Evolution
Creation
Millions of people believe that this universe started with some sort of big bang and that after billions of year’s, life on earth evolved in all its complexity of its own accord! Is this the case? Are living creatures able to bring themselves into being and then change from one kind to another? Have earth's myriad life forms, plants, insects, birds, animals and mankind all evolved from a common ancestor? Is there evidence to support this notion?
Listed below are a few eye-opening quotations by prominent scientists and thinkers of our time. They are worthy of consideration. We could list many, many more by paleontologists, geologists, astronomers, chemists, physicists, mathematicians, cosmologists, zoologists, geneticists and physicians but the sheer volume of quotations would exhaust the reader. Those listed below should suffice to prove our point that the theory of evolution is not as foolproof as it is cracked up to be and hundreds of scientists are distancing themselves from it every year. After all, who wants to be associated with a theory if it's wrong? Driving down the wrong highway will never get you to your destination. Now to the quotations, and please bare in mind that they are made by prominent scientists and scholars of our day.
But first, Darwin's own confessions:
Listed below are a few eye-opening quotations by prominent scientists and thinkers of our time. They are worthy of consideration. We could list many, many more by paleontologists, geologists, astronomers, chemists, physicists, mathematicians, cosmologists, zoologists, geneticists and physicians but the sheer volume of quotations would exhaust the reader. Those listed below should suffice to prove our point that the theory of evolution is not as foolproof as it is cracked up to be and hundreds of scientists are distancing themselves from it every year. After all, who wants to be associated with a theory if it's wrong? Driving down the wrong highway will never get you to your destination. Now to the quotations, and please bare in mind that they are made by prominent scientists and scholars of our day.
But first, Darwin's own confessions:
Not one change of species into another is on record.
We cannot prove that a single species has been changed.
( Charles Darwin: My Life & Letters )
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances. For admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection seems,
I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
( Charles Darwin: Origin of Species; chapter, Difficulties )
.
I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.
( Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist, and mathematician, Cambridge University )
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.
( Dr Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize winner and eminent evolutionist )
The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove. ( Dr A Fleishmann, Zoologist, Erlangen University )
It is good to keep in mind that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micro mutations. Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted. ( Prof R Goldschmidt PhD, DSC Prof. Zoology, University of Calif. in Material Basis of Evolution Yale Univ. Press )
The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency. ( Prof. J Agassiz, of Harvard in the Methods of Study in Natural History )
Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us. The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words. ( Lord Kelvin, Victorian Institute )
It is possible (and given the Flood, probable) that materials, which give radiocarbon dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years could have true ages of many fewer calendar years.
( Gerald Aardsman, PhD physicist and C-14 dating specialist )
We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the views of conservative creationists. ( Thomas Barnes PhD physicist )
The best physical evidence that the earth is young is the dwindling resource that evolutionists refuse to admit is dwindling. The magnetic energy in the field of the earth's dipole magnet. To deny that it is a dwindling resource is phony science. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. ( Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolutionist )
The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it. It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence. ( Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist and mathematician, Cambridge University )
It is easy enough to make up stories, of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. ( Luther D Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma, Master Books 1988, pg89 )
When I make an incision with my scalpel, I see organs of such intricacy that there simply hasn't been enough time for natural evolutionary processes to have developed them.
( C Everett Koop, former US Surgeon General )
Modern apes seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter. ( Lyall Watson, PhD., Evolutionist )
Although bacteria are tiny, they display biochemical, structural and behavioral complexities that outstrip scientific description. In keeping with the current microelectronics revolution, it may make more sense to equate their size with sophistication rather than with simplicity. Without bacteria life on earth could not exist in its present form. ( James A Shipiro, Bacteria as Multicellular Organisms, Scientific America, Vol.258, No.6 June 1988 )
That a mindless, purposeless, chance process such as natural selection, acting on the sequels of recombinant DNA or random mutation, most of which are injurious or fatal, could fabricate such complexity and organization as the vertebrate eye, where each component part must carry out its own distinctive task in a harmoniously functioning optical unit, is inconceivable. The absence of transitional forms between the invertebrate’s retina and that of the vertebrates poses another difficulty. Here there is a great gulf fixed which remains inviolate with no seeming likelihood of ever being bridged. The total picture speaks of intelligent creative design of an infinitely high order. ( H.S.Hamilton MD The Retina of the Eye - An Evolutionary Road Block )
My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. ( N.H.Nilson, famous botanist and evolutionist )
None of five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.
( Luther Sunderland, science researcher )
The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First, the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self-important animal (ourselves). Secondly, the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. Hence the amazing quantity of literature on the subject ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man. ( John Reader, Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus? New Scientist Vol. 89, No.12446 March 26,1981 pg 802 )
The evolutionist thesis has become more stringently unthinkable than ever before: Wolfgang Smith PhD, physicist and mathematician. A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp, moreover, for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.
( Wolfgang Smith, PhD physicist and mathematician )
The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation. ( Niles Eldridge, PhD paleontologist and evolutionist, American Museum of Natural History )
As yet we have not been able to track the phylo-genetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present. ( Chester A Arnold, Professor of Botany and Curator of Fossil Plants, University of Michigan, An Introduction to Pale botany New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947, pg 7 )
The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated. ( John Adler with John Carey: Is Man a Subtle Accident, Newsweek, Vol.96, No.18 Nov 3, 1980, pg 95 )
Most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favour of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. ( Dr David Raup, Curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, John Woodmorappe, geologist )
.
( Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist, and mathematician, Cambridge University )
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.
( Dr Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize winner and eminent evolutionist )
The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove. ( Dr A Fleishmann, Zoologist, Erlangen University )
It is good to keep in mind that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micro mutations. Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted. ( Prof R Goldschmidt PhD, DSC Prof. Zoology, University of Calif. in Material Basis of Evolution Yale Univ. Press )
The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency. ( Prof. J Agassiz, of Harvard in the Methods of Study in Natural History )
Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us. The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words. ( Lord Kelvin, Victorian Institute )
It is possible (and given the Flood, probable) that materials, which give radiocarbon dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years could have true ages of many fewer calendar years.
( Gerald Aardsman, PhD physicist and C-14 dating specialist )
We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the views of conservative creationists. ( Thomas Barnes PhD physicist )
The best physical evidence that the earth is young is the dwindling resource that evolutionists refuse to admit is dwindling. The magnetic energy in the field of the earth's dipole magnet. To deny that it is a dwindling resource is phony science. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. ( Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolutionist )
The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it. It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence. ( Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist and mathematician, Cambridge University )
It is easy enough to make up stories, of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. ( Luther D Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma, Master Books 1988, pg89 )
When I make an incision with my scalpel, I see organs of such intricacy that there simply hasn't been enough time for natural evolutionary processes to have developed them.
( C Everett Koop, former US Surgeon General )
Modern apes seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter. ( Lyall Watson, PhD., Evolutionist )
Although bacteria are tiny, they display biochemical, structural and behavioral complexities that outstrip scientific description. In keeping with the current microelectronics revolution, it may make more sense to equate their size with sophistication rather than with simplicity. Without bacteria life on earth could not exist in its present form. ( James A Shipiro, Bacteria as Multicellular Organisms, Scientific America, Vol.258, No.6 June 1988 )
That a mindless, purposeless, chance process such as natural selection, acting on the sequels of recombinant DNA or random mutation, most of which are injurious or fatal, could fabricate such complexity and organization as the vertebrate eye, where each component part must carry out its own distinctive task in a harmoniously functioning optical unit, is inconceivable. The absence of transitional forms between the invertebrate’s retina and that of the vertebrates poses another difficulty. Here there is a great gulf fixed which remains inviolate with no seeming likelihood of ever being bridged. The total picture speaks of intelligent creative design of an infinitely high order. ( H.S.Hamilton MD The Retina of the Eye - An Evolutionary Road Block )
My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. ( N.H.Nilson, famous botanist and evolutionist )
None of five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.
( Luther Sunderland, science researcher )
The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First, the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self-important animal (ourselves). Secondly, the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. Hence the amazing quantity of literature on the subject ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man. ( John Reader, Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus? New Scientist Vol. 89, No.12446 March 26,1981 pg 802 )
The evolutionist thesis has become more stringently unthinkable than ever before: Wolfgang Smith PhD, physicist and mathematician. A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp, moreover, for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.
( Wolfgang Smith, PhD physicist and mathematician )
The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation. ( Niles Eldridge, PhD paleontologist and evolutionist, American Museum of Natural History )
As yet we have not been able to track the phylo-genetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present. ( Chester A Arnold, Professor of Botany and Curator of Fossil Plants, University of Michigan, An Introduction to Pale botany New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947, pg 7 )
The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated. ( John Adler with John Carey: Is Man a Subtle Accident, Newsweek, Vol.96, No.18 Nov 3, 1980, pg 95 )
Most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favour of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. ( Dr David Raup, Curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, John Woodmorappe, geologist )
.
Fossils
As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record.
( Tom Kemp, Oxford University )
The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools. Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is no doubt how man originated. If only they had the evidence.
( William R Fix, The Bone Peddlers, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, pg 150 )
The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places. ( Francis Hitching, archaeologist )
The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply.
( J. O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science )
In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps, which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation. ( Dr Gary Parker Biologist/paleontologist and former ardent Evolutionist )
Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. ( David Kitts, paleontologist and Evolutionist )
I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition. ( Dr Eldred Corner, Professor of Botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought Chicago Quadrangle Books, 1961, pg 97 )
Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. ( Gary Parker, PhD., biologist / paleontologist and former evolutionist )
So firmly does the modern geologist believe in evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution. One is applying the theory of evolution to prove the correctness of evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism. If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle. It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain. ( R H Rastall, Lecturer in Economic Geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol.10 Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, pg 168 )
I admit that an awful lot of that fantasy has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs in the American Museum of Natural History is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we have a problem. ( Dr Niles Eldredge, Paleontologist and Evolutionist. Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's destiny Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968, pg 127-128 )
.
( Tom Kemp, Oxford University )
The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools. Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is no doubt how man originated. If only they had the evidence.
( William R Fix, The Bone Peddlers, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, pg 150 )
The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places. ( Francis Hitching, archaeologist )
The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply.
( J. O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science )
In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps, which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation. ( Dr Gary Parker Biologist/paleontologist and former ardent Evolutionist )
Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. ( David Kitts, paleontologist and Evolutionist )
I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition. ( Dr Eldred Corner, Professor of Botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought Chicago Quadrangle Books, 1961, pg 97 )
Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. ( Gary Parker, PhD., biologist / paleontologist and former evolutionist )
So firmly does the modern geologist believe in evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution. One is applying the theory of evolution to prove the correctness of evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism. If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle. It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain. ( R H Rastall, Lecturer in Economic Geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol.10 Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, pg 168 )
I admit that an awful lot of that fantasy has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs in the American Museum of Natural History is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we have a problem. ( Dr Niles Eldredge, Paleontologist and Evolutionist. Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's destiny Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968, pg 127-128 )
.
DNA / Deoxyribo Nucleic Ace
Chromosomes are thread-like structures made of DNA and protein.
There are 46 chromosomes in man.
Chromosomes are thread-like structures made of DNA and protein.
There are 46 chromosomes in man.
The set of genetic instructions for humans is roughly three billion letters long. ( Miroslav Radman & Robert Wagner, The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication, Scientific America, Vol. 259, No.2 August 1988, pg 40 )
DNA and the molecules that surround it form a truly superb mechanism, a miniaturized marvel. The information is so compactly stored that the amount of DNA necessary to code all the people living on our planet might fit into a space no larger than an aspirin tablet.
( Paul S Taylor in The Illustrated Origins Answer Book pg 23 )
Life cannot have had a random beginning. The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the power of 40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court. ( Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space )
The chance that useful DNA molecules would develop without a Designer are apparently zero. Then let me conclude by asking which came first, the DNA, which is essential for the synthesis of proteins or the protein enzyme ( DNA-polymerase ) without which DNA synthesis is nil? There is virtually no chance that chemical ' letters ' would spontaneously produce coherent DNA and protein words. ( George Howe, expert in biology sciences )
An intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence. ( Charles B Thaxton, Walter L Bradley and Robert L Olsen The Mystery of Life's Origin, Reassessing Current Theories New York Philosophical Library 1984 pg 211-212 )
Generation after generation, through countless cell divisions, the genetic heritage of living things is scrupulously preserved in DNA. All of life depends on the accurate transmission of information. As genetic messages are passed through generations of dividing cells, even small mistakes can be life-threatening if mistakes were as rare as one in a million, 3000 mistakes would be made during each duplication of the human genome. Since the genome replicates about a million billion times in the course of building a human being from a single fertilized egg, it is unlikely that the human organism could tolerate such a high rate of error. In fact, the actual rate of mistakes is more like one in 10 billion. ( Miroslav Radman and Robert Wagner, The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication. Scientific America. Vol. 299, No 2 August 1988, pg 24 )
In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology. ( Arthur Koestler, Author )
Evolution lacks a scientifically acceptable explanation of the source of the precisely planned codes within cells without which there can be no specific proteins and hence, no life.
( David A Kaufman, PhD University of Florida, Gainesville )
Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate. It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences...even to the limit of God such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific. ( Sir Fred Hoyle, well-known British mathematician, astronomer and cosmologist )
Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century. ( Michael Denton, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis page 358 )
Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish. It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice, between logic and emotion, between fact and fiction. In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail no matter what the final result is no matter how many time-honored idols have to be discarded in the process. After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical chord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back. Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution ( and amended thereafter ) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong! The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science. ( I L Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong A Study in Probabilities PO Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc. pg 6-8, 209-210, 214-215. I.L.Cohen, Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America )
The notion that the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.
( Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle )
The theory of Evolution will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has. ( Malcolm Muggeridge, well-known philosopher )
We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry: " The emperor has no clothes ". ( K.Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute at Zurich )
Far from being an established fact of science that it is so typically portrayed to be, evolution is, in reality, an unreasonable and unfounded hypothesis that is riddled with countless scientific fallacies. ( Scott M Huse, The Collapse of Evolution Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pg 127 )
Unfortunately many scientists and non-scientists have made Evolution into a religion, something to be defended against infidels. In my experience, many students of biology professors and textbook writers included have been so carried away with the arguments for Evolution that they neglect to question it. They preach it, college students having gone through such a closed system of education, themselves become teachers, entering high schools to continue the process, using textbooks written by former classmates or professors. High standards of scholarship and teaching break down. Propaganda and the pursuit of power replace the pursuit knowledge. Education becomes a fraud. ( George Kocan, Evolution isn't Faith But Theory, Chicago Tribune 9 April 21 1980 )
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. ( Dr T N Tahmisian, a former U.S. Atomic Energy Commission physiologist )
Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless. ( Dr Louise Bounoure, Director of Research at the French National Center for Scientific Research, Director of the Zoological Museum and former president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg )
Dr Wilder-Smith's personal conclusion is as follows: "I, as a scientist, must postulate a source of information to supply the teleonomy or know-how, I don't find it in the universe, and, therefore, I assume that it is transcendent to this universe. I believe, myself, in a living God who did it. I believe that this God, who supplied the information, revealed Himself in the form of a man - so that man could understand Him. We are made to understand. I want to understand God. But I can only do it if He comes down to my wavelength, the wavelength of man. I believe that God revealed Himself in the form of Christ, and that we can serve Him and know Him in our hearts as the source of the Logos - all information is necessary to make the universe and to make life itself. Look at the beauty of nature around us. When you consider that it all grew out of matter injected with information of the type I have been describing, you can only be filled with wonder of the wisdom of a Creator, who, first of all, had the sense of beauty to do it, and then the technical ability. I am filled with wonder as I look at nature, to see how God technically did it and realized the beauty of His own soul in doing it. The Scripture teaches perfectly plainly, and it fits in with my science perfectly well, that the one who did called Himself THE LOGOS. That Logos was Jesus. Jesus called Himself the Creator who made everything - 'for Him and by Him'. Now, if that is the case, then I am very happy and filled with joy that He made the Creation so beautiful and that He also valued me enough to die for me, to become my Redeemer as well. ( Arthur E Wilder-Smith, PhD, D.Sc, Dr.es.Sc., The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution Santee, California: Master Books, pg154 Wilder-Smith's views on Teleonomy )
.
Conclusion
As we can see, the theory of Evolution cannot be proven. It is hopelessly flawed and unworthy of serious consideration. The foregoing quotations ( and we could have bombarded the reader with many, many more ) make this fact obvious to the unprejudiced mind. The alternative theory of Special Creation also cannot be proven but the abundance of evidence in the natural world, the fossil records and the DNA code of living creatures should lead the unbiased mind to the inevitable conclusion that of the two possibilities, Special Creation is the more likely. The fact is, God will not dance to anyone's puny request to prove His existence or power to create. Both these theories therefore, are accepted by those who believe them purely on the basis of faith. In effect each theory forms the basis of a religion.
- Believing that the Almighty God created all matter, the physical laws of the universe and life in its myriad forms.
- Believing that there is no God in the universe, no supernatural Being and that all the matter in the vast universe, all the complex laws contained therein and finally life itself all came into existence of their own accord!
Basically these are the two alternative views on the origin of the universe and the myriad life forms in our world. There are no others. There either is or there isn't a Creator! It's that simple.
- Millions have settled on the first, Special Creation. Sad to say it's seldom taught in the colleges of the West.
- Millions have settled on the second, Evolution. This is taught in most western schools and colleges as though it were fact but you now know that certainly isn't the case. Or at a minimum, it should provoke you to research further.
Which viewpoint society bases its faith upon eventually determines the behavior of that society. If the youth are taught that they came from apes, then the law of the jungle, the survival of the fittest will take over and no one should be surprised at the moral collapse of society, particularly amongst the youth. They are merely living out the law of the jungle as taught to them by their elders.
If on the other hand God made us ( in His own image ) then we are accountable to Him for our actions. We cannot, we dare not live as we please because the Creator declares that there is coming a Day of Judgment when He will judge the world. On that day every soul that has reached the age of accountability will have to give account of the deeds done in the body.
- Believing that the Almighty God created all matter, the physical laws of the universe and life in its myriad forms.
- Believing that there is no God in the universe, no supernatural Being and that all the matter in the vast universe, all the complex laws contained therein and finally life itself all came into existence of their own accord!
Basically these are the two alternative views on the origin of the universe and the myriad life forms in our world. There are no others. There either is or there isn't a Creator! It's that simple.
- Millions have settled on the first, Special Creation. Sad to say it's seldom taught in the colleges of the West.
- Millions have settled on the second, Evolution. This is taught in most western schools and colleges as though it were fact but you now know that certainly isn't the case. Or at a minimum, it should provoke you to research further.
Which viewpoint society bases its faith upon eventually determines the behavior of that society. If the youth are taught that they came from apes, then the law of the jungle, the survival of the fittest will take over and no one should be surprised at the moral collapse of society, particularly amongst the youth. They are merely living out the law of the jungle as taught to them by their elders.
If on the other hand God made us ( in His own image ) then we are accountable to Him for our actions. We cannot, we dare not live as we please because the Creator declares that there is coming a Day of Judgment when He will judge the world. On that day every soul that has reached the age of accountability will have to give account of the deeds done in the body.
