Home Sunset Feedback Contents Quotes for Creation
[Home] [Up] [Who Is the Author of the Hebrews?] [The Prophecy of Daniel Chapter 8] [Moon Struck and Misled  ] [The dating game] [Quotes for Creation] [Great Scientists Who Believe] [Geologic time scale] [Carbon dating] [Creation or Evolution] [Then Commenced The Jubilee] [Matthew 28:19] [Is Sabbath a Shadow?] [Marriage In Heaven] [According to the Biblical Principles] [Biblical Count of the 666 Beast] [Unsealing Daniel's mysteries] [Revelation 17] [Nature of Christ]

Bryan Bissell

INDEX

EVOLUTION REQUIRES MORE FAITH THAN CREATION

QUOTES ON EVOLUTION

INTELLIGENT DESIGN REQUIRES DESIGNER

CREATIONISM IS SCIENTIFIC

AGE OF THE EARTH

EVOLUTION CENSORS AND SUPPRESSES ALTERNATE VIEWS

EVOLUTION IS FAITH NOT SCIENCE

EVOLUTION IS RACIST

”AGE OF THE EARTH” DATING GAMES

TO ORGANIZE


EVOLUTION REQUIRES MORE FAITH THAN CREATION

"With the failure of these many efforts [to explain the origin of life] science was left in the some what 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."

(Eiseley, Loren C., [late Professor of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania], "The Immense Journey," [1946],

Vintage: New York NY, 1957, reprint, p.199)

Renowned Evolutionist Richard Lewontin once candidly wrote:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - 'Billions and billions of demons', The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.
Prominent evolutionist Richard Lewontin (Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University) wrote:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

{"Billions and Billions of Demons" New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28; quoted at: http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/FAQ/evolution.html. Additional sentence at the beginning included}

Now suppose I were to say, in public,

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between Christianity and atheism. We take the side of Christianity IN SPITE of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, IN SPITE of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of peace and life, IN SPITE of the tolerance of the Christian community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, BECAUSE we have a PRIOR commitment, a commitment to belief in God. It is NOT that the methods and institutions of Christianity somehow compel us to accept a divine explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to supernatural causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce immaterial explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, Christianity is ABSOLUTE, for we CANNOT ALLOW materialism to stick its foot in the door.

This would not be accepted for a second by Lewontin and other scientific materialists. Clearly they have a rationalistic double standard: one epistemological standard for Christianity; another for naturalistic, materialistic science.

To summarize, for life to exist, we need an orderly (and by implication, intelligible) universe. Order at many different levels is required. For instance, to have planets that circle their stars, we need Newtonian mechanics operating in a three-dimensional universe. For there to be multiple stable elements of the periodic table to provide a sufficient variety of atomic "building blocks" for life, we need atomic structure to be constrained by the laws of quantum mechanics. We further need the orderliness in chemical reactions that is the consequence of Boltzmann's equation for the second law of thermodynamics. And for an energy source like the sun to transfer its life-giving energy to a habitat like Earth, we require the laws of electromagnetic radiation that Maxwell described.

Our universe is indeed orderly, and in precisely the way necessary for it to serve as a suitable habitat for life. The wonderful internal ordering of the cosmos is matched only by its extraordinary economy. Each one of the fundamental laws of nature is essential to life itself. A universe lacking any of the laws shown in Table 1 would almost certainly be a universe without life. Many modern scientists, like the mathematicians centuries before them, have been awestruck by the evidence for intelligent design implicit in nature's mathematical harmony and the internal consistency of the laws of nature. Australian astrophysicist Paul Davies declares:

All the evidence so far indicates that many complex structures depend most delicately on the existing form of these laws. It is tempting to believe, therefore, that a complex universe will emerge only if the laws of physics are very close to what they are....The laws, which enable the universe to come into being spontaneously, seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design. If physics is the product of design, the universe must have a purpose, and the evidence of modern physics suggests strongly to me that the purpose includes us.{9} Paul Davies, Superforce (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984), 243.

British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle likewise comments,

I do not believe that any scientist who examines the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside stars. If this is so, then my apparently random quirks have become part of a deep-laid scheme. If not then we are back again at a monstrous sequence of accidents.{10} Fred Hoyle, Religion and the Scientists, quoted in John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), 22.

In 1953, Sir Fred Hoyle et al. predicted the existence of the unknown resonance energy level for carbon, and it was subsequently confirmed through experimentation.{28} In 1982, Hoyle offered a very insightful summary of the significance he attached to his remarkable predictions.

From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? Following the above argument, I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has "monkeyed" with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.{29} F. Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16

John Wheeler, formerly Professor of Physics at Princeton, in discussing these observations asks:

Is man an unimportant bit of dust on an unimportant planet in an unimportant galaxy somewhere in the vastness of space? No! The necessity to produce life lies at the center of the universe's whole machinery and design.....Slight variations in physical laws such as gravity or electromagnetism would make life impossible.{33}  John Wheeler, Reader's Digest, September 1986, 107.

The "Big Bang" follows the physics of any explosion, though on an inconceivably large scale. The critical boundary condition for the Big Bang is its initial velocity. If this velocity is too fast, the matter in the universe expands too quickly and never coalesces into planets, stars, and galaxies. If the initial velocity is too slow, the universe expands only for a short time and then quickly collapses under the influence of gravity. Well-accepted cosmological models{34} tell us that the initial velocity must be specified to a precision of 1/1060. This requirement seems to overwhelm chance and has been the impetus for creative alternatives, most recently the new inflationary model of the Big Bang.

Ward and Brownlee state it well:

If some god-like being could be given the opportunity to plan a sequence of events with the expressed goal of duplicating our 'Garden of Eden', that power would face a formidable task. With the best of intentions but limited by natural laws and materials it is unlikely that Earth could ever be truly replicated. Too many processes in its formation involve sheer luck. Earth-like planets could certainly be made, but each would differ in critical ways. This is well illustrated by the fantastic variety of planets and satellites (moons) that formed in our solar system. They all started with similar building materials, but the final products are vastly different from each other . . . . The physical events that led to the formation and evolution of the physical Earth required an intricate set of nearly irreproducible circumstances.{40} Peter B. Ward and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe (New York: Copernicus, 2000), p. 37

Nicholas Wade writing in the New York Times (6/13/2000){49} about the origin of life notes:

The chemistry of the first life is a nightmare to explain. No one has yet developed a plausible explanation to show how the earliest chemicals of life - thought to be RNA, or ribonucleic acid, a close relative of DNA, might have constructed themselves from the inorganic chemicals likely to have been around on the early earth. The spontaneous assembly of a small RNA molecule on the primitive earth "would have been a near miracle" two experts in the subject helpfully declared last year.     Nocholas Wade, "Genetic Analysis Yields Intimations of a Primordial Commune" (New York: New York Times, June 14th, 2000), from website.

A universe that contains a special place of habitation for complex, conscious life is so truly remarkable that it is, realistically speaking, impossible to believe it is the result of a series of cosmic accidents. To choose to believe that there is a naturalistic explanation for (a) the mathematical forms encoded in the laws of nature, (b) the precise specification of the nineteen universal constants and (c) the remarkable initial conditions required for star formation and the simplest living systems is to believe in a miracle by another name. Physicist Freeman J. Dyson of Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study seems to implicitly affirm theism when he say,

"As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming."{51} Freeman J. Dyson, cited in Barrow and Tipler, Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 318.

Physicist and Nobel laureate Arno Penzias, contemplating our enigmatic universe, observes:

Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe that was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.{52} Arno Penzias, Our Universe: Accident or Design (Wits 2050, S. Africa :Starwatch, 1992), 42.

Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle argued in The Nature of the Universe{53} in 1950 for the role of sheer coincidence to explain the many unique but necessary properties of the universe and of planet Earth. But the discoveries of the next thirty years dramatically changed his mind, as described in his book The Intelligent Universe in 1983; to quote,

"Such properties seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a thread of happy coincidences. But there are so many odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to account for them."{54} Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (London: Michael Joseph, 1983), 220

It is easy to understand why many scientists like Sir Fred Hoyle changed their minds in the past thirty years. They now agree that the universe, as we know it, cannot reasonably be explained as a cosmic accident. Frederic B. Burnham, a well-known historian of science appearing on ABC's Nightline with Ted Koppel, confirmed the current openness to the intelligent design model with his comment,

"The scientific community is prepared to consider the idea that God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years."{55} ABC's Nightline with Ted Koppel, April 24, 1992.

Professor Kitts{29} has commented with reference to this problem:

Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of seeing evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for the evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record. Darwin was concerned enough about this problem to devote a chapter of the ‘Origin’ to it. He accounts for the ‘imperfections of the geological record’ largely on the basis of the lack of continuous deposition of sediments and by erosion. Darwin also holds out the hope that some of the gaps would be filled as the result of subsequent collecting. But most of the gaps were still there a century later and some paleontologists were no longer willing to explain them away geologically. David B. Kitts, Evolution (Sept, 1974), p. 458. 

Dr. Gould{30} of Harvard has recently commented on the same problem as follows:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. 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 never see the very process we profess to study. S. J. Gould, Natural History (May, 1977), p, 14. 

Dr. Pierre-Paul Grasse, past president of the French Academy of Science and editor of the thirty-five volume "Traite de Zoologie" makes the following statements in his recent book Review of Evolution of Living Organisms:{31}
There is almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla.... The lack of direct evidence leads to the formation of pure conjectures 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 Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 31.

Distinguished French zoologist Dr. Grasse{38} has commented on the role of mutations in evolution as follows:

Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve. This logical scheme is however unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. 

He goes on to use the illustration of bacteria that have the highest frequency of mutations, yet stabilized a billion years ago. He says once one has noticed micro-variations on the one hand and specific stability on the other, it seems very difficult to conclude that the former comes into play in the evolutionary process.

Imagine the delight of Johannas Kepler (1571-1630) some eighteen centuries later when he discovered that the orbits of planets around the sun conformed to these same beautiful but abstract mathematical forms. Kepler noted,

"The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics."

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) observed that "the laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics". Morris Kline in his book Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty (1980) notes that the religious mathematicians of the 16th and 17th century including Newton, Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus believed that the universe was orderly and thus described by mathematics because a rational God fashioned it that way. Kline says that these scientist/mathematicians believed that

"God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomena."

The distinguished Russian physicist Alexander Polykov notes that,

"We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."

Australian astrophysicist Paul Davies says,

"The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe." 

Robert Jastrow writes:

"A sound explanation may exist for the explosive birth of our Universe; but if it does, science cannot find out what the explanation is. The scientist's pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth... At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." -- Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, W.W. Norton, NY, pp115-116, in Moreland J.P. ed., The Creation Hypothesis, 1994, pp292-293. 

One must wonder what causes so many brilliant minds to go to the incredible lengths they do to deny a Supreme Creator. It takes a far greater faith to believe that we evolved from a piece of slime billions of years ago than to believe in a Creator. The mathematical odds that through some unknown process the earth came to be at a conveniently precise distance from the sun, at a precise angle, at a precise speed of rotation, with the precise mixture of elements in the atmosphere, and allow conditions such that amino acids beget proteins beget DNA/RNA beget billions of cells beget living organisms, is ABSOLUTELY ZERO!

Highly regarded astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle and world-famous mathematician Chandra Wickramasinghe calculated the probability of a SINGLE CELL coming into existence to be 10 to the 40,000 power!( Dr. Walt Brown, In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, Special Edition, 1996, pg. 50.) (the number of electrons in the entire universe is estimated to be 10 to the 52nd power!).  Now consider that the the genetic information in a SINGLE CELL contains the equivalent of a library of about 4000 volumes3 (Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden, NY, Random House, 1977, pg. 25), and the human body has 30 TRILLION CELLS! Evidence for God is all around us, evidence for evolution is about as tenable as proof of the existence of Alice In Wonderland. Evolution simply remains "A Fairy Tale for Grownups".

QUOTES ON EVOLUTION

Quotes from http://www.evolutionisdead.com

INTELLIGENT DESIGN REQUIRES DESIGNER

"Though these bodies may, indeed, persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular positions of the orbits themselves from those laws....
            This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."

 

Sir Isaac Newton,
"Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" (Other books written by
Newton include "Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel", and "Principia Mathematical")

"The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."

 

Vera Kistiakowsky,
MIT physicist. Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos.
La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 52.

Light A Candle     

"...as I became exposed to the law and order of the universe, I was literally humbled by its unerring perfection. I became convinced that there must be a divine intent behind it all... My experiences with science led me to God.

They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?"

Dr. Wernher von Braun, father of rocket science.

"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature뭩 numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming."

 

Paul Davies,
(British astrophysicist): The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. 1988.
New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203

"I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle.
     God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

 

Alan Sandage,
(Winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy) J. N. Willford,
March 12, 1991. 'Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest'. New York Times, p. B9

"Biological information is the most important information we can discover because over the next several decades it will revolutionize medicine and lead to treatments for most diseases.
    Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created."

 

Bill Gates,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Microsoft Corporation, "The Road Ahead," [1995], Penguin: London, Revised, 1996, p.228.

"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.
    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,
Respected British physicist and astronomer

"...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. Ph.D,
Chemistry, Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard, Staff member of the Julian Centre. "The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories", Philosophical Library

"If there is no means to discern whether something has been intelligently designed, on what basis do paleontologists and archaeologists regularly conclude that markings, structures, and various artifacts were intelligently designed?
    Does not the search for extraterrestrial intelligence depend on the assumption that intelligently generated radio signals can be distinguished from naturally generated ones?"

 

Ashby L. Camp,
'A Response to Priests Of Scientific Orthodoxy', in Human Events,
Sept. 25, 2000)

"To suppose that the evolution of the wonderfully adapted biological mechanisms has depended only on a selection out of a haphazard set of variations, each produced by blind chance, is like suggesting that if we went on throwing bricks together into heaps, we should eventually be able to choose ourselves the most desirable house."

 

Conrad H. Waddington,
Professor of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburgh, "The Listener," London, 13 November 1952, in Koestler A., "The Ghost in the Machine," [1967], Arkana: London, 1989, reprint, p127)

"Spontaneous generation was disproved by the careful studies of Redi (1688), Spallanzani (1780), Pasteur (1860) and Virchow (1858). These brilliant men conducted careful experiments that looked beyond superficial appearance. They proved that when matter was presterilised and sealed off from possible biological contamination, no life arose; hence, no spontaneous generation.
            The work of these men and others have established the law of biogenesis: life comes only from pre-existing life and will only perpetuate its own kind. Clearly, this law precludes the spontaneous generation and transmutation of life.
            How paradoxical it is that students are first taught the greatness of the disproof of spontaneous generation! Then they learn the "fact" that spontaneous generation was the evolutionary mechanism by which life arose!"

 

Scott M. Huges, PH.D

"Neo-Darwinism has failed as an evolutionary theory that can explain the origin of species, understood as organisms of distinctive form and behaviour. In other words, it is not an adequate theory of evolution.
    What it does provide is a partial theory of adaptation, or microevolution (small- scale adaptive changes in organisms)."

 

Brian Goodwin,
Professor of Biology,
Open University, UK, "Neo-Darwinism has failed as an evolutionary theory," The Times Higher Education Supplement, May 19, 1995

"But what kind of mutations could bring about the major changes I have described? Could cause a tube to roll up into a helix? Could cause other tubes to form semi-circular canals accurately set at right angles to each other. Could grade sensory hairs according to length? Could cause the convenient deposit of a crystal in the one place it will register gravity?
...It just doesn't make sense."

 

Gordon Rattray Taylor,
Former Chief Science Adviser, BBC Television. Commenting about the ear in, "The Great Evolution Mystery," Abacus: London, 1983, p106)

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous 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.

The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism:

 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear.     

 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'."

"Two points of principle are worth emphasis. The first is that the usually supposed logical inevitability of the theory of evolution by natural selection is quite incorrect. There is no inevitability, just the reverse.
     It is only when the present asexual model is changed to the sophisticated model of sexual reproduction accompanied by crossover that the theory can be made to work, even in the limited degree to be discussed ....
    This presents an insuperable problem for the notion that life arose out of an abiological organic soup through the development of a primitive replicating system. A primitive replicating system could not have copied itself with anything like the fidelity of present-day systems ....
    With only poor copying fidelity, a primitive system could carry little genetic information without L [the mutation rate] becoming unbearably large, and how a primitive system could then improve its fidelity and also evolve into a sexual system with crossover beggars the imagination."

 

Fred Hoyle,
Late mathematician, physicist and Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University

"Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine in itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene (it's complexity) must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls.
    A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain, one consisting of a 1,000 links could exist in 41000 different forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41000 = 10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives us the figure '1' followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension."

 

Frank Salisbury,
Evolutionary biologist

CREATIONISM IS SCIENTIFIC

"The Institute for Creation Research's followers take science more seriously than most scientists do.
            [Their faculty have] absolutely respectable, legitimate doctorates from major American universities."

 

Paul Toumey,
Evolutionist. From his Ph.D. thesis in anthropology.

"It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence - an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered - 'In the beginning, God.'"

 

Dr. Arthur H. Compton,
Nobel Laureate (Physics).

"Interestingly, I've read a number of biographies of scientists who are leaders in both creationist and evolutionary thought. The overwhelming trend is that the leaders of evolutionary thought all make their living purely from evolutionary theory. They are 'specialists in evolution' and there is no way that you could see how someone whose entire life and reputation and livelihood were bound up with the theory could turn against it.
    On the other hand, the leaders of the creationist movement usually have made a name for themselves in some area of fundamental and applied science — real science — before moving into creation science."

 

Dr. Dmitri Kouznetsov,
"Interview with Dr. Dmitri Kouznetsov," Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 1, p. 36.

"The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

 

Arthur Eddington,
(Astrophysicist): Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.

"From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation.
    That notion has had to be painfully shed. At the moment, I can't find any rational argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion to God. We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the only logical answer to life is creation—and not accidental random shuffling."

 

C. Wickramasinghe,
Professor of Applied Math & Astronomy, University College, Cardiff. Interview in London Daily Express (August 14, 1981)

"To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason.
    But to the Darwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence!"

 

Michael Denton,
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. London: Burnett Books, 1985, p. 351.

"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator."

 

Dr. Michael Walker,
Senior Lecturer, Anthropology, Sydney University

"A sound explanation may exist for the explosive birth of our Universe; but if it does, science cannot find out what the explanation is. The scientist's pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation.
    This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth... At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation.
    For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

 

Professor Robert Jastrow, PhD,
God and the Astronomers, 1978, W.W. Norton, NY, pp115-116

"People are misled into believing that since microevolution is a reality, that therefore macroevolution is such a reality also. Evolutionists maintain that over long periods of time small-scale changes accumulate in such a way as to generate new and more complex organisms ... This is sheer illusion, for there is no scientific evidence whatever to support the occurrence of biological change on such a grand scale.
           In spite of all the artificial breeding which has been done, and all the controlled efforts to modify fruit flies, the bacillus escherichia (E-coli), and other organisms, fruit flies remain fruit flies, E-coli bacteria remain E-coli bacteria, roses remain roses, corn remains corn, and human beings remain human beings."

 

Darrel Kautz,
The Origin of Living Things, p. 6

"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."

 

Larry Hatfield,
"Educators Against Darwin". Science Digest Special, Winter, pp. 94-96

"Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God ?the design argument of Paley ?updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."

 

Ed Harrison,
(Cosmologist): Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp.252, 263

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

 

Francis Crick,
Life Itself (1981), p. 88.

AGE OF THE EARTH

Why is it important?

1. Richard Leakey, "Lyell published the first volume of his Principles of Geology in 1830꿚he world was soon accepted of being of extreme antiquity, not thousands but many millions of years old, and this provided the essential geological background against which a theory of the slow evolution of species could be formulated." The Making of Mankind, p.22, 1981

2. Earnst Mayr, Harvard, "The revolution began when it became obvious that the earth was very ancient rather than having been created only 6,000 years ago. This finding was the snowball that started the whole avalanche.", THE NATURE OF THE DARWINIAN REVOLUTION, p.3

3. Lawrence Badash, Professor of History of Science, U. of CA, S.B., "...4.5 billion years ago, the primal earth emerged from a spinning, turbulent cloud of gas, dust and planetoids that surrounded the new star. .... On these figures for the age of the earth rest all of geology and evolution." Scientific American, Aug., 1989, p.90

"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologist are here arguing in a circle.
The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms they contain."

 

R.H. Rastall,
Lecturer in Economic Geology Cambridge University, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1956, vol 10,p 168

EVOLUTION CENSORS AND SUPPRESSES ALTERNATE VIEWS

Free Speech?     

"In China its O.K. to criticize Darwin but not the government, while in the United States its O.K. to criticize the government, but not Darwin."

Dr. J.Y. Chen,

Chinese Paleontologist

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

 

S. C. Todd,
Correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999

"Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it."

 

Steven Pinker,
Professor of Psychology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA., "How the Mind Works," [1997]

I Give Up!     

  "If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being?

   There is another theory, now quite out of favor, which is based upon the ideas of Lamarck: that if an organism needs an improvement it will develop it, and transmit it to its progeny.

   I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.

   I know this is an 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."

Dr. H. S. Lipson,

F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, 'A physicist looks at evolution', Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138

"The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.
    This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science."

 

Professor W. R. Thompson,
Introduction to the 1956 reprint of 'The Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life'

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

 

L.C. Birch and P. Ehrlich,
Nature, April 22, 1967

"In a certain sense, the debate transcends the confrontation between evolutionists and creationists. We now have a debate within the scientific community itself; 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-honoured 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 superintelligence is the solution to our quandary, then 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.
          Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong.
            The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science."

 

I. L. Cohen,
Mathematician, Researcher, Author, Member New York Academy of Sciences. Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America.

"The theory of evolution by natural selection is not a difficult concept to grasp, and Charles Darwin addressed The Origin of Species itself to a general audience. But neither is it self-evident to many people that natural selection can fully account for the world they observe.
    Thus when questions about the theory arise in public forums, the scientific community would do much better in the long run to patiently list supporting facts and frankly admit where positive evidence is lacking, rather than paternalistically maintaining that an understanding of the theory of evolution is reserved for the priesthood of professional scientists."

 

M.J. Behe,
'Understanding Evolution', Letters, Science, 30 August 1991

"Science is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as truth is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time. [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm, in this case neo-Darwinism. So it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict that paradigm to get a hearing. They find it hard to [get] research grants; they find it hard to get their research published; they find it very hard."

 

Prof. Evelleen Richards,
Historian of Science at the University of NSW, Australia

"In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won't fit in, why, 'so much the worse for the facts' is my feeling."

 

Erasmus Darwin,
In a letter to his brother Charles, after reading his new book, "The Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life" in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life of Charles Darwin," [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p215

"As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.
    But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, 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,
Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada

"Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants."

 

Professor Whitten,
Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia, 1980 Assembly Week address.

"But what if the vast majority of scientists all have faith in the one unverified idea? The modern 'standard' scientific version of the origin of life on earth is one such idea, and we would be wise to check its real merit with great care.
     Has the cold blade of reason been applied with sufficient vigour in this case? Most scientists want to believe that life could have emerged spontaneously from the primeval waters, because it would confirm their belief in the explicability of Nature the belief that all could be explained in terms of particles and energy and forces if only we had the time and the necessary intellect.
     They also want to believe because their arch opponents - religious fundamentalists such as creationists - do not believe in life's spontaneous origin.
     It is this combative atmosphere which sometimes encourages scientists writing and speaking about the origin of life to become as dogmatic and bigoted as the creationist opponents they so despise."

 

A. Scott,
'The Creation of Life: Past, Future, Alien', Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1986, p.111-112

"This does not mean that the profession is about to abandon Darwin forever or endorse my views publicly.
         The situation remains much as it was: the inner circles are full of doubt, but the public utterances are confident. The doubts may be greater now and the confidence less serene, but it will be a long time before the public is given the full dark picture.
        There is still need for a dissenting voice, a devil's advocate, a skeptical whistle-blower."

 

Norman Macbeth,
Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason (Boston: Gambit Books, 1971), foreword.

"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.

EVOLUTION IS FAITH NOT SCIENCE

"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."

 

Charles Darwin,
In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology. Quoted in N.C. Gillespie, 'Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation' (1979),p.2 [University of Chicago book]

What's under YOUR Hat?     

 "Don't let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either–despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem.

'In the beginning,' they will say, 'there was nothing–no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which...'

Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off.

Then they are off and away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats."

Dr. D. Darling,

"On creating something from nothing," New Scientist, Vol 151, No. 2047, 14 September 1996, p.49

"With the failure of these many efforts [to explain the origin of life] 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 C. Eiseley,
Ph.D. Anthropology. "The Immense Journey". Random House, NY, p. 199

"We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain:
    I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other.
    Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation."

 

Professor Jerome Lejeune,
Internationally recognised geneticist at a lecture given in Paris

"Considering its historic significance and the social and moral transformation it caused in western thought, one might have hoped that Darwinian theory ... a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth."

 

Michael Denton,
Molecular Biologist. "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". Adler and Adler, p. 358

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith?
    Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."

 

L.Harrison Matthews,
British biologist

"So heated is the debate that one Darwinian says there are times when he thinks about going into a field with more intellectual honesty: the used-car business."

 

Sharon Begley,
"Science Contra Darwin," Newsweek, April 8, 1985, p. 80

"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."

 

Dr. Colin Patterson,
The Listener, 8 October 1981, p. 392.

"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).

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith?
    Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."

 

L. Harrison Matthews,
FRS, Introduction to Darwin's 'The Origin of the Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life' (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1971), p. xi

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."

 

L. Harrison Matthews,
Introduction to 'Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life', p. xxii (1977 edition).

"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete, because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea.
   The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man."

Dr Albert Fleischmann. Recorded in Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (USA), 1983 p:120

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."

 

William B. Provine,
Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University, 'Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life', Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.

"The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability.
    The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers ? [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance."

 

Hubert Yockey,
"Information Theory and Molecular Biology", Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 257

"As I said, we shall all be embarrassed, in the fullness of time, by the naivete of our present evolutionary arguments. But some will be vastly more embarrassed than others."

 

Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini,
Principal Research Associate of the Center for Cognitive Science at MIT, "Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds," John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1994, p195)

"In 10 million years, a human-like species could substitute no more than 25,000 expressed neutral mutations and this is merely 0.0007% of the genome ?nowhere near enough to account for human evolution.
    This is the trade secret of evolutionary geneticists."

 

Walter James ReMine,
The Biotic Message : Evolution versus Message Theory

"Today, a hundred and twenty-eight years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. ...
         The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing dissent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.
        It is interesting, moreover, that for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully, as one could say.
       We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience'; but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."

 

Wolfgang Smith,
Mathematician and Physicist. Prof. of Mathematics, Oregon State University. Former math instructor at MIT. Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of de Chardin. Tan Books & Publishers, pp. 1-2

"If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy.
    Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You would find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals.
    How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well-known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon.......In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth."

 

Sir Fred Hoyle,
British physicist and astronomer, The Intelligent Universe, Michael Joseph, London, pp. 20-21, 23.

"...(I)t should be apparent that the errors, overstatements and omissions that we have noted in these biology texts, all tend to enhance the plausibility of hypotheses that are presented. More importantly, the inclusion of outdated material and erroneous discussions is not trivial. The items noted mislead students and impede their acquisition of critical thinking skills.
            If we fail to teach students to examine data critically, looking for points both favoring and opposing hypotheses, we are selling our youth short and mortgaging the future of scientific inquiry itself."

 

Mills, Lancaster, Bradley,
'Origin of Life Evolution in Biology Textbooks - A Critique', The American Biology Teacher, Volume 55, No. 2, February, 1993, p. 83

 "The salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange.
    And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred."

 

Wolfgang Smith,
Ph.D Mathematics , MS Physics Teilardism and the New Religion. Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.

"... as Darwinists and neo-Darwinists have become ever more adept at finding possible selective advantages for any trait one cares to mention, explanation in terms of the all-powerful force of natural selection has come more and more to resemble explanation in terms of the conscious design of the omnipotent Creator."

 

Mae-Wan Ho & Peter T. Saunders,
Biologist at The Open University, UK and Mathematician at University of London respectively

"In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong'.
     A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory.
   Well, it would, wouldn't it?"

 

Tom S. Kemp,
'A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record', New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, pp. 66-67

"We have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold.
    We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."

 

Niles Eldredge,
Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p144)

... by the fossil record and we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded.
            We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much.
            The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."

 

David M. Raup,
Curator of Geology. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology". Field Museum of Natural History. Vol. 50, No. 1, p. 25

"Thus all Darwin's premises are defective: there is no unlimited population growth in natural populations, no competition between individuals, and no new species producible by selecting for varietal differences.
    And if Darwin's premises are faulty, then his conclusion does not follow. This, of itself, does not mean that natural selection is false. It simply means that we cannot use Darwin's argument brilliant though it was, to establish natural selection as a means of explaining the origin of species."

 

Robert Augros & George Stanciu,
"The New Biology: Discovering the Wisdom in Nature", New Science Library, Shambhala: Boston, MA, 1987, p.160).

EVOLUTION IS RACIST

"The driving force behind Darwin's theory of origins was blatant racism, not science. Remember, the evidence that Darwin was a racist is easily discovered, he did not hide it. It can be seen in the subtitle selected for his 'The Origin of Species'. The words he chose to describe his effort were: 'The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life'. That should be enough for anyone. Darwin was out to prove the superiority of the white race over the black. That goal was at the core of his stated thesis! He had an agenda, and that agenda was not scientific."

 

Mike Carrier,
(MA, NYU--Graduate School of Arts and Science)

Scientific Arguments for Racism     

   "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."

Stephen Jay Gould,

'Ontogeny and Phylogeny', Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128

"Vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox.
    Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. This must be highly injurious to the race of man.
    It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race."

 

Charles Darwin,
'The Descent of Man', vol. I, p. 168

Women In Evolution     

   "The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence - in whatever he takes up - than woman can attain-whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands."

Charles Darwin,

'The Descent of Man', vol. II, p. 327.)

”AGE OF THE EARTH” DATING GAMES

Evolution depends critically on long time periods of time in order for it to be rationally possible…below are many references that show that the dating methods used are testably vastly in error and extremely inaccurate.  They are based on the uniformitarian methods which gives at least 80 ways of dating the earth and these ages range from 400 years total to over 100 billion. With a theory like that, you can just pick whatever dates suit your theory best.  But, the data proves that this is very inaccurate and can’t be trusted.

bullet

Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error",-Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol. 19 (3), 1981, pp. 9-29. Reprinted in the-Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 19 (2), September 1982, pp. 117-127 (quotes from pp. 123 and 125).-"In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs.".... 
    "Radiocarbon dating has somehow avoided collapse onto its own battered foundation, and now lurches onward with feigned consistency. The implications of pervasive contamination and ancient variations in carbon-14 levels are steadfastly ignored by those who base their argument upon the dates. The early authorities began the charade by stressing that they were 'not aware of a single significant disagreement' on any sample that had been dated at different labs. {86,87} Such enthusiasts continue to claim, incredible though it may seem, that 'no gross-discrepancies are apparent', {88,89} Surely 15,000 years of difference on a single block of soil is indeed a 'gross' discrepancy! And how could the excessive disagreement between the labs be called insignificant, when it has been the basis for the reappraisal of the standard error associated with each and every date in existence? 
    "Why do geologists and archaeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates 'appear' to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the numbers do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what 'look' like precise calendar years, figures 'seem' somehow better—both to layman and professional not versed in statistics—than complex stratigraphic or cultural correlations, and are more easily retained in one's memory. 'Absolute' dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments."... 
    "No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There 'are' gross discrepancies, the chronology is 'uneven' and 'relative', and the accepted dates are actually 'selected' dates.
    "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.{91}"

William D. Stansfield, Ph.D. (animal breeding) (Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University) in-The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, New York, 1977, p. 80.-"Certain fossils appear to be restricted to rocks of a relatively limited geological age span. These are called 'index fossils'. Whenever a rock is found bearing such a fossil, its approximate age is automatically established....This method is not foolproof. Occasionally an organism, previously thought to be extinct, is found to be extant. Such 'living fossils' obviously cannot function as index fossils except within the broader time span of their known existence." 
    pp. 82 and 84.-"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long term radiological 'clock'. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists..."
 

bullet

A. Hayatsu (Department of Geophysics, University of Western Ontario, Canada), "K-Ar isochron age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia",-Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 16, 1979,-"In conventional interpretation of K-Ar (potassium/argon dating method) age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily-attributed to excess or loss of argon."
    In other words the potassium/argon (K/Ar) method doesn't support the uranium/lead (U/Pb) method.
 

bullet

Dr. C. Brooks (Professor of Geology, University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada), Dr. D. E. James (Staff Member in geophysics and geochemistry, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington D.C., USA) and Dr. S. R. Hart (Professor of Geochemistry, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA), "Ancient lithosphere: its role in young continental volcanism",-Science, vol. 193, September 17, 1976, p. 1093.-"One serious consequence of the mantle isochron (equal in duration; equal intervals of time) model is that crystallization ages determined on basic igneous rocks by the Rb-Sr whole-rock technique can be greater than the true age by many hundreds of millions of years. This problem of inherited age is more serious for younger rocks, and there are well documented instances of conflicts between stratigraphic age and Rb-Sr age in the literature."
 

bullet

Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA) and Prof. James L.  Powell (Department of Geology, Oberlin College, Ohio, USA) in "Strontium Isotope Geology", Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1972, p. 102.-"These results indicate that even total rock systems may be open during metamorphism (the process by which rocks are altered in composition, texture, or internal structure by extreme heat, pressure, and the introduction of new chemical substances) and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age."
 

bullet

Richard L. Mauger, Ph.D. (geology) (Associate Professor of Geology, East Carolina University, USA), "K-Ar ages of biotites -(dark brownish to black mica {aluminum silicate minerals, common in igneous and metamorphic rocks, characteristically splitting into flexible sheets used in insulation and electrical equipment} found in igneous {formed from a molten [made liquid by heat] state} and metamorphic {formed by pressure, heat} rocks)-from tuffs-(a rock composed of compacted volcanic ash varying in size from fine sand to coarse gravel)-in Eocene rocks of the Green River, Washakie, and Uinta Basins, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado".-Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, vol. 15 (1), 1977, p. 37.-"In general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained." 
 

bullet

M. L. Keith and G. M. Anderson (Department of Geochemistry and Mineralogy, Pennsylvania State University, USA), "Radiocarbon dating: fictitious results with mollusk shells",-Science, vol. 141, 16 August 1963, pp. 634,635.-"The most noteworthy feature of the results is that the analyzed modern mollusk shells from river environments are not only deficient in C13, relative to marine shells, as noted by Keith 'et al'. (16), but are also extremely deficient in C14, relative to modern wood, and give uncorrected radiocarbon ages in the range 1010 to 2300 years."
 

bullet

Wakefield Dort, Jr. (Department of Geology, The University of Kansas), "Mummified seals of southern Victoria Land",- Antarctic Journal-(Washington), vol. 6, September-October 1971, p. 211.-Radiocarbon analysis of specimens obtained from mummified seals in southern Victoria Land has yielded ages ranging from 615 to 4,600 years. However, antarctic sea water has significantly lower carbon-14 activity than that accepted as the world standard. Therefore, radiocarbon dating of marine organisms yields apparent ages that are older than true ages, but by an unknown and possibly variable amount. Therefore, the several radiocarbon ages determined for the mummified seal carcasses cannot be accepted as correct. For example, the apparent radiocarbon age of the Lake Bonney seal known to have been dead no more than a few weeks was determined to be 615 +/- 100 years. A seal freshly killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1,300 years."
 

bullet

"The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." Radiocarbon Journal,
Vol. 8, 1966
 

bullet

(flood) "The scientific establishment's acceptance of worldwide catastrophism and mass extinction does not signify their abandonment of materialistic evolution.
    Neither has their grudging acquiescence to the fact that great catastrophes caused the deposition of many of the fossils forced them to consider that virtually no fossils are in the process of forming on the bottom of any lake or sea today. This is a verboten subject. When I asked the editors of several of the most prestigious scientific journals the reasons for this silence, I was met with more silence."
 

 

Luther D. Sunderland,
"Mass Extinction & Catastrophism Replace Darwinism & Uniformitarianism"

bullet

Evolution Says .....
Sedimentary rocks are millions of years old, as they take millions of years to form. Gemstones and petrified wood
also takes millions of years to form. These are all proof of the old age of the earth.

The Facts Are .....
(8)
Radiometric dating of fossil skull 1470 show that the various methods do not give accurate
measurements of ages. The first tests gave an age of 221 million years. The second, 2.4 million years.
Subsequent tests gave ages which ranged from 290,000 to 19.5 million years. Palaeomagnetic
determinations gave an age of 3 million years. All these readings give a 762 fold error in the age
calculations. Given that only errors less than 10% (0.1 fold) are acceptable in scientific calculations,
these readings show that radiometric assessment should never ever be used
. John Reader, "Missing Links",
BCA/Collins: London, 1981 p:206-209

(1) A metal hammer, with its fossilized wooden handle, has been found in sandstone at Paluxy River
(Texas, USA). The sandstone has been dated as being 400 million years old. This is 399 million years
before the first human is supposed to have evolved. Also found inside rock has been a pair of pliers, a
bolt, and a set of car keys. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1984 p:16; Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1992 p:20; Creation Ex
Nihilo
, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986 p:10; Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1995 p:45 [photographs included]

(2) A petrified orange has been found in a creek near Gayndah (Queensland). The orange cannot be
more than about 25 years old, as the first oranges were not produced in the area until 1968. This short
period of time for an organic object to turn into rock nullifies the evolutionary hypothesis that millions
of years are required for the process to occur. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1988 p:11 [photographs included]

(3) A felt hat left in a spray mine in Tasmania (Australia) was found 50 years later. The minerals in the
water that covered the hat had turned the hat to stone. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986 p:10 [photo included]

(7) A bowler hat was buried in the volcanic eruption of Te Wairoa village (North Island, New
Zealand) on June 10, 1886. It was discovered 20 years later, and found to have turned to stone. A leg
of ham had also been petrified after being buried in the same catastrophe. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986
p:10 [photos included]

(8) In the 1780's a Maori chief was buried by being placed in a burial cave at Cavern Head (NZ). The
remains of the chief were discovered by Walter Traill in 1877, and were found to have turned to stone.
Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986 p:10

(9) Rocks composed of iron-rich limestone, sand and mud are forming in a Norfolk (UK) marsh in as
short a time as 6 months. The limestone which cements the material together is being created by
bacteria which are thriving on the rotting vegetation. Rocks do not necessarily take millions of years
to form, nor do the fossils within them. Eastern Daily Press (UK), October 5, 1994

(10) Fuming volcanoes are known to produce around 500 gm of gold per day in the fluids coming out
of them. This is the equivalent of 18 tonnes of gold per century from just one volcano. New Scientist,
November 5, 1994 p:6  (we should gave quite an incredible amount of gold...MUCH more than we do from billions of years ages...another proof of a young earth)

(4) A hammer has been found embedded in Ordovician rock in London (Texas, USA), and has been
assigned the age of 400-500 million years. The handle of the hammer is wooden, and the head is steel.
An analysis of the head by Batelle Laboratories (USA) indicates that it was not prepared by any
known modern process of steel production. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1985 p:14-16 [photos included]

(5) Some man-made items recovered from coal seams include:- (a) a gold chain [1891], (b) an iron
thimble [1883], (c) a drill bit or borer [1853], (d) coins [1901], (e) a cuboid-shaped tool [1885], and
(f) a carved stone plate bearing the image of a man's face. These discoveries have never been widely
announced, as they contradict the evolutionary time-frames for rock formation and human evolution.
(a) Morrisonville Times, June 11, 1891; (b) American Antiquarian, Vol. 5, 1883; (c) Proceedings of the Society of Antiquarians of Scotland, Vol. 1, Part
2, 1853; (d) Strand Magazine, Vol. 21, 1901; (e) INFO Journal, Autumn, 1967; (f) The Daily Bee Newspaper, April 3, 1897

(1) Human fossil skulls and bones have been found in anthracite coal. The assessed age of the rock is
hundreds of millions of years older than the time when humans are said to have evolved. Science Frontiers,
September/October, 1991 p:3

(3) The US Geological Survey has documented that as much as 90% of the radioactive elements in
some granites could be removed by leaching the rock with a weak acid. They also state that as much
as 40% of the uranium in fresh-appearing igneous rocks is readily leachable. K.R. Klepper & D.G. Wyant, "Notes
on the Geology of Uranium", US Geological Survey Bulletin, No. 1046-F, 1957 p:93
(4) The Committee on the Measurement of Geological Time expressed their lack of confidence in
radioactive dating as far back as 1950. They said that the 'dates' were like railway timetables in that
they are subject to change without notice. "The Penguin Dictionary of Geology", Penguin Books: Middlesex (England), 1972 p:378
(5) "There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as
previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that atomic
clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic [era] to a close
may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man." Written in Frederic B.
Jueneman, "Secular Catastrophism", Industrial Research and Development, June 1982 p:21
(6) "It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are
claimed to be ..... The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and
evolutionists ....." Written by Dr William D. Stansfield (Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University) in his book "The Science of
Evolution", Macmillan: New York, 1977 p:84
(7) "One serious consequence of the mantle isochron model is that crystallization ages determined on
basic igneous rocks by the Rb-Sr whole-rock technique can be greater than the true age by many
hundreds of millions of years. This problem of inherited age is more serious for younger rocks, and
there are well-documented instances of conflicts between stratigraphic age and Rb-Sr age in the
literature." Written by Dr C. Brooks (Professor of Geology, University of Montreal, Canada) and others, in their article "Ancient Lithosphere: Its Role
in Young Continental Volcanism", in Science, Vol. 193, September 17, 1976 p:1093
(8) "Much still remains to be learned of the interpretation of isotopic ages and the realization that in
many instances the isotopic age is not necessarily the geological age of a rock has unfortunately led to
an over-sceptical attitude by some field geologists." Written by Peter E. Brown and John A. Miller in their article "Interpretation
of Isotopic Ages in Orogenic Belts" in "Time and Place in Orogeny", Geological Society of London Special Publication, No. 3, 1969 p:137

(1) Eleven distinct types of microbes have been identified in rock samples from Marble Bar (W.A.) dated
at 3.5 billion years old, in evolutionary terms. This date puts the rock at forming only 400 million years
after the earth cooled enough for life to exist - according to evolutionary theory. The assessed age of
these organisms is in total conflict with the current ages assigned by evolutionists to the origin of life on
Earth. Time (Australia), May 10, 1993 p:15; Science, April 30, 1993 p:640-646
(2) In the 1960's, scientists took ten samples of lava from both vegetated and unvegetated sites on
Mount Rangitoto (Auckland), and had their ages calculated using the Potassium-Argon method. The
ages of the ten samples ranged from 146,000-500,000 years. Not only did the tests produce a
discrepancy in age of the rocks, but the rock formed when the volcano erupted around 200 years ago,
according to Maori legend. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 33, 1969 p:1485-1520
(3) In 1968 scientists dated the rocks of a Hawaiian volcano called Hualalai, using Potassium/Argon
radiometric techniques. They knew that the volcano had erupted in 1800 and that the rocks were around
170 years old, but the ages they determined ranged from 160 million to 3 billion. This method of dating
rocks obviously produces erroneous ages, and should not be used to factually age the earth and its
geology. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 73, No. 14, 1968 p:4601-4607
(4) Different radioactive dating methods used on volcanic rock samples from Reunion Island (Indian
Ocean) gave conflicting results that varied from 100,000 to 4.4 billion years. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol.
35, 1971 p:261-288 & Vol. 36, 1972 p:1167
(5) Radiocarbon and Uranium-Thorium dates calculated by the Lamont-Doherty Geological Laboratory
(New York) for samples of Caribbean coral have been found to differ by 3,500 years. These tests show
how inaccurate, and artificial, age assessments from radio-dating are. Science News, June 9, 1990 p:356
(6) Lava flows on the Uinkaret Plateau north of the Grand Canyon are a most recent formation, being
only a few thousand years old. Radiodating of this rock using Rubidium-Strontium and Lead-Lead
methods has produced ages from 1.5 - 2.6 billion years. Clearly, the age assessment techniques are vastly
inaccurate if the young lava flow is assessed as being older that the sedimentary rock on which it lies.
Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1989 p:37
(7) Radiodating of minerals collected from a drill core in Northern Australia, using the Uranium-
Thorium-Lead method, has produced conflicting ages. One sample was dated as 862 million years old,
while three other samples were each assessed as being 0 (zero) million years old. This adds to the
confirmation that radiodating techniques are highly variable, and therefore cannot be used to accurately
date objects. Search, Vol. 3, 1972 p:382-385; Mineralium Deposita, Vol. 11, 1976 p:133-154.


(1) Carbon-14 calculations are based on 7 assumptions , concerning the past 20-30 thousand years. 1/
The balance between Carbon-14 production and decay has always been the same; 2/ The rate of
Carbon-14 decay has not altered; 3/ Organic material tested has not been contaminated by Carbon-14
since its death; 4/ Earth's magnetic field intensity has not changed; 5/ There have only been small
variations in ocean depths; 6/ Ocean temperature changes have only been minor; and 7/ Cosmic ray
intensity has not changed. Measurements based on assumptions are guesses, not fact. Willard F. Libby,
"Radiocarbon Dating", University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1955 p:8, 10, 19-31
(2) Examples of where C-14 dating has been shown to be erroneous:-
(i) A living water snail taken from an artesian spring in Nevada was given as assessed age of 27,000
years. Science, Vol. 224, April 6, 1984 p:58-61
(ii) Shell from living clams was 'dated' thousands of years old. Science, Vol. 141, August 16, 1963 p:634
(iii) Dried seal carcasses less than 30 years old were 'dated' as 4,600 years old. Antarctic Journal of the United
States
, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+
(iv) A freshly killed seal was assessed at 1,300 old. Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+
(v) A 15,000 year difference appeared in the assessment of samples from a single sample block of peat.
New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1978 p:463-466
(3) Thirty eight laboratories world-wide carbon-dated samples of wood, peat and carbonate, and
produced differing dates for similar objects of the same age. The overall finding of the comparative
test was that radiocarbon dating was 'two to three times less accurate than implied by their error
terms'. Ages of objects assessed by this method cannot therefore be viewed as being credible. Nature,
September 28, 1989 p:267; New Scientist, September 30, 1989 p:10
(4) "In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly
astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs ..... The
radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross
discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected
dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which
funny paper you read"." Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19,
No. 3, 1981 p:9
(5) "Materials which give radiocarbon dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years could have true
ages of many fewer calendar years." Personal correspondence from Gerald E. Aardsma to Paul Taylor. Quoted in Paul S. Taylor, "The
Illustrated Origins Answer Book" (4th. ed.) Eden Publications: Mesa (Arizona), 1992 p:59
(6) In Dr Sheridan Bowman's book for the British Museum, "Radiocarbon Dating", it states:
"Radiocarbon is not quite as straightforward as it may seem. The technique does not in fact provide
true ages, and radiocarbon results must be adjusted (calibrated) to bring them into line with calendar
ages". Diggings, August, 1990 p:8
(7) "If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict
them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." Professor Brew, quoted by T.
Save-Soderbergh (Egyptologist) & Ingrid Olsson (Physicist) in "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology" in Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium,
John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1970 p:35; [see also Diggings, August, 1990 p:8]

TO ORGANIZE

"Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be, and he will adopt an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed; solemn because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare."

 

Sir Peter Medawar,
1986 Nobelist for Biology, Theodore Schick, Jr. 'The End of Science', The Skeptical Inquirer, Apr. 97, Pg. 36-39

Chemistry Professors Are Unstable     

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all energy systems run down like a clock and never rewind themselves. But life not only 'runs up,' converting low energy sea-water, sunlight and air into high-energy chemicals, it keeps multiplying itself into more and better clocks that keep 'running up' faster and faster.

Why, for example, should a group of simple, stable compounds of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen struggle for billions of years to organize themselves into a professor of chemistry? What's the motive?

If we leave a chemistry professor out on a rock in the sun long enough the forces of nature will convert him into simple compounds of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, and small amounts of other minerals. It's a one-way reaction. No matter what kind of chemistry professor we use and no matter what process we use we can't turn these compounds back into a chemistry professor.

Chemistry professors are unstable mixtures of predominantly unstable compounds which, in the exclusive presence of the sun's heat, decay irreversibly into simpler organic and inorganic compounds. That's a scientific fact.

The question is: Then why does nature reverse this process? What on earth causes the inorganic compounds to go the other way? It isn't the sun's energy. We just saw what the sun's energy did. It has to be something else. What is it?"

Robert M. Pirsig,

JOKES OF THE FUTURE

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future.

Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

Malcolm Muggeridge,

Well-known Journalist and philosopher. Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo

The Greatest Hoax     

"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."

Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Physiologist. Atomic Energy Commission. As quoted in: Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, 3D Enterprises Limited, title page

Don't Teach This in High Schools!     

"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it.

That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.

Question: 'Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?'

I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence.

I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school'."

Dr. Colin Patterson,

Senior Palaeontologist. British Museum of Natural History, London. Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5

Rarity of Transitional Forms     

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.…

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

Professor Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb, 1980, pp.179-181.

In The Beginning Was The Word     

"The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

Arthur Eddington,

(Astrophysicist): Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.

Imagination and Plaster of Paris     

 "Echoing the criticism made of his father's Homo habilis skulls, he added that Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was 'imagination, made of plaster of paris,' thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to."

Richard Leakey,

(Son of Louis Leakey). Director of National Museums of Kenya, Africa. The Weekend Australian, p. 3

Disturbing Uncertainties     

"All the above (radiometric) methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history.

It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be.

Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.'

The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologist and evolutionists."

W.D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytech State University, The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, 1987.

Evolutionism's Burden     

"We must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind."

Charles Darwin,

'The Descent of Man', vol. I, p. 169.

Fossil Record of Plants     

"Much evidence can be advanced in favour of the theory of evolution – from biology, biogeography and paleontology, but 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 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."

E.J.H. Corner,

Prof of Botany, Cambridge University, England. Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Quadrangle Books, p. 97

Split Open Like A Rotten Watermelon     

"A week's study of the Grand Canyon should be a good cure for Evolutionary geologists as it is a perfect example of Flood geology with its paraconformities and striking parallelisms of the under strata.

 The whole area was obviously laid down quickly, then uplifted and then the whole sedimentary area split open like a rotten watermelon."

Albert W. Mehlert, Paleoanthropology researcher "Diluviology & Uniformitarian Geology -- A Review"

From a Frog to a Prince     

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

Prof. Louis Bounoure,

President Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research. The Advocate, p. 17

Genetic Limits     

"With the inability of mutations of any type to produce new genetic information, the maintenance of the basic plan is to be expected....

There are limits to biological change and these limits are set by the structure and function of the genetic machinery."

L. P. Lester Ph.D. and R. G. Bohlin Ph.D,

"The Natural Limits of Biological Change"

Beautiful Family Tree     

"The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks.

 The construction of the whole Cenozoic family tree of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts."

Prof N. Heribert Nilsson,

Lund University, Sweden. Famous botanist and evolutionist Synthetische Artbildung. Verlag CWE Gleerup Press

Black Matter and Silly Putty     

"Take black matter, for example. As fate would have it, the most recent and popular theories in physics just don't work. It's not as if there are some loose threads around the edges; the theories don't work at all. If they did, the universe would instantaneously fall in on itself or fly apart. Now those of us who are not astrophysicists would probably do something like discard the theories. Not astrophysicists. They readjust the uncooperative universe to fit their theories, postulating a gigantic quantity of invisible gravity-producing stuff they call black matter, even though it's not black and maybe not even matter. And there you are. Just like that, the modern, popular theories are back in business.

I can imagine that readers new to physics and its way of doing things might be skeptical, but those of us who are higher up in the world of science feel nothing but anticipation in all this theorizing. It could, after all, be a step toward a newer and even sillier putty."

Roger L. Welsch,

"Astrophys Ed", Natural History, February 1994, p. 25

Intergalactic Pizza     

"Forget bubbles, comets or ocean vents. Scientists should be looking at pizza for the answer. I can remember when my college roommates and I routinely created life every week in our refrigerator.

 My theory is that around 4.5 billion years ago, the earth was bombarded by intergalactic pizzas. These then provided the ideal breeding ground in which early organisms could thrive and later evolve."

Mark D. Greene,

"How Life Began," Time, 142:8, November 1, 1993

The Greatest Mathematician     

"We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."

Alexander Polyakov,

Soviet mathematician. Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57

"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.
    
        In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter."

 

John Haldane,
Professor of Genetics, London University

 "Every particular thought (whether it is a judgment of fact or a judgment of value) is always and by all men discounted the moment they believe that it can be explained, without remainder, as the result of irrational causes.
    Whenever you know what the other man is saying is wholly due to his complexes or to a bit of bone pressing on his brain, you cease to attach any importance to it.
    But if naturalism were true, then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes. Therefore, all thoughts would be equally worthless. Therefore, naturalism is worthless. If it is true, then we can know no truths. It cuts its own throat."

 

C.S. Lewis,
Religion Without Dogma?

"A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of the Origin was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculation.
    'Explanations' of the origin of structures, instincts, and mental aptitudes of all kinds, in terms of Darwinian principles, marked with the Darwinian plausibility but hopelessly unverifiable, poured out from every research centre.
    The speculations on the origin and significance of the resemblances between animals, or between animals and their environment and of the striking colour patterns they often exhibit, constitute one of the best-known examples."

 

W. R. Thompson,
Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada

"The family trees which adorn our text books are based on inference, however, reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

 

Stephen Jay Gould,
Prof of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University. "Evolution's Erratic Pace" Natural History, May, p. 13

"The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks.
     The construction of the whole Cenozoic family tree of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts."

 

Prof N. Heribert Nilsson,
Lund University, Sweden. Famous botanist and evolutionist Synthetische Artbildung. Verlag CWE Gleerup Press

 "It is not even possible to make a caricature of evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained by the scarcity of the material.
    The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."

 

N. Heiribert-Nilsson,
Professor, Lund University


SDA Global

Contact  Domains: www.sdaglobal.org Host master: fablenatural@gmail.com