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.

[dmz]

You posted that reply to a whole group of us, but I'll only address the specifics that relate to the nature of my disagreement with you.

As I posted to you earlier, instead of teaching that evolution is an unproved theory, why don't we instead teach them the definition of the word "theory", given that it is by definition, not proven, i.e., not a fact, but a framework in which to view the evidence.

ID is not "the other side" of the coin when it comes to evolutionary theory; an honest appraisal of evolution's strengths and weaknesses does not mean teaching ID in science class.

I am, personally, all in favor of our kids learning about our Judeo-Christian backgrounds, with everything that means for, and to, our cultural heritage. It's VERY important to do so. Isn't the home the best place for this education, though?

Your comments at the end of your post are baffling to me. No one on this thread, at least to my knowledge, has suggested suppressing all discussion of evolutionary theory (as you seem to be hinting at in your post) which is at odds with the way evolution is currently taught. It simply needs to be taught in the appropriate venue.

[RobRoy]

When did I say ID is science?

[dmz]

Evolutionary theory is absurd.

______________

I don't mean to be disrespectful (it just comes naturally to me), but is there anyone else reading this thread who's mind is being boggled by creationists insisting, as above, that evolutionary theory is absurd, on the basis of its lack of good science, while pushing another notion, ID or creationism, without any science at all, while insisting on its universal truth on the basis of one's faith.

Is there pot calling the kettle black, or is someone simply trying to have their cake and eat it too?

[Thatcherite]

Continued and persistent failure to name a single achievement of a modern creation scientist noted. Anything in the last 30 years will do.

Come on, these guys have got all the advantages, according to you. Where are their achievements?

[dmz]

Without admitting it, many scientists are getting back to the idea that the design in nature is far more creative than they are.
___________

If the scientists you speak of are not admitting it, how is it that you have come by this information you attribute to "many".

[PatrickHenry]

Continued and persistent failure to name a single achievement of a modern creation scientist noted. Anything in the last 30 years will do. Come on, these guys have got all the advantages, according to you. Where are their achievements?

Don't you realize that everything discovered by science is "proof" of the designer's activities? Thus, the accomplishments of "creation science" are enormous. Pretty neatly done, actually, as it requires no work on their part.

[bondserv]

If the scientists you speak of are not admitting it, how is it that you have come by this information you attribute to "many".

Let's help you understand.

Without admitting it, many actors will only accept more wholesome movie projects because they are repulsed by the decadence around them.

[dmz]

I'm stuck trying to parse the expression "RELIGIOUS DOGMA OF THE RIGID DOCTRINES OF THE INQUISITIONAL RELIGION OF SCIENCE?"

I am unaware of executioners in the name of science, as that's what the term inquisition brings to my mind.

[dmz]

Given that you define ALL science as creation science "All real world science is creation science" (your post #413 on this thread), then by definition, all scientific achievements have to be made by creation scientists.

It kind of looks tautological, eh? Not very informative.

[Quix]

I saw later.

No sweat.

Thanks. Just one of my minor crusades.

[dmz]

You are clearly 100x smarter than I am. I cannot read the motivations of others out of the ether.

[RobRoy]

Repair manuals are written and REVISED as needed to correct mistakes. Are you saying that the Bible is revised to correct mistakes?

Your paradigms are limiting your thinking, and exposing themselves. The whole point is that because the Bible is inspired by our Creator it does not need to be revised, EVER.

Man made works, such as The Book of Mormon and the Quran, do need to be revised from time to time (as with the book of Mormon), or be left with admitted mistakes as discoveries contradicting their claims or conclusions avail themselves (as with the Quran from what I know so far). Anything from Darwin, Einstein, Ptolomy, Charles Lyell, et-al cannot be revised, but accepted for where it was right, wrong, or wrong but pointed us in the right direction.

One of the ways the Bible proves itself is in it's accuracies regarding things about which the human contemporaries of the manuscripts could not possibly have had any information. Some who have lightly studied the bible, but refuse to acknowledge the God and Jesus of the Bible will sometimes ignorantly then attempt to attribute its wisdom to space aliens.

There was a lot of that going on in the late 1960's and early 70's.

Meanwhile, one of my favorite books in my personal library is "Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible.” It discusses and handily refutes the claims made here from time to time attempting to demonstrate the Bibles “flaws.” The funny thing is, the book was written in 1874 and he is addressing the same “discrepancies” that our arrogant and misinformed generation thinks it has “newly discovered.”

Every generation finds its own “new” collective excuses, but then, "there is nothing new under the sun" - Ecclesiastes 1:9

For those who would think that the “new” age of science is man’s salvation or next “evolutionary step,” I recommend the hilariously preachy movie “Things to Come” by H. G. Wells. It's the first of the "age of the 'god of science'" sci-fi epics. I own it. It is a real hoot!

[WildTurkey]

Your paradigms are limiting your thinking, and exposing themselves. The whole point is that because the Bible is inspired by our Creator it does not need to be revised, EVER.

But is has been revised, several times. Parts deleted, others added.

[Junior]

One of the ways the Bible proves itself is in it's accuracies regarding things about which the human contemporaries of the manuscripts could not possibly have had any information.

For instance, about rabbits chewing their cud.

[WildTurkey]

>> The whole point is that because the Bible is inspired by our Creator it does not need to be revised, EVER.<<

Uh, and these are just the modern time revisions ...

---

· Latin Vulgate (St. Jerome) c.400: the Bible of the Western Church through the middle ages; still the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.


· Wycliffe (& Purvey) c.1385: first translation of whole (or most of) Bible from Vulgate into vernacular, medieval English -- [n.b. complete Wycliffe Bible not published until 1850].

· Martin Luther c.1522: translation of the Greek N.T. and Hebrew O.T. into vernacular German; still the standard Bible of German Protestants [Lutheran].

· Tyndale c.1525: translation of Greek N.T. [consulting Vulgate and Luther's German translation] and parts of Hebrew O.T. -- fixed the English translation style.

· Coverdale c.1535: little change from Tyndale's, but with new translations for previously undone portions of O.T. from Vulgate and Luther's [not orig. Hebrew]; Coverdale's PSALMS still used by Anglicans and Episcopalians in Book of Common Prayer.

· Matthew c.1537: Essentially Tyndale's but a publication authorized by the king (Henry VIII); the first authorized or licensed English Bible - [though license was extended to Coverdale's later editions].

· Great Bible (Cranmer) c.1540: revision of Matthew's Bible produced in a large size; undertaken at Cromwell's suggestion and claimed the "Bible appointed to the use of the churches".

· Geneva c.1560: revision/collation of Tyndale's and the Great Bible; first English translation to use the division into verses; considered most scholarly of early English versions; commonly used for many years - especially among Puritans - and commonly brought to America.

· Bishops' c.1568: a rebuttal by the bishops to the Geneva Bible (which they didn't like); borrowed heavily from Great Bible and, actually, also from Geneva Bible - including use of verses; uneven quality but formed basis for KJV.

· Rheims/Douay c.1582/1610: the official [English] Roman Catholic Bible; translation from Vulgate [n.b. Bishop Challoner revised in mid 1700's, sometimes called "Challoner-Rheims Version"].

· King James (or Authorized ) Version (KJV or AV) 1611: the standard authorized Bible of most Protestant churches for 2+ centuries; used the original Hebrew and Greek to inform comparison/revision of earlier English versions - [leaned heavily on Bishop's Bible; much of the language actually goes back to Tyndale's].


Modern - Major English Language Versions (1800-1990)

· Revised Version or English Revised Version (RV or ERV) N.T. 1881, O.T. 1884: first major revision of KJV; done by lengthy committee process including Anglican and most Protestant faiths but NOT Roman Catholics.

· American Revised Version or American Standard Version (ARV or ASV) N.T. 1900, O.T. 1901: a re-edited version of the RV, basically the same.

· Moulton (Modern Readers') Bible 1907: a rearrangement of texts rather than a significantly new version, but an early attempt to "update" the Bible.

· Moffat Bible N.T. 1913, O.T. 1924: a new translation from early Greek and Latin texts - considered flawed because of the choice of source texts and the occasional rearrangement of verses but still a major work and fairly popular in it's time.

· Smith-Goodspeed or "Chicago " Bible c.1930's: [The Bible: An American Translation (AT)] first significant attempt to make truly modern language version.

· Knox Bible N.T. 1945, O.T. 1948: a new translation of the Vulgate bible; the New Testament was officially approved by the Roman Catholic church, though not supplanting the Rheims N.T. (first translation done by a single individual).

· Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1946-1957: an attempt to improve on the language of the RV/ASV; more widely accepted, but not supplanting KJV.

· Modern Language Bible (New Berkeley) (MLB) 1959, rev. 1969: another attempt at a modernization of the language leaning especially toward an American audience and working from the Greek and Hebrew texts.

· Jerusalem Bible (JB) 1966: Catholic translation based on ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts, but closely following the French "Bible de Jerusalem" [n.b. begun well after the NAB NT (1941) was done, but finished before the NAB OT (1970)].

· New American Standard Bible (NASB) N.T. 1963, O.T. 1970: conservative, fairly literal translation from mainly Greek texts; attempt to repeat the RV process with more contemporary language; not very well-received.

· New English Bible (NEB) 1970: first completely new [Protestant] translation from original Bible languages into English since Tyndale.

· New American Bible (NAB) O.T. 1969, complete 1970 [added "Confraternity Version" N.T. of Douay]: The first significant Catholic translation since Douay-Rheims; working from original Greek texts mainly, rather than Vulgate (Latin); O.T. also made use of Dead Sea Scrolls; original N.T. rushed and mostly from Vulgate and later (1987) greatly revised/retranslated.

· Living Bible 1971: most popular "paraphrase translation".

· New International Version (NIV) 1973: a conservative, evangelically oriented translation from Greek and Hebrew texts.

· Good News Bible [Today's English Version] (TEV) 1966: "common language" translation from modern Greek/Hebrew texts; emphasis on effective and accurate communication to the common reader.

· New King James Version (NKJV) N.T. 1979, O.T. 1982: a revision of KJV to improve readability of text .

· New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) 1985: a revision following on the changes made in the French revision of the Bible de Jerusalem (1973) reflecting some new scholarship in research of the original texts and translations.

· New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) 1989: the result of continuing revisions from the committee(s) who made RSV .

· Revised English Bible (REB) 1989: a revision of the New English Bible (1970), updating according to new scholarship in translation.

[Thatcherite]

And grasshoppers with surprising numbers of legs....

[RobRoy]

No, it hasn't. It HAS been compiled, however. It has also been translated into different languages, and many different translators come up with many different "versions." But the general text remains unchanged.

Remember also, it is a collection of books.

[RobRoy]

Old news. You bring that one up from time to time and it's been refuted and run its course. 8^>

[Thatcherite]

I'm stuck trying to parse the expression "RELIGIOUS DOGMA OF THE RIGID DOCTRINES OF THE INQUISITIONAL RELIGION OF SCIENCE?"

I have to admit that I lost the will to live halfway through that particular rant of Quix's and didn't finish reading what it said, which I guess was Quix's intention. Arguments by CAPSLOCK are rarely persuasive. ;)