Good Creation vs Evolution quotes to use:
From: http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-23a.htm#DECLARE_EVOLUTION_
http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-23b.htm
* In front of the name
means there are known to be an evolutionist.
One
of the outstanding scientists of the 19th century said this:
" ‘Science positively demands
creation.’ "—Lord Kelvin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation,
(1988), p. 94.
There
are so many ways to disprove it.
"I can envision
observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I
know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory,"
Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).
This chapter is based on pp. 959-998 (Scientists Speak) of Other
Evidence (Volume Three of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series), and
includes nearly 150 quotations. Not included are a large number of other
statements from that chapter. You will find them on our website:
evolution-facts.org.
1 - EVOLUTIONISTS EXPLAIN
THEIR OBJECTIVE
There are reasons why evolutionists are so concerned to hold on to
a theory that has no evidence to support it, one
which has been repeatedly disproved. These are important reasons. This section
explains why these men cling so fanatically to a falsehood.
The
label on the outside of the package may say "knowledge," but inside
it is empty.
"I feel that the effect of the hypotheses of common ancestry
in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I
think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution?
It certainly has the function of knowledge but does it convey any? Well, we are
back to the question I have been putting to people, ‘Is there one thing you can
tell me about evolution?’ The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is
true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson,
Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).
"It’s true that for the last
eighteen months or so I’ve been kicking around non-evolutionary or even
antievolutionary ideas . .
"So that is my first theme: that
evolution and creation seem to be sharing remarkable parallels that are
increasingly hard to tell apart. The second theme is that evolution not only conveys no knowledge but it seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge."—*Colin
Patterson, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5,
1981).
"Science has been seriously retarded by the
study of what is not worth knowing."—*Johann
van Goethe (1749-1832), quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 257.
It
is totally useless.
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in
the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure,
Le Monde et la Vie (October 1983) [Director of
Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France].
It
is a serious obstruction to biological science, and everything must be forced
to fit it.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an
innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious
obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent
results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must
ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be
built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische
Artbildng, 1954, p. 11
It
has resulted in a scientific retreat from factual thinking.
"The doctrine of continuity [evolutionary theory] has always
necessitated a retreat from pure empiricism [facts and scientific testing], and
contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has
always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in
the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more
strictly empirical approach."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in
Crisis (1985), p. 353.
It
has produced a decline in scientific integrity.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his
influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific
integrity."—*W.R.
Thompson, Introduction to *Charles
Darwin, Origin of the Species.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat
embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins
which it could not demonstrate. After
having chided the theologian for his
reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position
of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that
what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth,
taken place in the primeval past."—*Loran Eisley,
The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199.
This
bewitching power that captivates men so that they will live and die in defense
of pointless thinking and factless theory is termed
by them a "religion."
"It is a religion
of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds over men’s minds."—*Encounter,
November 1959, p. 48.
"If complex organisms ever did evolve from
simpler ones, the process took place contrary
to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed
the miraculous."—*R.E.D.
Clark, Victoria Institute, 1943, p. 63.
"Given the facts, our existence seems quite
improbable—more miraculous, perhaps,
than the seven-day wonder of Genesis."—*Judith Hooper,
"Perfect Timing," New Age Journal, Vol. 11, December 1985, p. 18.
A
co-developer of the Piltdown Man hoax, said this:
"A Belief in Evolution is a basal [basic] doctrine in the
Rationalists’ Liturgy."—*Sir Arthur Keith, Darwinism and its Critics
(1935), p. 53.
Morality
Objective: Sexual freedom.
"I had motives for not wanting the world to
have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any
difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . .
The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively
with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no
valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do
. . For myself, as no doubt for most of my
contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument
of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a
certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of
morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered
with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a
Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June, 1966,
p. 19. [Grandson of evolutionist *Thomas Huxley and brother
of evolutionist *Julian Huxley. *Aldous Huxley was one of the most
influential writers and philosophers of the 20th century.]
Evolutionary
theory may not be the root of the tree of evil, but it lies close to it. The
root is the love of evil; evolution provides an excuse for continuing that
indulgence.
"This monkey mythology of Darwin is the
cause of permissiveness, promiscuity, pills, prophylactics, perversions,
abortions, pornography, pollution, poisoning, and proliferation of crimes of
all types."—*Braswell
Dean, 1981 statement, quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations,
p. 92 (Atlanta Judge).
"Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the
sphere of rational discussion. Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer
was needed; since natural selection could account for any new form of life,
there is no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution."—*Julian
Huxley, "At Random, A Television Preview," in Evolution after Darwin
(1960), p. 41.
"With this single argument the mystery of
the universe is explained, the deity
annulled, and a new era of infinite knowledge ushered in."—*Ernst
Haeckel, The Riddle of the Universe (1899), p. 337.
"Either
evolutionary change or miraculous divine intervention lies at the back of human
intelligence."—*S. Zuckerman, Functional Activities of Man, Monkeys and
Apes (1933), p. 155.
The
concept that the universe has no origin, no plan, and no norms—produces people
with no purpose, no fulfillment, and no future.
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man’s link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without
purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual
revolution in modern times . . so
profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the
universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 87
[Australian molecular biologist].
"We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to
make our behavior conform with a set of preexisting cosmic rules. It is our
creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We
create the world; and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside
forces. We no longer have to justly our
behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible
to nothing outside ourselves; for we are the kingdom, the
power, and the glory forever and ever."—*Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny
(1983), p. 244.
A
leading scientist of our time has this to say:
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."—*Ambrose
Flemming, president,
British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of
Evolutionary Thought.
Evolutionary theory is nothing more than a myth,
and concerned scientists
recognized it needs to be obliterated in order for science to progress.
*Grasse is a leading French scientist:
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution,
considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly
unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the
weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as
established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but
not always, since some people,
owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and
refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul
Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
" ‘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."—*Fresno Bee, August
20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting *T.N. Tahmisian,
physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].
"The reader . . may
be dumbfounded that so much work has settled so
few questions."—*Science,
January 22, 1965, p. 389.
*Thompson, a leading scientist, was asked to write the
introduction for a new printing of *Darwin’s Origin
of the Species. But Thompson’s Introduction proved to be a stunning attack on
evolutionary theory.
"Modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like
their predecessors and like Darwin, to water down
the facts with subsidiary hypotheses,
which, however plausible, are in the nature of things unverifiable . . and the reader is left with the
feeling that if the data do not support the theory they really ought to . .
This situation, where scientific men rally to the
defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less
demonstrate
with scientific
rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of
criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and
undesirable in science."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction,"
Origin of Species; statement reprinted in Journal of the American Affiliation,
March 1960.
Relying entirely upon the imagination to find a solution.
"How can one confidently assert that one mechanism rather
than another was at the origin of the creation of the plans of [evolutionary]
organization, if one relies entirely upon the imagination to find a solution? Our ignorance is so great that we can not even assign with any accuracy an ancestral stock to
the phyla Protozoa,
Arthropoda, Mollusca and Vertebrata . . From the almost total
absence of fossil evidence relative to the origins of the phyla, it follows
that an explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the
fundamental plans is heavily burdened with hypotheses. This should appear as an
epigraph to every book on evolution."—*Pierre P. Grasse, Evolution of
Living Organisms (1977), p. 178.
*Mora explains that all of Darwin’s theories run counter to the
facts.
"Unfortunately for Darwin’s future reputation, his life was
spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature . . It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always
be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution; and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."—*T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.
*Darwin’s theory in relation to fossils is a theory and nothing
more.
"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s
argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet
to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we
profess to study."—*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb (1882),
pp. 181-182.
*Darwin himself admitted that the evidence for evolution—which
should be found in the fossil strata—simply was not there.
"Charles Darwin, himself the father of evolution in his later days, gradually became aware of the lack of real evidence for his evolutionary
speculation and wrote: ‘As by this theory, innumerable
transitional forms must have
existed, why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the
earth? Why is not all nature in confusion
instead of being, as we see them, well-defined
species?’ "—*H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1968), p. 139.
While he was alive, *Darwin admitted it.
[In a letter written to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of
biology:] "I am quite conscious that my
speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."—*Charles Darwin,
quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1918),
p. 2 [University of Chicago book].
Haugton is quoted as having said
this to *Darwin in 1858, a year before the
publication of Origin:
"When Darwin presented a paper [with *Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton
of Dublin remarked, ‘All that was new
was false, and what was true was old.’ This, we think, will be the final
verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and *N.
Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981),
p. 159.
Haugton is also quoted as having said this to *Darwin:
[Speaking to Darwin:] "[If your theory accomplishes what you
intend,] humanity, in my mind, would suffer a
damage that might brutalize it, and
sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it
has fallen, since its written records tell us of its history."—*Ibid.
*Denton says that the evolutionary myth
has always been a problem to scientists. The "evolutionary
crisis" is nothing new.
"The overriding
supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of
evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent
biological research—paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of
genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.
"The fact is that the
evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had
increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his
theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies
to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and
evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still,
as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom
some of its more ‘aggressive advocates’ would have us believe."—*Michael
Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
Not a single fact
in nature confirms it.
" ‘The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not
the result of scientific research, but purely
the product of imagination.’ "—*Dr. Fleishmann, quoted in F. Meldau, Why We Believe in Creation, Not Evolution, p. 10
[Erlangen zoologist].
The
theory is totally inadequate.
"The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world."—*Sir Ambrose
Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1968), p. 91
[discoverer of the thermionic valve].
"The
theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived,
constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but each, in
his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the
explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from
this summary: the theory of evolution is
impossible."—*P. Lemoine,
"Introduction: De l’evolution," Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5
(1937), p. 8.
"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .
"Through use and abuse
of hidden postulates, of bold, often
ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience
has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading
astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy
of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on
for more than 40 years have completely
failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any
preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic
Speciation (1953), p. 31.
More
like medieval astrology than 20th-century science.
"Despite the fact that no convincing explanation of how random
evolutionary processes could have
resulted in such an ordered pattern of
diversity, the idea of uniform rates of evolution is presented in the
literature as if it were an empirical discovery. The hold of the evolutionary
paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a
principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth-century scientific theory has become a
reality for evolutionary biologists . . We face great,
if not insurmountable conceptual, problems in envisaging how the gaps could have been bridged in terms of gradual random
processes. We saw this in the fossil record, in the case of the avian [bird] lung, and in the case of the wing of the bat. We saw it again in the
case of the origin of life and we
see it here in this new area of comparative
biochemistry [molecular biochemistry] . . Yet in the face of this extraordinary discovery, the biological
community seems content to offer explanations which are no more than apologetic
tautologies [circular reasonings]."—*Michael Denton,
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1988), p. 308.
Just as much of a puzzle now as ever before . . Only
explainable on sociological grounds.
"All in all, evolution remains almost as much of a puzzle as
it was before Darwin advanced his thesis. Natural selection explains a small
part of what occurs: the bulk remains unexplained. Darwinism is not so much a
theory, as a sub-section of some theory as yet unformulated .
.
" ‘I for one . . am still at a loss to know why it is of selective advantage for the eels of Comacchio
to travel perilously to the Sargasso sea . .’ complains Bertalanffy.
‘I think the fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable
. . has become a dogma can only be explained
on sociological [not scientific] grounds,’ von Bertalanffy
concludes."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), pp. 232-233.
A
leading evolutionist writer says: If it does not fit in with reality, it has
nothing to do with science.
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements
that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything—or at
least they are not science."—*George
Gaylord Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of
Humanoids," in Science 143 (1964) p. 770.
"A hypothesis is empirical and scientific only if it can be tested by experience . . A hypothesis or theory which cannot be, at least in
principle, falsified by empirical
observations and experiments does not
belong to the realm of science."—*Francis J. Ayala,
"Biological Evolution: Natural Selection or Random Walk?" American
Scientist, Vol. 82, Nov.-Dec. 1974, p. 700.
It
is a theory that stands in splendid isolation from experiment and evidence.
"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to
reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment
to be correct, or remember that the theory
of animal evolution has never been thus proved."—*L.H. Matthews,
"Introduction," Origin
of the Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).
"I have always been slightly suspicious of
the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of
living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore
tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin’s theory. I do not think
that they do. To my mind, the theory
does not stand up at all."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks of
Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and
admit that the only acceptable
explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed
it is to me, but we must not reject a theory
that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A
Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.
"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a
matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being
called hypotheses."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.
It
is only a formula for classifying imaginative ideas.
"I argue that the ‘theory of evolution’ does not take
predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula
which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the
relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as
such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not
scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in
Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1
[emphasis his].
It
is a serious obstruction to biological science, because everything must be
forced to fit it.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an
innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious
obstruction
to biological
research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the
attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For
everything must ultimately be forced to fit this
theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11
"It seems that the standards of the evolutionary theorists are relative or comparative rather than absolute. If such a
theorist makes a suggestion that is
better than other suggestions, or better than nothing, he feels that
he has accomplished something even if
his suggestion will obviously not hold water. He does not
believe that he must meet any objective standards of logic, reason, or
probability."—*Norman
Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), pp. 71-78.
*Himmelfarb spent years
analyzing *Darwin’s writings.
"[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account to this fact, and
if these were not taken seriously, he could come up with a different, but
equally general, vague and conjectural set of reasons."—*Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1988), p. 319.
"[In Darwin’s writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities
then were promoted to certitudes."—*Op. cit., p. 335.