Electronics Forum / Basics / August 2006

Bob, Your comments on my Agent signature text caused me think a bit
and I did some more homework and after doing so I totally convinced of
the folly of darwinism. I hesitated to respond to your comments since
this is not the proper forum for this topic, but I cannot let it go
without clairifing a few things, for the record then I'll drop the
subject.

I have no delusions of changing your mind, but since most people know
nothing of the evolution debate among scientists I wanted to shed some
light on the subject. This debate is not new and has been going since
the publication of The Origin of Species. See the quotes at the end of
this post.

Also for the record, the full title is.
The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

While developing his speculations Darwin was laboring under the
illusion of the existence of a simple cell since in 1859 is was
believed that a living cell has a very simple structure. Over the last
decade or so, advances in microbiology and microscope technology have
shown that a single living cell has the most complex structure ever
observed. This has served to bring darwinism under even heavier
scrutiny.
Also for the record. Darwin himself even gave credit for that first
living cell to the Creator. Btw, Darwin's only degree was in theology.

More and more scientists are having to admit to the lack of scientific
evidence supporting darwinism. Evolutionist cannot even articulate a
mechanism for "natural selection", let alone show proof of it. In the
150 yrs since the  publication of The Origin of Species there has not
been a single example found of a given species evolving into a
different species(macroevolution), not one! Which is of course a
fundamental tennant of darwinism. Some scientists freely admit to the
major problems with evolution yet staunchly support it on faith alone.
I wonder, why?

An interesting quote from a radio interview with Sir Julian Huxley -
Humanist, atheist and science popularizer, Professor of Zoology, Ex
President of UNESCO
"I suppose that the reason that we lept at the origin [of species] was
because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."

That is quite an admission!

I refer you to the works of Dembski, Behe, and others on the
principles of irreducible complexity. Although there is much debate
over this principle, it presents another very interesting challenge to
darwinism. What little that I've read on the subject does make sense
to me.

I also refer you to "A Mathematician’s View of Evolution," (The
Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000))

Such processes are not goverened by the "random" processes of
darwinian evolution. These atoms are embedded in and constrained by a
mathematical and precise conceptual structure.that makes predicting
such "random" alignments very predictable. I don't believe anyone is
arguing that the laws of physics and chemistry demand that 20
different amino acids must combine in the proper order and form chains
of 200 or so in length.

A much more complex system than a salt crystal but along the same
lines, consider the words of two prominent astrophysicists.
----
Regarding the complex and seemingly impossible equilibrium of nuclear
reactions taking place in red giants.

Fred Hoyle "A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a
super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and
biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in
nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so
overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

George Greensteen wrote: "There are three quite separate structures in
this story-helium, beryllium, and carbon-and two quite separate
resonances. It is hard to see why these nuclei should work together so
smoothly. Other nuclear reactions do not proceed by such a remarkable
chain of lucky breaks. It is like discovering deep and complex
resonances between a car, a bicycle, and a truck. Why should such
disparate structures mesh together so perfectly? Upon this our
existence, and that of every life form in the universe, depends." The
Symbiotic Universe, p. 43-44
----

Btw,
If anyone has even a passing interest in astronomy, do youself a favor
and get a copy of the DVD "The Privileged Planet" by Dr Guillermo
Gonzalez and Dr Jay Richards. It is an excellent production with very
nice graphic illustrations and talks about our planet and it's place
in the universe. There is an especially fascintaing short segment that
graphically demonstrates the size of the universe. IMHO it is WELL
worth the money for that short segment alone.

This is the same point as you made earlier, so again, I refer you to
the work of Dembski, Behe, and others on the principles of irreducible
complexity. Also, the evidence from the fossil and strata records show
that species do indeed appear "in one shot" without the required
intermediate forms.

Please don't take my word for it, but those of much more qualified
individuals.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that
evolution is based on faith alone .. exactly the same sort of faith
which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries
of religion."
Louis Trenchark More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur,
p. 33.

"‘What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith,
upon belief in the reality of the unseen belief 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.

"Evolution . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."
James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" Discover, October 1980, p.
88.

The problem with this argument is that the odds calculated by Crick
were based on the prior existance of all 20 of the different amino
acids that make up the protein molecule.I refer you to the following
paper by Dr. Bruce D. McLaughlin.
http://www.christianapologetic.org/biochemical_evolution.htm

Ahh, sounds good on the surface, but not so.
You have unwittingly provided a prime example of why "natural
selection" makes no sense. Let's say for the sake of argument that
"natural selection" is controlling a cosmic poker game. Since natural
selection by definition cannot look to the future for a specific
outcome it must simply look at the hand dealt and keep it only if it
is worthy. You say "keep the ones that fit". I ask, Fit what? To know
if they "fit" requires prior knowlege of a desired outcome and of
couse no such desired outcome is possible with blind natural
selection.

I'm not sure that I would use the term "odds games" considering, for
example,  that much of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics involves
probabilities and uncertainty["odds games"]. Also, I trust that Crick,
a nobel prize winner in the field, "allegedly" knew how to calculate
the odds correctly. Btw, he is not the only one to perform such
calculations. His is just one of the more modest ones.

A facinating opinion, but just an opinion that has never been shown to
be true, or even likely to be true. No one has even been able to force
such a combination to form even under intelligent direction in the
lab.

"[Darwin’s theory that all evolution is due to the gradual
accumulation of small genetic changes] remains as unsubstantiated as
it was one hundred and twenty years ago. The very success of the
Darwinian mode at a microevolutionary level [finding change within
species] . . only serves to highlight its failure at a
macroevolutionary level [finding change across species]."
Michael Denton, Evolution; A Theory in Crisis (1988), pp. 344-345.

Jean Rostand - member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy
"Transformism (evolution) is a fairy tale for adults. This theory has
helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

Also see the article at:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=C
SC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20
and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

I, being a creationist, am not concerned with that in the least.
Actuall we're not even talking about "evolving" all the way to
intelligent life, just the formation of a single modest length protein
molecule. A very very far cry from the intricacies of a living cell.

One thing that is almost universially agreed upon by scientists is
that the laws of physics and chemistry are universal, that is to say,
they apply equally here on Earth as they would on a planet that may
exist in the Alpha Centauri system, so most scientists agree that any
other life that might be out there would probably be very much like it
is here on earth. This is the assumption behind NASAs search for signs
of water in the solar system and beyond.

I can imagine quite a few things, but unfortunatly imagining something
does not make it a reality. For example, I can imagine that there is
an all powerful God who created everything. My imagination does not
make it true, so I go with what I believe and it just so happens that
my belief much more closely fits with the evidence than evolution
does.

"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.

If you have made it this far through my ramblings, I beg you, please
consider the following.

If, just if, mine is the correct position then no harm done. I simply
plod along through life with much hope in the future and trying
(failing badly at times) to live my life the way I believe God wants
me to live, but - the consequences for you will be devastating! I tell
you the truth, Neither God nor I want that.

If yours is the correct position then we can still both continue on
our own paths, but where is your hope? What's the point of it all?
Since we are just a cosmic accident then there is absolutely no reason
for our being. After all, our creation was just a miraculous accident.
The only sense of right and wrong must then come from the mind of man
and of course that is subject to, and will, change as society
dictates. I will only mention in passing the devastating impact
evolution has had on our society, but that's an entirely different can
of worms that I won't go into here. Just look it up.

You would be wise to set your faith aside for just a little while as I
did, then take a close look at the overwhelming body of evidence
against evolution. Then even if you can't bring youself to admit that
Christ created all things, then you at least need to realize that
however our universe and the life in it came to be, it was not
evolution!

Just to underscore the evolution debate.

SOME QUOTES FROM VARIOUS SCIENTISTS:

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."
Ambrose Flemming, president, British Association for Advancement of
Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.

"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 Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and
stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and
unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected
that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of
Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical
cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking
us and holding us back."
L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

"Evolution is perhaps unique among major scientific theories in that
the appeal for its acceptance is not that there is evidence of it, but
that any other proposed interpretation of the data is wholly
incredible."
Charles Singer, A Short History of Science to the Nineteenth Century,
1941.

"One is disturbed because what is said gives us the uneasy feeling
that we knew it for a long time deep down but were never willing to
admit this even to ourselves. It is another one of those cold and
uncompromising situations where the naked truth and human nature
travel in different directions. "The particular truth is simply that
we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence of
invertebrate phyla. We do not know what group arose from what other
group or whether, for instance, the transition from Protozoa occurred
once, or twice, or many times . . We have all 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, book review of Implications of Evolution by *G.A.
Kerkut, in American Scientist, June 1961, p. 240. John Bonner is with
the California Institute of Technology.

Sir Aurthur Keef - At one time the most renowned evolution sceintist
in Great Brittain. Author of 20 or so books supporting evolution.
"evolution is unproved and unprovable." " We believe it only because
the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable."

"Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear
that evolution has no single cause."
G.G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.

"It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has
status only as a speculation."
George G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.

"When Professor [George Gaylord] Simpson says that homology is
determined by ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of
ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of
evolutionary reasoning. When he adds that evolutionary developments
can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to
revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which through so many
years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology, has impeded the
advance of biology."
"Evolution and Taxonomy," Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1982,
p. 567.

"Modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their
predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary
hypotheses, which, however plausible, are in the nature of things
unverifiable . . and the reader is left with the feeling that if the
data do not support the theory they really ought to . . This
situation, where scientific 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, "Introduction," Origin of Species; statement reprinted
in Journal of the American Affiliation, March 1960.

"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.

"The overriding 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
research--paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of
genetics and molecular biology--has provided ever-increasing evidence
for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth."
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago
that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of
his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any
support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary
phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated
and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous
mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative
hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from
that self-evident axiom some of its more ‘aggressive advocates’ would
have us believe."
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"Laboratory data and theoretic arguments concerning the origin of the
first life lead one to doubt the evolution of subsequent forms of
life. The fossil record and other lines of evidence confirm this
suspicion. In short, when all the available evidence is carefully
assessed in toto  [in the whole, entirely], the evolutionary story of
origins appears significantly less probable than the creationist
view."
Dean Kenyon, Creationist View of Biological Origins, NEXA Journal,
Spring 1984, p. 33 [San Francisco State University].

"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.

"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 biology department, quoted in Creation:
The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 28.

There are many many more, but I think I have made the point.
Evolution is by no means a proven "fact".

You know, I don't believe we ever did return, oh well.

Mike

In the begining God created the heavens and the Earth.
GEN 1:1

Bob, Your comments on my Agent signature text caused me think a bit
and I did some more homework and after doing so I am totally convinced
of the folly of darwinism. I hesitated to respond to your comments
since this is not the proper forum for this topic, but I cannot let it
go without clairifing a few things, for the record then I'll drop the
subject.

I have no delusions of changing your mind, but since most people know
nothing of the evolution debate among scientists I wanted to shed some
light on the subject. This debate is not new and has been going since
the publication of The Origin of Species. See the quotes at the end of
this post.

Also for the record, the full title is.
The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

While developing his speculations Darwin was laboring under the
illusion of the existence of a simple cell since in 1859 is was
believed that a living cell has a very simple structure. Over the last
decade or so, advances in microbiology and microscope technology have
shown that a single living cell has the most complex structure ever
observed. This has served to bring darwinism under even heavier
scrutiny.
Also for the record. Darwin himself even gave credit for that first
living cell to the Creator. Btw, Darwin's only degree was in theology.

More and more scientists are having to admit to the lack of scientific
evidence supporting darwinism. Evolutionist cannot even articulate a
mechanism for "natural selection", let alone show proof of it. In the
150 yrs since the  publication of The Origin of Species there has not
been a single example found of a given species evolving into a
different species(macroevolution), not one! Which is of course a
fundamental tennant of darwinism. Some scientists freely admit to the
major problems with evolution yet staunchly support it on faith alone.
I wonder, why?

An interesting quote from a radio interview with Sir Julian Huxley -
Humanist, atheist and science popularizer, Professor of Zoology, Ex
President of UNESCO
"I suppose that the reason that we lept at the origin [of species] was
because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."

That is quite an admission!

I refer you to the works of Dembski, Behe, and others on the
principles of irreducible complexity. Although there is much debate
over this principle, it presents another very interesting challenge to
darwinism. What little that I've read on the subject does make sense
to me.

I also refer you to "A Mathematician’s View of Evolution," (The
Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000))

Such processes are not goverened by the "random" processes of
darwinian evolution. These atoms are embedded in and constrained by a
mathematical and precise conceptual structure.that makes predicting
such "random" alignments very predictable. I don't believe anyone is
arguing that the laws of physics and chemistry demand that 20
different amino acids must combine in the proper order and form chains
of 200 or so in length.

A much more complex system than a salt crystal but along the same
lines, consider the words of two prominent astrophysicists.
----
Regarding the complex and seemingly impossible equilibrium of nuclear
reactions taking place in red giants.

Fred Hoyle "A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a
super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and
biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in
nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so
overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

George Greensteen wrote: "There are three quite separate structures in
this story-helium, beryllium, and carbon-and two quite separate
resonances. It is hard to see why these nuclei should work together so
smoothly. Other nuclear reactions do not proceed by such a remarkable
chain of lucky breaks. It is like discovering deep and complex
resonances between a car, a bicycle, and a truck. Why should such
disparate structures mesh together so perfectly? Upon this our
existence, and that of every life form in the universe, depends." The
Symbiotic Universe, p. 43-44
----

Btw,
If anyone has even a passing interest in astronomy, do youself a favor
and get a copy of the DVD "The Privileged Planet" by Dr Guillermo
Gonzalez and Dr Jay Richards. It is an excellent production with very
nice graphic illustrations and talks about our planet and it's place
in the universe. There is an especially fascintaing short segment that
graphically demonstrates the size of the universe. IMHO it is WELL
worth the money for that short segment alone.

This is the same point as you made earlier, so again, I refer you to
the work of Dembski, Behe, and others on the principles of irreducible
complexity. Also, the evidence from the fossil and strata records show
that species do indeed appear "in one shot" without the required
intermediate forms.

Please don't take my word for it, but those of much more qualified
individuals.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that
evolution is based on faith alone .. exactly the same sort of faith
which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries
of religion."
Louis Trenchark More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur,
p. 33.

"‘What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith,
upon belief in the reality of the unseen belief 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.

"Evolution . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."
James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" Discover, October 1980, p.
88.

The problem with this argument is that the odds calculated by Crick
were based on the prior existance of all 20 of the different amino
acids that make up the protein molecule.I refer you to the following
paper by Dr. Bruce D. McLaughlin.
http://www.christianapologetic.org/biochemical_evolution.htm

Ahh, sounds good on the surface, but not so.
You have unwittingly provided a prime example of why "natural
selection" makes no sense. Let's say for the sake of argument that
"natural selection" is controlling a cosmic poker game. Since natural
selection by definition cannot look to the future for a specific
outcome it must simply look at the hand dealt and keep it only if it
is worthy. You say "keep the ones that fit". I ask, Fit what? To know
if they "fit" requires prior knowlege of a desired outcome and of
couse no such desired outcome is possible with blind natural
selection.

I'm not sure that I would use the term "odds games" considering, for
example,  that much of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics involves
probabilities and uncertainty["odds games"]. Also, I trust that Crick,
a nobel prize winner in the field, "allegedly" knew how to calculate
the odds correctly. Btw, he is not the only one to perform such
calculations. His is just one of the more modest ones.

A facinating opinion, but just an opinion that has never been shown to
be true, or even likely to be true. No one has even been able to force
such a combination to form even under intelligent direction in the
lab.

"[Darwin’s theory that all evolution is due to the gradual
accumulation of small genetic changes] remains as unsubstantiated as
it was one hundred and twenty years ago. The very success of the
Darwinian mode at a microevolutionary level [finding change within
species] . . only serves to highlight its failure at a
macroevolutionary level [finding change across species]."
Michael Denton, Evolution; A Theory in Crisis (1988), pp. 344-345.

Jean Rostand - member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy
"Transformism (evolution) is a fairy tale for adults. This theory has
helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

Also see the article at:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=C
SC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20
and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

I, being a creationist, am not concerned with that in the least.
Actuall we're not even talking about "evolving" all the way to
intelligent life, just the formation of a single modest length protein
molecule. A very very far cry from the intricacies of a living cell.

One thing that is almost universially agreed upon by scientists is
that the laws of physics and chemistry are universal, that is to say,
they apply equally here on Earth as they would on a planet that may
exist in the Alpha Centauri system, so most scientists agree that any
other life that might be out there would probably be very much like it
is here on earth. This is the assumption behind NASAs search for signs
of water in the solar system and beyond.

I can imagine quite a few things, but unfortunatly imagining something
does not make it a reality. For example, I can imagine that there is
an all powerful God who created everything. My imagination does not
make it true, so I go with what I believe and it just so happens that
my belief much more closely fits with the evidence than evolution
does.

"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.

If you have made it this far through my ramblings, I beg you, please
consider the following.

If, just if, mine is the correct position then no harm done. I simply
plod along through life with much hope in the future and trying
(failing badly at times) to live my life the way I believe God wants
me to live, but - the consequences for you will be devastating! I tell
you the truth, Neither God nor I want that.

If yours is the correct position then we can still both continue on
our own paths, but where is your hope? What's the point of it all?
Since we are just a cosmic accident then there is absolutely no reason
for our being. After all, our creation was just a miraculous accident.
The only sense of right and wrong must then come from the mind of man
and of course that is subject to, and will, change as society
dictates. I will only mention in passing the devastating impact
evolution has had on our society, but that's an entirely different can
of worms that I won't go into here. Just look it up.

You would be wise to set your faith aside for just a little while as I
did, then take a close look at the overwhelming body of evidence
against evolution. Then even if you can't bring youself to admit that
Christ created all things, then you at least need to realize that
however our universe and the life in it came to be, it was not
evolution!

Just to underscore the evolution debate.

SOME QUOTES FROM VARIOUS SCIENTISTS:

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."
Ambrose Flemming, president, British Association for Advancement of
Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.

"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 Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and
stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and
unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected
that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of
Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical
cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking
us and holding us back."
L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

"Evolution is perhaps unique among major scientific theories in that
the appeal for its acceptance is not that there is evidence of it, but
that any other proposed interpretation of the data is wholly
incredible."
Charles Singer, A Short History of Science to the Nineteenth Century,
1941.

"One is disturbed because what is said gives us the uneasy feeling
that we knew it for a long time deep down but were never willing to
admit this even to ourselves. It is another one of those cold and
uncompromising situations where the naked truth and human nature
travel in different directions. "The particular truth is simply that
we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence of
invertebrate phyla. We do not know what group arose from what other
group or whether, for instance, the transition from Protozoa occurred
once, or twice, or many times . . We have all 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, book review of Implications of Evolution by *G.A.
Kerkut, in American Scientist, June 1961, p. 240. John Bonner is with
the California Institute of Technology.

Sir Aurthur Keef - At one time the most renowned evolution sceintist
in Great Brittain. Author of 20 or so books supporting evolution.
"evolution is unproved and unprovable." " We believe it only because
the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable."

"Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear
that evolution has no single cause."
G.G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.

"It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has
status only as a speculation."
George G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.

"When Professor [George Gaylord] Simpson says that homology is
determined by ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of
ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of
evolutionary reasoning. When he adds that evolutionary developments
can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to
revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which through so many
years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology, has impeded the
advance of biology."
"Evolution and Taxonomy," Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1982,
p. 567.

"Modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their
predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary
hypotheses, which, however plausible, are in the nature of things
unverifiable . . and the reader is left with the feeling that if the
data do not support the theory they really ought to . . This
situation, where scientific 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, "Introduction," Origin of Species; statement reprinted
in Journal of the American Affiliation, March 1960.

"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.

"The overriding 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
research--paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of
genetics and molecular biology--has provided ever-increasing evidence
for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth."
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago
that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of
his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any
support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary
phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated
and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous
mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative
hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from
that self-evident axiom some of its more ‘aggressive advocates’ would
have us believe."
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"Laboratory data and theoretic arguments concerning the origin of the
first life lead one to doubt the evolution of subsequent forms of
life. The fossil record and other lines of evidence confirm this
suspicion. In short, when all the available evidence is carefully
assessed in toto  [in the whole, entirely], the evolutionary story of
origins appears significantly less probable than the creationist
view."
Dean Kenyon, Creationist View of Biological Origins, NEXA Journal,
Spring 1984, p. 33 [San Francisco State University].

"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.

"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 biology department, quoted in Creation:
The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 28.

There are many many more, but I think I have made the point.
Evolution is by no means a proven "fact".

You know, I don't believe we ever did return, oh well.

Mike

In the begining God created the heavens and the Earth.
GEN 1:1

Bob, Your comments on my Agent signature text caused me think a bit
and I did some more homework and after doing so I and many other much
more qualified people are totally convinced of the folly of darwinism.
I hesitated to respond to your comments since this is not the proper
forum for this topic, but I cannot let it go without clairifing a few
things, for the record, then I'll drop the subject.

I have no delusions of changing your mind, but since most people know
nothing of the evolution debate among scientists I wanted to shed some
light on the subject. This debate is not new and has been going since
the publication of The Origin of Species. See the quotes at the end of
this post.

Also for the record, the full title is.
The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

While developing his speculations Darwin was laboring under the
illusion of the existence of a simple cell since in 1859 is was
believed that a living cell has a very simple structure. Over the last
decade or so, advances in microbiology and microscope technology have
shown that a single living cell has the most complex structure ever
observed. This has served to bring darwinism under even heavier
scrutiny.
Also for the record. Darwin himself even gave credit for that first
living cell to the Creator. Btw, Darwin's only degree was in theology.

More and more scientists are having to admit to the lack of scientific
evidence supporting darwinism. Evolutionist cannot even articulate a
mechanism for "natural selection", let alone show proof of it. In the
150 yrs since the  publication of The Origin of Species there has not
been a single example found of a given species evolving into a
different species(macroevolution), not one! Which is of course a
fundamental tennant of darwinism. Some scientists freely admit to the
major problems with evolution yet staunchly support it on faith alone.
I wonder, why?

An interesting quote from a radio interview with Sir Julian Huxley -
Humanist, atheist and science popularizer, Professor of Zoology, Ex
President of UNESCO
"I suppose that the reason that we lept at the origin [of species] was
because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."

That is quite an admission!

I refer you to the works of Dembski, Behe, and others on the
principles of irreducible complexity. Although there is much debate
over this principle, it presents another very interesting challenge to
darwinism. What little that I've read on the subject does make sense
to me.

I also refer you to "A Mathematician’s View of Evolution," (The
Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000))

Such processes are not goverened by the "random" processes of
darwinian evolution. These atoms are embedded in and constrained by a
mathematical and precise conceptual structure.that makes predicting
such "random" alignments very predictable. I don't believe anyone is
arguing that the laws of physics and chemistry demand that 20
different amino acids must combine in the proper order and form chains
of 200 or so in length.

A much more complex system than a salt crystal but along the same
lines, consider the words of two prominent astrophysicists.
----
Regarding the complex and seemingly impossible equilibrium of nuclear
reactions taking place in red giants.

Fred Hoyle "A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a
super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and
biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in
nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so
overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

George Greensteen wrote: "There are three quite separate structures in
this story-helium, beryllium, and carbon-and two quite separate
resonances. It is hard to see why these nuclei should work together so
smoothly. Other nuclear reactions do not proceed by such a remarkable
chain of lucky breaks. It is like discovering deep and complex
resonances between a car, a bicycle, and a truck. Why should such
disparate structures mesh together so perfectly? Upon this our
existence, and that of every life form in the universe, depends." The
Symbiotic Universe, p. 43-44
----

Btw,
If anyone has even a passing interest in astronomy, do youself a favor
and get a copy of the DVD "The Privileged Planet" by Dr Guillermo
Gonzalez and Dr Jay Richards. It is an excellent production with very
nice graphic illustrations and talks about our planet and it's place
in the universe. There is an especially fascintaing short segment that
graphically demonstrates the size of the universe. IMHO it is WELL
worth the money for that short segment alone.

This is the same point as you made earlier, so again, I refer you to
the work of Dembski, Behe, and others on the principles of irreducible
complexity. Also, the evidence from the fossil and strata records show
that species do indeed appear "in one shot" without the required
intermediate forms. There have been claims of find such intermediates,
but they have all turned out to be errors or outright deception.

Please don't take my word for it, but those of much more qualified
individuals.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that
evolution is based on faith alone .. exactly the same sort of faith
which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries
of religion."
Louis Trenchark More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur,
p. 33.

"‘What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith,
upon belief in the reality of the unseen belief 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.

"Evolution . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."
James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" Discover, October 1980, p.
88.

The problem with this argument is that the odds calculated by Crick
were based on the prior existance of all 20 of the different amino
acids that make up the protein molecule. I refer you to the following
paper by Dr. Bruce D. McLaughlin.
http://www.christianapologetic.org/biochemical_evolution.htm

Ahh, sounds good on the surface, but not so.
You have unwittingly provided a prime example of why "natural
selection" makes no sense. Let's say for the sake of argument that
"natural selection" is controlling a cosmic poker game. Since natural
selection by definition cannot look to the future for a specific
outcome it must simply look at the hand dealt and keep it only if it
is worthy. You say "keep the ones that fit". I ask, Fit what? To know
if they "fit" requires prior knowlege of a desired outcome and of
couse no such desired outcome is possible with blind natural
selection. Only an intelligence can look for such a desired outcome.

I'm not sure that I would use the term "odds games" considering, for
example,  that much of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics involves
probabilities and uncertainty["odds games"]. Also, I trust that Crick,
a nobel prize winner in the field, "allegedly" knew how to calculate
the odds correctly. Btw, he is not the only one to perform such
calculations. His is just one of the more modest ones.

A facinating opinion, but just an opinion that has never been shown to
be true, or even likely to be true. No one has even been able to force
such a combination to form even under intelligent direction in the
lab.

"[Darwin’s theory that all evolution is due to the gradual
accumulation of small genetic changes] remains as unsubstantiated as
it was one hundred and twenty years ago. The very success of the
Darwinian mode at a microevolutionary level [finding change within
species] . . only serves to highlight its failure at a
macroevolutionary level [finding change across species]."
Michael Denton, Evolution; A Theory in Crisis (1988), pp. 344-345.

Jean Rostand - member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy
"Transformism (evolution) is a fairy tale for adults. This theory has
helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

Also see the article at:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=C
SC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

Actuall we were not even talking about "evolving" all the way to
intelligent life, just the random formation of a single modest length
protein molecule. A very very far cry from the intricacies of a living
cell.
Btw, I, being a creationist, am not concerned with that in the least.

One thing that is almost universially agreed upon by scientists is
that the laws of physics and chemistry are universal, that is to say,
they apply equally here on Earth as they would on a planet that may
exist in the Alpha Centauri system, so most scientists agree that any
other life that might be out there would very probably be very much
like it is here on earth. This is the assumption behind NASAs search
for signs of water in the solar system and beyond.

I can imagine quite a few things, but unfortunatly imagining something
does not make it a reality. For example, I can imagine that there is
an all powerful God who created everything. My imagination does not
make it true, so I go with what I believe and it just so happens that
my belief much more closely fits with the evidence than evolution
does.

"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.

If you have made it this far through my ramblings, I beg you, please
consider the following.

If, just if, mine is the correct position then no harm done. I simply
plod along through life with much hope in the future and trying
(failing badly at times) to live my life the way I believe God wants
me to live, but - the consequences for you will be devastating! I tell
you the truth, Neither God nor I want that.

If yours is the correct position then we can still both continue on
our own paths, but where is your hope? What's the point of it all?
Since we are just a cosmic accident then there is absolutely no reason
for our being. After all, our creation was just a miraculous accident.
The only sense of right and wrong must then come from the mind of man
and of course that is subject to, and will, change as society
dictates. I will only mention in passing the devastating impact
evolution has had on society, but that's an entirely different can of
worms that I won't go into here. Just look it up.

You would be wise to set your faith aside for a bit as I did, then
take a close look at the overwhelming body of evidence against
evolution. Then even if you can't bring youself to admit that Christ
created all things, then you at least need to realize that however our
universe and the life in it came to be, it was not evolution!

Just to underscore the evolution debate.

SOME QUOTES FROM VARIOUS SCIENTISTS:

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."
Ambrose Flemming, president, British Association for Advancement of
Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.

"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 Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and
stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and
unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected
that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of
Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical
cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking
us and holding us back."
L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

"Evolution is perhaps unique among major scientific theories in that
the appeal for its acceptance is not that there is evidence of it, but
that any other proposed interpretation of the data is wholly
incredible."
Charles Singer, A Short History of Science to the Nineteenth Century,
1941.

"One is disturbed because what is said gives us the uneasy feeling
that we knew it for a long time deep down but were never willing to
admit this even to ourselves. It is another one of those cold and
uncompromising situations where the naked truth and human nature
travel in different directions. "The particular truth is simply that
we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence of
invertebrate phyla. We do not know what group arose from what other
group or whether, for instance, the transition from Protozoa occurred
once, or twice, or many times . . We have all 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, book review of Implications of Evolution by *G.A.
Kerkut, in American Scientist, June 1961, p. 240. John Bonner is with
the California Institute of Technology.

Sir Aurthur Keef - At one time the most renowned evolution sceintist
in Great Brittain. Author of 20 or so books supporting evolution.
"evolution is unproved and unprovable." " We believe it only because
the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable."

"Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear
that evolution has no single cause."
G.G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.

"It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has
status only as a speculation."
George G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.

"When Professor [George Gaylord] Simpson says that homology is
determined by ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of
ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of
evolutionary reasoning. When he adds that evolutionary developments
can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to
revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which through so many
years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology, has impeded the
advance of biology."
"Evolution and Taxonomy," Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1982,
p. 567.

"Modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their
predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary
hypotheses, which, however plausible, are in the nature of things
unverifiable . . and the reader is left with the feeling that if the
data do not support the theory they really ought to . . This
situation, where scientific 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, "Introduction," Origin of Species; statement reprinted
in Journal of the American Affiliation, March 1960.

"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.

"The overriding 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
research--paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of
genetics and molecular biology--has provided ever-increasing evidence
for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth."
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago
that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of
his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any
support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary
phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated
and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous
mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative
hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from
that self-evident axiom some of its more ‘aggressive advocates’ would
have us believe."
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"Laboratory data and theoretic arguments concerning the origin of the
first life lead one to doubt the evolution of subsequent forms of
life. The fossil record and other lines of evidence confirm this
suspicion. In short, when all the available evidence is carefully
assessed in toto  [in the whole, entirely], the evolutionary story of
origins appears significantly less probable than the creationist
view."
Dean Kenyon, Creationist View of Biological Origins, NEXA Journal,
Spring 1984, p. 33 [San Francisco State University].

"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.

"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 biology department, quoted in Creation:
The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 28.

There are many many more, but I think I have made the point.
Evolution is by no means a proven "fact".

You know, I don't believe we ever did return, oh well.

Mike

"In the begining God created the heavens and the Earth."
GEN 1:1