Scientists Speak About Evolution (Quoted Admissions Of Evolutions Condemning Evolutionary Theory

Pathlights ^ | Staff

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Top flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alonside georgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronuncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reesrved only for professional books and journals.

Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove veolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.

Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin*, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionits cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.

An asterisk (*) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this encyclopedia is based on (see BOOKSTORE), only 164 statements are by creationists.

[Bigh4u2]

Proof?

Show me a record of 'graduated evolution' of a species.

[Junior]

Transitional Fossils FAQ

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

The Quote Mine Project

[Dimensio]

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."

Given that evolution does not and never has addressed life developing from inorganic matter, this quote has nothing to do whatsoever with the validity of evolution.

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit 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 experimenatl evidence supports it."

You missed the first sentence: "If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being?" He was referring to the genesis of life, not evolution which, as can be discerned from other statements that he made, he fully accepts.

I suspect that many of the other "quotes" from pathlights are equally dishonest. Creationists can't win on merit, so they try to win on lies.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

2 million comedians out of work and you are trying (and failing at it) to be funny.

Grow up.

[orionblamblam]

See post 22.

[Dimensio]

And, in typical dishonest creationist fashion, the quote is cut short. Darwin was -- as he did often -- asking a question prior to answering it. Right after asking, he continues "It will be much more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed; the imperfection of the record being chiefly due to organic beings not inhabiting profound depths of the sea, and to their remains being embedded and preserved to a future age only in masses of sediment sufficiently thick and extensive to withstand an enormous amount of future degradation; and such fossiliferous masses can be accumulated only where much sediment is deposited on the shallow bed of the sea, whilst it slowly subsides."

So Darwin proposed the explanation for why fossils are not abundant, but it's not exactly convenient for creationists to admit that he wasn't just claiming to be surprised at some allegedly admitted lack of evidence for his theory.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

What would be even more valuable would be to find some quotes/evidence that lifts evolution out of the realm of fairy tales.

[Dimensio]

It means that the scientific principles that led to the development of your computer are merely the current best models to fit the facts, and not indisputably proven facts.

[dmz]

How many condemning quotes does it take to reach the threshold of "devastating"?

If we were to find an equal number of quotes from religious people who suggest that the creation stories are not to be taken literally, but rather represent man's attempt to find meaning in this world, would you consider that "devastating" to creationism?

[PatrickHenry]

EvolutionPing

A pro-evolution science list with over 220 names. Quote-mining free-for-all freak thread!

[Bigh4u2]

Please!

This is hogwash.

'Gaps of 20,000 to 80,000 years' with no resultant fossil record?

What did they do? Turn to dust.

Even the species sited are not consistant in the 'theoretical evolutionary cyle'.

The socalled 'proof' is nothing more than a hyposthesis of what they 'think' has happened between specie manisfestations and they even admit that:

"Species-to-species transitions are even harder to document. To demonstrate anything about how a species arose, whether it arose gradually or suddenly, you need exceptionally complete strata, with many dead animals buried under constant, rapid sedimentation. This is rare for terrestrial animals."

And even the ones discovered can not be considered 'conclusive' based on the 'gaps' in the fossil records.

[PatrickHenry]

The fraudulent quote-mining of the charlatans who run creationoid websites has spawned a mini-industry to truth squads who have to work to keep up with exposing all their bogus quotes. Here's a sampling:

Quotations and Misquotations.What Anti-evolutionists Quote is Not Valid Evidence Against Evolution
Online resources documenting anti- evolutionist misquotations. Dishonest, bogus, and out-of-context quotes.
The Quote Mine Project. Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines.
The Revised Quote Book. Looking at how Creationists Quote Evolutionists.

[orionblamblam]

> How many condemning quotes does it take to reach the threshold of "devastating"?

How many quotes from Muslims saying that Christianity is bunk does it take?

[MineralMan]

Hey....you're asking him to read all that stuff at those links? The very idea! Next thing you'll do is tell him to go to a major natural history museum. How far will you go, eh? [grin]

[Prime Choice]

Darwinists forbid debate.

Nonsense. All of science is debate; debate and peer review. But if we're going to start treating the book of Genesis as a viable scientific alternative, then we're also going to have to consider the idea that the universe started when the word "Om!" was first uttered.

If you let one religion start explaining everything, then you'd best be prepared for it to be debated against all other religions. And, the last time I looked, that sort of thing tends to descend into Holy Wars real damn quick.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

To cut to the chase---What should be done, is for teachers from the lowest levels of school all the way to the collegiate level to be required to state before discussing evolutionary THEORY that it is an unproven theory and be required by law to give statements from scientists that are counter to the theory of evolution...give both sides, and let the students decide for themselves.

This would be the best and proper route to take in America.

[orionblamblam]

Try your local library. Assuming they haven't burned the science books, of course...

[Modernman]

To cut to the chase---What should be done, is for teachers from the lowest levels of school all the way to the collegiate level to be required to state before discussing evolutionary THEORY that it is an unproven theory and be required by law to give statements from scientists that are counter to the theory of evolution.

Fine, but I demand equal time for flat-earthers in Geography class.

[orionblamblam]

> give both sides

Both sides? Woudl they be THESE two sides?
1) Evolutionists
2) Raelians

Or maybe these two:
1) Evolutionists
2) Muslim Creationists

Or maybe ...

3) Hindu Creationists
4) Norse Creationists
5) Sumerian Creationists
6) Lamarkians
7) Theosophists
8) Scientologists
9) Urantians
10)...

So, which two sides?

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

I still haven't seen any quotes posted on here that remotely come close to proving that evolution is anything more than a hole-ridden theory.

The silence by you pro-evolutionary theory guys on here is defeaning.