[JCEccles]

"Evolution by natural selection , . . . which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause!

"Sometimes one hears it argued that the issue is moot because biochemistry is a fact-based discipline for which theories are neither helpful nor wanted. The argument is false, for theories are needed for formulating experiments. Biology has plenty of theories. they are just not discussed--or scrutinized--in public. The ostensibly noble repudiation of theoretical prejudice is, in fact, a cleverly disguised antitheory, whose actual function is to evade the requirement for logical consistency as a means of eliminating falsehood. We often ask ourselves nowadays whether evolution is an engineer or a magician--a discoverer and exploiter of preexisting physical principles or a worker of miracles--but we shouldn't. The former is theory, the latter is antitheory."

Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe--Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down, (Basic Books, New York, 2006) pp. 168-170.

(Dr. Laughlin is no creationist. He is a Stanford University professor who won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1998.)

[Dimensio]

(Dr. Laughlin is no creationist. He is a Stanford University professor who won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1998.)

Clearly, then, a respected physicist is far more qualified to speak on a biological theory than a biologist.