Appendix
4 : Quotes about Evolution
The
purpose of this page is to challenge thinking about evolution by seeing
what others say about it, for it clearly is the lynchpin of Richard's
thinking. Is he the one who is in delusion? These quotes could be
much more extensive. We have simply included these as a starter.
Credits
: Much of the information
and the quotes in this Appendix come from John Blanchard's
excellent book, Does God Believe in Atheists. Some
come from Charles Colson in How Now Shall We
Live? Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator,
has not been quoted but is very worth reading for the early chapters
about Evolution and Darwin's thinking.
1.
Definitions:
Evolution
– the process
by which nature is said to have constantly improved itself through
gradual development
Micro-evolution
– the theory that
in organisms of the same species different characteristics
emerge as the result of adaptation to differing natural environments.
Macro-evolution
– the theory that
as a result of natural selection all life-forms have evolved from
a common ancestor in a continuity of nature that goes back to a single
primal origin.
Natural
selection – the
theory that organisms prey on each other in order to survive, and
at the same time they develop new characteristics in order to cope
with the environment in which they find themselves. The theory continues
that where these new characteristics become a permanent feature, a
new species emerges, whereas those life-forms which adapt less well
die out.
Survival
of the Fittest
– another phrase meaning ‘natural selection', first coined by Herbert
Spencer but later used by Darwin as an alternative to ‘natural selection'.
Synthetic
theory – although organic
evolution could not be brought about by natural selection alone, it
could happen if mutations (inheritable genetic changes taking place
over an immense period of time) were added to the process [this is
neo-Darwinism as opposed to classical-Darwinism]
Palaeontology
– the study of
fossils, said to be the only ‘evidence' of what had actually occurred.
Everything else is only theory. Thus the study of the fossil evidence
is criticial. In chapter 10 of The Origin of Species, Darwin
wrestled with the problems of
the poorness of our palaeontological collections, of the absence of
intermediate varieties in any one formation, of the sudden appearance
of groups of species, and of the sudden appearance in the lowest known
fossiliferous strata. He had no set answers and had to resort to speculation
and metaphor, both highly unsatisfactory. Since then the record has
increased dramatically but the questions still remain.
2.
Quotes
Survival
of the Fittest
“It
has long been pointed out that it (‘survival of the fittest') leans
heavily on circular reasoning: certain life-forms survive because
they are the fittest, and they are the fittest because they survive.”
“Michael
Denton writes, ‘It was not only his general theory that was almost
entirely lacking in any direct empirical support, but his special
theory was also largely dependent on circumstantial evidence. A
striking witness to this is the fact that nowhere was Darwin
able to point to one bona fide case of natural selection
having actually generated evolutionary change in nature, let alone
having been responsible for the creation of a new species. Even
in the case of trivial adaptations Darwin was forced to use conditional
language”
Blanchard quoting Michael Denton from his
book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis .
“Neither
Darwin nor anyone else has ever actually witnessed (macro) evolution
occurring.”
Colson
“Centuries
of experiment show that the change produced by breeding does not
continue at a steady rate from generation to generation. Instead,
change is rapid at first, then levels off, and eventually reaches
a limit that breeders cannot cross….. What's more, as breeders keep
up the selection pressure, the organism grows weaker until it finally
becomes sterile and dies out…. There is a natural barrier that no
amount of breeding is able to cross. Moreover, when an organism
is no longer subject to selective pressure, it tends to revert to
its original type.”
Colson
Mutations
“Yet
for all the passion with which it is promoted, the theory runs into
massive obstacles.
Firstly,
natural mutations (as opposed to those introduced in a laboratory)
are extremely rare….
Secondly,
far from contributing to the viability of the organisms in which
they occur, mutations are almost universally harmful, if not lethal…
The
third problem (is that) … as all observed mutations are infinitesimally
small, millions of such micro mutations would be needed to change
one kind of plant or animal into another….
The
fourth difficulty faced by the mutation theory is that by their
very nature mutations are completely random whereas, if evolution
were to succeed, should we not expect it to follow an ordered design
or plan?”
Blanchard (to see his supporting quotes, read
the book!)
“To
postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely
a consequence of chance mutations seems to me to be a hypothesis
based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical
evolutionary theories are a gross over simplification of an immensely
complex and intricate mass of fact, and it amazes me that they are
swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time,
by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.”
Ernest Chain, Nobel prize holder, quoted by Blanchard.
“In
Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation
of Evolution, Marcel Schutzenberger of the University of Paris,
working with other scientists, calculated the probability of evolution
based on mutation and natural selection and came to this conclusion:
‘There is no chance to see this mechanism appear spontaneously…
We believe there is a considerable gap in the Neo-Darwinian theory
of evolution and we believe this to be of such a nature that
it cannot be bridged with the current conception of biology”
Blanchard
The
Fossil Record
“The
overwhelming pattern is that organisms appear fully formed with
variations clustered around a mean, and without transitional stages
leading up to them.”
Colson
“The
situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still
surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we now have even fewer examples
of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin 's time.”
David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago
's Field Museum of Natural History quoted by
Blanchard.
(the
following are all from Blanchard)
“The
framework for palaeontology is provided by geology, the study of
the earth…. Everything changed when Charles Lyell popularized the
idea of uniformitarianism which claims that processes now operating
to modify the earth's surface have always done so in the same way
and at the same rate over an immense period of time…..”
“When
Lyell's assumption was applied it produced a geologic column in
which the units of rock were neatly stacked, with the oldest at
the bottom and the youngest at the top. However it is important
to note that these strata were arranged on the basis of another
critical assumption, namely that organic evolution was an established
fact, with complex chemicals leading to primitive living material,
and in turn to simple and eventually increasingly complex creatures.
“Closer
examination reveals serious flaws. The first is fundamental… namely
that the geological column was put together on the assumption
of evolutionary biology … Encyclopaedia Britannica agrees:
‘It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint
geologists are here arguing in a circle'…. This fact alone means
that the geological column cannot properly be used as conclusive
evidence of evolution, any more than it can be used to prove a vast
age for the earth.”
“A
second weakness in uniformitarianism is its unquestionable faith
in Hutton's dictum that ‘The present is the key to the past', when
the fact is that scientists are unable to subject to the rigorous
examination and experimentation which true science demands of events
which happened millions of years ago. Instead the evolutionist relies
on extrapolation…”
“The
idea that the fossil record proves gradual development from simple
to complex organisms is contradicted by evidence in strata said
to be about 600 million years old. Nearly all the animal phyla suddenly
‘appear' in the rocks of this period, with no evolutionary ancestors
to back up the theory of gradual development….”
“A
fourth and critical weakness in palaeontology's claim to prove evolution
is the fact that, even when they are arranged in the most ingenious
way, the fossils stubbornly fail to produce what evolutionists so
desperately need, the smooth transition from one species to another,
with a stream of intermediate organisms to ‘cement' the index species
together. Instead, as Henry Morris shows, ‘All of the present orders,
classes and phyla appear quite suddenly in the fossil record, without
indications of evolving lines from which they presumably developed.'
“Evolutionists
tell us that in the course of thirty million years fish evolved
into amphibians – but nobody has been able to find a ‘fishibian'…..
The next major gap to be bridged is that between amphibians and
reptiles, but here again evolutionists draw a disconcerting blank
in the fossil record….
The
‘Missing Link' to Man
(I
cover this separately as it highlights the fiasco that so often appears
in scientific circles and then in the media.)
“Neanderthal
Man – partial skeleton … in Germany .. Ian Taylor says, ‘It should
be borne in mind that only bones had been found; all the rest of
the reconstruction was speculation based on preconception.' …..
the unusual features in the skull and elsewhere resulting from ‘pathological
changes' caused by deforming diseases such as rickets and arthritis…”
( read more of the details yourself why this was not a missing
link )
“Java
Man – 1912… skull fragment, a thigh bone and three molar teeth in
Trinil, Java, …. Dutch physician (and fervent evolutionist) Eugene
Dubois…. they were lying at least fifty feet from each other and
unearthed over a year span …. Dubois admitted that he had also found
genuinely human skulls in the same geological stratum…. Java Man
is arguably the best-known human fossil…..”
“Piltdown
Man – a collection of bones, teeth and primitive implements… in
a gravel pit in Piltdown, Sussex… over 500 doctoral dissertations
were written on the discovery, and ‘A whole generation grew up with
Piltdown Man in their textbooks, and home encyclopaedias.' …. in
1953 the whole thing was exposed a a gigantic hoax. Piltdown Man
was shown to be made up from a human skull and the jawbone of an
orang-utan which had died about fifty years earlier and whose teeth
had been filed to give them a more human look…”
“Nebraska
Man – 1922… Harold Cook …. a single tooth … Experts enthusiastically
claimed it as belonging to an early type of Pithecanthropoid (ape-like
man)… When the prestigious Illustrated London News published a double-page
feature of the find on 24 June 1922 , complete with an artists impression
of the ‘ape-man' and his mate, Nebraska Man was trumpeted as a vital
link in the history of humanity… Six years later it was discovered
that the tooth unearthed by Cook belonged to a type of peccary,
a wild pig believed to have become extinct at the end of the Pleistocene
ear about 10,000 years ago….”
“Peking
Man – 1927… Davidson Black unearthed a single took which he believed
had characteristics intermediate between ape and man… two years
later.... an almost complete brain case… However, later excavations…
produced a number of clearly human skeletons … The size of the original
brain case, and of similar fragmented specimens found later on the
same site, pointed to the distinct possibility that they belonged
to large monkeys and were broken open by real men in order to extract
the brains for food…”
(
Blanchard records other similar frantic attempts to prop up human
evolution – read them yourself )
Flying
from Religion
“Writing
in Nature as long ago as 1929, biologist D.M.S.Watson
brazenly conceded, ‘The theory of evolution itself [is] a theory
universally accepted, not because it can be proved by logically
coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative
is special creation, which is clearly incredible.'”
“L.T.Moore,
from the university of Chicago, has said much the same thing: ‘Our
faith in the idea of evolution depends upon our reluctance to accept
the antagonistic doctrine of special creation.'”
“So
has the eminent British anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith: ‘Evolution
is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because
the alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable.'”
The
Consequences
Both
Blanchard and Colson go on to list
the negative outworkings of Darwinian thinking in modern society.
Rather than add even further pages of quotations we recommend you
read these men for yourself.