Scientists Speak about Evolution—
Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about
evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular
magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs
and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock
and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for
professional books and journals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not
see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does
not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably
vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and
geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove
evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know
their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the
biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the
facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be
fired. But they do write articles in their own professional
journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.
Included below are a number of admissions by leading
evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin,
*Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists
cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that
person is NOT known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations
in the set of books this Encyclopedia is
based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to
confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of
scientific research, but purely the product of
imagination."*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies
composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from
which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have
preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not
the slightest basis for this assumption."*Austin
Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic
matter is, at present, still an article of faith."*J.W.N.
Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We
find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even
chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of
life."*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of
All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
"'The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to
explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.'
"Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H.
Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the
"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."*H. Lipson,
"A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31
(1980), p. 138.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that
his influence in scientific and public thinking has been
beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a
decline in scientific integrity."*W.R. Thompson,
Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a
fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every
irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the
gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the
Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have
never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding
experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science
it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.'
"*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical
system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a
principle of medieval astrology 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].
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable
evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find
qualified professional arguments for any group being the
descendant of almost any other."J. Bonner,
"Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
"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
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning,
consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any
difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The
philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned
exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also
concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally
should not do as he wants to do . . 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,
"Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report:
Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of
evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter,
and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one
of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory
has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is
useless."*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October
1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific
Research in France].
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must
have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of
the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway
species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined
species?"*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch,
Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.
"`Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is
perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that,
at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and
that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the
volition of some pre-existing Being."*Thomas
Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas
Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects,
which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no
longer square with practical scientific knowledge."*Albert
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take
predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a
logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms
[theories] and to show the relationships which such a
classification implies . . these theories are actually
tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable
predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."*R.H.
Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American
Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
"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, evolution became in a sense a scientific
religion; 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 Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to
the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin
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.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left
in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate
theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After
having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and
miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of
having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption
that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place
today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."*Loren
Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.
"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.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism
was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology.
But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible
deityomnipotent chance."*T. Rosazak,
Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
"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.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an
innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious
obstruction to biological research. It obstructsas has been
repeatedly shownthe attainment of consistent results, even
from uniform experimental material. For everything must
ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot,
therefore, be built up."*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists
and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life
that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become
a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh
ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the
creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for
political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism
comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism
represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from
without."*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A
Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment
carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At
least I should hardly be accused of having started from any
preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."*H.
Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people
whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian
biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost,
the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his
theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of
the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has
very little impact on the actual progress of the work in
biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of
neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of
science."Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior
paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].
"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.
"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 serious problems of the
evolution theory. 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.
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of
evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the
other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of
Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils
covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to
developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species
suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete
absence of intermediate fossils."*D.B. Gower,
"Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England,
December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence
relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any
explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the
fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis.
This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The
lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure
conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a
basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are
correct."*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of
Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite
of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely
to make further progress in this by the classical methods of
paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance
matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I,
So-and-so, am his prophet.'" *Errol White,
Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
"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? 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, evolution does not convey any knowledge."*Colin
Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of
Natural History (November 5, 1981).
"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever
but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseenbelief
in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the
embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith
unjustified by works."*Arthur N. Field.
You have just completed
Scientists Speak about Evolution — 1
Go to the next chapter in
Scientists Speak about Evolution — 2