|
INDEX EVOLUTION REQUIRES MORE FAITH THAN CREATION INTELLIGENT DESIGN REQUIRES DESIGNER EVOLUTION CENSORS AND SUPPRESSES ALTERNATE VIEWS EVOLUTION IS FAITH NOT SCIENCE ”AGE OF THE EARTH” DATING GAMES
"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. 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} 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 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....
"The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."
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."
"I find it quite improbable that
such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle.
"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.
"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.
"...an intelligible
communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed
as evidence of an intelligent source.
"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?
"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."
"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.
"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.
"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?
"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.
"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.
"The Institute for Creation
Research's followers take science more seriously than most scientists do.
"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.'"
"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.
"The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."
"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.
"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.
"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator."
"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.
"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.
"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."
"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."
"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."
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.
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."
"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."
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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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."
"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."
"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.
"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."
"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.
"This does not mean that the
profession is about to abandon Darwin forever or endorse my views publicly.
"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.
EVOLUTION IS FAITH NOT SCIENCE "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
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.
"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:
"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."
"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?
"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."
"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."
"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.'"
"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?
"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."
"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. 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."
"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.
"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."
"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.
"Today, a hundred and
twenty-eight years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of
evolution stands under attack as never before. ...
"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.
"...(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.
"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.
"... 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."
"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'.
"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.
... by the fossil record and we
are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has
been greatly expanded.
"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.
"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."
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.
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.
|
