Chapter Six

I would like to offer a small portion of the many revealing quotes on evolution from those who support it. In doing so, I believe you will begin to see what is really the underlying motivation concerning evolution. The engine that drives this thing. It may be some dry reading but important to include:

 

Isaac Asimov, "What is Beyond the Universe?" Science Digest, vol. 69 (April 1974)

 

"If 0=(+1) + (-1), then something which is 0 might just as well become +1 and -1. Perhaps in an infinite sea of nothingness, globs of positive and negative energy in equal-sized pairs are constantly forming, and after passing through evolutionary changes, combining once more and vanishing. We are in one of these globs in the period of time between nothing and nothing, and wondering about it."

 

(The math is "fuzzy" but the answer is the same... nothing equals nothing, yet still trying to figure out how to get something.)

 

Geoffrey Burbidge, "Why Only One Big Bang?" Scientific American (February 1992)

 

"Big Bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rests, however, on many untested, and in some cases untestable assumptions. Indeed, Big Bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth... This situation is particularly worrisome because there are good reasons to think the Big Bang model is seriously flawed... The Big Bang ultimately reflects some cosmologists' search for creation and for a beginning. That search properly lies in the realm of metaphysics, not science."

​

David Darling, "On Creating Something From Nothing" New Scientist, vol. 15 (September 1996)

 

"What is a big deal - the biggest deal of all - is how you get something out of nothing. Don't let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either - despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. "In the beginning", they will say, "there was nothing - no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which ...." Whoa! Stop right there. Do you see what I mean? First, there is nothing, then there is something. and the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats... You cannot fudge this by appealing to quantum mechanics. Either there is nothing to begin with, in which case there is no quantum vacuum, no pre-geometric dust, no time in which anything can happen, no physical laws that can affect a change from nothingness to somethingness; or there is something, in which case that needs explaining."

 

Professor Dr. Klaus Dose, "The Origin of Life; More Questions Than Answers" Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, vol. 13, no. 4. Dose is Director, Institute for Biochemistry, Johannes Gutenberg University, West Germany

 

"Abstract. 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 its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.... Considerable disagreements between scientists have arisen about detailed evolutionary steps. The problem is that the principle evolutionary processes from prebiotic molecules to progenotes have not been proven by experimentation and that the environmental conditions under which these processes occurred are not known. Moreover, we do not actually know where the genetic information of all living cells originates, how the first replicable polynucleotides (nucleic acids) evolved, or how the extremely complex structure-function relationship in modern cells came into existence... It appears that the field has now reached a stage of stalemate, a stage in which hypothetical arguments often dominate over facts based on experimentation or observation."

 

Caryl P. Haskins, "Advances and Challenges in Science in 1970", American Scientist, vol. 59

 

"But the most sweeping evolutionary questions at the level of biochemical genetics are still unanswerable. How the genetic code first appeared and then evolved and, earlier than that, how life itself originated on earth remains for the future to resolve... The fact that in all organisms living today the processes both of replication of the DNA and of the effective translation of its code require highly precise enzymes and that, at the same time the molecular structures of those same enzymes are precisely specified by the DNA itself, poses a remarkable evolutionary mystery... Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible that any such coincidence could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they are coordinated accurately for survival.

 

By a pre-Darwinian, this puzzle would surely have been interpreted as the most powerful sort of evidence for special creation."

 

John Maddox, "The Genesis Code by Numbers", Nature, vol. 367 (1994)

 

"It is already clear that the genetic code is not merely an abstraction but the embodiment of life's mechanisms; the consecutive triplets of nucleotides in DNA (called codons) are inherited but they also guide the construction of proteins... So it is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code is still as obscure as the origin of life itself."

 

Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American, vol. 271 (1994)

 

"It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means."

 

George Wald, "The Origin of Life," in The Physics and Chemistry of Life.

 

"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are - as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." (As previously state, they have no choice but to revisit this, even knowing it is impossible.)

 

Michael Denton, "Evolution, A Theory in Crisis (London; Burnett Books, 1985) Denton is a molecular biologist.

 

"The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of evolutionary series... thousands of different sequences, protein, and nucleic acid, have now been compared in hundreds of different species but never has a sequence been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor of any other sequence... There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available one century ago it would have been seized upon with devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted."

 

Anonymous, "Hoyle on Evolution," Nature, vol. 294 (November 1981)

 

"The essence of his argument last week was that the information content of the higher forms of life is represented by the number 10 to the 40,000 power, representing the specificity with which some 2000 genes, each of which might be chosen from 10 to the 20th power nucleotide sequences of the appropriate length, might be defined. Evolutionary processes would, Hoyle said, require several Hubble times to yield such a result. The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a "tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein..." of adherents of biological evolution, Hoyle said he was at a loss to understand biologists widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious."

 

George Sim Johnston, "The Genesis Controversy", Crisis (May 1989)

 

"Many scientists would rather cling to Darwin's theory, in whatever baroque form, than face the implications of its demise. Darwin's scientific detractors, moreover, are generally reticent about taking their objections public for fear of being labeled "creationists". So the newspaper-reading public has not been let in on what the British scientific journal, Nature, recently called "the sharp dissent and frequently acrimonious debate" over evolutionary theory, while the armies of biology teachers, science writers, and public television wildlife hosts carry on as though there were no problems with Darwin at all."

 

H. Lipson, A Physicist Looks at Evolution, Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980)

 

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. 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."

 

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic) God and the Astronomers (1978)

 

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

 

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics, "The Physics of Immortality," (New York, Doubleday, 1994)

 

"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics, as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."

 

If evolutionists themselves have been expressing major concerns and issues about the plausibility of evolution, then why the fierce defense of it? What better than to hear in their own words, their reasons:

 

C.D. Darlington, "Origin of Darwinism," Scientific American (May 1959) Darlington was at Oxford University.

 

"We owe it to [Darwin] that the world was brought to believe in evolution;...Here is a theory that released thinking men from the spell of superstition, one of the most overpowering that has enslaved mankind...We owe to the Origin of Species the overthrow of the myth of Creation."

 

George Sim Johnston, "The Genesis Controversy," Crisis (May 1989)

 

"In other words, it's natural selection or a Creator. There is no middle ground. This is why prominent Darwinists like G.G. Simpson and Stephen Jay Gould, who are not secretive about their hostility to religion, cling so vehemently to natural selection. To do otherwise would be to admit the probability that there is a design in nature - and hence a Designer."

 

Dr. Todd Scott, an immunologist at Kansas State, Nature (September 1999)

 

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

 

John Dunphy, "A Religion for a New Age," The Humanist, vol. 43

 

"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith; a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level - preschool daycare or large state university. The classroom must and will become the arena of conflict between the old and the new - the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of "love thy neighbor" will finally be achieved."

 

George Wald, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, vol. 199

 

"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. Louis Pasteur and others scientifically disproved spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter 120 years ago. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural 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; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

 

Richard G. Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution," American Atheist (February 1978)

 

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble, you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. Take away the meaning of his death, if Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!"

 

D.M.S. Watson, Professor of Zoology, London University

 

"Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly impossible."

 

We find an unmistakable, recurring theme among many supporters of the evolutionary worldview. That is the inability for scientists and individuals to accept anything, more specifically a Creator, outside of the realm and limitations of naturalism to explain creation, no matter how plausible. At the same time, they also have difficulty intellectually believing evolution is possible. Thus, a vehement rejection (for a variety of reasons, but mostly personal issues and philosophy with the existence of God) of the only other alternative that there is. That being the existence of a supreme being or deity that is outside of, and not subject to the prodding, poking, dissecting studies of man.

 

One of the causes for this is the prevalence of "anti-supernaturalism" among the sciences, as well as can be found in other fields, such as history. Anti-supernaturalism is the presupposition or disbelief in either God's existence or his intervention in the natural order of the universe. Therefore, a person who is already holding to such belief, having made up their mind before they even begin any investigative work, will automatically reject as invalid any evidence or facts that would support what they have already concluded as not possible. Being objectively crippled will consider any evidence or facts as either an anomaly or misinterpreted information.

 

Within this framework is a worldview that does not acknowledge that miracles are possible. That there is the supernatural that can affect natural laws. All that exists is the closed system in which we live. Seems so contrary to those who see the universe so huge and vast with so many mysteries to uncover, and yet, no room or place or possibility for God in or outside of it. So for those that already have their views settled beforehand, every cause must have a natural effect, or answer, for there can be no other explanation. No amount of evidence, facts, or verifiable history can be brought forth that will change their minds or convince them otherwise.

 

This disbelief specifically refers to the biblical creation model, as found in the Book of Genesis, and the God of the Bible. This is, by the way, universally held among evolutionists and scientists that support evolution. We find the focus of attack, ridicule, rejection, comments, and hatred is generally not toward any other work, religion, book, faith, philosophy, theology, theory, and scientific alternative other than specifically the Judeo/Christian perspective on the origins of life, as is taught, studied, believed and described in Genesis and throughout the Word of God. For it offers the only other sound and intelligently reasoned description of the beginning.