"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that
<B>the only acceptable explanation is creation. </B>I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"The hold of the
<B>evolutionary paradigm </B>[theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like
<B>a principle of medieval astrology </B>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].
"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, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].
"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,
<B>evolution became </B>in a sense
<B>a scientific religion; </B>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.
"When <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City><st1
lace>Darwin</st1
lace></st1:City> presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of <st1:City><st1
lace>Dublin</st1
lace></st1:City> remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological researchpaleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biologyhas provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
"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
<B>positively anti-knowledge </B>. . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true,
<B>evolution does not convey any knowledge."</B>*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the <st1
lace><st1
laceName>American</st1
laceName> <st1
laceType>Museum</st1
laceType></st1
lace> of Natural History (November 5, 1981).
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the
<B>serious problems of the evolution theory. </B>These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.
