Evolution is anti-creation
It almost goes without saying that evolution is anti-creation. Darwin was opposed to all forms of creation (Gillespie, 1979, pp.xi, 3, 19-20, 39), even theistic evolution (Bowler, 1990, pp.158-161). In his Origin of Species Darwin mentioned "creation" or its cognates over 100 times, mostly pejoratively (Jones, 2002). Neo- Darwinism's co-founder Julian Huxley expressed the consensus of the scientific establishment when he declared that evolution and creation were mutually exclusive: "The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion" (Huxley, 1960, pp.iii:252-253).
Dictionaries of biology (Abercrombie, et al., 1990, pp.194-195; Hale & Margham, 1988, p.214; Tootill, 1981, p.108), science (Isaacs, Daintith & Martin, 1991, pp.183, 251-252; Lafferty & Rowe, 1996, p.222) and philosophy (Vesey & Foulkes, 1990, p.108), define "evolution" as being opposed to creation. Leading biology textbooks usually commence their section on evolution with an attack on creation (e.g. Campbell, Reece & Mitchell, 1999, pp.415-417; Mader, 1990, pp.281-283; Raven & Johnson, 1995, pp.7-8; Keeton, Gould & Gould, 1986, pp.12-13; Knox, Ladiges & Evans, p.707; Solomon et al., 1993, p.390; Starr & Taggart, 1998, pp.16, 270-275). Leading evolutionary biology textbooks also usually contain an attack on creation (Dobzhansky, et al., pp.9, 349; Futuyma, 1986, pp.3,15; Ridley, 1996a, pp.41,65-66; Strickberger, 2000, pp.5ff, 53ff).
Evolutionists have also written many books attacking creation in defence of evolution (e.g. Berra 1990; Ecker, 1990; Eldredge, 1982; 2000; Futuyma, 1983; Gallant, 1975; Godfrey, 1983; Kitcher, 1982; McGowan, 1983; Montagu, 1984; Newell, 1982; Pennock, 1999; Plimer, 1994; Price, 1990; Selkirk & Burrows, 1988; Strahler, 1999; Wilson & Dolphin, 1983; Young, 1985; Zetterberg, 1983).
Evolution is so anti-creation, that leading evolutionists have admitted that even if creation was true, it could not be accepted by them as science (Eldredge, 1982, p.134; Ruse M., 1982, pp.322-323; Futuyma, 1983, p.169; Ruse, 1996, p.301; Pennock, 1999, p.283; Ratzsch, 1996, p.168). Which means that evolutionists would rather evolution be naturalistic and false than supernaturalistic and true! [top]
From here: http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pe03rlgn.html
Wonderful research. I'll have to check that stuff out.
A child could drive a truck through this 'logic'. I state that I am married. That is a true statement. It is hardly a scientific statement.