Webster defines “religion” as “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”.
THAT DEFINITION FITS EVOLUTION.
Renown Canadian science philosopher Dr. Michael Ruse made astonishing admissions about the religious nature of evolution at a symposium titled ‘The New Antievolutionism’ (during the 1993 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.)
These statements shocked his colleagues.
Ruse said this (emphasis added):
‘at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things, come what may.’He went on to defend this unprovable assumption by the fact that, in his view, it works.
Nevertheless, said Ruse,
‘evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically.’
EVOLUTION, BY THE ADMISSION OF SCIENCE ITSELF, IS NOT PROVEN, MERELY STANDS AS A CONTESTABLE THEORY.
WHAT IS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?
WHAT IT IS NOT IS SCIENTIFIC PROOF, FOR ABSOLUTE SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF ANY "THEORY" HAS NOT YET BEEN POSSIBLE.
Does science necessarily prove anything, the way mathematics proves a proposition?
Science is a way to formulate assumptions, observe, and infer from assumptions what is likely... MERELY "LIKELY"!
Berkeley's website tells us:
"Science is an ongoing process, and there is much more yet to learn about the world. In fact, in science, making a key discovery often leads to many new questions ripe for investigation. Furthermore, scientists are constantly elaborating, refining, and revising established scientific ideas based on new evidence and perspectives."
Nothing can prove something definitely (including this statement)... so people accept it and go with the amount of certainty that can be given.
'PSYCHOLOGY TODAY' WROTE:
"Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.
Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists.
The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.
All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science."
ARE YOU SURPRISED THAT "SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" IS NOT "SCIENTIFIC PROOF"?
In terms of science, quantum theory supposes that all things, even reality itself is based in probability, and natural processes such as gravity have the slight probability of completely changing.
One day we may wake up and be gravitated towards the ground but according to quantum theory, one day we may wake up to find that gravity no longer exists.
Everything thus becomes PROBABILITY and it is only our human desire for concrete understandings and ordering our world that we perceive things as undisputed fact.
The paradigm of education is the more we learn, the less we know which, in the case of science, is quite evident."
AS TO EVOLUTION, DARWIN WAS NEVER ABLE TO SHOW THE EVOLUTION FROM ONE KIND TO ANOTHER KIND.
HE NEVER EVEN PROVED THAT AN APE BECAME A HUMAN BEING.
HE NEVER PROVED THAT A FISH BECAME ANYTHING BUT A FISH.
HE SHOWED BIRDS, FINCHES, WITH DIFFERENT BEAKS AND SAID THAT WAS "EVOLUTION", WHEN ALL IT REALLY WAS WAS BIRDS WITH DIFFERENT BEAKS.
AS WE'VE SEEN OF LATE, THE "FOSSIL RECORD" HAS HAD TO BE REVISED MANY TIMES OVER AS "SCIENCE" FINDS NEW "EVIDENCE" THAT WHAT WAS ASSUMED CORRECT JUST LAST YEAR IS NOW FALSE.
STILL, AFTER ALL THIS TIME, NO ONE, WHEN CORNERED, CAN SHOW PROOF OF A CHANGE OF KINDS, AS THE FOLLOWING VIDEO SHOWS.
"Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong… The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science.”
[SOURCE: (I L Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong – A Study in Probabilities PO Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc. pp 6-8, 209-210, 214-215. I.L.Cohen, Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America).]
"For example, we now know that the simplest life form is far more complex than ANYTHING humans have ever made.
It is far more reasonable to claim that a space shuttle can randomly assemble and launch itself than to claim that a simple life form can arise spontaneously from random chemical interactions.
THE EVOLUTIONISTS IN THEIR OWN WORDS...
Many famous evolutionists have calculated the odds of a cell or even just the proteins in a cell randomly assembling.
These odds (again calculated by evolutionists themselves) so discredit the theory that they typically are not mentioned in discussions of the topic.
The famous atheistic astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle calculated the odds of even just the proteins of an amoeba arising by chance at one in 1040,000, i.e., one followed by 40,000 zeroes (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 130).
Harold Morowitz, former professor of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry at Yale University, calculated the odds that a simple, single-celled organism might randomly assemble itself from pre-existing building blocks as one in 10100,000,000,000, i.e., one followed by 100 billion zeroes (Morowitz, 1968, p. 98).
Carl Sagan and other famous evolutionists (including Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA) have come to similar conclusions (Sagan, et al., 1973, pp. 45-46).
Calculations such as these were the basis of Sir Fred Hoyle’s famous quote that the probability of spontaneous generation “is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein” (Hoyle, 1981, 294:105). Hoyle went on to say that he was at a loss to understand “biologists’ widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious” (294:105).
A computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly.
What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places?
Never in eternity!
Time does not make impossible things possible.
INDUCTIVE REASONING FAILS
"Induction fails in all 3 counts pointed out.
(1) It is not a method that insures objectivity and avoids preconceptions, (2) it is not a method to reach universal truths, and (3) it is not a good description of the process by which scientists formulate hypotheses and other forms of scientific knowledge.
It follows from this reasoning that it is possible to show the falsity of a universal statement concerning the empirical world; but it is never possible to demonstrate conclusively its truth.
This asymmetry between verification and falsification is recognized in the statistical methodology of testing hypotheses.
The hypothesis subject to test, the null hypothesis, may be rejected if the observations are inconsistent with it.
If the observations are consistent with the predictions derived from the hypothesis, the proper conclusion is that the test has failed to falsify the null hypothesis, not that its truth has been established.
Accordingly, scientific theories are never established as definitive truths.
As Claude Bernard stated, theories “represent only the current state of our understanding and are bound to be modified by the growth of science”
"Does the Theory of Evolution pass muster according to the Scientific Method?"
NO, NOT EVEN CLOSE!
In the scientific method, there are 4 different steps you must take to prove your theory.
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
Evolution Theory has only reached Step #2.
This means that from observations that were made (Step #1), the formulation of a hypotheses was made to explain how we got here.
It is at this step that we stall because the hypothesis for the observations does not pass scrutiny. As more is learned by observation, the hypothesis can be refined.
We therefore have a continual process of going from Step #1 to Step #2 and back again."
NO, EVOLUTION IS A STATE RELIGION, A STATE-SPONSORED BELIEF SYSTEM, A FAITH.
AND THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS THE STATE FROM PROMOTING ANY RELIGION.
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
THE END, SHORT, SWEET, VERY PLAIN, NO NEED FOR INTERPRETATION.
CONGRESS CANNOT MAKE LAWS ESTABLISHING A STATE RELIGION....BUT CONGRESS HAS!
THE SUPREME COURT, WHICH WAS NEVER MEANT TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION OR CHANGE LAWS, HAS ALSO HELPED ESTABLISH EVOLUTIONISM AS THE STATE RELIGION!
IT'S CALLED "EVOLUTION" AND IT IS TAUGHT IN STATE INSTITUTIONS, GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS, EVERYWHERE, OFTEN TO PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WISH TO BE TAUGHT THIS STATE-SPONSORED BELIEF SYSTEM.
"The founders insisted on FREEDOM OF RELIGION, not the favoring of one denomination over the other."
EVOLUTION IS BASED 100% ON THEORY, ON UNPROVEN THEORY, ON A THEORY THAT IS NOT EVEN SCIENTIFIC IN ITS PROCESS, THAT IS, IT CANNOT BE DUPLICATED/REPRODUCED.
AS WE SAW ABOVE, DARWIN'S THEORY CANNOT EVEN BE BROUGHT TO STEP 3 OF THE 4 STEPS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD!
NO CONNECTING LINKS
"Although there is ample evidence for many species, fossil records provide almost no evidence for the intermediate connecting links.
The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species.
There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred.
Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process.
But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed."
BUT SCIENCE, REAL SCIENCE ADMITS THIS!
In fact, it is impossible for science to prove anything, because science is based on experiments and observations, both of which can be flawed.
Often, those flaws don’t become apparent to the scientific community for quite some time.
Flawed experiments and observations, of course, lead to flawed conclusions, so even the most secure scientific statements have never been proven. There might be gobs and gobs of evidence for them, but they have not been proven.
Indeed, the journal Science seemed to forget this fact for a moment, but an astute reader chastised the editor, who admitted he was wrong.
The reader’s name is Charles L. Bennett, and he wrote a letter to the editor saying:
The title of the 6 May News of the Week story “At long last, Gravity Probe B satellite proves Einstein right” (p. 649) made me cringe. I find myself frequently repeating to students and the public that science doesn’t “prove” theories. Scientific measurements can only disprove theories or be consistent with them. Any theory that is consistent with measurements could be disproved by a future measurement. I wouldn’t have expected Science magazine, of all places, to say a theory was “proved.”Dr. Bennett is correct, of course. The editor, Colin Norman, admitted that in his response, which appeared right under the letter:
Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it.Unfortunately, as long as science magazines and teachers are sloppy enough to keep using phrases like, “science has proven,” it will be hard to teach children the truth.
In summary, then, you become “sure enough” about a theory when it can be used to predict AND REPRODUCE a wide range of data.
However, even then, you are only “sure enough” about the theory in the range over which those data test the theory.
THAT'S CALLED FAITH, FAITH, SOMETHING ACCEPTED ON FAITH...JUST LIKE CHRISTIANITY!
CAN ANYONE REPRODUCE EVEN A MILLION YEARS OF "EVOLUTION"?
HAS SCIENCE FOUND A WAY TO GO BACK IN TIME AND SHOW US EXACTLY WHEN OR HOW THE "FOSSIL RECORD" WITH ALL ITS "MISSING LINKS" WAS LAID DOWN?
ARE THERE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS, VIDEO OF PREHISTORIC LIFE FORMS WHEN THEY WERE ALIVE?
WERE ANY SCIENTISTS AROUND TO OBSERVE THE FIRST ONE-CELLED BEING?
NO AND NO.
CAN WE OBSERVE JUST ONE INSTANCE OF A SPECIFIC KIND OF LIFE BECOMING ANOTHER NEW KIND OF LIFE ?
IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE FOSSIL RECORD TO PROVE THIS HAPPENED, THAT SHOWS THE SLOW TRANSITION OF ONE KIND INTO ANOTHER KIND?
BACTERIA DISCOVERED IN "FOSSILS" THAT WE ARE TOLD ARE MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD STILL EXIST AS EXACTLY THAT, BACTERIA, TODAY, NOW, MILLIONS OF YEARS LATER.
THE SAME IDENTICAL BACTERIA.
INSECTS WE SEE TODAY, WE CAN SEE IN "FOSSILS" OF MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO, AND FISH, AND PLANTS....
NO, FROGS HAVE NOT BECOME MICE.
NO, NOT ONE AMOEBA HAS BECOME EVEN A WORM OR A SNAIL.
THE THEORY IS UNPROVEN, YET IT IS INDEED OUR NEW MANDATORY, FORCED RELIGION, A FORCED BELIEF SYSTEM BASED PURELY ON FAITH...FAITH IN "DARWIN'S THEORY".
IF IT IS FAITH-BASED, AND IT IS, IT CAN AND MUST BE CLASSIFIED AS A RELIGIOUS BELIEF, WITH DARWIN AS ITS "god" APPARENT.
"Our GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED, PUBLIC SCHOOLS teach evolution with ALL THE FERVOR OF A RELIGION, DEMANDING ITS ACCEPTANCE, at taxpayer expense, ignoring alternatives.
Textbook writers often repeat information known to be false, in the name of good evolution teaching.
Teacher unions aggressively combat other views while defending teachers who abuse students of different faiths than evolution.
Our courts declare other origins views off-limits, branding them religion BECAUSE THEY ARE BASED ON THE SAME FAITH THAT DARWIN'S THEORY DEMANDS.
Scientists have even redefined the goal of science.
No longer is it "the search for truth," it has become the search for naturalistic explanations. Self-serving civil libertarians promise a bitter lawsuit against any who would return to the views of the founders.
How could we have come so far?
HOW HAVE WE COME TO ALLOW OUR GOVERNMENT TO FORCE ITS CHOSEN RELIGION, THE RELIGION OF ATHEISTS, HUMANISTS, NATURALISTS UPON US ALL WITHOUT A FIGHT?
"The state-supported church of atheistic evolutionism has been almost fully established in this country.
I, for one, support the "disestablishment" of this false, unscientific, and harmful church.
I do not favor establishing any Christian creed as the State Church, but it should be allowed to function without government "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." An objective scientist obtains and considers all available evidence.
The demonstrated desire of evolutionists to suppress or ignore evidence that contradicts an atheistic worldview provides yet another example of how evolution is religion, not science. This suppression is not isolated, and is obvious in most high school and college level biology textbooks.
True science is the enemy of the atheist and evolutionist.
A quote from 'The Humanist' provides a great deal of insight.
I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s 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 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 new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all of its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism (Dunphy, 1983, 43:26).Many parents would rebel against a public school system that overtly stated a goal of indoctrinating their children with humanism.
But in schools where the humanist agenda is being pushed, more subtle means are used.
Since evolution is taught under the guise of science, it has become a very useful tool for promoting humanism and other forms of atheism.
Although evolutionists may profess to be wise, the UNSCIENTIFIC THEORY of evolution is nothing more than a fundamental tenet of atheistic religion.
It has nothing to do with true science.
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, by any accounting one of the world's top evolutionists today, has recently called evolution "positively anti-knowledge", saying that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth".
EVOLUTION IS THE NEW AMERICAN RELIGION FOISTED ON THE POPULACE BY A GOVERNMENT CAVED-IN TO A VERY SMALL MINORITY OF HUMANISTS/ATHEISTS WHO ARE PUSHING THEIR RELIGION INTO PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES, FORCING ITS ACCEPTANCE BY ALL.
FEEL FREE TO EMBRACE THIS NEW RELIGION.
AND I WILL FEEL FREE TO CALL IT WHAT IT IS...THE STATE-SPONSORED, UNCONSTITUTIONAL PREFERRED FAITH OF THE HUMANIST-NATURALIST-ATHEIST COMMUNITY, A PREFERRED BELIEF SYSTEM, A "NEW RELIGION" AND ONE BEING FORCED UPON US ALL.
THOSE WHO HAVE SANCTIONED THIS ARE TRAITORS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND SHOULD BE PROSECUTED AS SUCH.
EVOLUTION IS NOT A SCIENCE, IT IS A MAN'S THEORY, A MAN WHO MADE MANY SCIENTIFIC MISTAKES IN EVEN PRESENTING IT.
IT IS NOT EVEN GOOD SCIENCE.
IT DOES NOT FIT THE DEFINITION OF A SCIENCE.
THE DEFINITION OF RELIGION, AS DEFINED BY WEBSTER, FITS IT PERFECTLY, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT WAS IN THE BEGINNING, AN OFFSHOOT OF AN ATHEIST'S DREAMS AND IMAGININGS, A WORLDVIEW, A BELIEF SYSTEM HELD BY DARWIN'S FATHER AND GRANDFATHER, PASSED ONTO HIM, AND THAT IS WHAT IT STILL IS TODAY.
EVOLUTION NEEDS TO BE RECLASSIFIED ...IT IS A RELIGIOUS BELIEF, BASED ON FAITH...AND IF IT IS TO BE FORCEFULLY TAUGHT, BY LAW, IN OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM, SO MUST CREATIONISM ALSO BE FORCEFULLY TAUGHT... BY LAW.
"Darwinian Evolution cannot be observed and replicated in order to be scientifically validated, and there is not one single known case of a change of kinds."
RELIGION BY ANY OTHER NAME IS RELIGION, AFTER ALL.
Giant dinosaurs literally exploded onto the scene during the Triassic period.
The fossil record (e.g., petrified bones found in the ground as at the Dinosaur National Park in Jensen, Utah, USA) shows no intermediate or transitional species.
Where are the millions of years of fossils showing the transitional forms for dinosaurs?
They do not not exist.
Books published by evolutionists have shown the giant Cetiosaurus dinosaur with the long neck extending upright eating from the treetops. They claimed natural selection was the reason Cetiosaurus had a long neck. This gave them an advantage in reaching fodder that other species could not reach.
One day during the assembly of a skeleton for a museum display someone noticed the neck vertebrae were such that the neck could not be lifted higher than stretched horizontally in front of them. The natural selection theory was proven to be a big lie.
The long neck actually placed the Cetiosaurus at a disadvantage in his environment, just the opposite from the natural Theory of Natural Selection.
Evolutionists will now claim the animal evolved a long neck because he had the advantage of eating from bushes on the other side of the river.
This is typical logic of an evolutionist.
Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his "Theory of Evolution."
Well, these transitional links have never been found.
We only find individual species.
The missing links are not being discovered, which proves they never existed.
Darwin assumed transitional forms would be discovered in the fossil record over time, but that has not been the case. The fossil record, or lack thereof, is a major embarrassment to evolutionists.
The fossil record is a serious rebuke of the Theory of Evolution. New species explode onto the scene out of nowhere. New fossil discoveries continue to prove evolution to be wrong.
Evolution is in trouble.
The growth of biological knowledge is producing scientific facts that contradict the evolutionary theory, not confirm it, a fact that the famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology."
The Coelacanth fish was touted to be a transitional form with half-formed legs and primitive lungs, ready to transition onto land. This myth was exploded in December, 1938 when a live Coelacanth was caught in a fisherman's net off the eastern coast of South Africa. It is now known that the natives of the Comoro Islands had been catching and eating the fish for years.
It did not have half-formed legs or primitive lungs. It was simply a regular fish that people thought was extinct. Evolutionist claimed the 350 million-year-old Coelacanth evolved into animals with legs, feet, and lungs.
This not the case. We now see that the fish recently caught is exactly like the 350 million-year-old fossil. It did not evolve at all.
The Coelacanth is a star witness against the false theory of evolution.
After 350 million years, the fish still doesn't have a leg to stand on.
AND...FROM "Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution"
LIKE I SAID, EVOLUTION IS A FAITH, A RELIGION, AND MUST BE RECLASSIFIED AS SUCH.
- Evolution has never been observed.
“Change in a gene pool over time” means exactly that (i.e., genetic variation, which is often called “micro-evolution”), or whether he means “macro-evolution”—which is something entirely different. The postulation of “macro-evolution” (i.e., the emergence of entirely new and more “advanced” features through innumerable, completely new genetically-defined traits) is not to be confused with genetic variation (i.e., “micro-evolution”), which is the appearance and/or disappearance of existing and/or potential genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code. Proponents of evolutionism often fail to note the important difference between these two, simply calling them both “evolution,” and thereby deliberately blurring the distinction between them.
Again, adaptive (and even non-adaptive) variations abound in the natural world, but they are not the genuine gene pool changes (i.e., additions of unequivocally new and meaningful genetic information) required by true evolutionary theory.
- Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
“The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.” Anyone familiar with the 2nd law will recognize that statement as commonly used in defining the 2nd law as it pertains to Classical Thermodynamics.
The vital point to be grasped here is that the presence of a system (whether organizational or mechanical) hardly guarantees continuous enhancement, but more realistically is subject to continual degradation, if it is not kept to the pre-determined standard defined in its original design. Evolutionistic thinking often ignores this principle, despite the fact that it is a profoundly and empirically established scientific fact.
It should be clear that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does indeed require that a natural process or system, left to itself, increases in entropy, or randomness, and therefore decreases in order, and—as Asimov put it—“deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself.”
Please don’t let the fact escape your notice that Asimov applies this law to “the universe” which pretty much assures us that its application is ... universal (applying to all processes and systems).
- There are no transitional fossils.
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, AN EVOLUTIONIST, in his 'Macroevolution: Pattern and Process'. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:
"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]E. R. Leach offers no help, observing only that:
“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]"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; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 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.’” [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]And let’s not forget that Gould himself, while remaining a staunch believer in evolution, said:
“Smooth intermediates between Baupl�ne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
- The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.“Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what pre-exists, but they do so in disorder.” [Pierre-Paul Grass� (evolutionist), Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York (1977), pp. 97, 98.]“In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutation plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology.” [Arthur Koestler (evolutionist), Janus: A Summing Up, Random House, New York, 1978, pp. 184-185.][For the reader’s benefit, a tautology is equivalent to defining an idea simply by restating the same idea in different terms (=circular reasoning)]
“As a generative principle, providing the raw material for natural selection, random mutation is inadequate both in scope and theoretical grounding.” [Jeffrey S. Wicken (evolutionist), “The generation of complexity in evolution: a thermodynamic and information-theoretical discussion.” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 77, April 1979, pp. 351-352.]“Prebiotic soup is easy to obtain. We must next explain how a prebiotic soup of organic molecules, including amino acids and the organic constituents of nucleotides evolved into a self-replicating organism. While some suggestive evidence has been obtained, I must admit that attempts to reconstruct this evolutionary process are extremely tentative.” [Dr. Leslie Orgel (evolutionist) biochemist at the Salk Institute, California), “Darwinism at the very beginning of life,” New Scientist, 15 April 1982, p. 150]“However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. ...We simply wish to point out the fact that there is no scientific evidence. The physicist has learned to avoid trying to specify when time began and when matter was created, except within the framework of frank speculation. The origin of the precursor cell appears to fall into the same category of unknowables.” [Davis E. Green (evolutionist, Institute for Enzyme Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison) and Robert F. Goldberger (evolutionist), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland), Molecular Insights into the Living Processes, Academic Press, New York, 1967, pp. 406-407]“It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen is not available.” [Prof. G. A. Kerkut (evolutionist), Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, Univ. of Southampton) in Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press, London, 1960, p. 150]The highly complex and orderly structures and processes that comprise life and its functions can not even begin to be explained as having arisen from non-living matter, no matter how much primordial soup and time is involved. Knowledgeable and objective members of the scientific community don’t deny this.
- Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
- Evolutionism fails to be self-consistent
- by requiring multiple “definitions”, depending on the need of the moment
- in the varied, and contradictory camps connected with thermodynamics, phylogeny, proposed mechanisms, and various sub-theories, etc.
- Evolutionism fails to agree with observations in
- the fossil record
- molecular biology
- dozens of dating methods (both radiometric and geological/geophysical)
- probability mathematics
- Evolutionism has failed to prove useful, having produced
Lacking not only “proof,” but also any truly supportive, unequivocal “evidence,” we most certainly do not arrive at a “fact” of evolution—and there scarcely remains even a defensible scientific “theory” of evolution at all!
- no new advancements in scientific knowledge or technology
- no advancements in medicine—and actually has hindered past research because of false claims (now discarded) concerning “vestigial” organs
- no positive contribution to society through evolution-based social “sciences”—having served as a pseudo-scientific justification for racism, nazism, communism, and other societal/ideological ills.
Many evolutionists persist in defending their FAITH by perpetuating faulty logic and claiming tired, out-dated relics as “evidence”.
IT HAS ALL THE EARMARKS OF A FAITH-BASED BELIEF SYSTEM, JUST AS EVOLUTIONISTS SAY OF CREATIONISTS.