MYTH OF EVOLUTION SCIENTISTS SPEAK OUT! - 1
Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such
statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous
paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions
of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved
only for professional books and journals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the
overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove
evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They
are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and
research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The
geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the
biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear
to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do
write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning
evolutionary theory.
Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of
earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The
truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a
creationist.
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the
realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the
product of imagination."-*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a
single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived.
They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their
appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."-*Austin
Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at
present, still an article of faith."-*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of
Science (1933), p. 95.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves
facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually
nothing of growth, nothing of life."-*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery
of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and
manifestation of the inorganic world.' "-Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S.,
quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the
thermionic valve].
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only
acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to
physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we
do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."-*H. Lipson, "A
Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in
scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of
Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."-*W.R.
Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian
scientist].
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental
imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system
without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a
gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils
which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding
experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might
truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "-*David C.C.
Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful
that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a
serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for
evolutionary biologists."-*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
(1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the
evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for
any group being the descendant of almost any other."-J. Bonner, "Book
Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him
adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so
fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so
profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the
universe."-*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67
[Australian molecular biologist].
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently
assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying
reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the
world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is
also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should
not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my
contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an
instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously
liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from
a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it
interfered with our sexual freedom."-*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a
Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p.
19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and
promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one
of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing
in the progress of science. It is useless."-*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie
(October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific
Research in France].
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do
we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature
in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them,
well-defined species?"-*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or
Creation (1966), p. 139.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I
find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe
was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in
consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."-*Thomas Huxley,
quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II
(1903), p. 429.
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more
apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific
knowledge."-*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as
ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used
only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which
such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies
and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not
scientific theories at all."-*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and
Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of
creation."-*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981),
p. 19.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all
scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their
observations to fit in with it."-*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at
Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society
in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was
false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict
on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."-*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra
Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for
the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully
developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from
pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in
a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent
intelligence."-*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat
embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins
which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his
reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable
position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption
that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had,
in truth, taken place in the primeval past."-*Loren Eisley, The Immense
Journey, (1957), p. 199.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion
that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and
that all subsequent biological research-paleontological, zoological, and in
the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology-has provided
ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."-*Michael Denton, Evolution: A
Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every
last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God
with an even more incredible deity-omnipotent chance."-*T. Rosazak,
Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple,
understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us.
Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and
extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established
truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some
people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse
to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."-*Pierre-Paul
de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural
philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It
obstructs-as has been repeatedly shown-the attainment of consistent results,
even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be
forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built
up."-*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that
Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined
nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in
its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not
limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny
Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism
comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a
political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."-*B. Leith,
The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more
than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of
having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."-*H.
Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in
the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by
people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their
task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the
trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical
framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in
biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism
seem to me to have held back the progress of science."-Colin Patterson, The
Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History,
London].
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority
of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to
accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists
who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically
endless."-*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that
the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the
serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved
unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume
evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a
few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and
many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic
assumptions."-*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in
Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be
reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils
agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a
series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive
creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed
species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete
absence of intermediate fossils."-*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects
Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of
the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative
evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with
hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution.
The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as
to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the
extent to which these opinions are correct."-*Pierre-Paul de Grasse,
Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the
over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further
progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we
shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling,
`Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "-*Errol White,
Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has
not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been
positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has
the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the
question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me
about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution
does not convey any knowledge."-*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at
the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).
"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon
belief in the reality of the unseen-belief in the fossils that cannot be
produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off.
It is faith unjustified by works."-*Arthur N. Field.
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths,
misdirections
and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and
minor
effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said,
CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
<A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
