Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Is 'Evolution' Science? Evolutionists Speak for Themselves

It is an unfortunate fact that a sizable percentage of the general public has somehow gotten the idea that evolution (defined here as one species evolving into another more complex species) has been PROVEN by scientists. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact is, evolution is not science. Belief in evolution is FAITH. The 'Theory of Evolution' is an explanation for the origin of life, just as Genesis is an explanation for the origin of life.

The existence of a creator has implications for each of us personally that many find intolerable. Scientists are people too. They have PERSONAL reasons for not wanting to believe that a Creator exists -- just like the rest of us.

The following quotes reveal just how unscientific belief in evolution really is...

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic"
-Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University

“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing...that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school.”
--Dr. Colin Patterson in a lecture given at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism...Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
--Professor Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997

"We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation. . ."
--Professor Jerome Lejeune, at a lecture given in Paris on March 17, 1985

"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformation, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"
--Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of that museum’s general text on evolution

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right.

Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity."
--Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada (recently moved to Florida), the leading anti-creationist philosopher whose (flawed) arguments seemed to convince the biased judge to rule against the Arkansas ‘balanced treatment’ (of creation and evolution in schools) bill in 1981/2.

What difference does it make? Consider the following:

"Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals ... That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws.

If you want to treat a tiger reasonably, you must go back to the garden of Eden. For the obstinate reminder continues to recur: only the supernaturalist has taken a sane view of Nature."
Chesterton, G.K., Orthodoxy, John Lane, London, pp. 204-205, 1927


"If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…"
Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994


"The German F├╝hrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."
Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947