Evolutionists often have come forth and admitted their own and their
colleagues' extreme degree of bias in this matter. Some have admitted that
their approach has not been scientific or objective at all. Many admit to
the severe lack of evidence for evolution and that they have accepted their
conclutions only because they are unwilling to accept that evolution never
occured. (And other final considerations.)
"Paleontologists seem to
have thought it their duty to protect the rest of us
from the erroneous conclusions we might have drawn if we had known the
actual state of the evidence." ([11], p.59)
"We (evolutionists) have been
telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face
value but to examine the evidence, and, therefore, it is rather a shock to
discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice." John T,
Bonner ([19], p.91)
"We Paleontologists have said that the history of life
supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while really
knowing that it does not." Miles Eldredge, pro-evolution ([11], p.59)
"...the
philosophy of evolution is based upon assumptions that cannot be
scientifically verified...whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution
is both limited and circumstantial in nature." G.A. Kerkut, pro-evolution
([4], p.363)
"(the record of reckless speculation of human origins) is so
astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be
found in this field at all." Solly Zuckerman ([11], p.82)
"In other words,
while Osborn, Gregory, and their colleagues considered themselves to have
written scientific analysis of human evolution, they had in fact been
telling stories (fiction). Scientific stories to be sure, but stories
nonetheless." Misia Landau, paraphrase ([14], p.32)
"The more one studies
paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith
alone." T.L. Moor, pro-evolution ([22], p.22)
"We cannot disprove that it
(the universe) was created in 4004 B.C...." George Simpson, pro-evolution
"...objective examination has rarely been the object of Darwinist
paleontology. The Darwinist approach has consistently been to find some
supporting fossil evidence, claim it as `proof' for `evolution', and then
ignore all the difficulties." ([11], p.84)
"It is, in fact, a common
fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in
the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions." "Data are just
as often molded to fit preferred conclusions." Roger Lewin, pro-evolutionist
([14], p.68)
"I have come to believe that many statements we
make about the how and whys of human evolution say as much about us, the
paleoanthropologists and the larger society in which we live, as about
anything that really happened." David Pilbeam, pro-evolution ([14], p.85)
"We do not see things the way they are; we see them the way we are." David
Pilbeam, pro-evolution ([5], p.?)
"...in my own subject of
paleoanthropology, `theory' heavily influenced by implicit ideas
(assumptions) almost always dominates `data'...Ideas that are totally
unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn
strongly influences the way fossils are interpreted." David Pilbeam,
pro-evolution ([14], p.127)
"Racism, as we would characterize it today, was
explicit in the writings of virtually all the major anthropologists of
the first century, simply because it was the generally accepted view."
([14], p.307)
We must note then that when Darwin wrote his paper, Origin of
Species, he had no skulls, his contemporaries were filled with racism
as they tried to find the less than humans, and his Co-founder, Wallace,
decided against the theory.
"The problem is that because we know the
`end of the story' (that evolution is true), we tend to interpret earlier
events as if their sole purpose was to reach that end." Roger Lewin,
pro-evolution ([15], p.22)
"Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not
because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical
coherent evidence, but because the only alternative -- special creation -- is
clearly incredible." D.M.S. Watson ([22], p.22)
"Evolution is unproved and
unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special
creation which is unthinkable." Arthur Keith ([22],
p.22)
"...there is
an important difference between going to the empirical evidence to test a
doubtful theory against some plausible alternative, and going to the
evidence to look for confirmation of the only theory that one is willing to
tolerate." ([11], p.28)
"This situation, where men rally to the defense of a
doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate
with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by
the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is
abnormal and undesirable in science." W.R.Thompson, pro-evolution, in his
introduction to Origin of Species by Darwin.
([19], p.90)
"...with human
origins, each generations explanation appears to contain
expository themes that go well beyond what might be implied by the new
scientific information of the time." ([11], p.312)
"...ideas about human origins
turn out on closer examination to tell us as much about the present as
about the past, as much about our own experiences as about those of our
remote ancestors." Evolutionist John Durant ([11], p.312)
"...the only
reason why most people seem to believe in evolution is either
because they want to believe in it or else because they have been cowed
into accepting it out of fear of being called ignorant or reactionary or
some such fearful name." ([19], p.92)
"The incessant repetition of this
unproved claim glossing lightly over the difficulties, and the assumption
of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not easily swayed by fashions
of science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine."
Richard Goldschmidt, geneticist. ([24], p.21)
"The charge of circular
reasoning which has been lodged against the critically important
paleontological evidence of evolution is not simply to be laughed off or
ignored as evolutionists too commonly attempt to do. It quite plainly
involves the presupposition of evolution, with numerous involved deductions
based on that premise. It is not, therefore, valid to offer this
presupposition and these deductions as proof of evolution, and especially
in view of the tremendously important fact that there is no real evidence
of present evolution." ([19], p.55)
The supposed division of the continents,
Africa and South America, cannot be considered as having happened since
the earth's land cannot be reconstructed to truly fit together in any
orderly way. "Recent investigators have used computers to try to fit the
continents. But even one of the reconstructions of how Africa, South
America, Europe, and North America once fitted together has areas of
overlap between these continents, and Central America is omitted
altogether." ([7], p.)
One must realize that a resemblance of a near fit
does not make two things to have been together once in the past. Such would
be a logical fallacy.
There were once considered to be 180 vestigial organs (organs
of no use that evolutionists use to say we evolved out of). Today, there
are medically regarded as being no vestigial organs. For example, the
appendix is noted as able to fight infection in early life and tonsils
destroy harmful bacteria. ([4], p.112)
It was once thought that `...an
organism was assumed to pass through the stages of its evolutionary
history during its development as an embryo." "(This) has been thoroughly
discredited by scientists today." ([4], p.354 4) What
as thought to be `gill
slits' is actually the formation of the middle ear canal, jaw, and parts of
the head and neck. ([22], p.23). The coccyx, once
regarded as a literal tail bone,
is now known to be a muscle attachment in the embryo and as providing
support to the pelvic region in the fully developed bodies.
Darwin: "I
have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a
fantasy." "I...am ready to cry with vexation at my blindness and
presumption." ([23], p.59)
"And when we examine the respective evidences
still more closely...we shall find that there are almost insuperable
difficulties with the evolutionary explanation of each of the different
evidences. They can all be understood much better in terms of special
creation than in terms of evolution." ([18], p.19)
"If there are so many problems with Darwinism and no satisfactory
alternative within the framework of evolution, why not reevaluate the
framework?" ([11], p.62)
"Why
not consider the possibility that life is what it so evidently seems to
be, the product of creative intelligence? Science would not come to an end,
because the task would remain of deciphering the languages in which genetic
information is communicated, and in general finding out how the whole
system works. What scientists would lose is not an inspiring research
program, but the illusion of total mastery of nature. They would have to
face the possibility that beyond the natural world there is a further
reality which transcends science." ([11], p.110)