The following quotes are used throughout the Creation Insights web site. This serves as a convenient means of reference and a useful means of checking for error.
Use your browser search command to find quotes in particular, or scroll through the page and peruse the category headings.
"...evolution is so clearly a fact that you need to be committed to something like a belief in the supernatural if you are at all in disagreement with evolution. It is a fact and we don't need to prove it anymore" (What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr — ScienceMasters Series/Basic Books; October 2001, http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/mayr/mayr_print.html, accessed 10-13-04).
"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, 1980, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31, p. 138).
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm 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, 1985, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 306).
"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, 1966, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8).
"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, 1977, Evolution of Living Organisms, p. 8).
“most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that everything in the cosmos—from heavenly bodies to human beings—has developed and continues to develop through evolutionary processes.”
Professor D.M.S. Watson of the University of London said, “... the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible” (Nature 124:231-234).
"When Darwin presented a paper 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, 1981, Evolution from Space, p. 159).
"Textbooks are more potent forces in what and how teachers teach and what and how children learn than we are ready to admit. Textbooks select for study a content, an emphasis, a method of instruction and learning, and a level of difficulty. This power is held jealously by the government and dominant party of nondemocratic countries. No totalitarian country would chance the consequences of freedom in textbook development and selection. Even the choice of initial story in the first reading text must pass the approval of political and educational committees" (J. Chall, 1981, "Middle and Secondary School Textbooks," The Textbooks in the American Society, p. 26).
"Now a third one of Darwin's great contributions was that he replaced theological, or supernatural, science with secular science. Laplace, of course, had already done this some 50 years earlier when he explained the whole world to Napoleon. After his explanation, Napoleon replied, "where is God in your theory?" And Laplace answered, "I don't need that hypothesis." Darwin's explanation that all things have a natural cause made the belief in a creatively superior mind quite unnecessary. He created a secular world, more so than anyone before him. Certainly many forces were verging in that same direction, but Darwin's work was the crashing arrival of this idea and from that point on, the secular viewpoint of the world became virtually universal (What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr — ScienceMasters Series/Basic Books; October 2001, http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/mayr/mayr_print.html, accessed 10-13-04).
“My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning and design as fundamental features of the world. (Thomas Nagel 1997 The Last Word Oxford Univ Pr October 2001).
Dr William B. Provine, Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University stated, “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.” (Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1/2), p.9, 1994).
"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
"Because of the historically entrenched resistance to the thought of evolution, documented by modern-day creationism, evolutionists have been forced into defending evolution and trying to prove that it is a fact and not a theory." (What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr — ScienceMasters Series/Basic Books; October 2001, http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/mayr/mayr_print.html, accessed 10-13-04)
Aldous Huxley: "I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that 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 that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political." --Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means (London: Chatto & Windus, 1946), pp. 270, 273. (As quoted by Answers in Genesis at http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/tools/Quotes/huxley_a.asp, 10/13/04)
Thomas Nagel: “…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.
“The (historical) question that must be asked about biological origins is not "Which materialistic scenario will prove adequate?" but "How did life as we know it actually arise on earth?" Since one of the logically appropriate answers to this latter question is that "Life was designed by an intelligent agent that existed before the advent of humans," I believe it is anti-intellectual to exclude the "design hypothesis" without consideration of all the evidence, including the most current evidence, that would support it.” (Stephen C. Meyer, "Laws, Causes, and Facts," in Darwinism: Science or Philosophy, eds. J. Buell and V. Hearn (Richardson, Texas: Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1994), p.34).
“Our chosen group of 'greater' scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%.
“As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools, an ongoing source of friction between the scientific community and some conservative Christians in the United States. The booklet assures readers, ‘Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.’ NAS president Bruce Alberts said: ‘There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists.’ Our survey suggests otherwise.” (Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham. 1998. Leading scientists still reject God. Nature 394 (6691):313 © Macmillan Publishers Ltd.).
"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin," Science Digest Special (Winter 1979), pp. 94-96.
"...A tidal wave of new books... threaten to shatter that confidence - titles like Darwin Retried (1971), Macbeth; The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), Hitching; The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), Taylor; The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984), Fix; Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities (1984), Cohen; Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), Lovtrup; and Adam and Evolution (1984), Pitman. Not one of these books was written from a Christian-apologetic point of view: they are concerned only with scientific truth - as was Sir Ernst Chain when he called evolution 'a fairy tale'." Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press, 1992, 1997), p. 12.
"Darwinism has never had much appeal for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never appealed much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already started." Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press, 1992, 1997), p. 277.
Leon Lederman, Nobel Prize-winning quantum physicist, sums candidly in his book the current thinking of physicists concerning the origin of the universe: "In the very beginning, there was a void -- a curious form of vacuum -- a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place, and this curious vacuum held potential. ... A story logically begins at the beginning. But this story is about the universe, and unfortunately there are no data for the Very Beginning. None, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billionth of a trillionth of a second--that is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up -- we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning…. Like a giant boulder perched at the edge of a towering cliff, the void's balance was so exquisite that only whim was needed to produce a change, a change that created the universe. And it happened. The nothingness exploded" (The God Particle, copyright 1993 by Dr. Leon Lederman and Dick Teresi, published by the Houghton Mifflin Company).
Astronomer and author David Darling wrote, “Science has started delving into the minutiae of genesis. No one bats an eyelid these days when cosmologists talk about what conditions might have been like around one ten million trillionth of a second after the moment of creation And once we have got the tricky business of linking gravitation with quantum mechanics sorted out, then maybe we can push things right back to the very first instant of all.
"Well, I've read the party manifesto on this and I didn't buy it. I can go along with the quantum foam stuff, the good news (for once) about inflation, the quark soup and so on. That's fine. I may not be able to imagine it-who can? But, as far as I am concerned, the fact that the Universe was an incredibly weird place 10^-43 seconds after "time zero" is no big deal. What is a big deal-the biggest deal of all-is how you get something out of nothing.
"Don't let the cosmologists kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either… ‘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. You see what I mean? First there was nothing then there was something…and before you know it they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats…but there is a very real problem in explaining how it got started in the first place. You can't fudge this by appealing to quantum mechanics. Either there was 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 effect a change from nothingness into somethingness: or there is something, in which case that needs explaining…No, I'm sorry, I may not have been born in Yorkshire but I'm a firm believer that you cannot get owt for nowt. Not a Universe from a nothing-verse…” (David Darling. 1996. New Scientist September 14, 1996, how you get “something” from “nothing” is the biggest deal of all).
3Dr. Robert H. Gowdy, Associate Professor, Chair of the Physics Department at Virginia Commonwealth University states on his web site at http://www.people.vcu.edu/~rgowdy/mod/022/imp3.htm that, "Although energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can be converted from one form into another."
At http://www.unlv.edu/courses/ENS100/devine/03chap/tsld014.htm, sponsored by the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, Dr. Darren Devine states the 1st Law of Thermodynamics as, "In any physical or chemical reaction, energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be changed from one form to another."
From Dr. Richard B. Hallick at The University of Arizona at http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/181GH/rick/energy/energy.html, he describes the first Law of Thermodynamics as, "Energy cannot be created or destroyed; different forms of energy are interconvertible."
“But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science—the principle of the conservation of matter and energy—which states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever. It is difficult to accept a theory that violates such a firmly established scientific fact” (1977, p. 32).
H.E. Puthoff writes, “Modern physical theory, specifically quantum electrodynamics (QED), tells us that the vacuum can no longer be considered a void. This is due to the fact that, even in the absence of matter, the vacuum is neither truly particle nor field free, but is the seat of virtual particle-pair (e.g. electron-positron) creation and annihilation processes, as well as zero-point-fluctuation (ZPF) of such fields as the vacuum electromagnetic field….” (The Energetic Vacuum: Implications For Energy Research by H.E. Puthoff, PhD Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, 1301 Capital of Texas Highway S., Suite A-232, Austin, TX 78746, http://www.ldolphin.org/energetic.html, accessed 8/29/02).
“…both theory and experiment have shown that there is a non-thermal radiation in the vacuum and that it persists even if the temperature could be lowered to absolute zero. Therefore, it was simply called the "zero point" radiation. Further proof is evident, as Dr. Forward points out in his tutorial below, when physicists have cooled helium to within microdegrees of absolute zero and still it remains a liquid! Only ZPE can account for the source of energy is keeping helium from freezing.” (Understanding Zero Point Energy. © 1999 Thomas Valone, M.A., P.E. Integrity Research Institute, 1220 L Street NW, Suite 100, Washington, DC 20005, http://users.erols.com/iri/ZPENERGY.html, accessed 8/30/02).
The Law of Biogenesis. This law states that, "Where a cell exists, there must have been a preexisting cell, just as the animal arises only from an animal and the plant only from a plant" (Biology, Helena Curtis, second edition, Worth, p.90).
"One of the key assumptions about the origin of life is under fire. The widely held belief that all life on Earth today originated from a single ancestor cell is being challenged by a theory that several different lineages evolved independently. In his 'doctrine of common descent' Darwin was the first to argue that all life on the planet began with single 'primordial form,' generally interpreted nowadays as the first living cell. Not so, says Carl Woese of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In a controversial new theory published this week, he argues that the three fundamental types of cells that form the building blocks of present-day life actually evolved independently, not in an orderly succession from a common ancestor" (Andy Coghlan, New Scientist, 22 June 2002, pg 10).
"The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. 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" (George Wald. 1954. The Origin of Life. Scientific American 190 (August):46).
“The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine [the law of biogenesis] that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry” (J. W. N. Sullivan. The Limitations of Science. Pub. New York: The Viking Press, Inc., 1933, p. 94).
“With regard to the appearance of a single molecule of the cytochrome c family, even the deus ex machina needs 1036 [chances] with just the right conditions [and] 1 billion years... One who finds the chance appearance of cytochrome c a credible event must have the faith of Job.” (Yockey, H.P., A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by information Theory, J. Theor. Biol, 1977, 67:393,396).
Harold Morowitz, distinguished Yale biophysicist and former master of Pierson College, wrote in his book, Energy Flow in Biology, that the evolution of the theoretically simplest cell, requiring no less than about 124 proteins, would be an incredible probability of 1:10 to the 340,000,000 power (Morowitz, H.J., Energy Flow in Biology, Academic Press, New York, 1968, p. 99).
Borél’s single law of chance calculation determining the impossibility of an event occurring is 1050 (Borél, Emile, Probabilities and Life (New York: Dover, 1962)).
H.P. Yockey's evaluation of the current state of abiogenesis is that, “The current accepted ... (evolutionist origin of life) ... scenarios are untenable and the solution to the problem will not be found by continuing to flagellate these conclusions” (H. Yockey, Information theory and molecular biology. 1992. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, GB. P. 289).
“So far, none of the current theories have been substantiated or proven by experiment, and no consensus exists about which, if any, of these theories is correct. Solving the mystery may indeed take longer than the origin of life itself” (Nancy Touchette. 1993. Evolution: Origin of Life. J of NIH Research 5:95).
"It is clear that species concepts vary radically depending on their purpose, be it theoretical or operational, taxonomic or evolutionary, contemporaneous or clade, reproductive or cohesive. It is unproductive, and often positively misleading, to apply one species concept to all species, or to answer all questions" (J. A. Endler, "Conceptual and Other Problems in Speciation," in D. Otle and J. A. Endler, Speciation and Its Consequences, Sunderland, Massachusetts, Sinauer, 1989, pp. 625-648).
"No one has actually witnessed the birth of a species in the wild, so researchers must come up with clever experiments to see whether differences in ecology, and the adaptations they spur, can isolate species reproductively." Morell, V. 1999. Ecology Returns to Speciation Studies. Science 284: 2106-2108.
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The 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" (Gould, Stephen Jay, "Evolution's erratic pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, pp.12-16, May 1977, p. 14).
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution" (Gould, Stephen Jay, "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?," Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 1980, p.127).
"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of `seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of `gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p.467).
"The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms" (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641).
"Many people suppose that phylogeny can be discovered directly from the fossil record by studying a graded series of old to young fossils and by discovering ancestors, but this is not true. The fossil record supplies evidence of the geological ages of the forms of life, but not of their direct ancestor-descendant relationships. There is no way of knowing whether a fossil is a direct ancestor of a more recent species or represents a related line of descent (lineage) that simply became extinct" (Knox B., Ladiges P. & Evans B., eds., "Biology," , McGraw-Hill: Sydney, Australia, 1995, reprint, p.663).
“That evolution actually did occur can only be scientifically established by the discovery of the fossilized remains of representative samples of those intermediates types which have been postulated on the basis of the indirect evidence. In other words, the really crucial evidence for evolution must be provided by the paleontologist whose business it is to study the evidence of the fossil record.” - W. Le Gros Clark, Discovery, January 1955, p. 7.
"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed...." (Darwin, Origin, Chapter Six: Absence or Rarity of Transitional Varieties).
"In consequence, most living species do not in themselves show recognizable evolutionary change. . . All the evidence we have of the history of organic evolution is provided by the fossil record." (Nicholas Hotton lll, The Evidence of Evolution, American Heritage Publishing Co., Smithsonian Institution, pp. 42, 45).
"Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms." Carl O. Dunbar, Historic Geology, John Wiley and Sons, 1960, pp. 47.
"... I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume … One, namely, the distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together innumerable, transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty." (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, A.L. Burt Company, pages 312-313.)
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. This does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven" (Mark Ridley, "Who Doubts Evolution", New Scientist, Vol. 90, No: 1259, June 25, 1981).
“When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don’t exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn’t, or might be, transitional between this group and that.” (Hitching, Francis, The Neck of the Giraffe: where Darwin Went Wrong, New Haven, Conn.: Ticknor and Fields, 1982, pp 56-57;.p. 19).
"Palaeobiologists flocked to these scientific visions of a world in a constant state of flux and admixture. But instead of finding the slow, smooth and progressive changes Lyell and Darwin had expected, they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and then remaining unchanged for millions of years-patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation." Pagel M. February 25, 1999. "Happy accidents?," Nature 397:665.
"Wherever we look at the living biota … discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent…The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates." (Mayr, E. 2001. What is Evolution, pg. 189).
"We can go on examining natural variation at all levels ... as well as hypothesizing about speciation events in bed bugs, bears and brachiopods until the planet reaches oblivion, but we still only end up with bed bugs, brachiopods and bears. None of these body plans will transform into rotifers, roundworms or rhynchocoels" (George L. Gabor Miklos, 1993, Emergence of organizational complexities during metazoan evolution: perspectives from molecular biology, palaeontology and neo-Darwinism, Ass. Australas. Palaeontols., Memoir 15:25).
“Obviously one cannot study the origin of gaps between species unless one understands what species are. But naturalists have had a terrible time trying to reach a consensus on this point. In their writings this is referred to as ‘the species problem.’ Even at present there is not yet unanimity on the definition of species” (Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, p. 163).
"At their best, Schlichting and Pigliucci's discussions force biologists to face a fact whose magnitude has been obscured by a good deal of wishful thinking: Our understanding of phenotypic evolution remains appallingly weak." Orr, H.A. 1999. An Evolutionary Dead End? Science 285: 343-344.
"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous." Lovtrup, S. (1987), Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
"The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find over and over again, not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another." Derek V. Ager, 'The Nature of the fossil Record'. 1976.
"If the stratigraphic position of a fossil is an important criterion for recognizing it as an ancestor, it should come as no surprise that it would be extremely difficult to find a specific fossil species that is both intermediate in morphology between two other taxa and is also in the appropriate stratigraphic position" (Cracraft, J., "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism," 1983, pp. 179-180).
"It is, however, very difficult to establish the precise lines of descent, termed phylogenies, for most organisms.... Relationships among the fossils are thus judged by their relative ages and their morphological resemblances and differences. This works well when abundant fossils are available in a continuous record, but unfortunately the fossil record is quite incomplete.... For most lineages we have to employ more indirect methods of phylogenetic reconstruction" (Ayala, F. J. and Valentine J. W., Evolving: The Theory and Process of Organic Evolution, 1978, p. 230).
"If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious. This is what paleontologists do with fossils, and the evidence is so solid and comprehensive that it cannot be denied by reasonable people" (T. Berra, Evolution and the myth of creationism,1990, pg 117-119).
"But the hindlimbs of all vertebrates also conform to the pentadactyl pattern and are strikingly similar to the forelimbs in bone structure and in their detailed embryological development. Yet no evolutionist claims that the hindlimb evolved from the forelimb, or that hindlimbs and forelimbs evolved from a common source. "There is no doubt that in terms of evolution the fore- and hindlimbs must have arisen independently, the former supposedly evolving from the pectoral fins of a fish, the latter from the pelvic fins. Here is a case of profound resemblence which cannot be explained in terms of a theory of descent. "Whatever the ultimate explanation for this remarkable pattern turns out to be, there seems little intellectual satisfaction in attributing one case of correpondence to evolution while refusing it in the other" (M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, pp. 151 & 153).
Incongruities found in organisms: "are sufficiently frequent and statistically solid that they can neither be overlooked nor trivially dismissed on methodological grounds." ... "It is time to question underlying assumptions" (C. Woese, Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 (1998), pg 6854-6859).
"What mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same 'patterns', in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered" ( Gavin De Beer, Homology: An Unsolved Problem, Oxford University Press, London, 1971, p. 16).
Pere Alberch, an eminent developmental biologist, noted, it is "the rule rather than the exception" that "homologous structures form from distinctly dissimilar initial states" (Pere Alberch, "Problems with the Interpretation of Developmental Sequences," Systematic Zoology, 1985, vol. 34 (1), pp. 46-58).
"The validity of the evolutionary interpretation of homology would have been greatly strengthened if embryological and genetic research could have shown that homologous structures were specified by homologous genes and followed homologous patterns of embryological development. Such homology would indeed be strongly suggestive of "true relationship"; of inheritance from a common ancestor." But it has become clear that the principle cannot be extended in this way. "Homologous structures are often specified by non-homologous genetic systems and the concept of homology can seldom be extended back into embryology. "In some ways the egg cell, blastula and gastrula stages in the different vertebrate classes are so dissimilar that, were it not for the close resemblence in the basic body plan of all adult vertebrates, it seems unlikely that they would have been classed as belonging to the same phylum.
"There is no question that, because of the great dissimilarity of the early stages of embryogenesis in the different vertebrate classes, organs and structures considered homologous in adult vertebrates cannot be traced back to homologous cells or regions in the earliest stages of embryogenesis. In other words, homologous structures are arrived at by different routes" (M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, pg 145).
"The evolutionary basis of homology is perhaps even more severely damaged by the discovery that apparently homologous structures are specified by quite different genes in different species." (M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, pg 149).
"It is the rule rather than the exception that homologous structures form from distinctly dissimilar initial states." (P. Alberch Systematic Zoology, 34(1), 1985, 46-58).
"Although mice have a gene very similar to the one that can transform a fly's antenna (Antennapedia) into a leg, mice do not have antennae and their corresponding gene affects the hindbrain." (J. Wells and P. Nelson, Homology: A Concept in Crisis, Origins and Design 18(2), 1997 pg 15).
For molecular homologies, the theory predicting such similarities: “began to crumble a decade ago when scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone" (J. Lake, R. Jain, M. Rivera, Science283 (1999), p 2027-2028).
"With more and more sequences available, it turned out that most protein phylogenies contradict each other as well as the rRNA trees" (H. Philippe and P. Forterre, Journal of Molecular Evolution 49 (1999), p509-523).
"The fly could be bred by the thousands in milk bottles. It cost nothing but a few bananas to feed all the experimental animals; their entire life cycle lasts 10 days and they have only four chromosomes" (R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 169).
"It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme."—Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 48.
Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised."—Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), p. 61.
"... Dobzhansky, as others did and would do, took for granted that, with enough time, the kinds of small mutations and changes that were observed in laboratory experiments on fruit-fly population genetics were also capable of producing the degrees of differences that seem to characterize species in the wild. To be sure, there was a certain logic in the belief that it was unnecessary to postulate another mechanism for evolutionary change when one already appeared to exist. This logic also seemed to benefit from the assertion that not only had no other mechanism been observed but that no other mechanism had yet produced species. Nevertheless, it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H. [Professor of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, USA], "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1999, pp.299-300).
"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation. And in computer life, where the term "species" does not yet have meaning, we see no cascading emergence of entirely new kinds of variety beyond an initial burst. In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species." (Kelly, Kevin, Executive Editor of Wired Magazine, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, 1994, Fourth Estate: London, 1995, reprint, p.475).
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well." Gould, Stephen J. (1977), "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Natural History, Vol. 86, June/July, p. 28
“But how do you get from nothing to such an elaborate something if evolution must proceed through a long sequence of intermediate stages, each favored by natural selection? You can't fly with 2% of a wing or gain much protection from an iota's similarity with a potentially concealing piece of vegetation. How, in other words, can natural selection explain these incipient stages of structures that can only be used (as we now observe them) in much more elaborated form?" Gould, S. J. (1985), "Not Necessarily a Wing", Natural History, October, pp. 12, 13
"As a final comment, one can only marvel at the intricacy in a simple bacterium, of the total motor and sensory system which has been the subject of this review and remark that our concept of evolution by selective advantage must surely be an oversimplification. What advantage could derive, for example, from a "preflagellum" (meaning a subset of its components), and yet what is the probability of "simultaneous" development of the organelle at a level where it becomes advantageous?" Macnab, R. (1978), "Bacterial Mobility and Chemotaxis: The Molecular Biology of a Behavioral System", CRC Critical Reviews in Biochemistry, vol. 5, issue 4, Dec., pp. 291-341
"From different kinds of eyes in contemporary animals, one may guess how the organ evolved. Many primitive animals even a few protists, have light-sensitive spots. In some flatworms (planaria) the pigmented spot becomes a cavity; if the opening is narrowed, it can form a crude image. Covering it with transparent skin could lead to the making of a lens, and so forth. Darwin, troubled by the perfection of the eye, pointed out such gradations (C. Darwin 1964,186-190), yet the existence of viable stages on the way does not explain how it was possible that many very unlikely genes came along in the right order to direct all the details, while at the same time an immensely larger number of continually occurring deleterious mutations were continually being eliminated." (Wesson, Robert G., 1991, Beyond Natural Selection, MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1994, reprint, p.62).
"The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti- Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that is a tautology. A tautology like "All tables are tables" is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. And C. H. Waddington even says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that "Natural selection...turns out...to be a tautology". However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an "enormous power...of explanation". Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here." (Popper K.R., "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind," Dialectica, Vol. 32, Nos. 3-4, 1978, pp.339-355, p.344. Ellipses in original.).
"Another philosophical question regards the very definition of the word 'selection'. One of the original formulations of selection was 'the survival of the fittest'. If you open a standard textbook of genetics 'fitness' will probably be defined as 'the ability to survive' or something similar. But if the 'fittest' are defined as 'the best survivors' then the idea of natural selection becomes 'the survival of those best at surviving'. So what else is new? If there is no more to Darwinism than a truism then the whole theory rests on very shaky ground." (Leith B., "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982, p.21)
"I have quoted some voices of dissent coming from biologists in eminent academic positions. There have been many others, just as critical of the orthodox doctrine, though not always as outspoken - and their number is steadily growing. Although these criticisms have made numerous breaches in the walls, the citadel still stands - mainly, as said before, because nobody has a satisfactory alternative to offer. The history of science shows that a well-established theory can take a lot of battering and get itself into a tangle of contradictions - the fourth phase of 'Crisis and Doubt' in the historic cycle and yet still be upheld by the establishment until a breakthrough occurs, initiating a new departure, and the start of a new cycle. But that event is not yet in sight. In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutation plus natural selection - quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology." (Koestler A., "Janus: A Summing Up," Picador: London, 1983, pp.184-185).
Harold Cook, a rancher and geologist from Nebraska, unearthed one molar tooth in Pliocine deposits in western Nebraska. In 1922, he sent the tooth to Dr. Henry Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History, who claimed that it belonged to an early hominid and determined that the tooth had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus (Java man), and man. He wrote Cook saying: "I sat down with the tooth and I said to myself: 'It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid'" (Osborn, Henry Fairfield, 1922, "Hesperopithecus, the first anthropoid primate found in America," American Museum Novitates, 37, p. 2 ).
Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, F.R.S., Professor of Anatomy of Manchester, England, supported Osborn saying, "I think the balance of probability is in favour of the view that the tooth found in the Pliocene beds of Nebraska may possibly have belonged to a primitive member of the Human Family" (Smith, The Evolution of Man 1927).
Piltdown was discovered to be a hoax, consisting of a modern human skull and an orangutan jaw.
More than five hundred articles and memoirs are said to have been written about Piltdown man. (Nature vol. 274, #4419 (10 July 1954) pp. 61-62).
Oakely's "... radioactive flourine test proved the skull fragments were many thousands of years older than the jaw. They could not be from the same individual unless, as one scientist put it, `the man died but his jaw lingered on for a few thousand years' " (R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 363).
"How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones - the cranial fragments - and 'see' a clear simian signature in them; and 'see' in an ape's jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity? The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists' expectations and their effects on the interpretation of data. ... It is, in fact, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions. If this were the case, then each scientist faced with the same data would necessarily reach the same conclusion. But as we've seen earlier and will see again and again, frequently this does not happen. Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions" (Roger Lewin, 1987, Bones of Contention, pp.61, 68).
"It seems that the classical example of natural selection is actually an example of unnatural selection. The fact that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks invalidates Kettlewell's experiments and poses a serious problem for the classical explanation of industrial melanism in peppered moths" (Jonathan Wells, The Scientist 13:13, May. 24, 1999).
"The importance of industrial melanism in the peppered moth as one of the first, and still most cited examples of evolution in action, places emphasis on the need to be sure that the story is right. In the 40 years since Kettlewell's pioneering work, many evolutionary biologists, particularly in Britain, but also in other parts of Europe, the United States, and Japan, have studied melanism in this species. The findings of these scientists show that the precised description of the basic peppered moth story is wrong, inaccurate, or incomplete, with respect to most of the story's component parts. When details of the genetics, behaviour, and ecology of this moth are taken into account, the resulting story is one of greater complexity, and in many ways greater interest, than the simple story that is usually related (Melanism: Evolution in Action, Michael E. N. Majerus, 1998, p116).
Why does it persist in spite of the fraud being exposed? One evolutionist writes that the peppered moth is, "the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed" (Wright S. 1978. Evolution and the Genetics of Populations. Volume 4: Variability Within and Among Natural Populations. p. 186).
"Until now, however, the prize horse in our stable of examples has been the evolution of 'industrial melanism' in the peppered moth, Biston betularia, presented by most teachers and textbooks as the paradigm of natural selection and evolution occurring within a human lifetime" (Jerry Coyne. 1998. Not black and white, Nature 396:35-36).
"I unearthed additional problems when, embarrassed at having taught the standard Biston story for years, I read Kettlewell's papers for the first time. ... Finally, teachers such as myself often neglect original papers in favour of shorter textbook summaries, which bleach the blemishes from complicated experiments" (Jerry Coyne. 1998. Not black and white, Nature 396:35-36).
“To support his theory, however, Haeckel, whose knowledge of embryology was self-taught, faked some of his evidence. He not only altered his illustrations of embryos but also printed the same plate of an embryo three times, and labeled one a human, the second a dog and the third a rabbit ‘to show their similarity” (Bowden, Malcolm, 1977, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications).
"To support his case [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge."—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 120.
Haeckel confessed that he had altered his drawings, but excused himself by saying: “I should feel utterly condemned and annihilated by the admission, were it not that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge. The great majority of all morphological, anatomical, histological, and embryological diagrams are not true to nature, but are more or less doctored, schematized and reconstructed” (Bowden, Malcolm (1977), Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications), p. 128).
"The law of biogenesis has to use cheating tricks in order to fit data to the theory" (G. Rager, "Human Embryology and the Law of Biogenesis," in Rivista di Biologia (Biology Forum 79 (1986), pp. 451-452. As quoted by http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/17rec03.htm, accessed 10/24/04).
"Haeckel claims these works to be both easy for the scientific layman to follow, and scientific and scholarly….There is considerable manufacturing of scientific evidence perpetrated. Yet the author has been very careful not to let the reader become aware of this state of affairs" (L. Rutimeyer, "Referate," in Archiv fur Anthropologie (1868) p. 301-302. As quoted by http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/17rec03.htm, accessed 10/24/04).
Harvard evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson wrote euphemistically: “Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny." (G.G. Simpson and W. Beck, An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt Brace and World, 1965), p. 241).
As early as 1932, evolutionist H.H. Newman of the University of Chicago said that Haeckel’s works “did more harm than good to Darwinism” (Newman, H.H., 1932, 3rd edition, Evolution, Genetics, and Eugenics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 30).
"This generalization was originally called the biogenic law by Haeckel, and is often stated as `ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.' This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology" (Paul R. Erlich and Richard W. Holm, 1963, Process of Evolution, p. 66).
"Much research has been done in embryology since Haeckel's day, and we now know that there are all too many exceptions to this analogy, and that ontogeny does not reflect accurately the course of evolution" (R. H. Dott, R. L Batten Evolution of the Earth, 1971, p.86).
Some claim that Haeckel’s fraud is history. “Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exorcised from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry it was extinct in the twenties” (Keith S. Thomson, Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated, American Scientist, 76:May/June 1988, p. 273).
However, the embryonic fraud lives on. "Although Haeckel confessed…and was convicted of fraud at the University of Jena, the drawings persist" (New Scientist, 9/6/97, p.23). After seven decades, there is no excuse to continue this fraud in the books.
Why does it persist in the textbooks after so many years after being exposed as fraud? "The biogenetic law was widely accepted by biologists and served as the basis for the surge of embryological research that continues unabated to this day. Moreover, the biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars. Even today both subtle and overt uses of the biogenetic law are frequently encountered in the general biological literature as well as in more specialized evolutionary and systematic studies” (W. Bock, "Book Review," Science, May 1969, pp. 684-685).
"It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny" (Simpson & Beck,1965, Introduction to Biology, p.273).
What are vestigial organs? “Elements appearing in various life forms which, although often quite underdeveloped, are no longer needed or functional and represent a carry-over from more primitive forms. The human appendix is an example. (Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition, edited by Douglas M. Considine, page 2281).
"There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities" (Horatio Hackett Newman, 1990, quoted in The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: The Tennessee Evolution Case, p. 268).
"Many of the so-called vestigial organs are now known to fulfill important functions” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vo1. 8, p. 926).
Evolutionist Scadding wrote: "I suspect that this argument; [functionless organs] gained widespread use not because it proves anything about evolution, but because it was thought to have particular force against some varieties of creationism….
"There is no way, however, in which this negative assertion [i.e., the organ has no function) can be arrived at scientifically. That is, one can not prove that something does not exist . . since of course if it does not exist one cannot observe it, and therefore one can say nothing about it scientifically….
"Such an argument, from ignorance, or from negative results, is not valid scientifically, and has no place in observational science…. Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution" (S. Scadding, "Evolutionary Theory," quoted in CRSQ. December 1982, p. 190).
"The vermiform appendage—in which some recent medical writers have vainly endeavoured to find a utility—is the shrunken remainder of a large and normal intestine of a remote ancestor. This interpretation of it would stand even if it were found to have a certain use in the human body. Vestigial organs are sometimes pressed into a secondary use when their original function has been lost." Joseph McCabe, 1912, The Story of Evolution, p. 264
"There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure” (William Straus, 1947, Quarterly Review of Biology, p. 149).
'Anatomically the appendix shows evidence of a lymphoid function … There is experimental evidence as well that the vermiform appendix is a lymphoid organ which acts as reservoir of antibody producing cells.' "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?" Evolutionary Theory - Vol. 5 (May 1981) p.175.
Leg bones in whales: "Evolutionists often point to vestigial hind legs near the pelvis. But these are found only in the Right Whale. and upon closer inspection turn out to be strengthening bones to the genital wall." —John C. Whitcomb, Early Earth (1988), p. 84.
"The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution . . An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures . . leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory."—*S.R. Scadding, "Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?" Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5 (May 1981), p. 394.
Regarding veistigal organs, Erlich and Holm write: "Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology" (P. Erlich and R. Holm, 1963, The Process of Evolution, p. 66).
"The popularly told example of Horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed, fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to the today's much larger one toed Horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown" (Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle. 1980).
“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 breakdown." Charles Darwin, ‘The Origin of Species’.
"To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is the twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparelled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like portholes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity...beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man..." (Michael Denton, 1986. 'Evolution: A Theory in Crisis', Adler & Adler, pp. 328-329).
"In the natural world, there are many pattern-assembly systems for which there is no simple explanation. There are useful scientific explanations for these complex systems, but the final patterns that they produce are so heterogeneous that they cannot effectively be reduced to smaller or less intricate predecessor components. As I will argue ... these patterns are, in a fundamental sense, irreducibly complex..." (1986, Michael J. Katz, in his Templets and the explanation of complex patterns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).
"Even something as complex as the eye has appeared several times; for example, in the squid, the vertebrates, and the arthropods. It's bad enough accounting for the origin of such things once, but the thought of producing them several times according to the modern synthetic theory makes my head swim" (Frank Salisbury, "Doubts About the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 338).
“… this optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery—that the refracting interface between the two lens elements in a trilobite’s eye was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century—borders on sheer science fiction…. The design of the trilobite’s eye lens could well qualify for a patent disclosure (Levi-Setti, Riccardo (1993), Trilobites (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 57, 58).
"The Trilobites that appeared in the Cambrian period all of a sudden have an extremely complex eye structure. Consisting of millions of honeycomb shaped tiny particles and a double lens system, this eye ‘has an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today’ in the words of David Raup, a professor of geology. This eye emerged 530 million years ago in a perfect state. No doubt, the sudden appearance of such a wondrous design cannot be explained by evolution and it proves the actuality of creation. Moreover, the honeycomb eye structure of the trilobite has survived to our own day without a single change. Some insects such as bees and dragon flies have the same eye structure as the trilobite" (R .L. Gregory, 1995, Eye and Brain: The Physiology of seeing).
“The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better. How could this marvelous instrument have evolved by chance, through a succession of random events? Many people in Darwin’s day agreed with theologian William Pauley, who commented, ‘There cannot be a design without a designer.’” (R. Jastrow, Evolution: Selection for perfection, Science digest, Dec 1981, p. 86.)
“The eyes of early trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity by later arthropods…. I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.” (Stephen Jay Gould, The Ediacaran Experiment,” Natural History, Feb 1984, pp. 22-23).
“The human brain itself serves, in some sense, a proof of concept…. Its dense network of neurons apparently operates at a petaFLOPS or higher level. Yet the whole device fits in a 1 liter box and uses only about 10 watts of power.” (Ivars Peterson, “Petacrunchers: Setting a Course toward Ultrafast Supercomputing”, Science News, Vol. 147. 15 April 1995, p. 235).
Dr. Kazmann wrote, "The polonium halos, especially those produced by Polonium 218, are the center of a mystery. The half-life of the isotope is only 3 minutes. Yet the halos have been found in granitic rocks ... in all parts of the world, including Scandinavia, India, Canada, and the United States. The difficulty arises from observation that there is no identifiable precursor to the polonium; it appears to be primordial polonium. If so, how did the surrounding rocks crystallize rapidly enough so that there were crystals available ready to be imprinted with radiohalos by alpha particles from Po? This would imply almost instantaneous cooling and crystallization of these granitic minerals, and we know of no mechanisms that will remove heat so rapidly; the rocks are supposed to have cooled over millennia, if not tens of millennia."—*R.G. Kazmann, 1979, summary of R.V. Gentry's symposium presentation at Louisiana State University, April 1978, quoted in CTM, p. 61.
Dr. Anders wrote, "His [Gentry's] conclusions are startling and shake the very foundations of radiochemistry and geochemistry. Yet he has been so meticulous in his experimental work, and so restrained in his interpretations, that most people take his work seriously . . I think most people believe, as I do, that some unspectacular explanation will eventually be found for the anomalous halos, and that orthodoxy will turn out to be right after all. Mean while Gentry should be encouraged to keep rattling this skeleton in our closet for all it is worth."—*Edward Anders, Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, quoted in CTM, p. 236.
Derek Ager (Past Pres., British Geol. Asso.) "...fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur ...I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.", New Scientist, 11/10/82, p.425.
"Remember, what you say comes back to you." - Zig Ziglar
“The wise learn many things from their enemies.” - Aristophanes