Is there a scientific consensus that evolution is a fact?
Clearly not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDYr_fgcP8
"There is no unintelligent processes known to science that can generate codes and machines." -- Michael Egnor, neurosurgeon, February 5th 2009
"Why do Darwinists claim that intelligent design is untestable, and simultaneously claim that it is wrong?" -- Michael Egnor, neurosurgeon, February 5th 2009
"First of all, I love science. I think that the way that Darwinism corrupts the evidence, distorts the evidence, is bad for science." -- Jonathan C. Wells, molecular biologist, 2008
"Well, it's a funny thing that questions that aren't properly answered don't go away." -- Paul A. Nelson, philosopher, 2008
"[Darwinism is] a kind of amusing 19th century collection of anecdotes that is utterly unlike anything we see in the serious sciences. ... Yeah, biologists do agree that this is the correct theory for the origin and diversification of life, but here are some points you should consider as well: 1) the theory doesn't have any substance, 2) it's preposterous, 3) it's not supported by the evidence and 4) the fact that the biologists are uniformly in agreement about this issue could as well be explained by some solid Marxist interpretation of their economic interests." -- David Berlinski, author, 2008
"He [Richard Dawkins] has the arrogance to say that anyone who does not share his views is infected with a virus. No wonder he cannot coexist peacefully with them." -- Freeman J. Dyson, physicist, September 2007
"I think Richard Dawkins is doing a lot of damage. I disagree very strongly with the way he's going about it. I don't deny his right to be an atheist, but I think he does a great deal of harm when he publicly says that in order to be a scientist, you have to be an atheist. That simply turns young people away from science. He's convinced a lot of young people not to be scientists because they don't want to be atheists. I'm strongly against him on that question. It's simply not true what he's saying, and it's not only not true it's harmful. The fact is that many of my friends are much more religious than I am and are first-rate scientists. There's absolutely nothing that stops you from being both." -- Freeman J. Dyson, physicist, September 2007
"Science will not collapse if some practitioners are convinced that occasionally there has been creative input in the long chain of being." -- Owen Gingrich, astronomer/historian, February 2005
"Science, we are told is tentative. And given the history of science, there is every reason to be tentative. No scientific theory withstands revision for long, and many are eventually superseded by theories that flatly contradict their predecessors. Scientific revolutions are common, painful, and real. New theories regularly overturn old ones, and no scientific theory is ever the final word. But if science is tentative, scientists are not. As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn rightly noted, it takes a revolution to change scientific theories precisely because scientists do not hold their theories tentatively. Thus, in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn quotes with approval Max Planck, who wrote: 'A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing it's opponents and making them see the light, but rather because it's opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.'" -- William A. Dembski, philosopher, March 16th 2000
"Was it thought out by somebody or did it just happen by chance? Which is really just the same thing as saying did the universe happen by chance isn't it? And I have to say, 'Well now look, it doesn't look to me at all like chance.'" -- Fred Hoyle, cosmologist, 2000
"A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe." -- Fred Hoyle, cosmologist, 1983
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate." -- Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramsinghe, cosmologists, 1981
"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one part in 10^40,000 must be judged superior to random shuffling [of evolution]. The theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40,000 of being the correct explanation of the many curious facts discussed in preceding chapters. Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific." -- Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramsinghe, cosmologists, 1981
"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)^2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court." -- Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramsinghe, cosmologists, 1981
"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero." --Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramsinghe, cosmologists, 1981
"Is it pure chance that night-blossoming grow white the better to attract night moths and night-flying butterflies, emitting stronger fragrance at dusk, or that the carrion lily develops the smell of rotting meat in areas where only flies abound, whereas flowers which rely on the wind to cross-pollinate the species do not waste energy on making themselves beautiful, fragrant or appealing to insects, but remain relatively unattractive?" -- Peter Tompkins and Christoper Bird, botanists, 1973
"Is it chance that plants grow into special shapes to adapt to the idiosyncrasies of insects that will pollinate them, luring these insects with special color and fragrance, rewarding them with their favorite nectar, devising extraordinary canals and floral machinery with which to ensnare a bee so as to release it through a trap door only when the pollination process is completed?" -- Peter Tompkins and Christoper Bird, botanists, 1973
"And the problem in geology is not only [a] problem of annihilation of species but also a problem of origin of species. In fact the very question of evolution: How could so many species that populate the Earth, and many more have populated without leaving a single descendant, how could so many species evolve just by the mere process of competition? From the original simple form, practically unicellular form, just by competition, can you understand how a crocodile and a bird and a worm and a man and an insect with many legs, all could come to be?" -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1966
"And the very question of fossilization. A problem that was never adequately answered. With Darwin, it is animals are wading in shallow water, dieing when wading, being covered by sand before predatory fish would devour their cadavers. In the same time, in the same breath, Darwin claims that this process is going on only when the Earth subsides and the process is very slow counted in thousands and tens of thousands of years so where is the chance for cadavers to survive in this situation? And have you seen a cat wading in shallow water?" -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, May 1966
"Science without religion is lame...." -- Albert Einstein, mathematician, 1941
"Apparently the Creator does not favor a world of too great simplicity." -- Carl D. Anderson, physicist, 1936
"Yet these people doubt whether the universe, from whence all things arise and are made, is not the effect of chance, or some necessity, rather than the work of reason and a divine mind. According to them, Archimedes shows more knowledge in representing the motions of the celestial globe than nature does in causing them, though the copy is so infinitely beneath the original." -- Marcus T. Cicero, philosopher, The Nature of the Gods, 1st century B.C.
"...it is sufficient to assume only one movent, the first of unmoved things, which being eternal will be the principle of motion to everything else." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book VIII, 350 B.C.
