Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
Perfection, have you read anything that Tyrus88 has posted? He's got evo-bios quoted as saying that the ToE is dead as a post. WAKEY WAKEY!!
LOL! No they do not say that. They simply can not defend Evolution scientifically. They defend evolution with a myriad of "Just-So" stories, the acceptance of which depends on the gullibility and naievite of their audience. As science it just does not wash.
Their ultimate reason for believing in Evolution is simply based on their humanistic materialistic worldview. Having rejected the existence of an Intelligent creator, they reason Evolution must be a fact, how else can all life be accounted for. In this sense, many evolutionists can severely criticize the alleged science other evolutionists offer as scientific evidence that demonstrates Evolution, while they remain evolutionists. They are simply realists willing to admit to where the science is really taking them (And it is not Evolution), and yet they still believe evolution is a fact because, how else could we have come into existence.
Scientists abandoning Evolution!!
"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities. ... Many scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." Science Digest: `Educators against Darwin', winter, 1979.
In a Newsweek article, 1985, "The great body of work by Charles Darwin is under increasing attack and not only by Creationists, but by all sorts of other scientists." In this same article, one evolutionist stated that "things have gotten so bad in the field of Evolution that I am thinking of moving into a field with more intellectual honesty, like being a used car salesman."
"Today, a hundred and twenty years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. There was a time. not too long ago when it seemed to the world at large that Evolution triumphed once and for all, and that the issue was henceforth closed. And yet, within the last two or three decades the debate about evolution has not only revived but is showing signs of heating up. Indeed, the question whether claims are justified is currently being discussed and argued, not just in fundamentalist circles, but also on occasion in research institutes, and in the prestigious halls of academia. The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing descent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that most of these `experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not are the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but strictly on scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully, as one could say."
J. Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D. Mathematics, MS Physics, 'Telhardism and the New Religion" 1988, Tan Books and Publishers Inc..
"I'm part of a fairly large scientific community in New Mexico, and a good number of these are creationists. Many don't actively belong to any creationists organization. Based on proportions and knowing the membership of the Creation Research Society, it's probably a conservative estimate that there are in the US alone around 10,000 practising scientists who are biblical creationists." Dr. Russel Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics, Physicist at prestigious Sandia National Laboratories, Alberquerque, New Mexico, In a 1993 interview with Dr. Carl Wieland. Creation Ex-Nihilo, Summer, 1993.
ON BIOLOGY:
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, And biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith ? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to a belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." Evolutionist L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwins "The Origin of the Species", J.M. Dent & Sons LTD, London, 1971, p xi.
ON ABIOGENESIS (Evolution of life from non-living matter)
"More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to it's solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in a stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."
Klaus Dose, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 1988, 13(4) 348.
On Darwinian evolution:
"The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so
far from the criteria of HARD science has become dogma can only be
explained on sociological grounds." Biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy, as
quoted by Huston Smith, 'The Post Modern Mind' (New York, Crossroads,
1982) p. 173
On Macro-evolution (That all species share a common ancestry)
Professor J. Wolfgang Smith wrote:
"The salient fact is this: If by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall) then it can be said with utmost vigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there is not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macro evolutionary transformations have ever occurred. ...
"We are told dogmatically that evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience'; but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consist." Professor J. Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D Mathematics, MS Physics, 'Teilhardism and the New Religion', 1988, Tan Books and Publishers. pp. 2,5,6.
ON Evolutionists and the Evidence they offer in support of evolution
" I probably will be chastised by them [his more cynical evolutionists colleagues] for writing this preface, as if in doing so I give aid and comfort to an enemy of true science. ... I do so because the book has virtue as criticism of evolutionary theory. It has virtue even though its criticism is loaded like the proverbial pair of dice. ... He [creationist W. R. Bird] rolls the dice with style. He rolls them over and over again with the same result. I may be too optimistic to expect my colleagues learn much if anything from Mr. Bird's effort. But there is something in his book for all of them...
"Mr. Bird is concerned with origins and the evidence relevant thereto. He is basically correct that the evidence, or proof, of origins- of the Universe, of life, of all major groups of life, of all the minor groups of life, indeed of all of the species- is weak or nonexistent when measured on an absolute scale, as it always was and will always be. He is correct also that what evidence there is, is sometimes, even often, exaggerated by evolutionists. Yes, they load their own dice, for they too, are human. They, too, play to the gallery, to the jury, to the judges. Were they entirely wise rather than adversarial, they would never have claimed to do the impossible: to have proved the correctness of their views by offering evidence of the origin of things. One might just as well attempt to prove stability by offering as evidence a pyramid balanced on its apex." Evolutionist, Gareth J. Nelson, Chairman and Curator, Department of Herpetology and Ichthyology, The American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, 10024. Preface to W.R, Bird's book, 'The Origin of Species Revisited' (1993).
Evolution as anti-Science:
In his November 5, 1981 address at the American Museum of Natural History, Evolutionist Dr. Colin Patterson, Curator of the British Museum of Natural History stated at the AMNH address the following with regard to macro-evolution:
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge... Well, What about evolution? Well we are back to the question I have been putting to people, "Is there one thing you can tell me about evolution?" The absence of answers seem to indicate that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge..."
.
