Evolution? For scientific critiques of the PBS TV series, click here (Propaganda Broadcasting System?)

The Evolutionists' Own Words
Against Them

Hubert P. Yockey, a leading information theorist, 'Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory', Journal of Theoretical Biology 91:13-31, 1981, quoted in J. Buell and V. Hearn (ed), Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Richardson, Texas, USA. p. 70, 1994.

"Since science has not the vaguest idea how [proteins] originated, it would only be honest to admit this to students, the agencies funding research, and the public."

The "god" of the Evolutionists:

Hull, David L., “The God of the Galápagos,” review of Darwin on Trial, by Philip Johnson (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991, 195 pp.), Nature, vol. 352 (August 8, 1991), pp. 485-486. Hull is in the Department of Philosophy, Northwestern University.
“What kind of God can one infer from the sort of phenomena epitomized by the species on Darwin’s Galápagos Islands? The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror.”

Monod, Jacques, “The Secret of Life,” Interview with Laurie John, Australian Broadcasting Co., June 10, 1976 (shortly before his death).
“[Natural] selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms. The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.”

Thomson, Keith Stewart, “Natural Theology,” American Scientist, vol. 85 (May/June 1997), pp. 219-21. Dr. Thomson is University Distinguished Scientist in Residence at the new School for Social Research in New York.
p. 221
“God the creator of pain and suffering is never quite explainable by Malthus’s arithmetic, however, and Charles Darwin himself turned away from religion as much or more because of the ‘senseless’ death of his 10-year-old daughter Annie than any logic.”

Alters, Brian J., and William F. McComas, “Punctuated Equilibrium: the Missing Link in Evolution Education,” American Biology Teacher, vol. 56 (September 1994), p. 337
“Gould and Eldredge content that: ‘Phyletic gradualism was an a priori assertion from the start—it was never “seen” in the rocks; it expressed the culture and political bias of 19th century liberalism.’ By the same token, while many feel that punctuated equilibrium postulates how speciation occurs, its occurrence is not based on empirical evidence but on the apparent lack of evidence—gaps in the fossil record. Bodnar, Jones and Ellis suggested that one would not see intermediate forms in simple eukaryotes in the fossil record because there are no intermediate forms. A single mutation in a regulatory gene caused the change in one leap of evolutionary development.”

Bloom, Howard. The LUCIFER PRINCIPLE: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History.pp 1-2,
"Eighteen hundred years ago in a city of Rome, an influential Christian heretic named Marcion took a look at the world around him and drew a conclusion: The god who created our cosmos couldn't possibly be good."

"...More traditional Christians found another way of dealing with the problem of evil. They created the myth of Lucifer."
"....But, in a strange way, Marcion understood the situation better than the more conventional followers of the church, for Lucifer is merely one of the faces of a larger force. Evil is a by-product, a component, of creation. In a world evolving into ever higher forms, hatred, violence, aggression, and war are a part of the evolutionary plan."
"....Death, destruction, and fury do not disturb the Mother of our world; they are merely parts of her plan."

Jerome Frank, MD, Ph.D. Prof. Emeritus Psychiatry, The John's Hopkins University School of Medicine.
"I'm in full agreement with ‘The Lucifer Principle'. It is fascinating, erudite, enjoyable, stimulating...."

Elizabeth Loftus, Prof. Psychology, Univ. of Washington.
"A revolutionary vision of the relationship between psychology and history, The Lucifer Principle will have a profound impact on our concepts of human nature."

The Independent Scholar:
"The Lucifer Principle has become an underground sensation in the scientific and literary communities...."

Sol Gordon, Ph.D., founder, The Institute for Family Research and Education:
"The Lucifer Principle is a tour de force, a brilliant and seminal work."

Allen Johnson, chair, anthropology department, UCLA:
"I found myself alternating between ‘Wow!' & ‘Aha'!

Horace Barlow, Royal Society Research Prof. of Physiology, Cambridge University:
"His story...is a challenging and welcome alternative to those based on theistic or political assumptions"

In The Beginning ....... Nothing ....... Exploded?
    (The First Law of Thermodynamics)

Klein, Martin J., “Thermodynamics in Einstein’s Thought,” Science, vol. 157 (August 4, 1967), p. 509
Citing Albert Einstein: “Classical thermodynamics is the only physical theory of universal content concerning which I am convinced that, within the framework of its basic concepts, it will never be overthrown.”

Asimov, Isaac, “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even,” Smithsonian Institute Journal (June 1970), p. 6
“To express all this, we can say: ‘Energy can be transferred from one place to another, or transformed from one form to another, but it can be neither created nor destroyed.’ Or we can put it another way: ‘The total quantity of energy in the universe is constant.’
“ This law is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make."

Arp, H. C., G. Burbidge, F. Hoyle, J. V. Narlikar, and N. C. Wickramasinghe, “The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View,” Nature, vol. 346 (August 30, 1990), pp. 807-812.
“Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on a very few facts.”

Burbidge, Geoffrey, “Why Only One Big Bang?” Scientific American (February 1992), p. 120.
“Big Bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rests, however, on many untested, and in some cases untestable, assumptions. Indeed, big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth.”
“This situation is particularly worrisome because there are good reasons to think the big bang model is seriously flawed.”

Darling, David, “On Creating Something from Nothing,” New Scientist, vol. 151 (September 14, 1996). p. 49
“What is a big deal—the biggest deal of all—is how you get something out of nothing.
“Don’t let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either—despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. ‘In the beginning,’ they will say, ‘there was nothing—no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which ’ Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats.”

“You cannot fudge this by appealing to quantum mechanics. Either there is nothing to begin with, in which case there is no quantum vacuum, no pre-geometric dust, no time in which anything can happen, no physical laws that can effect a change from nothingness into somethingness; or there is something, in which case that needs explaining.”

Asimov, Isaac, “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even,” Smithsonian Institute Journal (June 1970),pp. 10-11
“Another way of stating the Second Law, then, is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly.’

Rifkin, Jeremy, Entropy: A New World View (New York: Viking Press, 1980),
p. 6 “The Entropy Law will preside as a the ruling paradigm over the next period of history. Albert Einstein said that it is the premier law of all science; Sir Arthur Eddington referred to it as the supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe.”

p. 55 “Evolution means the creation of larger and larger islands of order at the expense of ever greater seas of disorder in the world. There is not a single biologist or physicist who can deny this central truth. Yet, who is willing to stand up in a classroom or before a public forum and admit it?”

The Statistical Impossibility & Non-Scientific Character of Evolution:

Løvtrup, Søren, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), 469 pp.
p. 422
“I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar ‘Darwinian’ vocabulary—‘adaptation,’ ‘selection pressure,’ ‘natural selection,’ etc.—thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events. They do not, and the sooner this is discovered, the sooner we shall be able to make real progress in our understanding of evolution.
“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science”

Peters, R. H., “Tautology in Evolution and Ecology,” American Naturalist, vol. 110 (January/February 1976),
p. 1
“I argue that the ‘theory of evolution’ does not make predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empericisms and to show the relationships which such a classification implies. The essence of the argument is that these ‘theories’ are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all.”

Capra, Fritjof, The Web of Life (New York: Anchor Books, 1996), 347 pp. Dr. Capra is Director of the Center for Ecoliteracy, in Berkeley, California, one of the most influential “New-Age” scientists.
p. 228
“It has been estimated that those chance errors occur at a rate of about one per several hundred million cells in each generation. This frequency does not seem to be sufficient to explain the evolution of the great diversity of life forms, given the well-known fact that most mutations are harmful and only very few result in useful variations.”

Bowler, Peter J., “The Status of Evolutionism Examined,” review of Monad to Man by Michael Ruse (Harvard University Press, 1996, 596 pp.), American Scientist, vol. 85 (May/June 1997), pp. 274-275. Bowler is on the faculty in History and Philosophy of Science, The Queen’s University, Belfast.
p. 274
“Ruse is a philosopher who wants to use history as a means of assessing the theory’s status as scientific knowledge. He asks why so many (and not just the creationists) remain skeptical of the theory’s scientific credentials. The answer, he argues, is that evolutionism has always been linked to a nonscientific value system based on the idea of progress.”

Dr. Lee Spetner of Johns Hopkins University has written a fascinating book called, Not By Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory about Evolution, that is a must read for anyone interested in scientific challenges to neo-Darwinian theory: "I have shown in my book that the broad sweep of evolution cannot be based on random mutations. I have shown it on both theoretical and experimental grounds. On theoretical grounds, I have shown that the probability is just too small for random mutations to lead to a new species. On experimental grounds, I have shown that there are no known random mutations that have added any genetic information to the organism. I go through a list of the best examples of mutations offered by evolutionists and show that each of them loses genetic information rather than gains it. One of the examples that where information is lost is the one often trotted out by evolutionists nowadays in an attempt to convince the public of the truth of evolution. That is the evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics."
(This quote is from Dr. Spetner's own comments on Amazon.com about his book.)
In reviewing Spetner's book, Professor E. Simon, Department of Biology, Purdue University says: "It is certainly the most rational attack on evolution that I have ever read"

Wald, George, “The Origin of Life,” in The Physics and Chemistry of Life (Simon & Schuster, 1955), p. 9
“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”

Crick, Francis, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981) p. 51-2
“If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare an event would this be?
“This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20²⁰⁰ and is approximately equal to 10²⁶⁰, that is, a one followed by 260 zeros.
“ Moreover, we have only considered a polypeptide chain of rather modest length. Had we considered longer ones as well, the figure would have been even more immense. The great majority of sequences can never have been synthesized at all, at any time.”
p. 88 “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”

Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, Ltd., 1985),
p. 330 “Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches 10 to the 15th power or a thousand million million. Numbers in the order of 10 to the 15th power are of course completely beyond comprehension. Imagine an area about half the size of the USA (one million square miles) covered in a forest of trees containing ten thousand trees per square mile. If each tree contained one hundred thousand leaves the total number of leaves in the forest would be 10 to the 15th power, equivalent to the number of connections in the human brain.”
p. 334 “The capacity of DNA to store information vastly exceeds that of any other known system; it is so efficient that all the information needed to specify an organism as complex as man weighs less than a few thousand millionths of a gram. The information necessary to specify the design of all the species of organisms which have ever existed on the planet, a number according to G. G. Simpson of approximately one thousand million, could be held in a teaspoon and there would still be room left for all the information in every book ever written.”
p. 342 “It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene—is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artifacts appear clumsy.”

Hoyle, Sir Fred, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, “Where Microbes Boldly Went,” New Scientist, vol. 91 (August 13, 1991),
p. 415 “Precious little in the way of biochemical evolution could have happened on the Earth. It is easy to show that the two thousand or so enzymes that span the whole of life could not have evolved on the Earth. If one counts the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes, the probability of their discovery by random shufflings turns out to be less than 1 in 10 to the power of 40,000.”

 Home    About    Logikos     Spiritual/Scientific     People-Protection     Animal-Protection     Donate     Seminars/MP3/PPT     Contact     Links