanimate) ancestors there came to be castor beans and moths and snails, and how from these there emerged llamas and hedgehogs and lions and apes-and men-that is a question which neo-Darwinian theory simply leaves unasked." *M. Grene, "The Faith of Darwinism, " Encounter (November 1959), p. 49.

Scientists are becoming disgusted with the mess Darwinism has made of scientific advance.

"Biologists have indeed built their advances in evolutionary theory on the Darwinian foundation, not realizing that the foundation is about to topple because of Darwin's three mistakes.

"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is about time that we cry: 'The emperor has no clothes'." *K Hsu, "Reply," Geology 15 (1987), p. 177.

*Darwin convinced himself, and then tried to convince others. The result: fragile towers of hypothesis.

"When I was asked to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Anthony Keith [one of the discoverers of Piltdown Man], I fell extremely hesitant to accept the invitation . . I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. If arguments fail to resist analysis, consent should be withheld and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable. He fell back on speculative arguments.

"He merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others.

"But the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince.

"This general tendency to eliminate, by mean of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion." *W. R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman's Library issue of *Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1958 edition).

At heart, *Darwin was preoccupied with a concern to prove that God does not exist. His theories were the outgrowth of this superordinate concern. *Gillespie senses this monomania of * Darwin's.

"I, like many others, became curious about why Darwin spent so much time attacking the idea of divine creation. This interest led me to notice that the book [Origin of Species] had a surprising amount of positive [definite] theological content. Further study seemed to show that he was seriously (if not profoundly) concerned with religious questions." *Neil C Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), preface, p. XL [University of Chicago book.]

As *Darwin himself remarked:

"I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true." *Charles Darwin, quoted in H.M. Morris, Long War Against God (1989), p. 94.

*Darwin called *Thomas H. Huxley his "bulldog," for Huxley spent his time traveling around and lecturing for atheism and Darwinian theory, while Darwin remained in his ivory castle ever trying to develop new aspects to his speculations.

[Darwin, speaking about Huxley:] "My good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospel-4.9., the devil's gospel." *Robert T. Clark and *James D. Bales, Why Scientists Accept Evolution (1988), p. 45.

*Himmelfarb spent years analyzing *Darwin's writings.

"[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account to this fact, and if these were not taken seriously, he could come up with a different, but equally general, vague and conjectural set of reasons." *Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1988), p. 319.

An ever-higher mountain of speculations was gradually erected by *Darwin.

"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes." *Op. cit, p. 335.

Determined to uphold atheism, *Darwin's method was to just keep hammering home his ideas until he convinced his reader. In the process, he would mention objections and then intimate that they had somehow been answered.

"[Darwin] had a beguiling way of making you believe he had faced up to all the objections to his theory, and had overcome them." *Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 251.

On one side of the question are the facts; on the other side the theories.

"For I am fully aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible." * W. R. Thompson, introduction to *Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, pp. 11-12.

Kuyper, a contemporary of *Darwin's, recognized the terrible danger to those new theories.

"The doctrine of evolution is a newly invented system, a newly concerted doctrine, a newly formed dogma, a new rising belief, which places itself over against the Christian faith, and can only found its temple on the ruins of our Christian confession." *Dr. Abraham Kuyper, "Evolution, " speech delivered in 1899.

Evolutionary theory may not be the root of the tree of evil, but it lies close to it. The root is the love of evil; evolution provides an excuse for continuing that indulgence.

"This monkey mythology of Darwin is the cause of permissiveness, promiscuity, pills, prophylactics, perversions, abortions. pornography, pollution, poisoning, and proliferation of crimes of all types." Braswell Dean, 1981 statement, quoted in Asimov's Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 92. [Atlanta Judge.]

*Denton, a careful Australian scientist, gets to the heart of the problem: there is no evidence for the theory.

"[Darwin's theory that all evolution is due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes] remains as unsubstantiated as it was one hundred and twenty years ago. The very success of the Darwinian mode at a micro-evolutionary level [finding change within species]. . only serves to highlight its failure at a macro-evolutionary level [finding change across species]." *Michael Denton, Evolution; A Theory in Crisis (1988), pp. 344-345.

While he was alive, *Darwin admitted it.

[In a letter written to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." *Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (19T8), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].

It is all just a myth.

"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the Beagle." *Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.

Acceptance of the myth brings with it a bewitching illusion.

"The overriding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] 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 aver the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe." *Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.

A century and a half of research has provided not one whit of evidence.

"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgiveable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity..

"Finely, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that: Intelligence comes before life. Many people will say, this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing 1 am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts." *G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.

Those who choose to remain in atheism are bound to serve the cause of evolution, in one form or another.

"The theory of evolution gives no answer to the important problem of the origin of life and presents only fallacious solutions to the problem of the nature of evolutive transformations . . We are condemned to believe in evolution, but we will always search for a suggestion concerning the methods of transformations . . Perhaps we are now in a worse position than in 1859 because we have searched for one century and we have the impression that the various hypotheses [of how evolution could have occurred] are now exhausted. Presently, nature appears to be more steady, more firm and more refractory [resistant] to changes than we thought, before we had made a clear distinction between hereditary variability [within species] and acquired characteristics [DNA characteristics fixing each species]." *Jean Rostand, quoted in *G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 419.

It is too easy to complacently think that a theory has, with the passing of time, changed into a fact.

"Because scientists believe in Darwinism, there is a strong social tendency in this kind of situation for everybody to become satisfied with a weak explanation." *Op. cit., p. 22

Haugton is quoted as having said this to *Darwin in 1858, a year before the publication of Origin:

"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, 'All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism." *Fred Hoyle anal N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

Haugton is also quoted as having said this to * Darwin:

[Speaking to Darwin on December 24, 11156:] "[If your theory accomplishes what you intend,] humanity, in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it, and sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history." *Ibid.

The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without.

"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologist and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and in its turn is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reasons. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without.

"What is even more surprising is that these doubts are arising simultaneously from several independent branches of science. . [Out of it all] has come a doubt about whether Darwinism is, strictly speaking, scientific. Is the theory actually testable, as good theories must be? Is the idea of natural selection based on a tautology, a simple restatement of some initial assumptions? From within biology the doubts have come from scientists in half a dozen fields. Many paleontologists are unconvinced by the supposed gradualness of Darwinian evolution; they feel that the evidence points to abrupt change, or else to no change at all. Some geneticists question Darwin's explanation for the 'origin of species', feeling that natural selection may have virtually nothing to do with the events that lead to the appearance of new species. Among other scientists, for example, among immunologists, embryologists, and taxonomists, the same feeling seems to be growing: there is a lot more to evolution than Charles Darwin envisaged, and even the modern synthesis of evolutionary ideas, called neo-Darwinism, seems inadequate in many respects.

"In the past ten years has emerged a new breed of biologists who are considered scientifically respectable, but who have their doubts about Darwinism." *B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), pp. 10-11.

The defenses are crumbling, holes are appearing in the walls, soon the roof may cave in.

"Today, however, the picture is entirely different. More and more workers are showing signs of dissatisfaction with the synthetic theory. Some are attacking its philosophical foundations, arguing that the reason that it has been so amply confirmed is simply that it is unfalsifiable; with a little ingenuity any observation can be made to appear consistent with it. Others have been deliberately setting out to work in just those areas in which neo-Darwinism is least comfortable, like the problem of the gaps in the fossil record or the mechanisms of non-Mendelian inheritance. Still others, notably some systematists, have decided to ignore the theory altogether, and to carry on their work without an a priori assumption about how evolution has occurred. Perhaps most significant of all, there is now appearing a stream of articles and books defending the synthetic theory. It was not so long ago that hardly anyone thought this was necessary.

"All the signs are that evolution theory is in crisis, and that a change is on the way." *M. W. Ho and *P. Saunders, "Preface," to Beyond NeoDarwinism (1984), p. ix.

11 -


One thing is certain: If scientists, and the rest of us, decide not to accept the folly of evolution, the only alternative is creation. If stars, planets, plants, animals, and men did not make themselves, then the only alternative is that God made them!

Some men feel compelled to remain with a ridiculous theory, because they do not consider the only alternative.

"Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur. . or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." *D.M.S. Watson, "Adaptation," in Nature, Vol. 123, p. 233 (1929).

For, in fact, there are only two alternatives.

"Either evolutionary change or miraculous divine intervention lies at the back of human intelligence." *S. Zuckerman, Functional Activities of Man, Monkeys and Apes (1933), p. 155.

Either God created everything, or everything made or evolved itself.

"Such explanations tend to fall into one or the other of two broad categories: special creation or evolution. Various admixtures and modifications of these two concepts exist, but it seems impossible to imagine an explanation of origins that lies completely outside the two ideas." *Davis and *E. Solomon, The World of Biology (1974), p. 395.

The alternative solution cannot be disproved, but it can be scorned.

"There is no rival hypothesis except the outworn and completely refuted one of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and prejudiced. " *H. Newman, Outlines of General Zoology (1924), p. 407.

Everywhere we turn, in the animate and inanimate, we see specific design and careful purpose. Only an Intelligent Being of massive intellect and understanding could have produced it all.

"'I cannot believe that the facts of science are mere accidents. The more we study the earth, the more sense it makes. What I have studied about the earth has made me no less a believer in a Supreme Power, but actually more so. . We have seen so much of God's handiwork we can say, God must be.

"Honest thinkers must see, if they investigate, that only an infallible Mind could have adjusted our world and its life in its amazing intricacies.' " Paul Francis Kerr, quoted in F. Meldau, Why We Believe in Creation, Not Evolution, pp. 50-51.

There are no other possibilities. "Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not."

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have bean created by some omnipotent intelligence." *D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.

Evolutionary theory is not a science for it has no facts to support it.

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory, is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation, both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof " *L.H. Matthews, "Introduction" to The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin p. x, xi (1971 edition).

The alternative theory, Creation, has the facts to support it.

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like it if the experimental evidence supports it." *H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution, " Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138

The two cannot (cannot!) be reconciled. Either one must be accepted and the second rejected, or the second must be accepted and the first rejected. And the facts are only on one side.

"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils." *D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England December 11, 1975, p. 4. [Biochemist]

Thinking that the created universe has no origin, no plan, and no norms; produces people with no purpose, no fulfillment, and no future.

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe." *Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 87. [Australian molecular biologist]

There are two alternatives, and no third one.

"The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position." *George Wald, "Origin of Life," Scientific American, August 1954, p. 48.

12 -


The charge is frequently made that belief in a Creator and creation is merely part of "religion" and devoid of scientific evidence. Throughout these series of books we have clearly observed that all the evidence is on the side of creation, not evolution. Now we shall learn that it is evolution which is a religious faith. Yes, it is true that there are religious people who believe in creation, but it does not take religiosity to accept scientific evidence. On the other hand, it requires the religious fervor of evolutionary theory to reject all that evidence and cling instead to a myth.

Darwinism is a mythology all in its own.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. Alter having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." *Loran Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199.

It is a faith.

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature." *L Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of Species." . p. xxii (1977 edition).

Evolution involves mystical conjectures and requires metaphysical beliefs.

"Dobzhansky was a religious man, although he apparently rejected fundamental beliefs of traditional religion, such as the existence of a personal God and of life beyond physical death . . Dobzhansky held that, in man, biological evolution had transcended itself into the realm of self-awareness and culture. He believed that mankind would eventually evolve into higher levels of harmony and creativity. He was a metaphysical optimist." *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. 9.

Here is an example of these mystical conjectures:

"In giving rise to man, the evolutionary process has, apparently for the first and only time in the history of the Cosmos, become conscious of itself." *Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Changing Man," Science, Vol. 155, January 27, 1987, p. 409.

Here is another example of this meaningless use of words that appears to say something significant:

"Evolution is no longer viewed as a mindless affair, quite the opposite. It is mind enlarging its domain up the chain of species." *Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), P. 188.

Here is still another:

"In this way one eventually ends up with the idea of the universe as a mind that oversees, orchestrates, and gives order and structure to all things." *Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 195.

Evolution makes man into his own god. It is "a non theistic religion."

"Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a non-theistic religion, a way of life." *American Humanist Association, promotional brochure.

"Man created himself." (If he created himself, why cannot he modify the smallest part of his anatomy today?)

"Man created himself even as he created his culture and thereby he became dependent upon it." *Aene Dubos, "Humanistic Biology," American Scientist, Vol. 53, March 1965, p. 8.

This bewitching power that captivates men so that they will live and die in defense of pointless thinking and factless theory is termed by them a "religion."

"It is a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds over men's minds." *Encounter, November p. 48 (1959).

*Huxley, *Charles Darwin's personal champion, made a startling admission:

"'Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation." *Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. 1 (1903), p. 241 (1903).

A co-developer of the Piltdown Man hoax, said this:

"A Belief in Evolution is a basal doctrine in the Rationalists Liturgy." *Sir Arthur Keith, Darwinism and its Critics (1935), p. 53

"Biogenesis" is the theory that life originated from non-life one day when some sand and seawater changed itself into a living being. It is accepted by faith, for there is no evidence to support such an idea.

"It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence of what did happen is not available." *G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 150.

The theory of evolution up the ladder from simple organisms to more complex ones, requires a level of faith not based on fact that is astonishing.

"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous." *R.F.D. Clark, Victoria Institute 1943 p. 63.

Is evolution then a science or a faith? Lacking evidence for its support, what is it?

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory, is it then a science or faith?" *L.N. Matthews, "Introduction" to *Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species (1971 edition), pp. x, xi (1971 edition).

A prominent evolutionist (*T.E. Huxley's grandson) explains why he believed in evolution:

"All science is based upon an act of faith in the validity of the mind's logical processes, faith in the ultimate explicability of the world, faith that the laws of thought are laws of things. In practice, I repeat, if not in theory, such conceptions are fundamental to all scientific activity. For the rest, scientists are opportunists. They will pass from a common sense view of the world to advanced idealist theories, making use of one or the other according to the field of study in which they are at work. Unfortunately, few scientists in these days of specialization are ever called upon to work in more than one small field of study. Hence there is a tendency on the part of individual specialists to accept as true particular theories which are in fact only temporarily convenient." *Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means (1938), p. 258

There are thousands of facts in support of creation and the existence of the Creator who made that creation. But evolution is solo fide; it is by faith alone.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone. . exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion." *Louis Trenchard More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur, p 33

After looking over all the evidence, the Genesis account of creation is far more believable than is the evolutionary tale.

"Given the facts, our existence seems quite improbable, More miraculous, perhaps, than the seven-day wonder of Genesis." *Judith Hooper, "Perfect Timing," New Age Journal, Vol. 11, December 1985, p: 18.

*Rifkin glories in the fact that, because of evolutionary theory, he no longer needs to justify his behavior to any Higher Being. He desires to be the god in his own universe.

"We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else's home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of preexisting cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We assts the world, and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justify our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves, so we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever." *Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 244.

*Rifkin tells us that "evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order." In blatant violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (see chapter 25), *Rifkin sees all disorder producing more perfect order.

"We believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on earth. Now that the environment we live in is becoming so dissipated and disordered that it is apparent to the naked eye, we are beginning for the first time to have second thoughts about our views on evolution, progress, and the creation of things of material value.. Evolution means the creation of larger and larger islands of order at the expense of ever greater seas of disorder in the world. There is not a single biologist or physicist who can deny this central truth. Yet, who is willing to stand up in a classroom or before a public forum and admit it?" *Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy. A New World View (1980), p. 55.

Two other avowed evolutionists declare their allegiance to the "dogma" received as part of their training in the secular universities.

"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis a based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." *L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967.

Evolution became a scientific religion, before which men come and bow and yield their reasoning powers.

"In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species, ] , evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it . . To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all . . If living matter is rat, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it cane into being?.. I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me: but we must not reject a theory that we do not like it if the experimental evidence supports it." *H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980) [emphasis his].

We do not know how it could have happened, we have no evidence, and appealing to it as our religion is no solution.

"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 method of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, 'Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet, the recent researches of workers like Dean and Henshelwood (1964) already suggest the possibility of incipient cracks in the seemingly monolithic walls of the Neo-Darwinian Jericho." *Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London 177:8 (1966).

The theory is merely an article of faith; part of the atheistic creed.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith." *J. W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), P. 95.

It has become an orthodoxy that is preached with religious fervor. Only those lacking in faith hesitate to accept this theory with no evidence supporting it.

"Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy. Preached by its adherents with religious fervour, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." *M. Grene, "Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November 1959, p. 49.

It takes plenty of faith, boys, plenty of faith.

"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which if generated spontaneously would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that in reality would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken but would only hopelessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that when realized always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionist; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories, one denying evolution, the other confirming the creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fortify through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a world wide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and facing the need to invoke a supernatural creator." R. L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.

First should come the facts; not the other way around.

"The facts must mold the theories, not the theories the facts . . I am most critical of my biologist friends in this matter. It seems to me that they have allowed what is a most useful working hypothesis in a limited field in the whole of biology, to become 'dogma' in their worship of the principle of natural selection as the only and sufficient operator in evolution. If they have done this, they no longer can act as true scientists when examining evidence that. might not fit into this frame of concepts. If you do not believe me, try telling a biologist that, impartially judged among other accepted theories of science, such as the theory of relativity, it seems to you that the theory of natural selection has a very uncertain, hypothetical status, and watch his reaction. I'll bet you that he gets red in the face. This is 'religion' not 'science' with him." *Burton, "The Human Side of the Physiologist: Prejudice and Poetry," Physiologist 2 (1957)

Evolution would require incredible miracles, and it matters not whether they be fast or slow, they would still be incredible miracles.

"Slowness has really nothing to do with the question. An event is not any more intrinsically intelligible or unintelligible because of the pace at which it moves. For a man who does not believe in a miracle, a slow miracle would be just as incredible as a swift one." *G.I.G Chesterton (1925).

By deifying *Darwin, men have retarded 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 fill 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.]

Evolution is based on faith alone, for there is no fact to accompany it.

"'What is it [evolution] is based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen, belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works." *Arthur N. Field.

"Acceptance of evolution is still based on a great deal of faith." L.W. Klotr, Lutheran Witness Reporter, November 14, 1965 (college science teacher).

It has become the great religion of science.

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it." *H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution, " Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.

It gives to mankind the most incredible of deities: random chance.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity, omnipotent chance." *T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), p. 101-102.

It is a creed dispensed by the intellectuals to the great masses of mankind.

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors." *S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).

It is an entrenched dogma that substitutes for religion.

"[Karl] Popper warns of a danger: 'A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched dogma.' This has certainly been true of evolutionary theory." *Colin Patterson, Evolution (1977, p. 150.

It is a religion which deifies events, and declares that, in all their randomness, they all produce order and harmony.

"There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe, and every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause; there is no First Cause." *Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (1978), P. 113.

*Morley looked forward to the time when this modem scientific religion would be as entrenched as it now is.

"The next great task for science is to create a religion for humanity." *John Money (18381923), quoted in Asimov's Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 277.

It is the underlying mythology in the great temple of modern atheism.

"Evolution is sometimes the key mythological element in a philosophy that functions as a virtual religion." *E. Harrison, "Origin and Evolution of the Universe," Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropaedia (1974), p. 1007.


Founded imaginings apart from facts, it is declared to be irrefutable and unfalsifiable.

"1 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. Weisskopf, "Discussion, " in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (1987), p. 84.

Because it cannot be falsified, it stands apart from the real world of proof and disproof.

"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. And 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.

*Weld tells us the theory explains everything. He forgot to mention that the explanations, as we have seen in these books, are ridiculous and do not jibe with the facts.

"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. Weld, "Discussion," in the Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (1987), p. 71.

*Brady is concerned less about the shaky foundations of evolutionary theory, than the devastating effect it is having on scientific endeavor.

"What is at stake is not the validity of the Darwinian theory itself, but of the approach to science that it has come to represent. The peculiar form of consensus the theory wields has produced a premature closure of inquiry in several branches of biology, and even if this is to be expected in 'normal science,' such a dogmatic approach does not appear healthy." *R. Brady, "Dogma and Doubt" Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 17:79, 98 (1982).

*Less[ says that *Sagan's boastful declarations about evolutionary theory, actually changes matter and energy into a god with moral qualities.

"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Borger calls 'objectification,' the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power." *T. Lessl, Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan, " Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).

The American Humanist Association, founded in 1933, is the 20th century equivalent of the 19th century, American Atheist Association, and is one of the leading evolutionists' bastions in the United States. A decade later it became a non-profit organization. Notice that they themselves consider it a "religion:"

"Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a non-theistic religion, a way of life . . The American Humanist Association is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization, incorporated in the early 1940's in Illinois for educational and religious purposes.

" . . Humanist counselors [can be called upon] to solemnize weddings, and conduct memorial services and to assist in individual value counseling:" *American Humanist Association promotional literature.

13 -



Here are several statements by evolutionists in regard to the "creationist problem," which, to put it simply, is the problem that the creationists are still out there presenting facts which evolutionists would rather remain unnoticed.

*White is a research biologist who knows well how little evidence there is in support of evolutionary theory.

"I have often thought how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law" *Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London 177.8 (1988) [An ichthyologist (expert on fish) in a 1988 address before a meeting of the Linnean Society in London.]

*Raup, a leading paleontologist, laments the fact that the creationists have such an overwhelming amount of evidence on their side.

"I doubt if there is any single individual within the scientific community who could cope with the full range of [creationist] arguments without the help of an army of consultants in special fields." *David M. Raup, "Geology and Creation," Bulletin of the Field Museum of Natural History, Vol., 54, March 1983, p. 18.

Creationists are credited with more help than they actually have. Actually, creationists have few "full-time staff members" who have leisure time to research out data and presets it in books or lectures.

"The anti-evolutionists have been successful, [William Q. Mayor] explains, because they now use a Madison Avenue approach and employ fulltime staff while there is not one scientist who is funded to devote full time to espousing evolutionary theory." *Science News, January 10, 1981, p. 19.

"Scientific validity," as given here appears to mean "that which is accepted by a majority of scientists." Creation science could not possibly be a true account, unless it had the facts in its favor.

"The creationist model does not have the same kind of scientific validity as the theory of evolution. This is not to say that it cannot be a true account of the origin of life. It could be." *Today's Education, April/May 1981, p. 586.

Contrary to the following statement, as is seen in this series of books, the presentation of facts in favor of creation science is overwhelming and requires little "genius" and relatively few scientific terms. Truth is self-commending.

"[Creationists] have shown a certain genius for couching their arguments in scientific terms . . But their viewpoint remains dogmatically fundamentalist and profoundly anti-scientific." *The Sciences, April 1981, p. 18.

What men cannot defend their theories, they substitute with name-calling and aspersions.

"The basic premise, the basic dogma, is the existence of a divine creator. What they espouse as academic freedom to teach creationism is the academic freedom to teach the flatness of the earth." *Discover, October 1980, p. 94.

*Darwin's "bulldog," *T. H. Huxley, admitted that creationism was in no way illogical. When an explanation is logical and has the evidence in its favor, and the rival theory is illogical and lacks any substantive evidence, then the conclusion is obvious.

"'Creation' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. l find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days. . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being." *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. 11 (1903), p. 429.

In contrast, evolution is an illogical theory that is accepted only because men fear to accept the only alternative.

"If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, 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 (1929), p. 233.

By their fruits ye shall know them. When the evolutionists confront the creationists, the evolutionists lose. Their arguments are irrational and their conclusions are unrelated to scientific facts.

"For the past five years, I have closely followed creationists literature and have attended lectures and debates on related issues. . Based solely on the scientific arguments pro and con, I have been forced to conclude that scientific creationism is not only a viable theory, but that it has achieved parity with (if not superiority over) the normative theory of biological evolution. That this should now be the case is somewhat surprising, particularly in view of what most of us were taught on primary and secondary school.

"In practical terms, the past decade of intense activity by scientific creationists has left most evolutionist professors unwilling to debate the creationist professors. Too many of the evolutionists have been publicly humiliated in such debates by their own lack of erudition and by the weaknesses of their theory." *R. F. Smith, "Origin and Civil Liberties, " Creation Social Science and Humanities Quarterly 3 (Winter 1980), pp. 23-24.

14 -


Life is a miracle; an absolute miracle. This is what scientists say who have studied it for years. To be blunt, life is an astounding miracle. And yet in nature we find it in thousands of forms that could not possibly have evolved from one another.

"That life is, . . is a miracle from the point of view of the physical scientist." *E. P. Wigner, "The Probability of a Self-Reproducing Unit," in the Logic of Personal Knowledge (1961), p. 231.

Life is so amazingly complex, the theory seems unbelievable.

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did." *Harold C. Urey, quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4.

So many conditions would have had to be met, that the origin of life constitutes a miraculous event:

"The origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfactory to get it going." *Francis Crick, Life Itself (1982), p. 88 (discoverer of DNA).

The complexity of the simplest amoeba reveals that evolution is merely a carefully devised myth:

"Intensified effort revealed that even the supposedly simple amoeba was a complex, self-operating chemical factory. The notion that he was a simple blob, the discovery of whose chemical composition would enable us instantly to set the life process in operation, turned out to be, at best, a monstrous caricature of the truth.

"With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." *Loren Eiseley, The Immense Journey (195, p. 199.

We will conclude this section with three quotations from a leading evolutionary writer: *Gordon R. Taylor:

"In many cases, complex behavior is executed by organisms so small as to have very little in the way of brain. The larva of the caddis fly builds a case for itself, and if this is destroyed replaces it. If given too large a case by the experimenter, it adjusts it to the right size. That is to say, its behaviour is not completely stereotyped. Even sponges build complex geodetic structures of spicules to serve as a skeleton. Spicules of different lengths are selected and cemented together as if to a plan. And I have already recounted how Microstomum equips itself with stinging nematocysts, with endoderm, parenchyma and epidermis cooperating to manipulate them into the required position.

"Such processes remain inexplicable and have driven many biologists to supposing that there must, somewhere, be a plan to which they adhere. As Sir Alister Hardy insists, they can hardly be the result of physico-chemical mechanisms alone. What is especially challenging is their anticipatory nature. How does Microstomum know that nematocysts will come in handy? Cicadas lay their eggs on twigs. The larvae which hatch from these at once drop to the ground and hide. How do they know it is prudent to do so?

"'No mechanistic explanation can account for the orderliness and directiveness of organic activities,' remarks E. S. Russell in his famous book The Directiveness of Organic Activities." *G. R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), pp. 227228

"The pontifical assurance of the orthodox evolutionists has obscured the fact that the number of highly competent biologists who have voiced doubts, or actually declared themselves in support of directiveness, is quite large and has continued ever since Darwin launched his ideas. Darwin's contemporary Karl Ernst von Baer, one of the most eminent of nineteenth-century biologists, used the word `purposefulness' in criticising Darwin's views. Looking through my notes I see that in 1940 (for example) the German biologist Professor von Huene concluded that there was 'a superior principle governing and directing the whole'.

"Especially thorough was the work of the Swiss biologist H. Wehrli who, after studying the evolution of horses during the Miocene, declared; 'The process of transformation seems to be directed and not at all caused by random mutation and selection.' His studies of the marmot led him to the same conclusion. 'The phylogenetic transformation of the Alpine marmot cannot be interpreted as caused by random mutation and selection, either, and one definitely is inclined to assume immanent forces transforming the animal type in the direction which began initially."' *G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 138.

"Let me quote an observation of Professor James S. Coleman of Johns Hopkins University, whose subject is social relations, since he puts it so vividly.

"'Once when I was sitting on the edge of a cliff, a bundle of gnats hovered in front of me, and offered a strange sight. Each gnat was flying at high speed yet the bundle was motionless. Each gnat sped in an ellipse, spanning the diameter of the bundle, and by his frenetic flight maintaining the bundle motionless. Suddenly, the bundle itself darted, and then hovered again. It expanded and its boundaries became diffuse; then it contracted into a hard tight knot and darted again, all the while composed of nothing other than gnats flying their endless ellipses. It finally moved off and disappeared . .

"'Such a phenomenon offers enormous intellectual problems: how is each gnat's flight guided, when its direction bears almost no relation to the direction of the bundle? How does he maintain the path of his endless ellipse? And how does he come to change it when the bundle moves? What is the structure and what are the signals by which control is transmitted?'

"I have often observed almost identical behaviour in flocks of birds. But birds, despite the opprobrious term 'bird-brain', have quite efficient brains, weighing several grams. Gnats, on the other hand, have microscopic brains comprising only a few hundred neurones. Professor Coleman offers no answers to the question he poses; neither do I" *G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 228

15 -


Here are several noteworthy statements to end this chapter:

Since evolutionary theory does not agree with scientific facts, *Schwabe wants to know why it is still around:

"One might ask why the neo-Darwinian paradigm does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual information." *C. Schwabe, "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution, Trends in Biochemical Sciences (1988), p. 280.

Lowell, the well-known poet, thought it was all very funny.

Some filosifers think that a faccilty's granted
The minnit it's felt to be thoroughly wanted.
That the fears of a monkey whose holt chanced to fail
Drawed the vertibry out to a prehensile tail.

James Russell Lowell (1819-1891) quoted in Asimov's Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 89 [spelling is Lowell's]

*Koestler sees a more sinister problem here.

"There existed a powerful body of men whose hostility to Galileo never abated: the Aristotelians at the universities. The inertia of the human mind and its resistance to innovation are most clearly demonstrated not, as one might expect, by the ignorant mass, which is easily swayed once its imagination is caught, but by professionals with a vested interest in tradition and the monopoly of learning. Innovation is a twofold threat to academic mediocrities: it endangers their oracular authority, and it evokes a deeper fear that their whole laboriously constructed intellectual edifice might collapse." *Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers.

As in all his writings, Francis Bacon wrote a deep truth in these words:

"1 had rather believe all the fables of the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame [the entire universe] is without a mind [that made it]. And therefore God never wrought miracle to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it. It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth men's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." Francis Bacon, Essay "Of Atheism" [Bacon was one of the foremost thinkers and logicians of the Renaissance (15811828). ]

Nearly two centuries ago, William Paley wrote one of the best observational science books ever printed. Here is a quotation from it:

"There cannot be a design without a designer; contrivance without a contriver; order without choice; arrangement, without any thing capable of arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose, without that which could intend an purpose; means suitable to an end, and executing their office in accomplishing that end, without the need ever having been contemplated, or the means accommodated to it. Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation of instruments to a use, imply the presence of intelligence and mind." William Paley, Natural Theology (1802). [Paley (1743-1805) was a powerful thinker, whose book, Natural Theology, provided one of the best surveys of the evidences of design as pointing to the Creator.]

Predicting that the following evaluation will some day be made of 20th century science, Watson said this:

"The new scientism was very attractive, and throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries it made considerable headway among the more intellectual Christians of the Western world. While it was pre-Christian in origin, deriving elements from pagan thought, it developed a variety of definitely Christianized forms [theistic evolution].

"However, it was finally exposed as nothing but another 'hollow and elusive speculation' of men who totally misconstrued the evidence deposited by the Noachic Deluge . . [They] at last awoke to the fact that all the fossils could be explained in terms of the Flood, and that one of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic occidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a leap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was 'knowledge falsely so called.' " David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1978).

Hoover compares the grand fallacy of evolution, that is so captivating 20th century science, with the error of phlogiston, which was the master theory of over 200 years ago.

"By the end of the seventeenth century chemistry was slowly becoming a bona fide science. In its search for general laws to govern the various transformations of matter, some early chemists came up with an interesting hypothesis called the Phlogiston Theory. The principal sponsors of this theory were Johann Joachim Becher (1635-168, a physician and alchemist, and Georg Ernst Stahl (1660-1734), a professor of medicine at the University of Halls. In 1702 Stahl introduced the word 'phlogiston,' which comes from the Greek for 'inflammable.'

'The phlogiston theory postulated a hypothetical material that chemists believed to be present in all combustible substances. Chemists claimed that this material accounted not only for combustion reactions but also for the rusting of iron. They thought that when a fuel was burned phlogiston leaving the other components of the material behind, like ash. They explained the rusting of iron as phlogiston escaping more slowly.

"This theory had several problems, but it was amazing how chemists were able to get around the problem with certain modifications of the basic theory. Even great investigators like Henry Cavendish and Joseph Priestly accounted for their results in the studies of hydrogen and oxygen by using the phlogiston theory. What was so strange was that the very chemists who did the most to overthrow the theory did it unwittingly, because their experiments were conducted with the theory as the initial assumption.

"The great French chemist, Antoine Laurent Lavoisier (1743-1794) completely disproved the theory in 1785-1789. His new theories so smoothly accounted for both the known facts and the problems of phlogiston that no one has believed in phlogiston since. But it's interesting that for so long a time this completely erroneous theory apparently covered all the known facts and even advanced the progress of chemistry during the heyday of its domination. We can be sure that some champion of phlogiston argued:

"1. If phlogiston exists, then iron will rust.

" 2. Iron does rust.

" 3. Therefore, phlogiston exists

"The case of phlogiston should give us fair warning; don't count your theories before you've definitely eliminated all other possible explanations. Certainly you shouldn't teach a theory as absolute fact until some definitive evidence has eliminated all of its rivals.

"But we still teach only evolution. Why? Is there any justification for this?" Arlie J. Hoover, Fallacies of Evolution (1977), pp. 53-54.



1- Much of what we have discovered in this series of books is humorous. The claims of evolution are, frankly, funny. Select one of the "fairy tales" in section 1 and evaluate it scientifically. Show why it could not possibly be true.

2 - In section 2, many definitions of evolution are given. Which one seems to be the most frequently cited. Why?

 3 - In section 3, evolutionists explain their purposes in devising these strange theories. List some of them.

 4 - Section 4 discusses several urgent reasons why people must be warned against evolutionary teaching. Discuss some of them.

5 - The evolutionists have had over a hundred years to come up with outstanding scientific evidence supporting their theory. But, instead, in section 5 they list a strange set of "best evidences." What are they? Why do the evolutionists not, instead, present scientific facts in support of their theory?

 6 - In section 6, wonderful praise is heaped upon evolutionary theory by its supporters. Amid this adulation, do they cite even one scientific fact in support of the theory?

 7 - In section 7, conscientious scientists have something to say about the foolishness of evolution. Write out two of the statements which you think well summarize the situation.

 8 - In section 8, scientists discuss the underlying fallacy of the theory. Which writer said it best? Why?

 9 - In section 9, scientists speak about the great damage an adherence to the theory has done to scientific progress in the 20th century. Thoughtfully explain three ways it has produced such damage.

 10 - Charles Darwin Is the great man who got the full-blown theory started over a century ago. Scientists have words to say about him also. Discuss four problems that they find with Darwin and/or his writings.

 11- It is of highest significance that there are only two alternatives: one must either choose evolutionary theory, or the facts about Creation and the Flood. In section 11 are statements by recognized scientists acknowledging this. Which writer says it the best? Why?

 12 - A key issue is the fact that evolutionary theory is a religions In section 12 are statements establishing the fact. Write out two quotations which say it well.

13 - Evolutionists wish they could eliminate creationists from the face of the earth. Not able to do that, they scathingly denounce them. But, in the process-as we find In section 13-they also make some admissions. Write out one of the best of these. (If you select the first quotation; in addition to writing it out, also memorize the statement and author.)

 14 - From the last two sections, select the quotation which is your favorite and explain why. 

You have just completed

Chapter 31- SCIENTISTS SPEAK Part 3
NEXT Go to 

Chapter 32 -The Creators Handiwork