EVOLUTION: Fact or Bullcrap? (Whew! Right answer's easy)

<
> EVOLUTION: Is it Fact or Bullcrap? 
>
(A little plagarism music, Maestro...)
>
Borrowed from:
>  theforbiddenknowledge.com/chapter9/index.htm 
<
<
>        SCIENTISTS' COMMENTS ON THE SCIENTIIC
>       BASIS OF DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION
>
Darwin’s theory of evolution is exactly that: a theory, with little in
the way of hard scientific evidence to back it up. Yet it has been
accepted almost as an article of faith in the modern world.
>
 However, as the following shows, there are many within the scientific
community who have voiced serious doubts over what still remains
no more than a theory.
>
Don’t expect the mainstream media to make too much of the following
though; the powers that be would rather we accept Darwin’s theory
as a proven fact rather than question it. 
>
Because that might lead us to question other accepted notions
and dogmas, which in turn might even prompt us to start thinking
for ourselves.
<
And that is something the powers that be do not want to happen;
their power rests on our acquiescence, which in turn depends
on our ignorance, cultivated and conditioned by the mainstream
media.                                                  -  The Editor.
>
> ==============================================
<
>(An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person
>is not knownm to be a creationist.) 
<
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it
in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research,
but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen
zoologist]. 
<
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence
in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success
of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity.
—*W.R. Thompson. Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the
Species [Canadian scientist]. 
<
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him
adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so
fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so
profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in
the universe."—*Michael Denton, [Australian molecular biologist]. 
<
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped
nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le
Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National
center of Scientific Research in France] 
<
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed.
Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not
all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we
see them, well-defined species?"
—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966),
p. 139. 
<
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of
creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe
(1981), p. 19. 
<
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost
all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their
observations to fit in with it.
—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31
(1980), p. 138. 
<
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman
that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined
nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself
and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are
certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious
fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The
main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The
doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather
than a siege from without."
—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about
Darwinism (1982), p. 11. 
<
"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith,
upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that
cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that
refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—*Arthur N.
Field. 
<
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith
was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being
carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin.
They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the
gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to
me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual
progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of
Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the
progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior
paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London]. 
<
"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150
years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it
has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without
giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining
it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has
been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there
has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in
different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is
unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the
veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . . "Finally,
there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It
consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people
will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am
interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis
and observation of the facts."
—*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie
Actuelle (1973), p. 331. 
<
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so
powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval
astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has
become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton,
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular
biologist]. 
<
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more
and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with
practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist. 
<
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost
all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their
observations to fit in with it."
—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31
(1980), p. 138. 
<
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not
be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the
fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did
not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the
most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest
rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species
there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils.
--*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England,
December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist]. 
<
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."—*John Ambrose Fleming,
President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The
Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought. 
<
" `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life
are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest
hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A
tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian
called it]."
—*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian,
physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission]. 
<
" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "—*Louis
Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139.
[Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in
glaciation.] 
<
"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to
probability, and probabilities then were promoted to
certitudes."—*Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335. 
<
"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the
subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,'
etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species
alone."—L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953),
p. 7. 
<
"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect
that science is built upon theories that have been proved by
experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal
evolution has never been thus approved.
"—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin
(1971 edition). 
<
"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses
incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires
fallacious interpretations . . . Through use and abuse of hidden
postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience
has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and
is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely
believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been
demonstrated, which is not the case.
"—*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977),
p. 202. 
<
[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin
wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond
the bounds of true science."
—*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the
Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book]. 
<
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago
that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of
his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any
support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary
phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated
and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous
mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative
hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from
that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would
have us believe."
—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77. 
<
> Ed Conrad
> http://www.edconrad.com
>
Man as Old as Coal