Evolution: Proponents Against Themselves
Posted: Friday, October 16, 2009
by Joel Hendon
http://hebronics.org/index.html
There are a number of reasons evolutionists are evolutionists. Some have heard, read and discussed it for years and believe it with all their hearts. Others are well paid scientists who recognize the areas of interest and methods that will continue their many millions of dollars in grants, so they will do anything to be able to continue buying the baby golden shoes. Even if it means continuous lying and fraud. Perhaps the majority are those who have decided that it is more prestigious and scholarly in appearance than that of recognizing an all powerful God whose intellect is infinitely more than theirs, and above all, having to submit to His moral requirements.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based upon faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion....The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but irrational." (Dr. Louis T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)
"When students of other sciences ask us what is now currently believed about the origin of species, we have no clear answer to give. Faith has given way to agnosticism. Meanwhile, though our faith in evolution stands unshaken we have no acceptable account of the origin of species." (Dr. William Bateson, great geneticist of Cambridge)
"It (evolution) is sustained largely by a propaganda campaign that relies on all the usual tricks of rhetorical persuasion: hidden assumptions, question-begging statements of what is at issue, terms that are vaguely defined and change their meaning in midargument, attacks of straw men, selective citation of evidence, and so on. The theory is also protected by its cultural importance. It is the officially sanctioned creation story to modern society, and publicly funded educational authorities spare no effort to persuade people to believe it." (Professor Phillip Johnson, "Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law and Culture," pg. 9)
"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." (Dr. James Conant [chemist and former president of Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, p. 2.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I realize that an enormous amount of people will immediately demean these people for their quotes, and me for posting them. There are others who will try and say these are ignorant scientists who are a disgrace to the PhD they hold. I am not personally acquainted with any of them so I do not know their character or anything else about them. But, I will say, they sound far more honest than the ones who will say evolution is a fact (and we're talking about macroevolution, there is no dissent on the microevolution within species)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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." (Dr. George G. Simpson, paleontologist and former professor of Zoology at Columbia University, "The Non-prevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 p. 770.)
"The regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists." (Wikipedia: Dr. George Gaylord Simpson, paleontologist)
"There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support the theory of evolution." (Sir Cecil Wakely, former president of the Royal College of Surgeons of England)
"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities...Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." (Dr. Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin," Science Digest Special, Winter, pp. 94-96.)
"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought's after it...It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." (Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British physicist and astronomer)
"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." (Dr. Norman Macbeth, "Darwin Retried" (1971), p. 147) (My sentiments exactly... I hesitate to refer to them as theories or hypothesis. I like Dr. Macbeth's term "hunches" best of all...JHH)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I admit that I have garnered these, and a couple hundred others similar to them from articles and websites throughout the web. I am therefore not in a position to vouch for their authenticity, except for a few. I have looked up most of these men on Wikipedia and in some instances have found the quote there. I believe them to be accurate and by the men accredited to them. Following are a few more for good measure. I fear that any further comments from myself, will only diminish the impact these quotes should leave.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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." (Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77)
"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency--or, rather, Agency--must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (Astronomer George Greenstein, "The Symbiotic Universe," page 27)
"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say "supernatural") plan." (Nobel laureate Arno Penzias, "Cosmos, Bios, and Theos," page 83)
"Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces." (George Sim Johnson "Did Darwin Get it Right?" The Wall Street Journal, October 15, 1999)
This Article has been viewed 365 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (2 total)Hi Joel, another interesting article, and a powerful accusation of widespread fraud involving millions of dollars (presumably at least some of which come from taxpayers) - if there's any truth to that I imagine there'll be plenty of lawyers licking their lips with excitement!I'm an evolutionist, and I consider myself pretty honest... I'm no saint, but I'm not a continuous liar or fraudster.If another theory comes along that is better supported by the evidence, and better able to explain our observations I'll happily change my mind.I accept evolution because of the evidence for it, because it has made accurate predictions that have subsequently been verified, and because new evidence coming in from sources not even dreamt of by Darwin (and other early evolutionists), such as genetics, has only strengthened the evolutionary model further.There have been countless opportunities for new evidence to come in which falsifies the evolutionary model, yet it remains unfalsified.What really puts evolution ahead of varies theories of "intelligent design" for me is the evidence of extremely bad "design" that can been seen in nature, such as the "backwards" wiring of our eyes, which gives us a blind spot.Another example of bad "design" which wouldn't make sense if there was an intelligent designer behind it is the laryngeal nerve, which connects the brain to the larynx (voice box).The distance between the brain and the larynx varies between species, but is usually a dozen centimeters or less.Rather than connect the brain and the larynx the way a designer would, as directly and efficiently as possible, the nerve actually takes a massive and pointless detour - down from the brain...PAST the larynx and down through the neck into the chest, where it loops underneath the aorta of the heart before going back up the neck to connect to the larynx!In a giraffe, this detour can be 15 feet or so... a nerve over 15 feet long to connect two parts that are maybe 15cm apart just doesn't seem like intelligent design to me.I won't go through each of the quotes you've given, but I will say that Dr Michael Denton, author of Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, no longer holds the anti-evolution view presented in that book - in his more recent book Nature's Destiny he argues for a law-like evolutionary unfolding of life, with God having set up the universe in such a way as to allow life to develop from simple beginnings to its current complex diversity through an evolutionary process.Thanks for commenting Ben, I hope you will read the first group I mentioned in the opening remarks. I think you no doubt belong in that one. When I referred to those who lie, I'm referring to a number of times that fraudulent things have been exploited willfully. I'm sure you are fully aware of those scams that have been pulled for years. It is those and the ones who have shown they realize there is evidence of intelligent design, but then make remarks such as "but we cannot allow a divine foot in the door."I will try and write an article explaining the "lack" of intelligent design which you mention.It wasn't so much the categories at the beginning, it was the "one who is honest and will acknowledge there is not evidence strong enough to warrant their beliefs" - I consider myself honest, but I do honestly think the evidence is strong enough to warrant my acceptance of evolution, indeed it is only because of the evidence that I do accept it, I've got no other reason to do so, I don't get a share of book sales for Origin Of Species or anything like that :)There's definitely been some fraudulent "fossils" and things of that sort."Piltdown Man" being the one that first springs to mind, although that actually puzzled the group of evolutionary scientists who believed it might be real, as it was inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution they had drawn up from other fossils - when it was "officially" revealed as a hoax I imagine they were quite relieved as they hadn't been able to fit it into their evolutionary framework.I'd love to see an article about the seeming lack of intelligent design in certain features of living organisms.... I've never yet seen an explanation for these "design flaws" that makes sense in terms of the intelligent design model, whereas the evolutionary model explains, and even predicts, such odd "designs" or "imperfections", and can explain how today's "weird" layout came to be.
Sort of a tangent to this is survival of the fittest - if they really believed that as their creed dictates then they wouldn't be saving whales or seals because IF man is a mere animal then this is just survival of the fittest being carried out... logic seems to be lost in this generation of life. I am not advocating killing or letting die anything that we can save - this would first and foremost include humans... but that is a whole 'nother soap box, isn't it? GRIN. Thanks again for this research and writing!MarijoThanks Marijo, for reading and commenting.I'm afraid that is probably the most common of creationist mistakes you have just made Marijo, "survival of the fittest" in the term you refer is a very clear misunderstanding of the basic principes of evolution. Evolution is based on the idea of the most successful creature at reproducing its young (and having said young to go on and reproduce as well) will get to carry on its genes. Survival of the fittest would be better referred to as "survival of the most successful reproducers". Something that is able to destroy everything else is rarely a component of evolution.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.