Evolution is a Religion!
The unsubstantiated, unfounded and unprovable theories of evolution are believed by ardent followers whose faith would make the faith of most Christians pale by comparison. Evolutionists believe in evolution in spite of any logic, facts or scientific evidence that may be provided to them demonstrating that evolution theories are not true. For evolutionists, evolution is a religion and they are very religious in all respects. (Acts 17:22) Evolutionists believe in evolution because they chose to believe in evolution!
What is the definition of the word religion? The definitions of the word would fill volumes. The spectrum of definitions goes from sharply specific to meaningless generality. In 1974, the Websters Dictionary defined the word religion as: A commitment or devotion to a faith; or, an institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices. In a general way, we may say that a religion is all physically unverifiable beliefs which attempt to answer the questions: Where did life come from? What is lifes purpose? What is lifes final destiny? How should people behave while they are here?
Ultimately, the word religion refers to the foundational worldview of the individual believer; it dictates their attitudes, thoughts, habits, behaviors, actions, emotions and characteristics.
The Apostle Paul [and I] stipulate that evolutionists are very religious in all respects. (Acts 17:22) To prove that point, please read the following quotes from devout evolutionists.
[Dr. Mary Leakey (February 6, 1913 December 9, 1996) was a British archaeologist and anthropologist; wife of Dr. Louis Leakey, mother of Dr. Richard Leakey, mother-in-law of Dr. Meave Leakey - all adamant believers and researchers trying to prove human evolution.]
All those trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, thats a lot of nonsense.
Dr. Mary Leakey, Associated Press, Dec. 10, 1996.
Evolutionists want to incorrectly define science as being only that which is naturalistic, mechanistic and random.
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. [Emphasis added]
Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept. 30, 1999.
Evolutionists know that what they teach is wrong, and they do not know what is correct.
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 its good, we know it is bad, but because there isnt 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, in a lecture given in Paris on March 17, 1985, translated by Peter Wilders.
We have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it off upon an imperfect fossil record. [Emphasis added]
Gould, Stephen J., The Paradox of the First Tier: An Agenda for Paleobiology, Paleobiology, 1985, p. 7.
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, wouldnt it? [Emphasis added]
Kemp, Tom S., A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record, New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, p. 66-67.
Stasis, or non-change, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological life spans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting non-evidence for non-evolution. ... The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, non-evolution). [Emphasis added]
Gould, Stephen J., Cordelias Dilemma, Natural History, 1993, p. 15.
Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ... That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself ... prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwins predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. ... The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperors new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwins predicted pattern, simply looked the other way. [Emphasis added]
Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46.
Evolutionists reject the truth of what is contained in the ground, because it contradicts their faith, their religion.
It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ... Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative. [Emphasis added]
Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 229-230)
In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. [Emphasis added]
(Ridley, Mark, Who doubts evolution? New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831.
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution. [Emphasis added]
Gould, Stephen J., Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology, Vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127.
Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ... it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ... Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species. [Emphasis added]
Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.
All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did. [Emphasis added]
Urey, Harold C., quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4.
If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being?... we must ... 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. [Emphasis added]
H. J. Lipson, A physicist looks at evolution Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable,not the evidence of fossils. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors: it appears all at once and fully formed. [Emphasis added]
Steven Jay Gould (Harvard University), Evolutions erratic pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977.
Charles Darwin knew of the problematic fossil record and wrote about it in his most famous book.
As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? (p.139)
Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? (p. 143)
But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? (p. 144)
Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. (p. 149)
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. (p. 230) [Emphasis added]
Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1859
Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwins argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of lifes 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. [Emphasis added]
Stephen Jay Gould, The Pandas Thumb, 1980,pp.179-181.
Many evolutionary biologists since Darwins time, and even Darwin himself, have been struck by how few sequences of fossils have ever been found that clearly show a gradual, steady accumulation of small changes in evolutionary lineages. Instead, most fossil species appear suddenly, withouttransitional forms, in a layer of rock and persist essentially unchanged until disappearing from the record of rocks as suddenly as they appeared. [Emphasis added]
Campbell, et al., Biology Concepts and Connections, 3rd Ed., p 290, 2000.
In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found - yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks. [Emphasis added]
Dr. David M. Raup (U. of Chicago - Field Museum), Evolution and the Fossil Record, Science, Vol. 213 (July 17, 1981), p. 289.
The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated. [Emphasis added]
Newsweek, November 3, 1980.
Honest evolutionists do exist, and they are willing to admit the problems in the various evolutionary theories; even if they are not willing to change from an acceptance of evolution to an acceptance of creation.
I admired one such evolutionist, the late Dr. Colin Patterson (1933 1998), a lifelong evolutionist, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London. He staggered his evolutionary colleagues by expressing serious doubts about the theory of evolution in a November 5, 1981 lecture presented to the Systematics Discussion Group at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. Although lengthy, the following extract from his comments is accurate and enlightening:
... Im speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe its true to say that I know nothing whatever about either ... One of the reasons I started taking this antievolutionary view, well, lets call it non-evolutionary, was last year I had a sudden realization.
For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and 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 was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long ...
... Ive tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing you think is true?
I tried that question on the geology staff in 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 then eventually one person said: Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.
...It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps thats all we know about it ... about eighteen months ago ... I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way.
Patterson took the words of Neal C. Gillespie alleging that the pre-Darwinian creationist paradigm was ... not a research-governing theory, since its power to explain is only verbal, but an anti-theory, a void that has the function of knowledge, but conveys none and suggested ... It must seem to you that Im either misguided or malicious to suggest that such words can be applied to evolutionary theory.
... Most of us think that we are working in evolutionary research. But is its explanatory power any more than verbal? ... I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely void, not just a lack of knowledge -I think it has been positively anti-knowledge.
... What about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge but has it conveyed any? ... It is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge, or if so, I havent yet heard it.
Well, here we all are with all our shelves full of books on evolution. Weve all read tons of them, and most of us have written one or two. And how could it be that weve done all that, weve read these books and learned nothing from them? And how could I have worked on evolution for twenty years, and learned nothing from it?
... There is some sort of a revolution going on in evolutionary theory at the moment ... It concerns the possible mechanisms that are responsible for the transformation ... natural selection is under fire, and we hear a rash of new and alternative theories ...
Again quoting Gillespie accusing that those ...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact, Patterson countered, That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: Yes it has ... we know it has taken place.
... Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, youve experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know thats true of me, and I think its true of a good many of you in here ...
...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics ...
Any knowledgeable evolutionist knows that the lack of physical evidence is their biggest problem.
Darwin struggled with the issue of the total lack of evidence to support his theory. As noted earlier, his famous book is full of references to the void of physical evidence. Fossils certainly exist in the ground, but they are simply the remains of animals, plants and human beings that once existed. Fossils cannot tell you when they lived, how they lived or what chemicals were in them when they died.
Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record. [Emphasis added]
Time magazine, Nov. 7, 1977
What I did say was that there are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms but where there is nothing whatsoever ... No paleontologist writing in English (R. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, 1988), French (J. Chaline, Modalites, rythmes, mecanismes de levolution biologique: gradualisme phyletique ou equilibres ponctues?, reprinted in Editions du CNRS, 1983), or German (V. Fahlbusch, Makroevolution, Punktualismus, in Palaontologie 57, 1983), denies that this is so. It is simply a fact.Darwins theory and the fossil record are in conflict. There may be excellent reasons for the conflict; it may in time be exposed as an artifact. But nothing is to be gained by suggesting that what is a fact in plain sight is nothing of the sort. [Emphasis added]
David Berlinski, A Tour of the Calculus, Pantheon Books, New York, 1995, p. 28.
Where did the arthropods come from?
According to the late Marxist and preeminent evolutionary propagandist Dr. Stephen J. Gould of Harvard, arthropods are the largest animal group.
As Darwin noted in the Origin of the Species, the abrupt emergence of arthropods in the fossil record during the Cambrian presents a problem for evolutionary biology. There are no obvious simpler or intermediate forms - either living or in the fossil record . . .
Osorio, Bacon & Whitington, American Scientist, May/June 1997, p. 244.
Where did all the fish come from?
Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound . . .
Long, J. O., The Rise of Fishes, John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore MD, 1995, p. 30.
The higher fishes, when they appear in the Devonian period, have already acquired the characteristics that identify them as belonging to one or another of the major assemblages of bony or cartilaginous forms.
Stahl, Barbara. 1974. Vertebrate history: Problems in evolution, New York: Dover Publications, Inc. p. 126
Both these groups [bony and cartilaginous] appeared in the late Silurian period, and it is possible that they may have originated at some earlier time, although there is no fossil evidence to prove this. [Emphasis added]
Colbert. E. H., M. Morales, and E. C. Minkoff. 2001. Evolution of the vertebrates: A history of the backboned animals through time, 5thed., New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc. p. 53
Where did all the birds come from?
The true origin of birds is still up in the air.
Alan Feduccia, New Scientist, 16 December 2000, p. 25.
In the absence of fossil evidence, paleontologists can say little about the date at which these [sixty-nine living families of Passeriformes]
Stahl, Barbara. 1974. Vertebrate history: Problems in evolution, New York: Dover Publications, Inc. p. 386
Of all the classes of vertebrates, the birds are least known from their fossil record. [Emphasis added]
Colbert. E. H., M. Morales, and E. C. Minkoff. 2001. Evolution of the vertebrates: A history of the backboned animals through time, 5thed., New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc. p. 236.
Where did all the whales come from?
. . . the evolutionary origin of whales remains controversial among zoologists.
Comptons Interactive Encyclopedia, 1996.
As with most tetrapods secondarily modified for aquatic living [the supposed evolution of cows into whales], ascertaining the terrestrial stock from which whales came is exceedingly difficult.
Stahl, Barbara. 1974. Vertebrate history: Problems in evolution, New York: Dover Publications, Inc. p. 486
Like the bats, the whales (using this term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications.
Colbert. E. H., M. Morales, and E. C. Minkoff. 2001. Evolution of the vertebrates: A history of the backboned animals through time, 5thed., New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc. p. 392
Where did all the amphibians come from?
Since the fossil material provides no evidence of other aspects of the transformation from fish to tetrapod, paleontologists have had to speculate how legs and aerial breathing evolved. [Emphasis added]
Stahl, Barbara. 1974. Vertebrate history: Problems in evolution, New York: Dover Publications, Inc. p. 195
This is certainly a logical explanation of the first stages in the change from an aquatic to a terrestrial mode of life. We can only speculate about this. [Emphasis added]
Colbert. E. H., M. Morales, and E. C. Minkoff. 2001. Evolution of the vertebrates: A history of the backboned animals through time, 5thed., New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc. pp. 84-85
Where did all the snakes come from?
The origin of the snakes is still an unsolved problem. [Emphasis added]
Stahl, Barbara. 1974. Vertebrate history: Problems in evolution, New York: Dover Publications, Inc. p. 318
Unfortunately, the fossil history of snakes is very fragmentary, so that it is necessary to infer much of their evolution. [Emphasis added]
Colbert. E. H., M. Morales, and E. C. Minkoff. 2001. Evolution of the vertebrates: A history of the backboned animals through time, 5thed., New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc. p. 154
Where did all the turtles come from?
Turtles are so different from any other reptile that their peculiarities are practically useless as a guide for distinguishing among potential ancestors, and the origin of turtles remains one of the great unanswered questions of evolutionary biology
the possible choices for the original turtle span almost the entire range of reptiles, living and extinct. [Emphasis added]
Orenstein, R., Turtles, Tortoises & Terrapins: Survivors in Armor, Firefly Books, Buffalo, NY, p. 26, 2001.
Where did the flowering plants come from?
The origin of the angiosperms, an abominable mystery to Darwin, remained so 100 years later and is little better today. [Emphasis added]
Patterson, Williams and Humphries, 1993 Congruence between molecular and morphological phylogenies. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 24:153-188
Where did eyes come from?
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p. 167.
Where did people come from?
Dr. Richard Leakey, discoverer of Skull 1470 (Homo habilis), one of worlds foremost paleo-anthropologists,said in a PBS documentary in 1990:
If pressed about mans ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving. [Emphasis added]
Dr. Donald Johanson, discoverer of Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis), wrote:
No one can be sure what any extinct hominid looked like with its skin and hair on.
Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, Lucy - the Beginnings of Humankind, New York: Warner Books, Inc, 1981, p. 286.
Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.
Henry Gee, Return to the Planet of the Apes, Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.
Unfortunately, the fossil record for hominids [the half-human pre-humans] and pongids [the ape family] is almost totally blank between four and eight million years ago - an irresistible tabula rasa [an erased tablet; a clean slate] on which to inscribe belief, preconception, and personal opinion. [Emphasis added]
A. Zihlman and J. Lowenstein, False Start of the Human Parade, in Natural History, August 1979, pp. 86, 88.
The main problem in reconstructing the origins of man is lack of fossil evidence: all there is could be displayed on a dinner table. [Emphasis added]
New Scientist, 20 May, 1982.
Perhaps one of the most revealing statements concerning the supposed evolution of human beings from apes was made during an interview of Dr. Richard Leakey after the discovery of Skull 1470. In an interview for the National Geographic Magazine he said:
Scientific explanation is challenged on the basis of observation, not of whim or fancy. Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man, asserts anthropologist, [Dr.] Richard Leakey of this 2.8 million-year-old fossil, which he has tentatively identified as belonging to our own genus. It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings. . . . (it) leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change. [Emphasis added]
National Geographic, June 1973, Vol. 143, No. 6, p. 819.
Similar truth and confusion abounds amongst those who believe in the evolution of human beings.
The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African Apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other.
Dr. Charles E. Oxnard, Fossils, Teeth and Sex-New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, 1987, p. 227
There are not enough fossil records to answer when, where, and how Homo sapiens emerged.
Takahata, Molecular Anthropology, Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics, 1995, p. 355
The australopithecines known over the last several decades
Are now irrevocably removed from a place in the evolution of human bipedalism
All this should make us wonder about the usual presentation of human evolution in introductory textbooks . . . [Emphasis added]
Charles Oxnard (Professor of anatomy and leading expert on australopithecine fossils), The Order of Man: A Biomathematical Anatomy of the Primates, 1984, p. 332.
The fossils provide much more discouragement than support for Darwinism when they are examined objectively, but objective examination has rarely been the object of Darwinist paleontology. The Darwinist approach has consistently been to find some supporting fossil evidence, claim it as proof for evolution, and then ignore all the difficulties. [Emphasis added]
Philip Johnson (Graduate of Harvard U., Law Professor at U. of California, Berkeley), Darwin onTrial, 1991, p. 84
Most textbooks avoid showing comprehensive tables of the discovered human fossils - doing so exposes the contradictions. [Emphasis added]
James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, 1999, p. 106.
In 1978, Dr. Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin wrote a book entitled People of the Lake. Although over 30 years old, most of their statements would require little change if written today. These quotes give some excellent insights into their faith-based belief in the evolution of human beings. The following are excerpts from the book:
Pg. 17 If someone went to the trouble of collecting together into one room all of the fossil remains so far discovered of our ancestors (and their biological relatives) who lived, say, between 5 and 1 million years ago, he would need only a couple of large trestle tables on which to spread them out. And, if that were not bad enough, a not unusually commodious shoebox would be more than sufficient to accommodate the hominid fossil finds of between 15 and 6 million years ago!
[Today, it would take three tables and two shoeboxes. That is not a lot of evidence.]
Yet with a confidence that may strike the uninitiated as something close to supernatural - if not to plain madness - prehistorians can now construct a view of human origins that is anything but crude, and may even bear some resemblance to the truth!
[That really strikes confidence into the reader.]
Pg. 19 What the fossils tell us directly, of course, is what our ancestors and their close relatives looked like. Or rather, to be more accurate, they give us some clues about the physical appearance of early hominids, because until someone is lucky enough to come across a complete skeleton of one of our ancestors, much of what we can say about them is pure inference, guesswork.
[Pure inference, guesswork?]
Pg. 20 The human mind has shown itself to be particularly fertile for generating notions about the nature of mankind, but only when those notions are subject to the scrutiny of different scientific disciplines can the more fanciful theories be weeded out. In learning about hominid history we have to be imaginative, but not fanciful, the inputs and caveats offered by the psychologists, taphonomists, and others create the right condition in which to be responsibly imaginative.
[Well, after all, who would want to be irresponsibly imaginative?]
Pg. 26 The last of these, Ramapithecus, a small creature (perhaps close to three feet tall), is currently favorite as the first true hominid.
[Ramapithecus is now considered to be an extinct pygmy chimpanzee and no longer in the supposed line leading to humans; but, it was hot stuff in 1978.]
Pg. 27 Now, if we are absolutely honest, we have to admit that we know nothing about Ramapithecus; we dont know what it looked like; we dont know what it did; and naturally, we dont know how it did it! But with the aid of jaw and tooth fragments and one or two bits and pieces from arms and legs, all of which represents a couple of dozen individuals, we can make some guesses, more or less inspired.
[Shouldnt we be asking by whom or what they are being inspired?]
Pg. 45 Because, for several reasons, the period between 8 and about 4 million years ago is a fossil void, we can only guess what our ancestors were up to then. Nevertheless, the structure of human evolution is clear: . . . [Emphasis added]
[No reasons are specified and when did a void constitute absolute proof?]
Pg. 169 During the past few million years human brains have enlarged, but they must have increased in internal complexity too. . . There can never be any direct evidence to support this statement. [Emphasis added]
[Finally a statement that we can all agree on: There can never be any direct evidence to support this statement.]
Where did life come from?
Dr. Paul Davies [staunch evolutionist] was once described by the Washington Times as the best science writer on either side of the Atlantic.
Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell. [Emphasis added]
Dr. Paul Davies, Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Macquarie University, Sydney. New Scientist 179(2403);32 12 July, 2003.
Previously, he had written:
... just as bricks alone dont make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function.
Davies, P., Life force, New Scientist 163(2204):27-30, 1999; p. 28.
What have other evolutionists said about the origin of life?
The first living cells emerged between 4 billion and 3.8 billion years ago. There is no record of the event. [Emphasis added]
Biology The Unity and Diversity of Life, Wadsworth 1992 p. 300.
Going all the way back to 1952, Dr. Richard Goldschimdt, the inventor of The Hopeful Monster Theory wrote:
Practically all orders and families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions.
Dr. Richard B. Goldschmidt, Evolution as Viewed by One Geneticist, American Scientist, January 1952, p. 97.
Today, we know that all phyla are found starting in the Cambrian [supposedly 488 to 542 supposed millions of years ago]. There are no transitions from one phylum to another phylum to be found in the ground.
Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remain unknown.
Dr. A. G. Fisher, Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, 2003 (fossil section).
Evolution is accepted by its adherents on a purely philosophical basis, not a scientific basis.
There is no scientific basis for the evolution of nonliving material into living organisms, nor for living organisms to change from one kind into another kind.
Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more - it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforth bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow - this is what evolution is. [Emphasis added]
Jesuit Priest Fr. Pierre T. de Chardin, as quoted by F. J. Ayala, Journal of Heredity 68:3-10 (1977); and, as quoted in Mankind Evolving, Theodosius Dobzhansky (Yale), March, 1962.
Physicist and information theorist, Dr. Hubert P. Yockey wrote:
Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted
What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened. One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written. [Emphasis added]
Yockey, H. P., A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology 67:377-398, 1977.
Noted science journalist, author and anthropologist Roger Lewin wrote the following two comments:
It is, in fact, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions.Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions. [Emphasis added]
Lewin, Roger. As quoted in Bones of Contention, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1987, p. 68.
The problem is that because we know the end of the story (that evolution is true), we tend to interpret earlier events as if their sole purpose was to reach that end. [Emphasis added]
Lewin, Roger. In the Age of Mankind, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books, 1988, p. 22.
Evolution is believed in by its adherents, in spite of the fact that to believe in evolution you have to have incredible faith.
Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur ... or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible. [Emphasis added]
D. M. S. Watson, Adaptation, Nature, Vol. 123, p. 233 (1929).
Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."
Sir Arthur Keith as quoted in Criswell, W.A. (1972), Did Man Just Happen?, Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, p. 73.
...there is an important difference between going to the empirical evidence to test a doubtful theory against some plausible alternative, and going to the evidence to look for confirmation of the only theory that one is willing to tolerate. [Emphasis added]
Johnson, Phillip. Darwin on Trial, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991, p. 28.
The late Canadian entomologist William R. Thompson, FRS, was asked by J. M. Dent & Sons to write the Introduction to its 1967 Everymans Library edition of Darwins Origin of Species.
Darwin considered that the doctrine of the Origin of living forms by descent with modification, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory unless the causes at work were correctly identified, so his theory of modification by natural selection was, for him, of absolutely major importance. Since he had at the time the Origin was published no body of experimental evidence to support his theory, he fell back on speculative arguments. ... Personal convictions, simple possibilities, are presented as if they were proofs, or at least valid arguments in favour of the theory. ... It is without scientific value, since it cannot be verified; but since the imagination has free rein, it is easy to convey the impression that a concrete example of real transmutation has been given. ... This was certainly a major reason for the success of the Origin. Another is the elusive character of the Darwinian argument. Every characteristic of organisms is maintained in existence because it has survival value. But this value relates to the struggle for existence. Therefore we are not obliged to commit ourselves in regard to the meaning of differences between individuals or species since the possessor of a particular modification may be, in the race for life, moving up or falling behind. On the other hand, we can commit ourselves if we like, since it is impossible to disprove our statement. The plausibility of the argument eliminates the need for proof and its very nature gives it a kind of immunity to disproof. Darwin did not show in the Origin that species had originated by natural selection; he merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others. [Emphasis added]
Thompson, W. R., Introduction, in Darwin, C. R., The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Sixth Edition, 1872, Everymans Library, J. M. Dent & Sons: London, 1967, reprint, p. xi.
Evolutionary philosophy is accepted dogmatically by religious faith!
...One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task [i.e., of explaining how life began by chance, editor] to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are - as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. [Emphasis added]
George Wald, Scientific American, vol. 191, August 1954, p. 46.
When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance! [Emphasis added]
George Wald, (Harvard University evolutionary biochemist and Nobel Laureate), The Origin of Life, Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954.
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.
Matthews, L. H. Introduction to the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species"
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 with it. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all ... If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? ... 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. [Emphasis added]
H. S. Lipson, FRS, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, A Physicist Looks at Evolution. Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, May 1980, p. 138.
It results from this explanation that the theory of evolution is not exact ... Evolution is a kind of dogma which its own priests no longer believe, but which they uphold for the people. It is necessary to have the courage to state this if only so that men of a future generation may orient their research into a different direction. [Emphasis added]
Paul Lemoine, Director of the National Museum of Natural History; editor, French Encyclopedia, Societe de Gestion de LEncyclopedie Francaise, Volume 5, circa 1957.
I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which its been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has. [Emphasis added] Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980, p. 43
Sir Dr. Karl Popper was one of the most influential philosophers of science in the 20th century. He was known for repudiating the classical observationalist account of the scientific method and advancing empirical falsification in its place. He wrote: Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.
Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission wrote:
Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact. [Tahmisian called it] a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling. [Emphasis added]
Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B.
I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar Darwinian vocabulary - adaptation, selection pressure, natural selection, etc. - thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events. They do not ... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. [Emphasis added]
Soren Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, New York: Croom Helm, 1987, p. 422.
Consensus is not the same as truth. Consensus is not data, and it is not the same as a scientific fact!
Michael Crichton, the novelist and science fiction writer of Jurassic Park fame, and I disagree adamantly about many things. He did, however, have an appreciation for the importance of dissenting views within the scientific community and was a keen observer of how some in the scientific community use rhetoric to quash minority scientific viewpoints. He wrote:
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels;it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because youre being had.
Lets be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If its consensus, it isnt science. If its science, it isnt consensus. Period. ...
I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. [Emphasis added]
Michael Crichton, Aliens Cause Global Warming, reprinted in Wall Street Journal, November 7, 2008.
The acceptance of evolution is in order to promote a religious agenda!
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion - a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint - and Mr. Gish [Dr. Duane Gish] is but one of many to make it - the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. [Emphasis added]
Dr. Michael Ruse, professor of philosophy and zoology at the Florida State University
The concept of evolution was soon extended into other than biological fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life-history of stars and the formation of the chemical elements on the one hand, and on the other hand subjects like linguistics, social anthropology, and comparative law and religion, began to be studied from an evolutionary angle, until today we are enabled to see evolution as a universal and all-pervading process. [Emphasis added]
Julian Huxley, Evolution and Genetics, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1955.
It is essential for UNESCO to adopt an evolutionary approach . . . the general philosophy of UNESCO should, it seems, be a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background. . . . Thus the struggle for existence that underlies natural selection is increasingly replaced by conscious selection, a struggle between ideas and values in consciousness. [Emphasis added]
Sir Julian Huxley, UNESCO Its Purpose and Its Philosophy (1946).
Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life. [Emphasis added]
Huxley, Julian Introduction in Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin, New York, Mentor Books 1958 479 p. 409.
The myth is to the savage what, to a fully believing Christian,is the biblical story of Creation, of the Fall, of the Redemption by Christs Sacrifice on the Cross. [Emphasis added]
Malinowski, Bronislaw Magic, Science and Religion and other Essays. Boston, The FreePress, 1948, p. 78.
Mans worldview today is dominated by the knowledge that the universe, the stars, the earth and all living things have evolved through a long history that was not foreordained or programmed. [Emphasis added]
Ernst Mayer, Evolution, Scientific American 239 (Sept. 1978): 47.
I am taking a new look at the Darwinian revolution of 1859, perhaps the most fundamental of all intellectual revolutions in the history of mankind. It not only eliminated mans anthropocentrism, but affected every metaphysical and ethical concept, if consistently applied. [Emphasis added]
Ernst Mayer, The Nature of the Darwinian Revolution, Science 176 (June 2, 1972): 981.
Darwinism is promoted by some of the largest scientific institutions, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS USA). They shove the naturalistic agenda down the throats of people and call it science.
The NAS USA declares: The meaning of science must involve only natural things and processes.
I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that 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 metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves... For myself... the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation... sexual... [and] political. [Emphasis added]
Aldous Huxley (author of Brave New World), Ends and Means, 1937, p. 273.
Their acceptance of evolution as religion is a total commitment!
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 [evolutionary 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 an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. [Italics in the original] [Emphasis added]
Richard Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 31.
Dr. Will Provine, Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell Univ., teacher of evolution wrote:
There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. Thats the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.
belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.
There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either. [Emphasis added]
Provine, W. B., Origins Research 16(1):9, 1994.
The Religion of Evolution is at war with the Religion of Christianity!
The conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution ... Nay the two laws are at war with each other ... [Emphasis added]
Keith, Sir Arthur. Evolution and Ethics (New York, NY: G.P. Putnams Sons), 1947, p. 72.
No one understood this better that Richard Bozarth writing in the American Atheist.
These creation-science textbooks, if allowed in our schools, can only serve to increase that mental anguish by teaching that the Genesis gibberish is a legitimate scientific theory.
Christianity is - must be! totally committed to the special creation as described in Genesis, and Christianity must fight with its full might, fair or foul against the theory of evolution. [Emphasis added]
G. Richard Bozarth, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 19
Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.
Atheism is the philosophy, both moral and ethical, most perfectly suited for a scientific civilization. If we work for the American Atheists today, Atheism will be ready to fill the void of Christianitys demise when science and evolution triumph. Without a doubt, humans and civilization are in sore need of the intellectual cleanness and mental health of Atheism.
The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity.
It becomes clear now that the whole justification of Jesus life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adams fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None. [Emphasis added]
G. Richard Bozarth, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30
The war is being fought vigorously in the school classroom.
I am convinced that the battle for humankinds future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These [sic] teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level - preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new - the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism. [Emphasis added]
John Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, Humanist, Jan.-Feb. 1983, p. 26
Sherwood Taylor, Curator of the Museum of the History of Science, Oxford, said:
In England it was geology and the theory of evolution that changed us from a Christian to a pagan nation. [Emphasis added]
Taylor, F.S., Geology changes the outlook; in: Ideas and Beliefs of the Victorians, Sylvan Press Ltd, London, p. 195, (one of a series of talks broadcast on BBC radio), 1949.
Christians have been and always will be at war with evolution!
Throughout the 2,000 years of the Churches existence Christians have fought the atheist evolutionary worldview. The Apostle Paul fought it in Romans 1:16-32, and Acts 17:16-34. The Apostle Peter fought it 2 Peter 3:3-7. Martin Luther fought at the time of the Reformation:
I would advise no one to send his child where the Holy Scriptures are not supreme. Every institution that does not unceasingly pursue the study of Gods word becomes corrupt. Because of this we can see what kind of people they become in the universities and what they are like now. Nobody is to blame for this except the pope, the bishops, and the prelates, who are all charged with training young people. The universities only ought to turn out men who are experts in the Holy Scriptures, men who can become bishops and priests, and stand in the front line against heretics, the devil, and all the world. But where do you find that? I greatly fear that the universities, unless they teach the Holy Scriptures diligently and impress them on the young students, are wide gates to hell. [Emphasis added]
Martin Luther, To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate, 1520, trans. Charles M. Jacobs, rev. James Atkinson, The Christian in Society, I (Luthers Works, ed. James Atkinson, vol. 44), p. 207 (196 6)
More recently the great C. S. Lewis wrote:
There are all sorts of different reasons for believing in God, and here I will mention only one. It is this. Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen for physical or chemical reasons to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It is like upsetting a milk-jug and hoping that the way the splash arranges itself will give you a map of London. But if I cannot trust my own thinking, of course I cannot trust the arguments leading to atheism and therefore the reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought or anything else: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God. [Emphasis added]
Lewis, C. S. The Case for Christianity. Macmillan. New York: New York. 1943.
So, then, how are we to live our lives? Mark 12:28-31
One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, What commandment is the foremost of all? Jesus answered, The foremost is, HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH. The second is this, YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. There is no other commandment greater than these.
The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative.