WAT, I think you already answered these questions yourself in earlier statements. You stated that the “problem” that many have is the “attack” upon the inerrancy of Scripture. That IS one of the problems. Perhaps if you’d care to delve into that one a little we could talk about what “inerrancy” means and why it is a fundamental part of Christian belief.

So, the “answers” to your questions, imho, are as follows:

“Is this a make or break position?” - i.e., if the earth is actually as old as the IDers and scientific community assert - or any age significantly beyond 6000 years, do the creationists fold? No, they don’t “fold.” The “6000 years” you are referring to is a compilation that Ussher made by adding up the genealogical dates as listed in Scripture. But nowhere is it stated categorically in Scripture itself that the world was created 6000 years ago.

“What in Christianity stipulates ANY age upon the earth? Why is this even a point of importance?” There ARE genealogies listed, complete with how long various people lived. There is a clear statement concerning creation that the events took place in literal “24 hour” (not necessarily exactly 24 hours, but in days bounded by “day and night.”) days. It is a “point of importance” because while God has NOT revealed the “mechanics of what He did to CREATE,” He has revealed to us through the inspired writings of the author of the book that HE created and that “evolutionary ages” were not involved in the process.



Okay, you’ve asked this stuff a couple of times and I don’t have the time, unfortunately, to go into detail. But it’s become apparent that you are frustrated by NO response, so let me toss out a “quickie response” for you.

1. Noah “got all the critters on the Ark” because God caused them to “come to Noah,” not that Noah had to go and “catch” all of them. Now consider this point, if “critters” had to come from a long way off….say approximately present day Australia to the Iraq area, and God caused a few of them to begin moving toward the place where Noah was building the Ark, would a hundred years be enough time for them to walk their way there?

2. How did kangaroos and koalas wind up in Australia. They walked (or hopped). There was most likely a “land bridge” back then. Not too dissimilar to how evolutionists theorize that man got to North and South America via a “land bridge,” most likely in the Bering Sea area.

And this is the bottom line.



How does that verse go? "Seek first the kingdom of God..."

I can't remember it. Can someone post it please?

...........except for our WSs who routinely beam back and forth to the Mothership. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

MM- Your or other's decision/choice to believe in an inerrant Bible is certainly your prerogative. No one on this 4.5 billion year old rock can deny you that. I have no desire to change your mind and even if I did, that is not likely to occur. Peace, my friend.

But the problem arises when some believers are not content to observe others who do not share their beliefs - or the degree of their beliefs. When this is taken to the extent of trying to teach our children these beliefs via improper "science", then that's going too far. What I'm talking about is the unsubstantiated and implausible stuff like varying decay rates of isotopes over time, floods that have inundated the planet, variation in gravity over time, young earth, etc., etc., etc. That's the problem. Teach that in church all you want - but don't package it as science in our schools in a back door effort to spread your faith.

FH - I appreciate your answers. I could ask plenty more questions based on these answers, but I'll limit it to one: If I understand you correctly, there really isn't a literal tie of the age of the earth in the Bible. The few thousand years is someone's interpretation. If that's correct, why such the effort to challenge and disprove the "old earth" position of the science community? Get a new interpretation! Decide again, for example, that the earth is not the center of the universe and Galileo was right! The "young earth" arguments are so easily ridiculed and undermine better questions and positions that the creationist community has. The creationists would do themselves a favor, it seems, by dropping the young earth argument as the IDers have (if they ever had it). As a result, silly arguments like the Grand Canyon just happened yesterday don't have to be defended.

WAT

When did Gilgamesh change his name 2 Noah in relation 2 "the gods" calling him 2 build an ark and put civilly-unioned animal 2ples on it, versus God calling him 2 do the same? I think they both even used cubits.

Are both accounts of the flood true?

-ol' 2long

Real quick, I think one has to be careful about where we put our energies. What are we trying to accomplish?

Follow (don't have the time to quote the verses, look for yourselves in Genesis. Sloppy, I know, but you can forgive me later):

Adam and Eve are created in the garden. Adam and Eve have Cain and Abel. Cain kills Abel. Cain is banished from the garden (no longer paradise because of the whole apple thing). Cain leaves and lives with the people in the Negev.

Huh? Where did THEY come from, if Adam and Eve were the first.

Maybe the Biblical creation clock STARTS when the first people with salvageable souls were created. A few thousand years ago, but certainly not planetary age.

We could go round and round.

Personally, I find that the tenets in the Bible about living my life are sound, serve me well, and make me appreciated by those around me. To be a light as it were.

And I have a hard enough time mastering and learning all those without worrying about the origins. Perhaps that is short sighted, but I do know that the key to the entrance to heaven is the salvation and the choices we make. Not on our memorization of the bloodline in Chronicles.

Arguments like these tend to turn off new Christians. Great Comission, remember?

Do I need these to prove that the God I believe in is real? Heck no, it has been my experience that I can best convince people that He is real by demonstrating his effect on my life and challenging people to start a relationship with Him themselves. He'll make his presence felt. Of that I have no doubt.

Creation vs. evolution? Who really cares? I'll have all my questions answered when I get to heaven. He promised me that and I can wait. 'Sides, I got people to bless down here now, so I'm kinda busy.

NCWalker

It will take a bit to catch up here but I had to second the alien comment WAT. If my husband wasn't an alien when he was wayward, he did the best impression I have ever seen. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> LOL

Weaver, thanks for the hug. I actually saw your post the other day and forgot about it because a friend down on the recovery board had ANOTHER dday. I was distracted and it flew right out my little airhead to check back in on your sweet thread to me. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Thank you and hugs too. Not to take away from the topic, but it simply makes me sick to my stomache that WS can do this more than once. It just seems like cruelty after watching a first dday and what it did to their BS the first time. There were two BW that I know this week that found out they weren't in recovery at all, their husbands just got better at hiding it. Very sad.

Well, back to catching up.

Tiggy

NC--But science still has not plugged all the holes in evolution either.

D--Without question. I would go further and say that there is no scientific finding that we know to be true with absoulte certainty.

NC--As a man of science AND faith, I have personally discovered the following to be true - and by true, it is wholly my opinion that it is. This universe we are in is just a little too well structured to have happened by chance. Things are just a little too tidy. "At random" usually implies "without a pattern."

D--As a Christian (believe it or not), I am also a man of faith. I would agree that the universe--and in particular the laws that govern its contents--appear to be too ordered to have happened ‘at random’. However, I’m not convinced that the conclusion: therefore an intelligence created it, is compelling. The philosophical problem to me is such: What created God? Well, God always existed. If so, then why is this more compelling than stating: The universe (and here I mean energy and laws that govern that energy, in one form or another), always existed?

Looking only at these two limited perspectives, we have:

1. An eternal, very complex God created a complex universe, and,
2. An eternal quantity of energy and set of initial laws formed a complex universe.

I see no rational reason why is 1 more compelling than 2. In fact, I would argue that 2. is more compelling, as it is simpler and explains the same phenomenon.

Personally, I too have faith in 1. I do not have a good argument for it, however, and of course not a scientific one.

NC--I have enough personal proof to have the faith in God that I have. Regardless of science… "God," lacking a scientific explanation as to what that actually is, makes a HUGE difference in my life.

D--And I would not argue with this. If someone tells me, as I tell myself: “I believe because I have faith,” I would have no point of contention at all.

NC--Maybe the science hasn't matured enough yet.

D--I would also agree that this is a possibility.

NC--We truly know so little about how our own bodies work, let alone the universe around us, I would be hesitant to dismiss the existince of God, or creation for that matter.

D--In the realm of philosophy, I would agree entirely.

NC--Won't even go into Descartes gamble.

D--I’m not familiar with it. It this similar to Pascal’s Wager?


---------
NC--Creation vs. evolution? Who really cares?

D--I’m not sure why this issue riles me up. You’re right--it really shouldn’t. Probably time for me to step back from this.

NC--I'll have all my questions answered when I get to heaven.

D--Unless there is really is no God; then we’ll never know the real answers…

NC

I should have probably dropped this by now, but I checked how 2long was doing and I happened to see that you wrote:

NC--The point is, to enter a new theory and have it become a law, it must become EXPLICITLY proven.

Sorry to complain about this, but this is a common misunderstanding and is not how the term ‘law’ is used in science. I bring this up only because creationists often use this misconception to discredit evolution/big bang/etc. as in: ‘it's only a theory.’

The term ‘law’ is traditionally reserved in science for a theory that can be reduced to a simple mathematical expression, and that applies universally to all fields of inquiry. It does not imply any verification or higher status of certainty beyond that of a scientific theory.

BTW I am an engineer as well.


Peace, and God bless

D

Apparently the creationists care in that this is what's driving the push to get it taught along side evolution in science classes in our schools. Aside from that, to each is own - or don't masquerade it as science.

My concern is that if this occurs (presented as science), it comes with faulty information such as the age of the earth, etc., previously discussed on this thread.

WAT

D2,

Didn't see the point.

As I know it, explicit proof makes theory law.

Theory of relativity should now be LAW of relativity as it has been explicityly proven.

Don't see how I misused that on ol' 2longs thread.

Femat's last theorm has been explicitly proven, no?

Point there was that sometimes you have to make a choice LACKING proper time to analyze things. You look at what you know so far and go and hope for the best.

Sometimes the time to choose is not in your control.

WAT - Mistook my who really cares...

I am a proponent of creation being taught in science. There are holes in both theories. The examination of these holes also highlights the strengths in counterparts.

If nothing else, it is perhaps an almost universal example by which the scientific method can be demonstrated. Two theories vying for superiority REQUIRES opinion to be cast aside. And these two are simple for young children to grasp.

And that is the catch...OBJECTIVITY about your own "pet" theory. If that can be developed, proper science follows quickly.

NC - don't get me wrong here. I am a proponent of sound science. If creation or ID can stand the test, so be it. Let's do science instead of just claiming existing science hasn't yet filled the gaps, thus it's wrong and anything else is fair game.

But I invite you to read a few pages back to the discussion of radiometric dating and the bad science tossed around in the creationist community in attempts to disprove it. This is very sad and soils the motives of those who practice it and seriously harms any claims of objectivity.

I'd appreciate your objective view on the variability of radioisotopic decay rates over time.

WAT

Hey WAT, for what it's worth, here's some comments from various folks to chew on a little. Perhaps even Dimpsasawa might want to read a few, though I know from what he's stated that he has a vary narrow criteria about what he'll read and consider "valid."

Got these from a website that has lots of information. If you'd like to read some of them, let me know and I'll provide the web address. I have several things from there that will save me a lot time in typing that I'll probably just post for your, 2Long's, Dimp's, and anyone else, reading pleasure.


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. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

"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."—[/i]*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.[/i]

"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."—[/i]*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].[/i]

"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.

There are scientists all over the world who know that evolutionary theory is bankrupt. Such men as *Charles Darwin, *Thomas and *Julian Huxley, and *Steven Jay Gould have admitted it. But you will not find these statements in the popular press. Such admissions are only made to fellow professionals.

An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on , only 164 statements are by creationists.

"Paleontologists [fossil experts] 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 (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].

"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 unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . .

"Finally, 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 I 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.

"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. 6.

"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. 641.

"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."—*John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in "The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought."

"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.

"It is 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."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

"This general tendency to eliminate, by means 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 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's, Origin of Species (1956 edition).

" `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.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."—*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].

" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]

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

"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 (1860), p. 154. [Darwin's book was published in 1859.]

"[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account for 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 (1968), p. 319.

"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 [ship] Beagle."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.

"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. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.

"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).

"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."—*P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.

"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).

"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 [i.e. some species become extinct]. 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, rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink containers."—*A.J. Hughes and *D. Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797.

"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."—*Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177.

"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 hypothesis [invented for a purpose] 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 [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.

"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 G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.

"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 approved."—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).

"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.

"The over-riding 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.
[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "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 (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].

"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.

FH:

42nately, I saved myself considerable time by cutting and pasting "Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired." in2 google and read the "source".

What a bunch of horse-puckey!

Not a peer-reviewed publication by any means. I could just as easily (well, not so easly myself, but by quoting a website) make the Bible look rather silly by 2uoting things out of context.

-ol' 2long

Chapter 23
Scientists Speak Part 1

Evolutionary scientists say the theory is unscientific and worthless

This chapter is based on pp. 959-998 (Scientists Speak) of Other Evidence (Volume Three of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series), and includes nearly 150 quotations. Not included are a large number of other statements from that chapter. You will find them on our website.

1 - Evolutionists Explain their Objective 856

2 - The Best Evidences of Evolution 859

3 - Scientists Speak against Evolution 860

4 - Scientists Declare Evolution to be Unworkable and
Useless 875

5 - Scientists Maintain that Evolution Hinders Science 877

6 - Scientists Speak about Darwin and His Book 878

7 - Only Two Alternatives 884

8 - Evolution is a Religious Faith 886

1 - EVOLUTIONISTS EXPLAIN THEIR OBJECTIVE

There are reasons why evolutionists are so concerned to hold on to a theory that has no evidence to support it, one which has been repeatedly disproved. These are important reasons. This section explains why these men cling so fanatically to a falsehood.

Objective: Men do not want to be responsible to anyone for their actions. Men do not want to be responsible to anyone for their actions.

"[Man] stands alone in the universe, a unique product of a long, unconscious, impersonal, material process with unique understanding and potentialities. These he owes to no one but himself and it is to himself that he is responsible. He is not the creature of uncontrollable and undeterminable forces, but he is his own master. He can and must decide and make his own destiny."—*George G. Simpson, "The World into which Darwin Led Us," in Science, 131 (1980), p. 968.

Objective: Separation from God and identification with the brute.

"The real issue is whether man must think God’s thought after him in order to understand the world correctly or whether man’s mind is the ultimate assigner of meaning to brute and orderless facts . . Evolutionary thought is popular because it is a world view which facilitates man’s attempt to rid himself of all knowledge of the transcendent Creator and promises to secure man’s autonomy."—G.L. Bahnsen, "On Worshipping the Creature Rather Than the Creator," in Journal of Christian Reconstruction, 1 (1974), p. 89.

Objective: Sexual freedom.

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June, 1966, p. 19. [Grandson of evolutionist *Thomas Huxley and brother of evolutionist *Julian Huxley, *Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential writers and philosophers of the 20th century.]

Objective: A way to hide from God.

"Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion. Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any new form of life, there is no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution."—*Julian Huxley, "At Random, A Television Preview," in Evolution after Darwin (1960), p. 41.

Objective: We can choose to live like animals and not mind it.

"In the world of Darwin man has no special status other than his definition as a distinct species of animal. He is in the fullest sense a part of nature and not apart from it. He is akin, not figuratively but literally, to every living thing, be it an ameba, a tapeworm, a flea, a seaweed, an oak tree, or a monkey—even though the degrees of relationship are different and we may feel less empathy for forty-second cousins like the tapeworms than for, comparatively speaking, brothers like the monkeys."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "The World into Which Darwin Led Us," Science 131 (1960), p. 970.

Objective: Men would rather have the forbidden tree than the presence of God.

"With this single argument the mystery of the universe is explained, the deity annulled, and a new era of infinite knowledge ushered in."—*Ernst Haeckel, The Riddle of the Universe (1899), p. 337.

Objective: It will help destroy religion.

"Beyond its impact on traditional science, Darwinism was devastating to conventional theology."—*D. Nelkin, Science Textbook Controversies and the Politics of Equal Time (1977), p. 11.

2 - THE BEST EVIDENCES OF EVOLUTION

Throughout this set of books we have found that there are no genuine evidences that any aspect of evolutionary theory is scientifically correct. Yet the evolutionists themselves have, at last, produced five reasons why they believe evolution to be true. Here they are:

1 - We know that evolution is true because living things have parents.

"No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution."—*Tom Bathell, "Agnostic Evolutionists," Harper’s, February 1985, p. 81.

2 - We know that evolution is true because living things have children.

"The theory of neo-Darwinism is a theory of the evolution of the population in respect to leaving offspring and not in respect to anything else . . Everybody has it in the back of his mind that the animals that leave the largest number of offspring are going to be those best adapted also for eating peculiar vegetation or something of this sort, but this is not explicit in the theory . . There you do come to what is, in effect, a vacuous statement: Natural selection is that some things leave more offspring than others; and it is those that leave more offspring [that are being naturally selected], and there is nothing more to it than that. The whole real guts of evolution—which is how do you come to have horses and tigers and things—is outside the mathematical theory."—*C.H. Waddington, quoted by Tom Bethell, in "Darwin’s Mistake," Harper’s Magazine, February 1978, p. 75.

3 - We know that evolution is true because there are perfections.

"So natural selection as a process is okay. We are also pretty sure that it goes on in nature although good examples are surprisingly rare. The best evidence comes from the many cases where it can be shown that biological structures have been optimized—that is, structures that represent optimal engineering solution to the problems that an animal has of feeding or escaping a predator or generally functioning in its environment . . The presence of these optimal structures does not, of course, prove that they developed through natural selection, but it does provide strong circumstantial argument."—*David M. Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin of the Field Museum of Natural History, January 1979, pp. 25-28.

4 - We know that evolution is true because there are imperfections.

"If there were no imperfections, there would be no evidence to favor evolution by natural selection over creation."—*Jeremy Cherfas, "The Difficulties of Darwinism," New Scientist, Vol. 102 (May 17, 1984), p. 29. [*Cherfas was reporting on special lectures by *S.J. Gould at Cambridge University. Notice what this expert said: Apart from imperfections, there is no evidence.]

"The proof of evolution lies in imperfection."—*Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb (1980).

5 - We know that evolution is true because species become extinct.

"The best clincher is extinction. For every species now in existence, roughly ninety-nine have become extinct. The question of why they have become extinct is of enormous importance to evolutionists. It has been studied by many men, but a convincing answer has not been found. It remains unclear why any given species has disappeared."—*David Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979, p. 29.

"[Charles] Darwin wrote to him [Thomas Huxley about his remarks about a certain extinct bird], ‘Your old birds have offered the best support to the theory of evolution.’ "—*G.R Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 119.

3 - SCIENTISTS SPEAK AGAINST EVOLUTION

Earnest, conscientious scientists have something far different to say about evolutionary theory. These are men, highly competent in their respective fields, who can see the flaws in evolution far better than the man on the street. Here is what they would like to tell you.
After more than a century of research, no one has yet figured out how evolution could have occurred.

"The evolution of the animal and plant worlds is considered by all those entitled to judgment to be a fact for which no further proof is needed. But in spite of nearly a century of work and discussion there is still no unanimity in regard to the details of the means of evolution."—*Richard Goldschmidt, "Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist," in American Scientist, Vol. 409, January 1952, p. 84.

A leading scientist of our time has this to say:

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."—*Ambrose Flemming, president, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.

Evolutionary theory is nothing more than a myth, and concerned scientists recognized it needs to be obliterated in order for science to progress. *Grasse is a leading French scientist:
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

A growing number of scientists consider it the primary work of science to defend this foolish theory. For this reason it is ruining scientific research and conclusions in our modern world.

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."—*L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

Not one smallest particle of scientific evidence has been found in support of evolutionary theory. in support of evolutionary theory.
" ‘Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.’ [Tahmisian called it] a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling."—*Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting *T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].

"The reader . . may be dumbfounded that so much work has settled so few questions."—*Science, January 22, 1965, p. 389.

The truth about the precarious position of the theory, and the falsity of the evidence in its behalf, is kept from science students—and even Ph.D. graduates. An evolutionist who teaches in a university speaks:
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate biology department, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 28.

*Singer admits there is no evidence for such an incredible theory, but he is unwilling to consider any other possibility.
"Evolution is perhaps unique among major scientific theories in that the appeal for its acceptance is not that there is evidence of it, but that any other proposed interpretation of the data is wholly incredible."—*Charles Singer, A Short History of Science to the Nineteenth Century, 1941.

Thinking scientists increasingly question such an obsolete theory.

"Evolution . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."—*James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" Discover, October 1980, p. 88.

*Jastrow, a leading astronomer, admits that the evidence lies with Creation, not with evolution.

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

*Bonner makes a broad admission.

"One is disturbed because what is said gives us the uneasy feeling that we knew it for a long time deep down but were never willing to admit this even to ourselves. It is another one of those cold and uncompromising situations where the naked truth and human nature travel in different directions.
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence of invertebrate phyla. We do not know what group arose from what other group or whether, for instance, the transition from Protozoa occurred once, or twice, or many times . . We have all been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice."—*John T. Bonner, book review of Implications of Evolution by *G.A. Kerkut, in American Scientist, June 1961, p. 240. [*John Bonner is with the California Institute of Technology.]

*Simpson, a leading evolutionist writer of the mid-20th century, says it is time to give up trying to find a mechanism for evolutionary origins or change.

"Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear that evolution has no single cause."—*G.G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.

"It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has status only as a speculation."—*George G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.

Simpson tried harder than most evolutionists to defend evolution. Commenting on one of *Simpson’s earlier efforts to present evolutionary causes, Entomology Studies recognized it as but another in the confusing use of empty words to supply the place of solid evidence.
"When Professor [*George Gaylord] Simpson says that homology is determined by ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of evolutionary reasoning. When he adds that evolutionary developments can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which through so many years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology, has impeded the advance of biology."—*"Evolution and Taxonomy," Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1982, p. 567.

*Thompson, a leading scientist, was asked to write the introduction for a new printing of *Darwin’s Origin of the Species. But Thompson’s Introduction proved to be a stunning attack on evolutionary theory.
"Modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary hypotheses, which, however plausible, are in the nature of things unverifiable . . and the reader is left with the feeling that if the data do not support the theory they really ought to . . This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," Origin of Species; statement reprinted in Journal of the American Affiliation, March 1960.

Although they fear to say too much openly, *Denton reveals that there are a surprising number of biologists who cannot accept the foolishness of Darwinian theory.
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

*Denton says that the evolutionary myth has always been a problem to scientists.The "evolutionary crisis" is nothing new.
"The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.

"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more ‘aggressive advocates’ would have us believe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

Kenyon, a West Coast scientist, summarizes some of the evidence against evolutionary theory.
"Laboratory data and theoretic arguments concerning the origin of the first life lead one to doubt the evolution of subsequent forms of life. The fossil record and other lines of evidence confirm this suspicion. In short, when all the available evidence is carefully assessed in toto [in the whole, entirely], the evolutionary story of origins appears significantly less probable than the creationist view."—Dean Kenyon, Creationist View of Biological Origins, NEXA Journal, Spring 1984, p. 33 [San Francisco State University].

*Macbeth says that when men cling to an outworn theory with no supporting evidence, the problem is within the mind. They are entrenched dogmatists, fearful to consider alternative facts and conclusions.

"When the most learned evolutionists can give neither the how nor the why, the marvels seem to show that adaptation is inexplicable. This is a strange situation, only partly ascribable to the rather unscientific conviction that evidence will be found in the future. It is due to a psychological quirk."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 77.

*Bonner declares there is no evidence that any species descended from any other species.

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified, professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—*J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist 49:1961, p. 240.

There are no facts supporting the evolutionary claim that any species ever changed into any other.

"The German zoologist, Bernhard Rensch [1959], was able to provide a long list of leading authorities who have been inclined to the view that macroevolution [changes across species] cannot be explained in terms of microevolutionary processes [changes within species], or any other currently known mechanisms. These dissenters cannot be dismissed as cranks, creationists, or vitalists, for among their ranks are many first-rate biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 86.

All that the evolutionists can point to is change within species; they have no evidence of change across species.

"The very success of the Darwinian model at a microevolutionary [sub-species] level . . only serves to highlight its failure at a macroevolutionary [across species] level."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 344.

There is no evidence on the origin of species.

"The facts fail to give any information regarding the origin of actual species, not to mention the higher categories."—*Richard Goldschmidt, The Natural Basis of Evolution, p. 165.

Instead of intergraded changes from one species to another, we only find distinct species types.

"Increase of knowledge about biology has tended to emphasize the extreme rigidity of type, and more and more to discount the idea of transmutation from one type to another—the essential basis of Darwinism."—*McNair Wilson, "The Witness of Science," in the Oxford Medical Publications (1942).

Evolutionary theory cannot square with scientific facts.

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishman, zoologist.

Evolutionary theory faces a granite wall.

"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: the Secret of Life," New York Times.

*Toulmin senses that a supernatural power must be at work. The intricate galactic systems, the environment on Earth, the myriads of carefully designed plants and animals; it all points to a super-powerful, massively intelligent Creator.
"It seems to me astronomy has proven that forces are at work in the world that are beyond the present power of scientific description; these are literally supernatural forces, because they are outside the body of natural law."—*[I[S. Toulmin, "Science, Philosophy of," in Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol. 18 (15th ed. 1974), p. 389.[/i]

The two great riddles for evolutionists are these: "Nothing cannot become something"—a Big Bang cannot turn nothing into stars.

"Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else."—*G.K. Chesterton (1925).

Not a single fact in nature confirms it.

" ‘The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.’ "—*Dr. Fleishmann, quoted in F. Meldau, Why We Believe in Creation, Not Evolution, p. 10 [Erlangen zoologist].

Evolution, which is supposed to be caused by accidents, is itself headed for a collision.

"For all its acceptance in the scientific works as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 12.

The problems are too severe and unsolvable.

"Nearly all [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."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 16.

The theory is totally inadequate.

"The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world."—*Sir Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1968), p. 91 [Discoverer of the thermionic valve].

One of the outstanding scientists of the 19th century said this:

" ‘Science positively demands creation.’ "—Lord Kelvin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1988), p. 94.

Biological specialists recognize that the theory is inadequate.

"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary: the theory of evolution is impossible."—*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De l’evolution," Encyclopedie Francaise Vol. 5 (1937), p. 8.

It is all one big scientific mistake.

"The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake."—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. 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.

How to make 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 bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.

A mass of opinions heavily burdened with hypothesis.
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*P.P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.

There are so many ways to disprove it.

"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).

Forty years work and completely failed.

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

"Not the slightest basis for the assumption."

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

The head of the paleontology department of a major U.S. museum speaks:

"It’s true that for the last eighteen months or so I’ve been kicking around non-evolutionary or even antievolutionary ideas . .
"So that is my first theme: that evolution and creation seem to be sharing remarkable parallels that are increasingly hard to tell apart. The second theme is that evolution not only conveys no knowledge but it seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

In the study of natural history, we only find degeneration, extinction, and sub-species changes.

"The majority of evolutive movements are degenerative. Progressive cases are exceptional. Characters appear suddenly that have no meaning toward progress [i.e., that do not evolve into anything else] . . The only thing that could be accomplished by slow changes would be the accumulation of neutral characteristics without value for survival."—*John B.S. Haldane, quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 91 [English geneticist].

More like medieval astrology than 20th-century science.

"Despite the fact that no convincing explanation of how random evolutionary processes could have resulted in such an ordered pattern of diversity, the idea of uniform rates of evolution is presented in the literature as if it were an empirical discovery. The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth-century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists . . We face great, if not insurmountable conceptual, problems in envisaging how the gaps could have been bridged in terms of gradual random processes. We saw this in the fossil record, in the case of the avian [bird] lung, and in the case of the wing of the bat. We saw it again in the case of the origin of life and we see it here in this new area of comparative biochemistry [molecular biochemistry] . . Yet in the face of this extraordinary discovery, the biological community seems content to offer explanations which are no more than apologetic tautologies [circular reasonings]."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1988), p. 308.

Sub-species changes are worlds apart from providing an explanation for cross-species changes.

"The facts of microevolution [change within the species] do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution [theorized change from one species to another]."—*Richard Goldschmidt, Material Basis of Evolution (1940).

Just as much of a puzzle now as ever before . . Only explainable on sociological grounds. . . Only explainable on sociological grounds.
"All in all, evolution remains almost as much of a puzzle as it was before Darwin advanced his thesis. Natural selection explains a small part of what occurs: the bulk remains unexplained. Darwinism is not so much a theory, as a sub-section of some theory as yet unformulated . .
" ‘I for one . . am still at a loss to know why it is of selective advantage for the eels of Comacchio to travel perilously to the Sargasso sea . .’ complains Bertalanffy. ‘I think the fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable . . has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological [not scientific] grounds,’ von Bertalanffy concludes."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), pp. 232-233.

Relying entirely upon the imagination to find a solution. to find a solution.
"How can one confidently assert that one mechanism rather than another was at the origin of the creation of the plans of [evolutionary] organization, if one relies entirely upon the imagination to find a solution? Our ignorance is so great that we can not even assign with any accuracy an ancestral stock to the phyla Protozoa, Arthropoda, Mollusca and Vertebrata . . From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origins of the phyla, it follows that an explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental plans is heavily burdened with hypotheses. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution."—*Pierre P. Grasse. Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 178.

*Milner is very much in favor of evolutionary theory, but he does have a few questions that need answering:

"1. Origin of life. How did living matter originate out of non-living matter? . .

"2. Origin of Sex. Why is sexuality so widespread in nature? How did maleness and femaleness arise? . .

"3. Origin of Language. How did human speech originate? We see no examples of primitive languages on Earth today; all mankind’s languages are evolved and complex.

"4. Origin of Phyla. What is the evolutionary relationship between existing phyla and those of the past? . . Transitional forms between phyla are almost unknown.

"5. Cause of Mass Extinction. Asteroids are quite in vogue, but far from proven as a cause of worldwide extinctions . .

"6. Relationship between DNA and Phenotype. Can small steady changes (micromutations) account for evolution, or must there be periodic larger jumps (macromutations)? Is DNA a complete blueprint for the individual? . .

"7. How Much Can Natural Selection Explain? Darwin never claimed natural selection is the only mechanism of evolution. Although he considered it a major explanation, he continued to search for others, and the search continues."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 159-180.

Yes, the search continues. The theory was developed 150 years ago, and men are still searching for evidence in support of it and mechanisms by which it could operate.

Congra2lations. More of same.

-ol' 2long

WAT said -

And this one statement of his -




This is the whole point, the bottom line and the problem.

And I am a Christian, but this scares me to no end.

Church must be kept out of public schools and state!

I'm no scientist, nor am I a scholar, student of theology or anyone educated but I can think. And I do love God.

WAT -

Where is it? I don't have the time to read this whole thing, nor the inclination. Can you give me a link to it?

I haven't seen EXPLICIT proof that either theory is correct, thus they should both be entertained.

I do agree that attempts to make sweeping statements about either theory are junk science. Something that there is too much of already. Scrutiny of both should be scientific and rigorous.

But I am not about to dismiss Creation based on isotope decay.

Clocks run (including isotope decay) at different rates in different relativistic time frames. A fact.

They also run at different rates in the presence of gravitational fields. A fact.

Won't deny that radioactive decay clocks have been running a certain amount of "time." But compared to what reference frame?

Do I think it happened as explained in Genesis? No. I think there is some dramatic license in there.

Also consider the audience, if it is God's word, divinely spoken, one would think he would want is instruction book to be CLEAR. So I would think the disparities between the resolution of quantum mechanics and macro gravitational effects for events in or near the Plank length would be a little much for ancient man. Why not a divine rewrite? Bible for Windows 2005? Doesn't need it. It isn't trying to explain where we came from, but where we are headed. Does that just fine. Or at least for me it does.

Saw in here a comment about keeping creation in the textbooks if evolution goes in the Bible. That is just plain sophomoric. A science book is supposed to be objective. Sometimes even "silly" theories are entertained. The Bible is NOT intended to be objective.

Saw in here a comment about the early church being receptive of Copernicus theories. Moot. Early church was more interested in placating the masses than spreading the news. Of COURSE they were resistant.

Physics tells us that matter interacts with only four fields: e-mag, grav, and weak and strong nuclear. Kind of damning evidence for things like angels, miraculous healing, divine intervention.

But then take the famous experiment with two slits. Kind of supports predestination.

A theory is a sculpture. The slab of Michelangelo's "David" probably wasn't much to look at when he started. But the scrutiny of the chisel refined it into a work of art.

This scrutiny will either complete the statue or fracture it.

And here is the rub - you will NEVER pare down the Creation theory and disprove it. Why? It's foundation is an omnipotent being. No matter what scientific argument you can bring to bear, it can be countered with a statement born out of the omnipotence of God. The argument is absolutely pointless.

Kangaroos in Australia and not enough water on the earth to flood it. Maybe the flood was localized, what was the concept of the world to the people in Biblical times? Mesopotamia and a little further, perhaps. OMNIPOTENT people could violate hydrodynamic principles and raise the water locally. Heck, they could create it and remove it later.

Radioactive decay - God made the trees and animals full grown, why couldn't he have made the rocks already aged?

I mean it sounds silly, and I am not really trying. But the point is the proposed omnipotence of God is a trump card that science will never be able to prove or disprove. It's like bigfoot. Those who have seen it, sure believe it. You'd have to catch one or find a dead one for conclusive proof. Same way with God.

So what are you all trying to gain here?

You can call that trump card bad science, you can also call it refining the hypothesis.

Ever notice a horse runs faster if it is running against another horse?

As long as the METHOD is adhered to, I say let 'em both stand 'til one of 'em falls. We'll get to the end that much sooner.

Though I fear we will just come to Heisenberg's conclusion.

NCWalker

2Long, very erudite, but not very persuasive.

How about actually commenting on what some of those evolutionists actually said?

NC - I'll try to locate the page regarding the radiometric stuff and report back.

This one issue jumped out at me because I'm a nuke. I can speak with some basis about it.

The gist is that radiometric dating is unreliable because what if the decay rates used to be much faster - "old" stuff becomes not so old. This was in defense of a young earth - no more than about 6000 years old as corroborated by the time frame of the great flood (per the Bible) which obviously made all the great examples of errosion all over the planet. My rebuttal was that decay rates of isotopes are constant. They have to be. Otherwise our lights would go out because all the nuke plants making electricity would cease to function.

Even if one concludes that a creator could manipulate the decay rates to whatever it wanted, presumably faster to make an old "looking" earth really all the younger, the resulting increase in radiation would be very unhealthy for life. But as you noted, of course, a creator could fix that, too.

FH - I do have some specific observations on some quotes coming up.

WAT

Okay, FH:


" 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. "

This is pure nonsense. What popular magazines? Scientific American is a popular magazine, and scientists write articles about their peer-reviewed work in it all the time. Again, the paragraph is pure nonsense. Inflammatory, incorrect, and leading.

"Most scientists are working in very narrow fields;"

The best are.

"they do not see the overall picture,"

THIS is the assumption. I see the overall pic2re all the time.

"and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it."

My field deals with evolution as it's "narrow field" (which evolution is not, another leading statement). Prove? I can probably get you 2 agree that Mars is a planet, right? Have I proven that? There are probably some nutballs out there that would disagree with me. I can probably get you 2 agree that Mars is smaller than Earth, right? Have I proven it? These are FACTS, though they may not be 100% proven 2 everybody's satisfaction.

I don't know if I can get you 2 agree that Tricerotops was a dinosaur, but maybe. That's a fact, though. More, I don't have much "faith" that I can get you 2 agree that Triceratops, Monoclonius, Styracosaurs, Pachyrhinosaurus, and Torosaurus were all Ceratopsian dinosaurs that lived during the Cretaceous, and that they are all descended from Psittacosaurus, but that's also a fact (and an example of the evolution of a particular group of dinosaurs). But that's true 2.

"They are well-meaning men."

This reads as a setup for taking them down a notch or 2... and it is (which is unscientific, because it's about personalities)...

"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."

Nonsense. 'Nuff said.

"Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle."

Fred Hoyle was a brilliant nutball.

"The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory."

Prove it.

"An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is NOT known to be a creationist."

Please add the following names 2 your list: *2long, *T-Zero, *Qfwfq

"Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists."

Thankfully, we can discard those 164 out of hand, then... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

But your list is still 2long for 2long. I will address those I'm familiar with (and 2 be fair, since I'm not familiar with most of the creationists, I won't address them either, lest I be accused of picking on them):

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

Hm... from dictionary.com (I've included only those that I believe apply 2 this discussion):

"faith
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
A set of principles or beliefs."

And of these, the religious faith doesn't apply 2 the quote. Faith, in science, is simply the belief that something is possible and worth applying scientific rigor 2 testing the idea in question. But, as we have said before, many times, evolution does not deal with the origin of life, it deals with the changes in life observed from the fossil record up through modern times.

"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."

Which, simply translated means 2 me: There is so much 2 know! Infinity is a big number. "Vir2ally no knowledge" is an observation of the wonder of infinity, it does not indicate real ignorance.

"'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]. "

Congra2lations! Or condolences, perhaps! That's not what it's FOR. There is an application of the term "evolution", however, in the inorganic world which is valid. Geologic evolution of the Earth, for instance, means the inorganic development of our planet - plate tectonism, volcanism, outgassing (or accretion) 2 produce our atmosphere, cryosphere and hydrosphere...

"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]. "

I disagree, but I wasn't around 2 write that introduction (an opinion).

"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. "

BOOK REVIEW??? Horse puckey!

...I gotta run. This was 2long 2 address in detail. I won't live that long.

-ol' 2long