"The evidence for Darwinism is not only grossly inadequate, it's systematically distorted. I'm convinced that sometime in the not-to-distant future, people will look back in amazement and say, 'How could anyone have believed this?' Darwinism is merely materialistic philosophy masquerading as science." Jonathan Well, Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology, specializing in vertebrate embryology, 1994, from UC Berkeley.
I like this one too.
"The salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given
the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange.
And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred."
Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D Mathematics , MS Physics
Teilardism and the New Religion
Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1988, p. 5
Would it surprise you to know I agree with Jonathan Well? "Darwinism" is a materialist philosophy which is guilty of reduction to absurdity. While Darwin's work was important to the development of the modern theories of sexual selection and evolution, his paper created a philosophical movement among the intelligentsia which had very little to do with science. Most reputable biologists reacted so strongly against this "Darwinism" that, if anything, the reaction precluded scientific study! (case in point: the reaction against "The Bell Curve.") You've discovered the one irrational point of biology: Science, to remain pure, must refrain from making value statements. And Darwinism is about making value statements, so biologists won't even consider it, even if it makes sense.
But we're not arguing "Darwinism." We're arguing "evolutionary biology." You'll notice I haven't once used the word "Darwinism," and neither do any principle sources.
Now, there is a point to made: Evolutionary biology is a model, not a scientific law. It is drastically imperfect, and there are loads of discoveries yet to be made which will refine our understanding.
But to state that our such incomplete knowledge means that the truth might lie closer to creationism is akin to stating that because we have so much to learn still about meteorology, that there may really be a great dome in the sky which seperates the rain from the Earth, and that this dome occasionally loosens, allowing rain to fall.