My favorite quotes from evolutionists

[kendemyer]

Here are my favorite quotes from evolutionists:

"When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd." - Simon Conway Morris (palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK), "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11

"So heated is the debate that one Darwinian says there are times when he thinks about going into a field with more intellectual honesty: the used-car business."

-Sharon Begley, "Science Contra Darwin," Newsweek, April 8, 1985, p. 80.

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." - Francis Crick ( Nobel Prize Laureate in Physiology and Medicine), "What Mad Pursuit," 1990, p.138.

"If it is true that an influx of doubt and uncertainty actually marks periods of healthy growth in a science, then evolutionary biology is flourishing today as it seldom has flourished in the past. For biologists collectively are less agreed upon the details of evolutionary mechanics than they were a scant decade ago. Superficially, it seems as if we know less about evolution than we did in 1959, the centennial year of Darwin's on the Origin of Species." (Niles Eldredge, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p14).

"All scholarly subjects seem to go through cycles, from periods when most of the answers seem to be known to periods when no one is sure that even the questions are right. Such is the case for evolutionary biology. Twenty years ago Mayr, in his Animal Species and Evolution, seemed to have shown that if evolution is a jigsaw puzzle, then at least all the edge pieces were in place. But today we are less confident and the whole subject is in the most exciting ferment. Evolution is both troubled from without by the nagging insistencies of antiscientists and nagged from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery-speciation itself. In looking over recent literature in and around the field of evolutionary theory, I am struck by the necessity to reexamine the simpler foundations of the subject, to distinguish carefully between what we know and what we merely think we know. The first and strongest of our critics to be answered should be ourselves." - K.S. Thomson, "The Meanings of Evolution," American Scientist, Vol. 70, September-October 1982, p. 529

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831

"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation." - E.J.H. Corner, Prof of Botany, Cambridge University, England. E.J. H. Corner,

[Rebmilc]

Thanks for the quotes. I really enjoyed reading them. See, even the scientists can't agree. Although I've heard the argument that if you don't believe in evolution, you can't be a "real" scientist. It seems to me that the whole theory of evolution revolves around the premise that if you repeat something enough times and insist that it's the truth, maybe people will believe you. Or better yet, if the people don't believe you, then come up with a plausible explanation that the people will believe.

Hi All.

You may find the following links to intellectual doubters of darwinism interesting

doubters

And

doubters2

choose what the evolutionists would have us believe, there are many intellectuals that doubt.

Edited December 12, 2006 by Rebmilc

[Guest K.R.E.B.S]

Don't you guys know that you can't use those websites?!?!?!? They are "creationists" sites and therefore have no credibility...Instead of looking at what those people have researched and say, we're going to use Ad Hominem arguments..."Their research is tainted," "They are in the church more than the science lab," "They read and study the Bible more than the 'Origin,'" and "Their Phd's are really GED's..."

Just thought I'd beat some to the punch...

Blessings,

Joe

[Floatingaxe]

No scientists are trying to pretend their work is infallible (well, barring Ken Ham). Regardless, even if there is some dispute on some of the mechanisms involved in evolution, it has been shown beyond reaosnable doubt that evolution did happen - which is why it is accepted by 99.9999% of the scientific community, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Christians in Science organisation, and indeed everyone but a minority of religious literalists whose faith (i.e. strong belief without any evidence) inhibits their ability to come to the simple, rational conclusion that there is no mass deception by evil atheists or a New World Order, but simply that evolution stands up to scrutiny.

Yeah, I've read this before! Do you like to play with paste?

[Floatingaxe]

Yeah, I've read this before! Do you like to play with paste?

The usual Appeal to Ridicule Come on, you can at least try to refute it? Or are you no better than Leonard?

I already told you before when you pasted that---I don't believe it.

[no_more_nails]

It seems to me that the whole theory of evolution revolves around the premise that if you repeat something enough times and insist that it's the truth, maybe people will believe you.

Around what premise does any religion revolve, if not that one?

[forrestkc]

If creationists want to run around spreading half truths and misinformation, then this is the way to go about it. Just clip a few quotes out on context, and post them on some boards.

However, if they actually wanted to be taken seriously in the realms of science, then they might actually, get this, do what other scientists do at submit the work to the peer review process. I mean imagine that, to earn scientific credibility, all one has to do is actually go through the same process that other scientists go through to do the same.

[MorningGlory]

I don't understand why the ongoing argument over evolution vs. creationism. Obviously, evolution is a fact. All creatures on the earth changed and adapted as necessary to survive (and some failed). That is......and this is a big IS...........until the appearance of modern humans twenty five to thirty five thousand years ago. Their remains are virtally indistinguishable from those of modern man. No evolution occurred from their point in history to ours. This also fact.

Why is God not given credit for 1. creating the universe. 2. building adaptability into his creations. 3. realizing that none of the animal or 'homanid' creatures could fulfill his plans and 4. finally creating his greatest work in his own image to have dominion over all of his other creations and (except for growing taller and living longer), that "work" populates the entire planet today relatively unchanged since day one. There is NO evidence that the last of the humanlike creatures (Neanderthals) contributed any genetic material whatsoever to modern humans. They simply disappeared (within a few thousand years) after we, Homo Sapiens, appeared.

Now, see how easy it is to reconcile evolution (proven by fossil remains and the lack of human dna) and creationism (proven by fossil remains and human dna)?

[HUBIE]

It appears that there are some Evoloutionists honestly seeking answers to their questions.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is still only a theory. Cite any evidence you have for this theory having moved from the status of theory into fact please.

Creationism (in all of it's forms) is also only a theory. (Scientifically - it is what it is folks, don't throw darts at me please ) I personally believe in God as the creator of everything. Jesus is my Lord and Savior as well; but in order to be honest, I have to admit that Creation is as much a "Theory" as any other.

Please cite any evidence you may have for Macro-Evolution. Micro-Evolution is another term for variation; so if you prefer to use Evolution and Variation as separate but distinct definitions, that is easily understood as well.

I honestly believe that I cannot "prove" Creation to you, however, I can tell you why I find belief in a Divine Creator to be more intellectually honest than a belief in evolutionary processes.

Joe

[MorningGlory]

Cite your sources of evidence please.

Actually these are things I have read over a large area of sources. But, I will look up the articles and post links or the titles of the books.