The MYTH of
EVOLUTION - SCIENTISTS SPEAK!
The size of this
Conspiracy is enormous! Permeating all western thought from religion,
philosophy, ethics, science, astronomy, sociology, and so
forth!
Top-flight
scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will
never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man
and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock
and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books
and journals.
Most
scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall
picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that
perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men.
The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove
evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does
not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven
it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public,
lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional
journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory. Included
below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades,
such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that
evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the
theory.
An
asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist.
“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. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
“It is
almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell
represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly
supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is
not the slightest basis for this assumption.”—*Austin Clark, The New
Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236. “The
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. “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. “ ‘The
theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and
manifestation of the inorganic world.’ “—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S.,
quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the
thermionic valve]. “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 if the
experimental evidence supports it.”—*H. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at
Evolution,” Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138. “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 to *Charles Darwin’s, Origin of the Species [Canadian
scientist]. “One of
the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which
could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap
the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap 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 (1976).
“The hold
of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] 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.”—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306
[Australian molecular biologist]. “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. “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. 67 [Australian molecular
biologist]. “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, Darwin’s closest
friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley
was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th
century]. “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 1963)
[Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in
France]. “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
[of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined
species?”—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966),
p. 139. “
‘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 . . in consequence of
the volition of some pre-existing Being.”—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard
Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.
“The
theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent
as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific
knowledge.”—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist. “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].
“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.
“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. “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 and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution
from Space (1981), p. 159. “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 pre-existing species by
some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state,
they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.”—*D.J. Futuyma,
Science on Trial (1983), p. 197. “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 Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.
“The
over-riding 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.”—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985),
p. 327. “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), pp. 101-102. “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 de Grasse, Evolution
of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8. “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 forced to fit this
theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up.”—*H. Neilsson,
Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11. “It is
therefore of immediate concern to both biologists 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 reason.
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.”—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about
Darwinism (1982), p. 11. “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. “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]. “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. “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 program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p.
26. “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]. “From the
almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it
follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the
fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should
appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence
leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we
do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are
correct.”—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.
31. “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; and we shall certainly not advance
matters by jumping up and down shrilling, ‘Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am
his prophet.’ “—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London,
177:8 (1966). “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?’ The absence of
answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any
knowledge.”—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum
of Natural History (November 5, 1981). “What
is it [evolution] 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.
|
- [CTRL] For Tenorlove: The MYTH of EVOLUTION ***PLAIN T... David Sutherland
- [CTRL] For Tenorlove: The MYTH of EVOLUTION ***PL... blue honey
- Re: [CTRL] The MYTH of EVOLUTION - SCIENTISTS SPEA... Tenorlove
- [CTRL] PLEASE POST IN TEXT FORMAT ONLY! (WAS: ... Robert F. Tatman
- Re: [CTRL] PLEASE POST IN TEXT FORMAT ONLY... ThePiedPiper
- [CTRL] The MYTH of EVOLUTION - SCIENTISTS SPEAK! Gavin Phillips
- Re: [CTRL] The MYTH of EVOLUTION - SCIENTISTS ... Nurev Ind Research
- Re: [CTRL] The MYTH of EVOLUTION - SCIENTISTS SPEA... tenebroust