The Science of Evolution Is anything but Science
Blackshoes: Angry and Hate will never suppress the truth for long
I'm here to state the truth about how sad it is that so many in the sciences and the public accept the pseudoscience of Evolution as a fact
Blackshoes: "44 Reasons Why Evolution Is False
The theory of evolution is false. It is simply not true. Actually, it is just a fairy tale for adults based on ancient pagan religious philosophy that hundreds of millions of people around the world choose to believe with blind faith. When asked to produce evidence for the theory of evolution, most adults in the western world come up totally blank. When pressed, most people will mumble something about how “most scientists believe it” and how that is good enough for them. This kind of anti-intellectualism even runs rampant on our college campuses. If you doubt this, just go to a college campus some time and start asking students why they believe in evolution. Very few of them will actually be able to give you any real reasons why they believe it. Most of them just have blind faith in the priest class in our society (“the scientists”). But is what our priest class telling us actually true? When Charles Darwin popularized the theory of evolution, he didn’t actually have any evidence that it was true. And since then the missing evidence has still not materialized. Most Americans would be absolutely shocked to learn that most of what is taught as “truth” about evolution is actually the product of the overactive imaginations of members of the scientific community. They so badly want to believe that it is true that they will go to extraordinary lengths to defend their fairy tale. They keep insisting that the theory of evolution has been “proven” and that it is beyond debate. Meanwhile, most average people are intimidated into accepting the “truth” about evolution because they don’t want to appear to be “stupid” to everyone else.
In this day and age, it is imperative that we all learn to think for ourselves. Don’t let me tell you what to think, and don’t let anyone else tell you what to think either. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions. The following are 44 reasons why evolution is just a fairy tale for adults…
#1 If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero.
#2 When Charles Darwin came up with his theory, he admitted that no transitional forms had been found at that time, but he believed that huge numbers certainly existed and would eventually be discovered…
“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. 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?”
#3 Even some of the most famous evolutionists in the world acknowledge the complete absence of transitional fossils in the fossil record. For example, Dr. Colin Patterson, former senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History and author of “Evolution” once wrote the following…
“I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them …. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”
#4 Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University, once wrote the following about the lack of transitional forms…
“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 gradualistic accounts of evolution.”
#5 Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University has also commented on the stunning lack of transitional forms in the fossil record…
“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”
#6 If “evolution” was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs. But instead there are none.
#7 If the theory of evolution was true, we should not see a sudden explosion of fully formed complex life in the fossil record. Instead, that is precisely what we find.
#8 Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki, an evolutionist, once commented on the fact that complex life appears very suddenly in the fossil record…
“A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants –instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”
#9 The sudden appearance of complex life in the fossil record is so undeniable that even Richard Dawkins has been forced to admit it…
“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 both reject this alternative.”
#10 Nobody has ever observed macroevolution take place in the laboratory or in nature. In other words, nobody has ever observed one kind of creature turn into another kind of creature. The entire theory of evolution is based on blind faith.
#11 Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that “the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.”
#12 Even evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University has admitted that the record shows that species do not change. The following is how he put itduring a lecture at Hobart & William Smith College…
“Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. ….They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.”
#13 Anyone that believes that the theory of evolution has “scientific origins” is fooling themselves. It is actually a deeply pagan religious philosophy that can be traced back for thousands of years.
#14 Anything that we dig up that is supposedly more than 250,000 years old should have absolutely no radiocarbon in it whatsoever. But instead, we find it ineverything that we dig up – even dinosaur bones. This is clear evidence that the “millions of years” theory is simply a bunch of nonsense…
It’s long been known that radiocarbon (which should disappear in only a few tens of thousands of years at the most) keeps popping up reliably in samples (like coal, oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be ‘millions of years’ old. For instance, CMI has over the years commissioned and funded the radiocarbon testing of a number of wood samples from ‘old’ sites (e.g. with Jurassic fossils, inside Triassic sandstone, burnt by Tertiary basalt) and these were published (by then staff geologist Dr Andrew Snelling) in Creation magazine and Journal of Creation. In each case, with contamination eliminated, the result has been in the thousands of years, i.e. C-14 was present when it ‘shouldn’t have been’. These results encouraged the rest of the RATE team to investigate C-14 further, building on the literature reviews of creationist M.D. Dr Paul Giem.
In another very important paper presented at this year’s ICC, scientists from the RATE group summarized the pertinent facts and presented further experimental data. The bottom line is that virtually all biological specimens, no matter how ‘old’ they are supposed to be, show measurable C-14 levels. This effectively limits the age of all buried biota to less than (at most) 250,000 years.
#15 The odds of even a single sell “assembling itself” by chance are so low that they aren’t even worth talking about. The following is an excerpt from Jonathan Gray’s book entitled “The Forbidden Secret“…
Even the simplest cell you can conceive of would require no less than 100,000 DNA base pairs and a minimum of about 10,000 amino acids, to form the essential protein chain. Not to mention the other things that would also be necessary for the first cell.
Bear in mind that every single base pair in the DNA chain has to have the same molecular orientation (“left-hand” or “right hand”)? As well as that, virtually all the amino acids must have the opposite orientation. And every one must be without error.
“Now,” explained Larry, “to randomly obtain those correct orientations, do you know your chances? It would be 1 chance in 2110,000, or 1 chance in 1033,113!
“To put it another way, if you attempted a trillion, trillion, trillion combinations every second for 15 billion years, the odds you would achieve all the correct orientations would still only be one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion … and the trillions would continue 2755 times!
“It would be like winning more than 4700 state lotteries in a row with a single ticket purchased for each. In other words…impossible.”
#16 How did life learn to reproduce itself? This is a question that evolutionists do not have an answer for.
#17 In 2007, fishermen caught a very rare creature known as a Coelacanth. Evolutionists originally told us that this “living fossil” had gone extinct 70 million years ago. It turns out that they were only off by 70 million years.
#18 According to evolutionists, the Ancient Greenling Damselfly last showed up in the fossil record about 300 million years ago. But it still exists today. So why hasn’t it evolved at all over the time frame?
#19 Darwinists believe that the human brain developed without the assistance of any designer. This is so laughable it is amazing that there are any people out there that still believe this stuff. The truth is that the human brain is amazingly complex. The following is how a PBS documentary described the complexity of the human brain: “It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.”
#20 The following is how one evolutionist pessimistically assessed the lack of evidence for the evolution of humanity…
“Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.”
#21 Perhaps the most famous fossil in the history of the theory of evolution, “Piltdown Man”, turned out to be a giant hoax.
#22 If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and therefore life would not be possible. How can we account for this?
#23 If gravity was stronger or weaker by the slimmest of margins, then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would also make life impossible. How can we account for this?
#24 Why did evolutionist Dr. Lyall Watson make the following statement?…
“The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!”
#25 Apes and humans are very different genetically. AsDarwinConspiracy.com explains, “the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.”
#26 How can we explain the creation of new information that is required for one animal to turn into another animal? No evolutionary process has ever been shown to be able to create new biological information. One scientist described the incredible amount of new information that would be required to transform microbes into men this way…
“The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus).”
#27 Evolutionists would have us believe that there are nice, neat fossil layers with older fossils being found in the deepest layers and newer fossils being found in the newest layers. This simply is not true at all…
The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced (“younger” and “older” layers found in repeating sequences). “Out of place” fossils are the rule and not the exception throughout the fossil record.
#28 Evolutionists believe that the ancestors of birds developed hollow bones over thousands of generations so that they would eventually be light enough to fly. This makes absolutely no sense and is beyond ridiculous.
#29 If dinosaurs really are tens of millions of years old, why have scientists found dinosaur bones with soft tissue still in them? The following is from an NBC News report about one of these discoveries…
For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.
#30 Which evolved first: blood, the heart, or the blood vessels for the blood to travel through?
#31 Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?
#32 Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?
#33 Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?
#34 In order for blood to clot, more than 20 complex steps need to successfully be completed. How in the world did that process possibly evolve?
#35 DNA is so incredibly complex that it is absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have “evolved” all by itself by accident…
When it comes to storing massive amounts of information, nothing comes close to the efficiency of DNA. A single strand of DNA is thousands of times thinner than a strand of human hair. One pinhead of DNA could hold enough information to fill a stack of books stretching from the earth to the moon 500 times.
Although DNA is wound into tight coils, your cells can quickly access, copy, and translate the information stored in DNA. DNA even has a built-in proofreader and spell-checker that ensure precise copying. Only about one mistake slips through for every 10 billion nucleotides that are copied.
#36 Can you solve the following riddle by Perry Marshall?…
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.
#37 Evolutionists simply cannot explain why our planet is so perfectly suited to support life.
#38 Shells from living snails have been “carbon dated” to be 27,000 years old.
#39 If humans have been around for so long, where are all of the bones and all of the graves? The following is an excerpt from an article by Don Batten…
Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found. However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found.
#40 Evolutionists claim that just because it looks like we were designed that does not mean that we actually were. They often speak of the “illusion of design”, but that is kind of like saying that it is an “illusion” that a 747 airplane or an Apple iPhone were designed. And of course the human body is far more complex that a 747 or an iPhone.
#41 If you want to be part of the “scientific community” today, you must accept the theory of evolution no matter how absurd it may seem to you. Richard Lewontin of Harvard once made the following comment regarding this harsh reality…
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
#42 Time Magazine once made the following statement about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution…
“Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn’t fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate.”
#43 Malcolm Muggeridge, the world famous journalist and philosopher, once made the following statement about the absurdity of the theory of evolution…
“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”
#44 In order to believe the theory of evolution, you must have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from nonlife, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself."
"Why One-Third Of Biologists Now Question Darwinism
Dedicated Neo-Darwinists often say ‘no serious scientists disagree’ with Darwinism, or ‘only creationists have problems.’ These contentions are increasingly disproven.
While Christians have long challenged Charles Darwin’s theory of undirected evolution, few appreciate the true extent of the challenge beyond the church. Current estimates are that approximately one-third of professional academic biologists who do not believe in intelligent design find Darwin’s theory is inadequate to describe all of the complexity in biology.
Ben Stein documented a crackdown within the academy on criticism of Darwin in his 2008 documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” While this might explain why the public rarely hears of challenges to Neo-Darwinism, the documentary centered on intelligent design. But the growing discontent in academia is from secular naturalists.
Defining evolution is key. At the basic level of change over time, even Young Earth biblical creationists agree. At its most specific level of the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection, many legitimately question evolutionary theory as it stands. The word is often used interchangeably without distinction, but even when used technically in academic biologist circles, real skepticism exists about the theory.
Demanding a New Theory
A controversial letter to Nature in 2014 signaled the mounting concern, however slow and cautious, among thoughtful professional biologists. Other works by atheist authors like “What Darwin Got Wrong” and “Mind and Cosmos” find “fatal flaws” in the theory and assert it is “almost certainly false.”
Another project, The Third Way, seeks to avoid a false choice between divine intervention (which it outright rejects) and the Neo-Darwinian model (which it finds unsupported in the face of modern molecular theory) while presenting evidence to improve evolution theory beyond Neo-Darwinism. Some even believe billions of years have not been adequate for Darwinian theory to accomplish current complexity, as the theory currently exists.
This dissatisfaction is a matter of public record, even if it lacks public attention, and despite the narrative running contrary. Indeed dedicated Neo-Darwinists often say “no serious scientists disagree” or “only creationists have problems.” These contentions are increasingly disproven.
The important note is that these are not ideologues or religious zealots, nor do they propose a god or biblical solution. Rather, they find problems with the explanatory value of Darwin’s theory in light of modern understanding of mutation, variation, DNA sequencing, and more. These expressions of doubt do not reject naturalism or evolution per se, but the rigor of the Neo-Darwinian model for explaining the development of life.
In fact, they want to help Darwin, not tear him down. That he needs help is news to the academy.
A Voice in the Wilderness
Professor Kevin Laland, author of the Nature letter insisting on “urgent” rethinking of evolutionary theory, has been described by critics as offering an unneeded paradigm shift. He recognizes the pushback from the scientific establishment, but he and his colleagues forge a path forward nonetheless with rigorous work on their model of Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES).
This is an update to the mid-20th-century Modern Synthesis, which patched up Neo-Darwinian theory with then-modern information. Since then, understanding of complexity has grown such that Laland and others believe EES or another supplement is necessary to keep up. It is not a replacement or rejection of Neo-Darwinism, but can be deployed alongside it as a way to understand key processes of nature the theory neglects.
Laland explained, “The EES is a minority position, but not as small a minority as it is often portrayed. It is also gaining ground.” EES is not the only naturalist supplement or revision of Neo-Darwinism, but joins several other embattled factions in the academy, including The Third Way.
“As you may surmise, there is a lot of politics in these debates. Traditionalists have a track record of characterising more progressive researchers as a small group of extremists,” Leland added. Explaining why it is difficult to gain traction, he continued, “support for our position comes from academic fields on the periphery of evolutionary biology, such as evolutionary developmental biology, ecological developmental biology, paleontology, botany, and the human sciences, while traditionalists dominate evolutionary genetics.”
A Growing Minority
After publishing in Nature, Laland received more than 1,000 emails in support from the academic community. This number is huge for a critique of such a longstanding accepted theory. In the five years since the Nature letter, support has also only grown.
The leading critics have been intelligent design supporters, who are looked down on by naturalists. But as each group adds to the scientific literature, certain critiques and findings inevitably bolster or redirect the research of the other.
The effects go at least one way. Following work and theories of Stephen Jay Gould, Michael Denton helped shape a generation of skeptics with his 1985 book “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.” An evolutionist and agnostic, Denton has continued his criticism.
In the past decade, the works of professor Michael Behe, Steven Meyer, and others have given more life to the debate on the national stage. In “Darwin Devolves,” Behe points to the process of mutations to describe the inadequacy of an unguided materialist process to add information. Meyer explores the Cambrian explosion and the complexity of the cell to show the biodiversity and complexity we observe, and notes that natural processes have never been observed to produce such results.
Importantly, these two men, and many others, believe in the standard multibillion-year timeline for the Earth and make their findings based on deduction of natural evidence rather than starting from authority in scripture or elsewhere. The growth of the intelligent design community is noteworthy, but not as interesting as those who are apart from it, secular, and nonetheless find Darwinian evolution to contain serious flaws.
Behe explained that, “Based on conversations with my own colleagues at Lehigh [University], dozens of other biologists, and news stories in journals I would guesstimate that a third or more of biologists are quite skeptical that Darwin’s theory explains all of biology.” The growing literature speaks for itself.
Paul Nelson told Stein that, “One-on-one at a scientific meeting after the third or fourth beer, my experience has been that many evolutionary biologists will say ‘Yeah, this theory’s got a lot of problems.’” While anecdotal, this is echoed by many in academia, both within intelligent design, and more importantly outside of it.
While maintaining his field is not in crisis, and insisting on nuance, Leland notes, “I think the numbers issue depends strongly on subtle details of how you frame the question. A good proportion would probably agree that the causal bases of evolution are more complex than commonly portrayed in the textbooks.”
Difficulties in Forming Alliances
Nuance and framing are important, and along with traditional pressures, make estimates of the Neo-Darwin critics incredibly difficult to conclude. One approach is to simply seek signatures on a simple scientific statement of skepticism. Several hundred PhDs have signed. However, the association with intelligent design and possible academic consequences keeps many from signing.
Current Neo-Darwinism is far from the untouchable theory it is lauded to be.
While intelligent design gets a bad rap, such titans as Francis Crick and Richard Dawkins have espoused the same tenets. Still, many immediately and falsely link intelligent design with Christian divinity and stay far away.
The Third Way is highly exclusive to maintain purity and preempt criticism. Not only are religious believers excluded, but the platform is invite-only. The isolated clusters of scientists averse to associating with one another, or too set on their preferred nuance, lend credence to the traditionalist Neo-Darwin assertion that only a tiny fringe minority, if that, exists.
The plain truth from the literature, conferences, expert perception, and a bit of anecdote for color, is that current Neo-Darwinism is far from the untouchable theory it is lauded to be. Not only this, but it has serious and increasing skeptics and challengers from within the secular scientific community.
When adding in supporters of intelligent design, which is religion-neutral, the numbers begin to expand rapidly. While there are serious, scientific, and peer-reviewed studies from this group, it does not rock the boat as much as the secular material naturalists. The goal is not to abandon Darwin, but to retire him to make way for more coherent comprehensive theories."
By Benjamin R. Dierker
APRIL 16, 2019
Blackshoes: "Why Don’t People Believe Evolution
If you were in the American school system today you would think that everybody believed in evolution. But you would be mistaken. More people do not accept evolution than do. Why don’t people believe evolution?
The question: Why don’t people believe evolution?
Ever since the Scopes “Monkey Trial” in the 1920’s there has been a relentless march toward promoting evolution.
The Monkey Trial
When the Federal government got into the business of education a primary thrust was to teach evolution. You might wonder why the government wanted to promote this teaching.
In every society, there is always some who consider themselves better than others. Europe had the kings and aristocrats and the ruling class. In the United States, it was a little harder to get a foothold of control. But as the twentieth century dawned they began to promote their agenda.
Their first main thrust was in the arena of politics. It became evident in the early 1900s as the highest political leaders were coming from the second generation rich. There is nothing wrong with being rich if you know the cost of attaining that state. Second generations do not value the ethics or work necessary to arrive at such a state. These leaders considered themselves above the general citizenry.
Why don't people believe in evolution
Politicians think they are above the common people
Through the laws and regulations they invoked, they began to mold the populace in their own mindset. This approach moved the general thinking about evolution very little. It was not meant to bring them all the way to full-throated evolutionary zealots. Something else was needed to finish the full transformation to believing in evolution.
Why do people believe in evolution?
This is the corollary to the original question, “Why don’t people believe in evolution.” Many more people do believe in evolution today than did in the early 1900s. The reason for that is the tool that the elite Progressives used to promote it. They used the tool of the education system to promote evolution.
Is evolution science?
Some might think that it was a good thing that the government got into the education business. After all, they have a lot more money and can provide all the tools needed. Of course, there are a few weaknesses to that argument.
The government has no money of its own. It only has money that it gets from its citizens. They get that money by means of taxation. When people in authority begin to spend money which they have not worked for, they tend to spend too much. Governments of any kind are no different. The further the governing entity is from the common man the more the waste and abuse of the power. When a federal government dictates rules, the common man is little considered.
When the United States was founded all education was local. Towns or counties built and ran the schools. Localities determined the curriculum, the finances, and the location of the school. Most of them followed Noah Webster’s lead in using the Holy Bible as the main textbook. Those supposedly backward systems turned out some of the most literate people ever in the United States.
Just a little note of how well they did. Did you know that the average age of beginning college students in the 1700s was 14 years old. You might think that they did not know very much then. You would be wrong. To enter college one had to be fluent in three languages: English, Latin, and one other language. Today, people get into college and are not fluent in English, much less another language.
Why do people believe evolution
The tool of indoctrination – education
The Progressives moved through legislation and judicial chicanery to take over the national education system. Though the states maintained a pseudo headship, they were not in total control. By pushing to give federal aid to public school systems the federal government began to exert its power. It was not long before all public school systems were subject to the authority coming out of Washington, D.C.
The curriculum is now determined by federal law
Now that Washington was well entwined with education, politics determined what was taught. By this time politics had become a full-time profession for many people. Most of these were Progressives.
The term “Progressive” does not mean what you may think it means. It really refers to the elite progressively takes more and more control of society. Having established a stronghold in education they controlled what is taught as fact and what is not. So began the delusion of educating a generation when they were really being propagandized.
A great tool for fooling the common people
One of the great tools for being able to accomplish this take over was science. Science was the tool that would bring us to a higher level of humanity. But the Progressives were motivated by a philosophy known as humanistic materialism. This was a paradigm which said that all there was is matter and energy and natural processes. That was all.
Why don't people believe in evolution
Religion of Evolutionists
They preached this philosophy because they did not wish to be subject to a higher being. Their main enemy was the Bible and Christianity. Christians believed the Biblical account of creation and that all humans were subject to the laws of the Creator. Humanists did not want to be subject to anyone but themselves. Of course, that did not apply to you and me, because we were to be subject to them.
When Charles Darwin published his On the Origin of Species, they found a tool to promote their religion. They began to preach evolution as science. It took fifty or sixty years to get it into the education system, but they did. With what was known then it was not hard to give what seemed like proof of evolution. So the humanists ran with it. Within fifty years or so they had established evolution as “real” science.
Their proof that evolution was real science was that almost all scientists believed it was true. They had changed the definition of what science is. Science used to be something which could be tested and repeated and yield the same results in a given experiment. Now, it was what most people believed to be true
Belief and Science
Humanists ridicule Christians who believe in miraculous creation as described in the Bible. They say that it is a religion because “Christians believe the Bible with no actual proof”.
But, if you take the time to study each philosophy you may be surprised. Christianity honestly states that they “believe” the creation scenario presented in the Bible. But, they have scientific facts which show the scenario to be being true.
The humanist evolutionists, on the other hand, speak as if there is proof in abundance that proves evolution. When asked for concrete evidence and scientific empirical facts to prove evolution, they cannot produce one fact. If they present a “fact”, it is usually a distortion or a “just so” story. No scientific fact backs up evolution. What the evolutionists have is a belief system.
They believe one thing led to another thing which led to another thing. Do they have any facts to prove or show what they “believe”? No! Evolution is, therefore, a religion. It is a religion that has no foundation. It is based on lies and fairy tales and is totally contrary to the laws of science.
Is evolution science?
The amazing thing about the whole subject is not, “Why don’t people believe evolution?” But the question should be “Why do people believe evolution?”
Evolution is a belief that calls itself a science, yet it is contrary to the major laws of science. It contradicts itself at every new scientific discovery. Evolutionists praise themselves for being wrong when falsified. Then they write a new “fairy tale” to cover their mistake. Evolution is a tool to keep people from coming to true knowledge.
True knowledge leads to goodness and prosperity in every area of life. The only way to true knowledge is found through the knowledge of the Creator as described in the Bible.
Believe the Truth
Those who preach evolution preach hate and discord. They are not logical in any of their teaching or knowledge.
But, they have managed to shape two generations with their lies and half-truths. They constantly promise great things but only bring shame. They brag and are proud. Self is the primary god of their life.
The facts of the matter
Since Progressives have taken control of our education systems, the results of our system have declined. What used to be the best education system in the western world is now in the bottom half. Progressives promised that by abandoning Biblical creation science we would attain new heights of understanding. But the facts prove differently. Their delusion of progress has been a decline of true knowledge.
The education system has become a means of indoctrination. Instead of our children learning great truths, they are taught lies. History is revised to fit the progressive agenda. Their system produces college graduates who could not have graduated high school fifty years ago.
It used to be that to graduate from high school one must know how our government works. Now we have congressmen and women who have no idea how our government works. At face value, you would wonder why everyone does believe in evolution.
The reason why people don’t believe in evolution
Because this universe and this world were created by a logical and rational being, logic is inherent. People tend to favor the logical over the non-logical. They are created in the image of the Creator, though marred by sin.
why people don't believe evolution
Made in God’s image
Therefore, people tend to reject the illogical and favor the logical. It takes many years of pushing illogical conclusions to convince people it is true. Even after years of brainwashing many will not fall for the lie.
Because of that built-in image, many people reject the lie of evolution.
Then there are many who reject evolution because they have taken the time to study it. They have found that it is grounded not in science but in fantasy. So many of the terms used in presenting evolution are not scientific terms. Too many of them are fantasy terms. It is not based in logical progressions but in hopeful delusions.
Learned people who have taken the time to listen to both sides tend to reject evolution. Those who promote it will pick and choose their proofs. They do not and can not disprove the facts against evolution. Rather than logically refute them they attack the messenger. They belittle or make light of the person’s education or lack of publishing articles. Humanists cannot logically refute creationists.
Evolutionists are as much religious people as people who believe the Bible. The advantage that the Bible believers have is that their arguments are logical.
Do you believe in evolution?
This is the question that every person should ask themselves. The answer you give will tell you a lot about where you stand educationally and logically. It is impossible for a rational person to believe in evolution when they know the facts of evolution. To believe a “fairy tale” is to live in a world that does not exist. Belief in evolution causes disbelief in logic and the scientific laws that cause nature to function.
The real problem with a belief in evolution is that it puts you at odds with your Creator. The Creator of the universe has clearly stated how all of creation came into being. He recorded it in the Bible. It is stated clearly how He did it. To promote any other scenario is to call your Creator a liar. That, in essence, makes you the liar.
There are many who believe in evolution. Many people don’t believe in evolution because they have taken the time to educate themselves. They have learned to look at things with a critical mind. (Not a criticizing mind, but a thoughtful and considering mind weighing the pros and cons). When all is laid out, evolution is not feasible nor logical. It is not scientific. It is a “tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” That is why people don’t believe in evolution."
May 11, 2019 Author: adminCategory: Education
"Have we evolved from water-dwelling unicellular organisms or did God create each life form the way it is? Let’s look at some arguments against evolution that pinpoint various loopholes in the Darwinian theory of evolution and understand why some people find this theory dubious.
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.
~ Loren Eiseley (American anthropologist, educator and natural science writer)
Before getting down to arguments against evolution, let’s first try and understand the concept of evolution itself. To put it simply, the concept of evolution rests upon the phenomenon of variations that are witnessed in the traits inherited by one generation of a particular species of organisms from its previous generation over due course of time which can span to as great a magnitude as a decade to several millennia! Besides the standard Biblical take on evolution, there have been many scientific theories to explain the inception, presence, diversity and modification of life on earth – yes, though Charles Darwin’s theory is the most popular and widely accepted theory on evolution, it is not the only one. The various theories of evolution have been propounded by a many different biologists, religious philosophers and anthropologists over a course of about four centuries! These theories have been broadly classified as Pre-Darwinian Theories and Darwinian Theory of evolution. Let’s take a brief, academically stimulating tour of the various scientific evolutionary theories before we proceed towards some of the most common arguments against evolution.
Theories of Evolution
Pre Darwinian Theories of Evolution
Evolution Theorist Time Period Theory of Evolution
James Ussher 1581-1656 Creation took place as a continuous progression of life forms, each form an advanced version of the previous, with all organisms, as we see them today, getting created by God in very recent times. These life forms have not undergone any change since then.
John Ray 1627-1705 He grouped organisms under different genera and subdivided each genus into multiple species for the first time. He was the first to hint at the evolution from apes to humans and grouped us under the name Homo sapiens.
Carolus Linnaeus 1707-1778 He classified organisms on the basis of physical features and methods of reproduction. Bulk of his works include descriptions of life forms that occurred in Nature rather than any actual research on how things came to be.
Comte de Buffon 1707-1788 He was among the first evolution theorists to suggest that life forms are not fixed and that they tend to undergo changes over time, either due to chance or environmental factors.
Erasmus Darwin 1731-1802 Grandfather of Charles Darwin, Erasmus Darwin’s beliefs on evolution, although extremely vague, came very close to those of his grandson. He believed that earth and all organisms have been undergoing changes in form since millions of years. However, his ideas on causes responsible for such changes are pretty abstruse and smoky.
Jean Baptiste Lamarck 1744-1829 Lamarck believed that the cause behind changes or modifications in the appearance of traits of subsequent generations of each species was due to the environmental requirements (and resultant adaptations, therefore) faced by the preceding generations of the same species. For instance, he erroneously believed that giraffes developed a long neck due to preceding generations’ need to stretch their necks in order to reach leaves on trees for the purpose of feeding.
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection rests upon the premise that all life forms have descended from a common, simple life form, and, as such, are connected. He believed that with the progress of each generation, the creatures, about two-three generations down the line belonging to each species became more complex than its previous generations. He suggested that as generations progress, there occur random genetic mutations within the organisms of a species and, owing to the phenomenon of natural selection, those mutations which best aid survival and enhance environmental adaptability are the ones that are retained while the less beneficial ones are discarded. Charles Darwin bases his theory upon the belief that life on earth started with a single cell and very gradually, such life underwent the processes of cellular division and genetic diversification to give rise to the vast number of life forms that we know today!
Best Counter-evolution Arguments
Now that we are quite familiar with the premises upon which the scientific theories of evolution are based, let’s take a look at some scientific as well as religious arguments against the theory of evolution. Before you begin reading, please note that the following arguments have nothing to do with my personal opinion and understanding of evolution – the following list comprises most prominent counter-evolution arguments that have been put forward by people belonging to diverse socio-academic backgrounds and having very different lines of thought that may or may not have been influenced by the religion/faith/philosophy they adhere to.
The most popular theories of evolution agree on the fact that there was no life in the universe, including Earth to begin with. Earth was just a mound mass of chemical elements and compounds and none of these compounds can be called living matter. Now the question arises that how can a cluster of non-living compounds and elements congregate and combine to generate something that has life?
In continuation with the above debate, famous American biologist, Stanley Miller, has observed that the possibility of dead matter coming to life all by itself is inconsistent with scientific thought and observation.
Scientific observation states that any organism can give birth to or reproduce another organism of the same species. Sometimes, genetic mutations may occur that might make the offspring appear physically or otherwise different from the parent(s) and such mutation, with extremely rare exceptions, is usually in the form of a genetic disorder or disfiguration. The mutated offspring being better than the parents is not a common phenomenon. Going by this observation, only a sporadic burst of progressive mutations (the only way to explain the evolution of mammals, reptiles and all complex life forms from, say, amoeba!) can lead to the inception of creatures better equipped for survival than its previous generations. This is where the foundations of the theory of natural selection receives a mighty blow!
On a study conducted by a team of leading mathematicians and biological evolutionary researchers came up with the startling result, proved by numerical statistics, proved that the mathematical probability of a living cell or a molecule of protein to come into being all by itself is absolutely nil!
Laboratory experiments have failed to prove that genetic mutation can lead to creation of altogether different species.
The lack of tangible evidence that can give a scientific explanation for the phenomenon of creation and divergent evolution forms the basis for all religious beliefs attributing creation to a Supreme Being – God, if you will! This is where the seeds of the Creation Evolution controversy are sown!
To put it in a nutshell, almost all arguments against the theory of evolution stem from four major factors – absence of observation, evidential instability, scientific inconsistency and absence of evolutionary mechanism in the present times. However, just because something cannot be proved with certainty today doesn’t mean that the possibility isn’t there! Remember, there was a time when the whole world believed the Earth was the center of the universe until Galileo came by and proved otherwise! However, since this article is about arguments against evolution, I feel it would be appropriate to conclude by quoting a very famous American biologist, regarding his take on the theory of evolution and the origin of the species based upon genetic mutation and natural selection:-
The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.
~ Prof. Edwin Conklin"
zeffur: Imported from another forum:...
zeffur: Blackshoes, he almost never posts anything true in these forums. He can't make an valid argument to save his life, he believes in completely unproven rubbish, & he can't even keep himself focused on a topic properly due to his ADD. No wonder he's such a dummy...
TheismIsUntenable: My performance here is impeccable. I've destroyed you in every debate we've had. Here I'll summarize your performance: "ur dumb" We're all so impressed!
I neglected to include he's highly delusional, too!
re: "I've destroyed you in every debate we've had."
Dude, you can't even properly follow things that have been discussed in these forums. You offer NO solid proof nor convincing evidence for any of the rubbish that you blather on about incoherently & then you delude yourself that you've had any success at all. You're out of your God forsaken mind!
Blackshoes: Really what difference does any of this make. You'll see soon enough if your faith in your education has enlightened you or condemned you.
TheismIsUntenable: Education has provided me with a great life. You're wasting yours living in the dark with the comfort of the wisdom of people from the Iron age...I think I'm good...
zeffur: I'm sure you have a number of advanced delusions--just like that one--given how often you are wrong & don't even have the ability to understand it.
TheismIsUntenable: Once again, "you're wrong" isn't an argument. You need to demonstrate how and why I am wrong, but we both know you're not equipped to handle such a task.
zeffur: I state true things. They aren't arguments.
TheismIsUntenable: "I state true things" is another way of saying "I believe the things I say are true".
Well your beliefs don't actually matter to anybody unless you can verify them. Claims that are proven true matter, and claims require evidence to demonstrate their truth. Do you have the ability to prove your claims or no? If no, stop pretending that the things you say are any more than mere beliefs.
zeffur: If you aren't smart enough to recognize the truth then you're dumb.
TheismIsUntenable: What I recognize are verifiable claims. Not useless suppositions from an unlettered person.
zeffur: re: "Claims that are proven true matter, and claims require evidence to demonstrate their truth."
Did your talking bird compose that gibberish or are you the one to blame for it??
zeffur: You don't have ANY proof or compelling/convincing evidence & a cogent explanation for any of the biased & bogus beliefs that you parade about as 'scientific fact'.
TheismIsUntenable: Well I think we're getting to the crux of the issue now...you cannot understand completely sensical statements.
I'm sure your community college has some adult education courses you could take on English.
zeffur: Where's your proof for the original microbe belief that evolutioners have??
Tick tock, liar... You have no proof & you have no compellingconvincing evidence to support that belief---& we ALL KNOW IT!
TheismIsUntenable: Not really a good idea to impose a claim on someone and demand evidence for it when they themselves have not made such a claim...
That's about as dishonest as it gets and why nobody takes you seriously at all, on the internet, or in life.
zeffur: Moving on... Where is your proof that your unproven & non-existent microbe evolved into any other creature??
Can't prove that either, huh? Not at all surprising...because NOTHING you believe in is provable because it is all biased & bogus myth & fairy tales for atheists & other nitwits.
Please shows us verified scientific evidence that ANY kind of creature has ACTUALLY EVOLVED from on kind of creature to another kind of creature--not your belief or unfounded assumptions nor your assertions of claims that have never ever been proven to have occurred---the REAL incontrovertible evidence that verifies/confirms your claims are ACTUALLY true...
zeffur: re: "TheismIsUntenable: Not really a good idea to impose a claim on someone and demand evidence for it when they themselves have not made such a claim... That's about as dishonest as it gets and why nobody takes you seriously at all, on the internet, or in life."
Got anything more than a useless deflective weasel move? You know--REAL unbiased & verified to be valid/true evidence??
Yeah...I didn't think so.
Perhaps you can put a spit polish on your online education & after deluding yourself for a while to try to make yourself feel like you have a clue about anything worth reading---get back to us with some actual verified truths that definitively show your false beliefs are true..
Until then... we'll be waiting---as we've always been waiting because you have NOTHING sound to offer...
TheismIsUntenable: You are flopping around like a fish on the dock, incapable of even breathing at this point in time.
If you were genuinely interested in the evidence for evolution, especially in human evolution (like Chromosome 2), you would have read the many sources I linked in a thread on the topic. But we all know how that went - ignored the source material, and proclaimed it "false" while offering no reasons to suspect that it is false.
zeffur: I don't flip-flop & I'm breathing quite normally. Your goofy notions to the contrary don't equal truth--they just reveal your poor ability to understand & accurately arrive at a valid conclusion.
zeffur: re: "If you were genuinely interested in the evidence for evolution, especially in human evolution (like Chromosome 2), you would have read the many sources I linked in a thread on the topic. But we all know how that went - ignored the source material, and proclaimed it "false" while offering no reasons to suspect that it is false."
I've already seen all of your 'best' stupidity on chromosome 2--and it isn't true at all. It's just your opinion. Do you actually have ANYTHING valid to offer or just endless rubbish opinions that aren't verified truths?
It isn't true because you have not proven it is an example of evolution--you just assume it is. Contrast your wonky belief with the fact that an intelligent designer could have intentionally made that genomic design. Where is your series of mutations to prove your belief that 'evolution' did it is true?? You have none & we both know it. You have only your opinion/assumption & your unproven declaration that it was done by evolution mysteriously at some time that you can't even pinpoint... Dude--that's not science--that's bad science fiction....
TheismIsUntenable: Chromosome 2 isn't an opinion. It is a fact of genetics.
You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
zeffur: Reread what I wrote until you actually fully comprehend it. Then show us real scientific evidence of the series of evolutionary genetic mutations & how they occurred. Until you can actually do that ^^ you only have your assumptions-based opinion--nothing more.
TheismIsUntenable: "Contrast your wonky belief with the fact that an intelligent designer could have intentionally made that genomic design."
Shall I also contrast it with other equally absurd premises like aliens or wizards doing it?
There is a concept in science (and philosophy) for that matter called parsimony. You might know it as Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is often the best.
A model with 10 variables that carries no additional predictive or explanatory power is rejected in favor of a model with fewer than 10 variables.
Entirely "hands off" models will always be preferred over models which rely on unproven variables like gods or wizards or aliens. It is obvious to understand why this is.
P1) A raxsis is an invisible and undetectable creature which steals socks.
P2) My socks went missing
C1) Therefore a raxsis stole my socks
Well that's a possible conclusion IFF (if and only if) a raxsis exists. There is another possible explanation...dog ate, stuck in washing machine/dyer, accidentally threw it out, etc.
zeffur: re: "Shall I also contrast it with other equally absurd premises like aliens or wizards doing it?"
You should contrast it with the most absurd premise that nature has the intelligence to make complex dna code--when it does not & you have NO valid scientific evidence that it ever has had such a capability.
What you are really doing is evading providing the proof or evidence of your belief because we both know you don't have it. The honest thing to do would be to admit that fact--but, that would presuppose you are honest--which you are not, huh?
p.s.: I don't require any explanation of Occam's razor. Occam's razor does not prove your belief & it isn't a valid substitute for verified scientific evidence that confirms a belief/hypothesis. You aren't going to squeeze that under the door as any kind of tool for your position--it isn't applicable at all or in anyway in this case. You don't get to try pass off an assumption as proof or convincing/compelling verified evidence that verifies your belief is true when it does no such thing.
TheismIsUntenable: There is a bounty of evidence to support a natural rise of DNA.
"We are reasonably sure now that DNA and DNA replication mechanisms appeared late in early life history, and that DNA originated from RNA in an RNA/protein world."
This means that the first life forms were not DNA-based, but RNA-based.
There is, regrettably for you, no evidence that wizards, or gods, or aliens exist so those are easily dismissible.
Blackshoes: So much for those that worship their education
“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.” Pro 26:4
He rules all things, not as the world soul but as the lord of all. And because of his dominion he is called Lord God Pantokrator. For 'god' is a relative word and has reference to servants, and godhood is the lordship of God, not over his own body as is supposed by those for whom God is the world soul, but over servants. The supreme God is an eternal, infinite, and absolutely perfect being; but a being, however perfect, without dominion is not the Lord God.
Sir Isaac Newton
In want of other proofs, the thumb would convince me of the existence of a God.
Sir Isaac Newton
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
“The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the
five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole, in that the universe appears to have order and purpose.”
“As the depth of our insight into the wonderful works of God increases, the stronger are our
feelings of awe and veneration in contemplating them and in endeavoring to approach their
Author…So will he [the earnest student] by his studies and successive acquirements be led
through nature up to nature’s God.”
William Lord Kelvin
zeffur: re: "TheismIsUntenable: There is a bounty of evidence to support a natural rise of DNA."
And there it is---another dodge/spin move... There is heaping piles of evidence & if we throw zillions of years into the blender of non-truth we'll some how spit out a truth--sorry, that isn't true, it isn't proof, & it isn't verified scientific evidence of ANYTHING real--it's a congame diversion. You either have proof or scientifically verified evidence that shows your belief/hypothesis/claim is true or you don't---and we both KNOW that you do not have either of those things.
re: "We are reasonably sure now that DNA and DNA replication mechanisms appeared late in early life history, and that DNA originated from RNA in an RNA/protein world."
Proof please... Your assurances aren't worth anything in this discussion. The only thing that truly matters is unbiased verified facts--do you have any that aren't biased & bogus perversions of the available evidence??? Yeah--I didn't think so--or you would have already provided it to try to bolster your weak opinion-only based belief/case.
re: "This means that the first life forms were not DNA-based, but RNA-based."
That ^^ isn't a proven fact--it is another unproven belief...
There is, regrettably for you, no evidence that wizards, or gods, or aliens exist so those are easily dismissible."
No need to bring up ^^ any of those things in an attempt to foolishly think you can veer off topic. We are only considering scientifically verified facts. Do you actually have ANY that aren't laced with biased & bogus imaginary beliefs??
zeffur: So this is essentially how it always ends with this evo chump (TIU). He has no proof nor compelling/convincing/verified scientific evidence that isn't laced with imaginary evolutioner rubbish. He goes quiet for a while rather than admitting the truth that his whole belief systems is based on a house of cards & then later he will declare in one or more of these forums his delusion of how he resoundedly defeated me with his inferior lack of brilliance.
gtg...let's hope he can actually grasp the true nature of his folly this time or come up with something worthy of considering---don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen though...
Camila_Mammilla: Weird that to be part of science you have to believe in the religion of evolution and if you don't then you get rejected. It's just a weak theory and even calling it pseudoscience is a stretch. Anyone that does the reading should know that it is not real.
zeffur: You may think that they deleted your forum content to suppress the truth that evolution is a fraud--but, it's more likely that they had it deleted to remove all traces of their obvious ignorance & absolute folly in misrepresenting the truth--like a murderer trying to eliminate all evidence of her/his murder...
(Edited by zeffur)
Camila_Mammilla: That's so that they can keep our everyone that disagree with them. So that the only thing they can ever spread are their ideas or theories and no one can challenge it.
Blackshoes: Camila, IMO when the old guard within academia dies off the newbies most likely will as least begin to tell the truth.
Blackshoes: Maybe some do Camlia ', others are so blinded by ignorance and dogmatic faith in their doctrines it's unlikely they'll ever see the truth or at least look beyond their programming
"The fossil record is a compilation of creatures that abruptly appear, fully formed, in the rock layers of the Earth with no evolutionary history. They remain virtually the same throughout the record, and then oftentimes disappear from the surface of the Earth."
"Yet most evolutionists would have you believe it’s a fact.
Not surprising, various fossils have been removed from the human lineage over the years. Australopithecus sedeba is one example, as is Ramapithecus, Eoanthropus (Piltdown man), Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man), and Australopithecus africanus. I wonder how many evolutionists still believe they’re our ancestors…
Nonetheless, many people continue to accept evolution as a fact. The fossil record does not demonstrate a gradual change from an ape-like ancestor to man. Such an assumption is based on evolutionary assumptions, and much of it is imposed upon the evidence: storytelling.
I think too many people blindly accept evolution because it has been packaged and sold so neatly. But upon close inspection, it’s more of a dead-end. Humans have not evolved from any kind of ape-like ancestor,"
“Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (D.M.S.Watson; Adaptation)
“One might ask why the neo-Darwinian paradigm does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather may be rooted in human nature.” (Christian Schwabe; On the Validity of Molecular Evolution, Trends in Biochemical Sciences)
“Science is fundamentally a game. It is a game with one overriding rule: Rule #1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.” (R.E.Dickerson; Molecular Evolution)
“One of the ironies of the evolution-creation debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this ‘fact’ in their Flood geology.” (David M. Raup; Evolution and the Fossil Record)
“About the lack of direct illustrations in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them…..I will lay it on the line–there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” (Colin Patterson; Evolution)
“This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists.” (George Gaylord Simpson; Tempo and Mode in Evolution)
“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.” (Stephen Jay Gould; The Panda’s Thumb)
“But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.” (David S. Woodruff; Evolution: The Paleobiological View)
“the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” (Steven M. Stanley; The New Evolutionary Timetable)
"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.” (David. M. Raup; Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology)