here are some things to think on
DO ALL SCIENTISTS BELIEVE EVOLUTION?
While many scientists for one reason or other accept evolution, what of others who seriously question it or reject it altogether? To young
evolutionists it comes as a shock to learn that: (1) many evolutionists admit grave defects in the theory; (2) many supporters of evolution admit
the theory cannot be proved; (3) many scientists stand firmly against the theory. What, exactly, have some prominent men of science had to say
about evolution?
FROM THE FIELD OF BIOLOGY
Dr. Relis Brown admits: �The piecing together of the evolution story is comparable to the reconstruction of an atom-bombed metropolitan telephone
exchange by a child who has only seen a few telephone receivers.�1 Dr. G.K. Hebbert, British lepidopterist, says: �The evidence of fossils
very definitely favors creation and not the evolution theory. The evolution theory bristles with anatomical and biochemical differences.�2
Dr. Austin Clark of the United States National Museum, says:
�There is not the slightest evidence that any of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex, related, more or less
closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation.�3
Dr. Kenneth Cooper of the University of Rochester says: �As is so often the case of writings of our modern evolutionists, natural selection as a
cause is deduced from effect, and the resulting arguments and conclusions are, of course, unconvincing.�4 Dr. Albert Fleishmann of Erlangen
University observes: �The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It
can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts.�5 Dr. Ambrose Fleming, past
president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, plainly stated: �Evolution is baseless and quite incredible.�6 Drummond,
the great English scientist, confessed: �I can live no longer on uncertainties. I am going back to my faith in the word of God.�7 Dr. Harold
Blum in his work, Time�s Arrow and Evolution, stated: �The riddle seems to be: How, when no life existed, did substances come into being
which today are absolutely essential to living systems yet which can only be formed by those systems?�8 Dr. H.J. Fuller of the University of
Illinois says: �The evidence of those who would explain life�s origin on the basis of the accidental combination of suitable chemical elements is
no more tangible than that of those people who place their faith in Divine Creation as the explanation of the development of life. Obviously, the
latter have as much justification for their belief as do the former.�9
FROM THE FIELDS OF GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY
Dr. Theodore Schwarze boldly states: �The doctrine of evolution would be an insult to anyone�s intelligence.�10 British paleontologist Dr.
L.M. Davies says: �The most extraordinary nonsense is sometimes talked in support of evolution...it has been estimated that no fewer than
800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as �Let us assume� or �We may well suppose,� etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin�s
Origin of Species alone...It was Darwin�s habit of confusing the provable with the unprovable which constituted to my mind his unforgivable
offense against science.�11 Dr. J.W. Dawson, Canadian geologist, says: �The evolution doctrine itself is one of the strangest phenomena of
humanity. It is a system destitute of any shadow of proof, and supported merely by vague analogies and figures of speech and by the arbitrary
and artificial coherence of its parts.�12 Dr. N.S. Shaler of Harvard University says: �It begins to be quite evident that the Darwinian hypothesis
is still essentially unverified...It is not yet proven that a single species of the two or three million now inhabiting the earth has been established
solely or mainly by the operation of natural selection.�13 Dr. H.W. Conn states: �Nothing has been positively proved as to the question at issue.
From its very nature, evolution is beyond proof.�14 Dr. Paul Lemoine, French geologist who once supported the evolution theory, declared:
�The theory of evolution is impossible.�15
FROM THE FIELDS OF PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY
Dr. R.E.D. Clark points out: �It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that if in past ages complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler
ones, the progress the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous.
For this reason the doctrine of evolution can never legitimately form a part of naturalistic philosophy...�16 Dr. Edmund Whittaker of the University
of Edinburgh notes: �Modern physical theory has to adapt itself to the concept of creation.�17 Whittaker�s conclusion, as has been felt
by many physicists and chemists, is based on studies of the laws of thermodynamics which will be discussed in a later chapter. British scientist
John Tyndall writes: �There ought to be a clear distinction between science in a state of hypothesis and science in a state of fact; and inasmuch
as it is still in its hypothetical stage, the ban of exclusion ought to fall upon the theory of evolution. I agree with Virchow that the proofs of it
are still wanting, that the failures have been lamentable, and that the doctrine has been utterly discredited.�18
FROM THE FIELD OF MEDICINE
Dr. Ferenco Kiss, Dean of the Medical Faculty, University of Budapest, says: �All the European teachers know the theory of evolution, but they
have never made it a foundation for teaching or research. We also understand why it is necessary for the evolutionists, in order to maintain their
theory, to collect similarities and to neglect the numerous differences.�19
Dr. McNair Wilson, former editor of the Oxford Medical Publications, states: �Increase of knowledge about biology has tended to emphasize
the extreme rigidity of type, and, more and more to discount the idea of transmutation from one type to another - the essential basis of Darwinism.�
20 Again from Dr. Wilson: �Modern medicine and surgery are founded on the truth enunciated by Pasteur, that life proceeds only from
life and only from life of the same kind and type.�21 Dr. Malcolm Dixon, Biochemist of the University of Cambridge, points out: �All life depends
on enzymes. Enzymes are proteins. Proteins are made only from enzymes, and it is extremely difficult to see how they could be formed
in any other way. If then enzymes are made only by enzymes, how did the first enzyme appear? I have stated this rather crudely, but it is a real
difficulty, and there are others which are more formidable.�22 And last, from the German pathologist, Dr. Rudolf Virchow: �It is all nonsense.
It cannot be proved by science that man descended from the ape or any other animal. Since the announcement of the theory, all real scientific
knowledge has proceeded in the opposite direction.�23
used with permission from the author
Last edited by headhunter130; 05/31/13.
