Difference between revisions of "Review:Disillusioned Evolutionists"
(username removed) |
m (1 revision) |
(No difference)
| |
Revision as of 07:57, 25 May 2014
Disillusioned Evolutionists
Evolution Says....
The Facts Are .....
“Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had finally been figured out and settled, are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They’ve discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so
fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries.” Luther D. Sunderland, “Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems” (4th ed.), Master Books: Santee (California), 1988 p:7-8
A collection of world famous evolutionists
.
(1) A conference of scientists at the Field Museum of Natural History (Chicago) in October, 1980, was convened to thrash out the issues of Darwinian evolution. The meeting considered whether the mechanisms of micro-evolution (mutation and natural selection) gradually produced enough change to cause macro-evolution. Their final analysis was "NO!". Science, Vol. 210, No. 4472, November 21, 1980 p:883-887
Sir Fred Hoyle
- world-renown British mathematician, astronomer, cosmologist, and
evolutionist; and Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe - his co-worker.
(2) The theory of Darwinian gradualistic evolution is such an anathema to Sir Fred Hoyle that he has calculated many similes based on probability. One of his analogies is that the chance that higher life forms might have evolved is comparable with the chance that a "tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein". Nature, Vol. 294, November 12, 1981 p:105
(3) "Quite a few of my astronomical friends are considerable mathematicians, and once they become interested enough to calculate [the probabilities of the Big Bang] for themselves, instead of relying on hearsay argument, they can quickly see this point." Fred Hoyle’s article "The Big Bang in Astronomy" in New Scientist, Vol. 92, No. 1280, November 19, 1981 p:527
(4) "True, the problem is not discussed openly in the main stream of biological literature, but one comes on small fragments published in obscure corners by writers who have evidently perceived the problem [that evolution is not logical or probable] and been acutely worried by it. Having made their protest against current [evolutionary] dogma, such writers seem always to have been prepared to let the matter drop, as no doubt they encountered the same kind of opposition that Chandra Wickramasinghe and I have run into." Sir Fred Hoyle & Chandra Wickramasinghe, in "Evolution from Space (The Omni Lecture): and Other Papers on the Origin of Life", Enslow Publishers: New Jersey, 1982 p:27-28
(5) "My impression is that most biologists really know in their hearts the issue [of improbability] is there, but are so appalled by its implications that they are prepared to swallow any line of thought to avoid it ..... if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterialists with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design ..... [The] problems of order, such as the sequences of amino acids in the chains ..... are precisely the problems that become easy once a directed intelligence enters the picture." Sir Fred Hoyle believes that life could not have originated on Earth and could not have originated elsewhere without some intelligence having directed it. Sir Fred Hoyle & Chandra Wickramasinghe, in "Evolution from Space (The Omni Lecture): and Other Papers on the Origin of Life", Enslow Publishers: New Jersey, 1982 p:27-28
(6) "Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so uttuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate ..... such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific." Fred Hoyle & Chandra Wickramasinghe, in "Evolution from Space", J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 1981 p:141 & 130
(7) "The speculations of "The Origin of Species" turned out to be wrong ..... the scientific facts throw Darwin out." Fred Hoyle & Chandra Wickramasinghe, in "Evolution from Space", J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 1981 p:6, 97
(8) "The evolutionary record leaks like a sieve ..... There are so many flaws in Darwinism that one can wonder why it swept so completely through the scientific world, and why it is still endemic today." A statement by Sir Fred Hoyle & Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe concerning the fallacy of gradual evolution in their book "Evolution From Space", Granada Publishing: London, 1983 p:81
(9) "..... Life cannot have had a random beginning ..... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2,000 = 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court."
Fred Hoyle & Chandra Wickramasinghe, in "Evolution from Space", J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 1981 p:148
Stephen Jay Gould
- world famous biologist & evolutionist (Harvard University).
(10) Steven Jay Gould, is an eminent evolutionist who rejects the Darwinian theory that life gradually evolved on earth. He bases his belief on his interpretation of the fossil record. Palaeobiology, 1977
(11) Stephen Jay Gould believes that humans are not evolving - not even slowly. He has stated that there is no reason to think that we are going to get bigger brains, smaller toes, or anything else. He has gone on record as saying that "we are what we are". The Washington Times, February 8, 1984
Pierre-Paul Grassé
- distinguished evolutionist, Chair of Evolution (The Sorbonne, Paris),
and past-President (French Acadamie des Sciences).
(12) "To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts." Written by Pierre-Paul Grassé in his book "Evolution of Living Organisms", Academic Press: New York, 1977 p:107
(13) "Facts must come first and theories must follow. The only verdict that matters is the one pronounced by the court as proved facts. Indeed, the best studies on evolution have been carried out by biologists who are not blinded by doctrines and who observe facts coldly without considering whether they agree or disagree with their theories. 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 of the interpretations and extrapolations that 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 the falsity of their beliefs."
Written by Pierre-Paul Grassé in his book "Evolution of Living Organisms", Academic Press: New York, 1977 p:8
Dr David Pilbeam
- evolutionist, expert palaeoanthropologist, physical anthropologist (Yale
University, USA) & (Boston Natural History Museum) .
(14) David Pilbeam, has confessed that discoveries since 1976 have shaken his view of human origins and forced him to change his idea of man's ancestry. He does not believe that he would be likely to hit upon the true story of the origin of man. He believes that our theories clearly reflect current ideologies, instead of the actual data - reflecting only what was expected of them. Human Nature, June 1978
(15) "I know that, at least in Paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data." David Pilbeam in his article "Rearranging Our Family Tree" in Human Nature, June, 1978 p:45
Søren Løvtrup
- evolutionist.
(16) Søren Løvtrup does not adhere to the commonly promulgated Darwinian theory of evolution. He maintains that the logical consequence of any form of Darwinism "requires us to surrender our common sense". He claims that Darwinism is like the emperor's new clothes in the Hans Christian Anderson tale - "nakedly false". New Scientist, October 15, 1988 p:66
(17) "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?" S. Lovtrup in
"Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth", Croom Helm: London, 1987 p:422; Quoted in New Scientist, October 15, 1988 p:66
Professor Waterhouse
- evolutionist.
(18) "Well, what does this do to uniformatarianism? I think you have to bury it. The defenders of uniformatarianism are those in love with a word, not its original meaning. It is the end of the concept, unless you want to change the definition". Prof. Waterhouse dismissing the fact that you can prove evolution from the present on the assumption that things have remained uniform since the beginning. Spoken by the professor at the inaugural lecture at the University of Queensland (Brisbane) in 1980.
L. Harrison Matthews
- evolutionist.
(19) "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". An admission of the non-scientific basis for the belief in evolution by L. Harrison Matthews in the foreword of the 1971 edition of Darwin's "The Origin of Species", J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd: London p:x Dr Geoffrey Burbridge
- evolutionist and astronomer, former president of the Astronomical
Society of the Pacific.
(20) "The fairest way to deal with the problem is not to fall back on authority (what eminent authorities believe, or don't believe) but to examine the evidence for oneself". Geoffrey Burbridge in "Quasars in the Balance", Mercury, Vol. 17, No. 5, 1988 p:140
Norman MacBeth
- retired attorney and evolutionism researcher.
(21) "Darwinism has failed in practice. The whole aim and purpose of Darwinism is to show how modern forms descended from ancient forms, that is, to construct reliable phylogenies (genealogies or family trees). In this it has utterly failed." Norman MacBeth in the article "A Third Position in the Textbook Controversy", American Biology Teacher, Vol. 38, No.8, November 1976 p:495
Jerome Lejeune
- Professor (Chair of Fundamental Genetics, University of Paris),
internationally recognised geneticist, and evolution teacher.
(22) "The neo-Darwinist is now reaching the point of dignity in the history of science that the Ptolemaic system in astronomy, the epicycle system, reached long ago. We know that it does not work." Quoted from the conference paper "The Beginning of Life", in October 1975, by Jerome Lejeune.
(23) "We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact ....." Comments made by Jerome Lejeune at a lecture in Paris on March 17, 1985. Notes are from a recording of the message.
Francisco Ayala
- evolutionist, and the world’s leading spokesman on gradualistic evolution.
(24) "The palaeontologists have convinced me small changes do not accumulate." Francisco Ayala, after the Field Museum of Natural History's Chicago conference in October, 1980. Quoted in Science, Vol. 210, No. 4472, November 21, 1980 p:883-887
Dr Gareth Nelson
- evolutionist, Chairman (Department of Herpetology and Ichthyology,
American Museum of Natural History, New York).
(25) "..... [the author] is basically correct that evidence, or proof, of origins - of the universe, of life, of all of the minor groups of life, of all of the major groups of life, indeed of all the species - is weak or nonexistent when measured on an absolute scale, as it always was and will always be." Gareth Nelson in the preface to W.R. Bird's book "The Origin of Species Revisited" (2 vols), Philosophical Library Inc: New York, 1987-89
Dr Colin Patterson
- Senior Palaeontologist (British Museum of Natural History, London), cladistics exponent.
(26) "How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling. And this is the result of thinking about cladistics because as it turns out, as it seems to me, all one can learn about the history of life is learned from systematics, from groupings one finds in nature. The rest of it is story-telling of one sort or another."
Spoken by Colin Patterson in an interview on BBC TV on March 4, 1982.
Dr Derek V. Ager
- evolutionist, geologist (Department of Geology, Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK), and former President of the British Geological Association.
(27) "We all know that many apparent evolutionary bursts are nothing more than brainstorms on the part of particular palaeontologists. One splitter in a library can do far more than millions of years of genetic mutation." Derek V. Ager in his article "The Nature of the Fossil Record" in Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, Vol. 87, No. 2, 1976 p:132