The ABC's of Origins

Have you heard of the "Missing Link"? A title like that makes it sound as though if we could just find one more link between apes and men we'd have it made. Not true. The truth is, they're all missing! Astounding as it may seem, these so-called ape men have been the product of an overactive imagination. Consider the following famous cases of mistaken identity and hoaxes:

1856 "Neanderthal Man"
The only "ape-man" that was not specifically being sought to prove Darwin correct, Neanderthal is now considered to be basically human with some genetic differences - not an ancestor at any rate.

1892 "Java Man"
An ape's skullcap plus a human leg bonere-imagined with Gibbon proportions turned out to just be artistic fancy.

1912 "Piltdown Man"
Revealed as a deliberate hoax in 1950 (it was a stained ape's jaw attached to a human skull). But for 40 years it was the leading evidence for evolution.

1912 "Peking Man"
A bunch of bashed-in monkey skulls and tools led to this contender for ape-man. It is currently believed that human workers ate the brains much like some do to this day.

1922 "Nebraska Man"
Someone found a tooth. From that tooth they imagined a jaw. From the jaw they conjured up a skull. The skull led to fantasies about a skeleton. Flesh was superimposed onto the skeleton to make an ape-man (male and female!). It was this tooth that Darrow used to discredit Bryan at the Scopes trial. The tooth was actually from an extinct pig.

1982 "Orce Man"
Evolutionary scientists still can't agree on whether this is an ape-man-baby or a donkey's skull.

What about "Lucy"?
The latest in the quest to substantiate this theory is Australopithecus. While it goes without saying that evolutionists are already 100% sure that this is "it", what does the evidence show? First of all, many other African animals have been found among the remains of "Lucy" but no apes. Why? Perhaps it is because this is just another extinct animal previously undiscovered and mistaken for some sort of half man/ half ape. It is also interesting to note that human tools have been found under those remains, and under those tools humans are found.

At best, even if something looking to be half human and half ape were discovered there is no way to prove that it is an ancestor of either mankind or apes. It is entirely possible that some extinct creature had a skeletal structure, or even DNA, that looks like a cross between the two breeds. Similarity does not equal origins. This is interpretation, not facts.

“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred.  The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.”
(David B. Kitts, "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354)

“If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. . . There is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving.”
(Richard Leakey, PBS Interview)

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record.  By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.”
(Ronald R. West, “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216)

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.”
(Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.)

“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin.  He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.”
(E.R. Leach; Nature 293:19, 1981)

BIOGENESIS

Evolution has no good explanation for how something as complex as life arose from nothing. Simply stated, life either comes from life or it does not. Creation and all empirical evidence teaches the former, evolution teaches the latter. For evolution to be true, life had to come from non-life at some point in the past. Pasteur showed over 100 years ago that this does not happen (remember the flies-coming-from-garbage theory?). What we see in reality is that life does not spontaneously generate from non-life. Life from life, kind from kind, just as the Bible teaches.

Another thing missed in this idea of parts is that life cannot come into being just by getting the right ingredients together. An airplane is millions of non flying parts put together by design to fly. In the same way, we are millions of nonmoving parts that live! Life cannot evolve from death. The only difference between a live body and a dead one is . . . what? It just stops being alive. Making the physical parts necessary for life does not make life.

Many scientists recognize this fact, and the naturalist theories conjured up to explain the problem only highlight evolution's bankruptcy as a theory. Fred Hoyle, the originator of the steady state universe theory (which he later abandoned), in his book Lifecloud: the Origin of Life in the Universe, lists evidence why it would be impossible for life to begin here on earth, and then presents a theory that life originated on comets! Francis Crick, who received the Noble Prize for his discovery of the DNA molecule, fills the first half of his his book, Life Itself, with reasons why life could not originate on our planet—and then he proceeds to suggest that it came from outer space on rockets ("panspermia")!

“Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others.”
(Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

“All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter.” (Harold Urey - partner in the famous Miller-Urey experiment where life was hoped to be created artificially from a chemical mixture designed to be similar to that of earth's early stages. Not only did the experiment not simulate the more harsh environment, even in a controlled setting it failed to produce amino acids that could form proteins in water.)

“These seven assumptions by their very nature are not capable of experimental verification: 1. Non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.”
(G.A. Kerkut. Implications of Evolution.Pergamon Press, 1960, p. 6,7 and 150.)

CHANCE

Time and chance are the creators of evolutionists. The idea is that given enough time, anything possible will happen. But will it really? Consider: How long do you suppose it would take 1,000,000 monkeys typing at 100 wpm for 24 hours a day to type the first four words of a Shakespeare play by chance? Estimates are somewhere around 800,000,000,000,000 years. That's a long time for four words! Now imagine a DNA strand containing the equivalent of 500,000 pages of words being formed by chance (chance cannot actually "do" anything of course - it is merely a description of odds). The actual odds of the DNA of a simple microorganism randomly reaching required specificity is 1 in 10 to the 78,000th power. How high are these odds? Consider that the number of atoms in the entire universe is about 10 ^{to the 80th power.} And it gets even worse.

The evolutionist says that favorable mutations, the kind that do not harm or instantly kill (which almost all of them do), could have changed non-living proteins into the life we see all around us today - if given enough time. Could it? Bear in mind that mutations are additive, that is they must not only be favorable, but they must work together favorably and continually until the organism changes into its present form. The odds against just 3 favorable mutations developing in an organism are 1 in 10 ^{to the 21st power}. The entire ocean does not contain enough atoms to match those odds! The odds of 4 developing are 1 in 10 ^{to the 28th power. N}ow the entire Earth is too small! The odds against life developing randomly are 1 in 10 ^{to the 280th power}, this is beyond the entire universe's capacity to match. To make a complete horse is 1 in 10 to the ^{3,000,000th power}!

“The current scenario of the origin of life is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard.”
(Sir Frederick Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, 1993)

“It is now discovered that favorable mutations are not only small but exceedingly rare, and the fortuitous combination of favorable mutations such as would be required for the production of even a fruit fly, let alone a man, is so much rarer still that the odds against it would be expressed by a number containing as many noughts as there are letters in the average novel, ‘a number greater than that of all the electrons and protons in the visible universe’ -- an improbability as great as that a monkey provided with a typewriter would by chance peck out the works of Shakespeare.”
(Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution 1959)

"To improve a living organism by random mutation is like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and bending one of its wheels or axis. Improving life by random mutations has the probability of zero."
(Albert Szent-Gyorgi, Nobel Laureate in Medicine, 1937).

"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me 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 facts, 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."
(Sir Ernst B. Chain, Nobel Laureate in Medicine, 1945)

"So many essential conditions are necessary for life to exist on our earth that it is mathematically impossible that all of them could exist in proper relationship by chance on any one earth at one time."
(Dr. A. Cressy Morrison, past president of the New York Academy of Sciences)

DESIGN

The opposite of chance is design. If you were walking along a desert plateau and stumbled upon a wristwatch what would you assume to be the origin of that watch? Would you guess that after billions and billions of years the sand was melted into a perfectly formed face, stray minerals then gathered to form metal parts and a dead animal's skin dried up and formed a band around it? Or, would you say someone designed and created it?

But what happens when we see DNA strands a thousand times more intricate than that watch? What about the human body that is made up of 206 bones, 600 muscles, 2,000,000 nerve fibers, 100,000,000,000 nerve cells, 400,000,000,000 feet of blood vessels - a body that contains as much design as a Boeing 747? When we see a diversity in life a million times more precise and complicated? What are we to assume? TIME and CHANCE of course!

In no area of science is design thought to be by chance. Design implies a designer, and the greater the design the greater the creator. Yet even given evolution's time and chance how many differing designs would have to evolve at the exact same time to produce an eye? How many different designs must have come into being to form a woodpecker's beak and the instinct to peck? What about the shock mounting that prevents it from beating its brains out? What about the food organisms that evolved to be found where it was pecking? And what was going on while those designs were "evolving"? What about the shark that has its teeth picked clean by smaller fish? If it takes natural selection and time and chance to have these designs come into being then how do these animals survive the process??? Even the smallest life forms like bacteria have bodies with hundreds of moving parts and assembly instructions carried out by even tinier molecular motors. This level of complexity was unimagined in Darwin's time (he thought it was absurd to think that even the eye could have evolved, yet he continued to believe in evolution because he could "imagine" a nerve becoming sensitive to light - as if that is even close to the specified complexity of the eye).

“It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical.”
(Herbert P. Yockey, “Self Organization, Origin-of-life Scenarios and Information Theory,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 91, 1981, 16.) 

"...as I became exposed to the law and order of the universe, I was literally humbled by its unerring perfection. I became convinced that there must be a divine intent behind it all... My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?"
(Dr. Wernher von Braun, the father of rocket science)

EXPLOSION

The Cambrian Explosion refers to the vast number of new phyla that appear in the fossil record for the first time around 540 million years ago (following the standard evolutionary timeline). Species from 70 or so different phyla show up suddenly within a time period of about 5 million years. Before the Cambrian Explosion the fossil record shows that life on Earth was fairly static. Only a very small number of life forms show up at all in the fossil record from about 3.5 billion years ago to about 600 million years ago.

Evolution is considered believable by many because of the amount of time proponents believe has been available for change - but evolution cannot provide a reasonable explanation for the complexity increase that took place during this explosion of life. Five million years is like a blink of an eye when it comes to the evolutionary timeline. Some might claim that Precambrian creatures existed but never fossilized. Considering the variety of creatures suddenly appearing out of nowhere (and remaining unchanged) from this explosion, this explanation is found wanting.

"Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures. ... To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer."
(Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.315).

"For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."
(Dawkins, Richard [zoologist and Professor, Oxford University], "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.229).

"A record of pre-Cambrian animal life, it appears, simply does not exist. Why this lamentable blank? Various theories have been proposed; none is too satisfactory. . . . All in all, there is no satisfactory answer to the Precambrian riddle." (Romer Alfred S. [late Professor of Zoology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University], "The Procession of Life," The World Publishing Co: Cleveland OH, 1968, pp.19-20).

"It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual completely continuous transitional sequences."                                                     
(Dr. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard)

"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal."
(Wesson, Robert G. [political scientist and philosopher], "Beyond Natural Selection," [1991], MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1994, reprint, p45).

"By 1990, for example, new dates obtained from early Cambrian sites around the world were telescoping the start of biology's Big Bang from 600 million years ago to less than 560 million years ago. Now, with information based on the lead content of zircons from Siberia, virtually everyone agrees that the Cambrian started almost exactly 543 million years ago and, even more startling, that all but one of the phyla in the fossil record appeared within the first 5 million to 10 million years."We now know how fast fast is," grins Bowring. "And what I like to ask my biologist friends is, How fast can evolution get before they start feeling uncomfortable?"
(Nash, J. Madeleine [journalist], "When Life Exploded," Time, December 4, 1995, p74. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/1995/951204/cover.html).

FOSSILS

Darwin hoped the fossil record would someday justify his ideas (which were based only on observable changes within species, not change in kinds). To say that it did not is an understatement. In fact, today there is less evidence for evolution than there was 120 years ago! What we see is extinction, not evolution. We see an overall decrease in complexity, not an increase. We see more groupings of animals, not less. We see sudden appearances of new species, not gradual overlapping speciation. We see no unequivocal transitional forms between the species, only variation within species - just like we do today.

Evolutionists attribute fossil layering to large epochs of time passing. They must, for evolution requires huge amounts of time. So, they date the rocks the fossils are found in, then date the fossils by the rocks! How can we be sure of any dates past the history of mankind? How can we calibrate a dating process without fixed dates from millions of years ago? We have found whole trees growing up through fossil layers supposedly tens of millions of years old. That's an old tree! We have found layers out of order. We have found mixed layers, missing layers, and layers doubled. The so-called geologic column is more artistic than scientific.

Evolutionists point to the geologic column to prove the vast amount of time it took for these creatures to move from one era to another. What may really be there are layers of creatures that all died at the same time. Consider - what is required for fossilization? Dirt, water, creatures, rapid mixing, and burial. Creatures that are fossilized do not have time to decompose. If there was a huge flood and all life on the planet was killed instantly in mud and water, what would we expect to see in the fossil record? Well, the lowest layer would be immobile one celled creatures that could not move. Then sea creatures that could not escape to land. Then slower forms on land for the same reason that they could not escape quickly. At the top we would see the larger animals, ones that could get to the tops of mountains. And of course, that is exactly what we see.

"Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.”
(Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, ch. 9)

"In very many cases, however, one form is ranked as a variety of another, not because the intermediate links have actually been found, but because analogy leads the observer to suppose either that they do now somewhere exist, or may formerly have existed; and here a wide door for the entry of doubt and conjecture is opened."
(Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, ch. 2)

"Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." 
(S. J. Gould, Harvard Paleontologist, Evolution, Erratic Pace")

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."
(S. J. Gould, Natural History, May 1977 p.14)

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"
(Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, in letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979. Cited in: Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 89)

GENETICS

It is important to remember that the evolution debate is not about variants within kinds (examples would include dog breeding, or the famous peppered moth). These do nothing for evolutionist arguments because they are not transitions between kinds (a fish into a monkey, a lizard into a bird, etc.). Many of us have heard the story of the Peppered moth. This moth hid from predators by blending well with surrounding trees . . . until pollution caused the trees bark to turn black. Now the peppered moth stood out more than the rare black colored ones. So guess what happened? The peppered moth became more rare than the black moth. Evolutionists love to point to the peppered moth and say, "We see evolution going on even today."

As was stated earlier, it is not change within kinds that sparks the debate. This is an example of favorable changes within a species. Bible believers have known this as long as anyone else (in fact the Bible taught it in Genesis!). This is, however, a far cry from macro-evolution's moves from one species to another. All the peppered moth shows is natural selection... a peppered moth is still a moth. It does not change into a black cat to survive! Speciation shows clearly that the lines between species are not blurred with scores of intermediary "links" between them, how else could we tell them apart?

For something to change it must first exist. There is a lot more to a given gene than one might imagine. For example, between two human parents there exists enough variation inherent in their genes to produce 10^2,017 children without a single twin! Genetic mutation does not change an organism into another creature. Change is only seen within kinds.  It is important to note here that current biological taxonomy assumes evolution. Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups. May or may not be morphologically distinct.A Genus refers to a single species, or a monophyletic group of species, which is separated from other taxa of the same rank by a decided gap (morphology, or some other characteristic - even behavior). If species belong to the same genus, they are considered to be descended from a common ancestor - thus "kinds" are closer to the "family" taxa than "species" or "genus" which often rely on evolutionary theory to even differentiate them. Thus, humans are considered members of the family Hominidae which includes chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, as well as many extinct species. Originally the group was restricted to humans with apes being placed in a separate family.

Perhaps you have heard the argument that "95% of monkey DNA is the same as a human's."
Well, for one we are about 30% close to a flower when we are in the womb so what does that prove? That we are composed of matter and so is everything else. Big deal! It's like saying that a dictionary is a poem because they both use words. If that were so, we should expect it to be commonplace to see monkey-babies coming from humans, and human-babies coming from monkeys. Instead we see that DNA, while made out of the same material, is programmed to replicate itself every time.

Further, studying parts does not give us the whole picture. If we study bone structure we are related to the apes. If we study Lysosome levels we are related to chickens. If we study blood in vertebrates we are related to worms. If we study our eyes we are related to squids. Amino Acids? Crocodiles and chickens are now brothers!

"Contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach."
(Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 353, 354)

"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and `fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, May 1977, p.14).

"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism, confirmed by the work of population genetics, and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record."
(Mayr, Ernst [Emeritus Professor of Zoology, Harvard University], "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1988, pp.529-530).

"The facts of greatest general importance are the following. When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions. . . . Moreover, within the slowly evolving series, like the famous horse series, the decisive steps are abrupt, without transition . . . "
(Goldschmidt, Richard B., [late Professor of Genetics, University of California, Berkeley], "Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist," American Scientist, Vol. 40, January 1952, p.97).

"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen."
(Eldredge, Niles [Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History], "Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," [1995], p.hoenix: London, 1996, p.95).

HOPEFUL MONSTERS

To show just how far evolutionists are willing to go to prove there is no God, I give you the Hopeful Monster Theory. This theory was laughed out of the scientific community when it first appeared quite some time ago, until it was all the evolutionists had left. Renamed"Punctuated Equilibrium" or "Quantum Evolution" for better marketability, the theory popularized by Harvard professor Steven Gould states that the gaps in the fossil record are caused by huge jumps in evolution over short periods of time (to explain the lack of fossil evidence). What can be said to this? Like gradualism, it's never been observed. It only attempts to explain the absence of evidence for Darwin's theory. Now, without any empirical evidence for Darwin's theory why even propose a new never-before-seen theory?

“We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favorite account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."
(S. J. Gould, Natural History, May 1977 p.14)

"Modern Apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making big-brained humans - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."
(Dr. Lyall Watson, "The Water People," Science Digest, Vol. 90, May 1982, p. 44)

"At the core of punctuated equilibria lies an empirical observation: once evolved, species tend to remain remarkably stable, recognizable entities for millions of years. The observation is by no means new, nearly every paleontologist who reviewed Darwin's Origin of Species pointed to his evasion of this salient feature of the fossil record. But stasis was conveniently dropped as a feature of life's history to he reckoned with in evolutionary biology. And stasis had continued to be ignored until Gould and I showed that such stability is a real aspect of life's history which must be confronted-and that, in fact, it posed no fundamental threat to the basic notion of evolution itself. For that was Darwin's problem: to establish the plausibility of the very idea of evolution, Darwin felt that he had to undermine the older (and ultimately biblically based) doctrine of species fixity. Stasis, to Darwin, was an ugly inconvenience."
(Eldredge, Niles [Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History], "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, pp.188-189).

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
(Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species")

"I would rather believe in fairy tales than in such wild speculation. I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable."
(Sir Ernst B. Chain, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1945), as quoted by Ronald W. Clark, The Life of Ernst Chain (London: Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1985), pp. 147-148)

"I'm not trying to smuggle religion in. Just because the conclusions have theological implication doesn't mean they follow from theological premises."
(Michael Behe [Christian], Bible Answerman Interview)

"It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence - an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered - 'In the beginning, God.'"
(Dr. Arthur H. Compton, Nobel Laureate in Physics)

"I cannot admit that, with regard to the origin of life, science neither affirms nor denies Creative Power. Science positively affirms Creative Power."
(Lord Kelvin, Father of Thermodynamics and modern Physics)

"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"
(Darwin as quoted by A. Plantinga http://hisdefense.org/articles/ap001.html)

"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. . . . And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”
(Haldane, J.B.S., "When I Am Dead," in "Possible Worlds: And Other Essays," [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209).

“Naturalistic evolution gives its adherents a reason for doubting that our beliefs are mostly true; perhaps they are mostly mistaken; for the very reason for mistrusting our cognitive faculties generally, will be a reason for mistrusting the faculties that produce belief in the goodness of the argument. . . . The conclusion to be drawn, therefore, is that the conjunction of naturalism with evolutionary theory is self-defeating: it provides for itself an undefeated defeater. It is therefore unacceptable and irrational.”
(Alvin Plantinga, http://hisdefense.org/articles/ap001.html)

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. . . . The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider . . . than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
(Darwin, Charles R., "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex," 241-242).

"The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence.  Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."                                            
(Charles Darwin, 1881, 3 July, "Life and Letters of Darwin, vol. 1, 316")

"The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consistently sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."
(Sir Arthur Keith)

“But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the [moral] right to endure. . . . He who does not wish to fight . . . has not the right to exist.”
(Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, 242)

“Nature does not wish that…a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts… to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.”
(Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf)

"We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination . . . Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. . . . excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."
(Darwin, Charles R. "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex," 205-206)

“Modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantee of human values…. We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience.”|
(Secular Humanist Manifesto)

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
(Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.)

"Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems."
(Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.)

"The first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion. ...This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact."
(Philip Johnson [Christian], "The Wedge", Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity, July / August 1999)

"Contrary to popular myths, scientists appear to have the same range of attitudes about religious matters as does the general public.”
(Alan Lightman, Origins: The Lives and Worlds of Modern Cosmologists).

"On any given Sunday, around 41 percent of all Ph.D. scientists are in church; for the general population the figure is perhaps 42 percent. So, whatever influences people in their beliefs about God, it does not appear to have much to do with having a Ph.D. in science."
(Sigma Xi statistics)

“The primary feature distinguishing his theory from all other evolutionary doctrines was its uncompromising philosophical materialism. . . . Darwin resolutely applied his materialistic theory of evolution to all phenomena of life, including . . . the human mind. And if mind has no real existence beyond the brain, can God be anything more than an illusion invented by an illusion?”
(Gould, Steven J., "Darwin's Delay," in "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History," [1978], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, pp.23-25).

“To believe in continued intervention of creative power is to make my deity `Natural Selection’ superfluous”
(Darwin, Charles, Letter to Lyell, Oct 20, 1859).

“There is superstition in science quite as much as there is superstition in theology, and it is all the more dangerous because those suffering from it are profoundly convinced that they are freeing themselves from all superstition.”
(Roosevelt, Theodore "History as Literature," 1913. http://www.bartleby.com/56/9.html)

“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."
(Nagel T., "The Last Word," Oxford University Press: New York NY, 1997, p.130).

“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
(Richard Dawkins)

“But nowadays in our evolutionary conception of the universe there is absolutely no room for a Creator or a Ruler.”
(Karl Marx, MER, 295)

“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility.  Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others.  That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God.  I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible”
(Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

“Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
(Professor D.M.S. Watson, leading biologist and science writer of his day)

"For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation.  The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality.  We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."
(Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means)

"Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable."
(Sir Arthur Keith)

“That our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories.  Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past.  Paleontology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about, but that is heresy.”
 (Dr. David Pilbeam, Professor of Anthropology at Yale University, American Scientist, vol 66, p.379, June 1978)

“You have experienced a shift from Evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith . . . Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge."  
(Dr. Collin Patterson evolutionist, address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, Nov. 1981)

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
(Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research. [Quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984])