As stated in the Introduction, evolutionist scientists know perfectly well that not one single branch of science has corroborated their theory and that the whole concept is totally groundless. Yet for the sake of ideology, they continue to defend the theory, even while some evolutionists confess that it's invalid.
Pierre Paul Grassé is the former president of the French Academy of Sciences and author of the book Evolution of Living Organisms. As he writes:
Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us.... 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.25
After setting out the impossibility of random mutations having met all the needs of the living world, Grassé goes on to say:
There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.26
Prof. Derek Ager, who is the former president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (and head of the department of geology and oceanography at University College of Swansea):
It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student have now been debunked.27
Dr. Robert Milikan is a Nobel Prize winner and renowned evolutionist:
The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove.28
Dr. Lewis Thomas, the author of Lives of a Cell:
Biology needs a better word than error for the driving force in evolution.... I cannot make my peace with the randomness doctrine; I cannot abide the notion of purposelessness and blind chance in nature. And yet I do not know what to put in its place for the quieting of my mind.29
Jerry Coyne is of the Chicago University Evolution and Ecology Department:
We conclude-unexpectedly-that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.30
H. S. Lipson, the British physicist:
I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all.31
Gregory Alan Pesely is professor of philosophy:
One would immediately reject any lexicographer who tried to define a word by the same word, or a thinker who merely restated his proposition, or any other instance of gross redundancy; yet no one seems scandalized that men of science should be satisfied with a major principle which is no more than a tautology.32
Dr. Colin Patterson is an evolutionist paleontologist and curator of London's Natural History Museum, editor of the museum's journal and author of the book Evolution:
Now, one of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view-well, let's call it non-evolutionary-was [that] last year I had a sudden realization. For over twenty years, I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. That was quite a shock, to learn that one can be so misled for so long... So for the last few weeks, I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.The question is this: 'Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that you think is true? Is there one thing you can tell me about evolution?' I tried this question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago- a very prestigious body of evolutionists-and all I got there was silence for a long time. But eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing-it ought not to be taught in high school.'33
Dr. Albert Fleischman, zoologist at the University of Erlangen:
The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.34
W. R. Thompson is head of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control in Ottawa:
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.35
E. O. Wiley of City University of New York's, Ichthyology Department and the American Museum of Natural History, expresses his thoughts on Norman Macbeth's book Darwin Retried:
Macbeth suggests that we try to look at evolution with new eyes, that we admit to the public, and, if needed, to ourselves, that we have misgivings about Darwinism, and the synthetic theory, that we open debate.36
Our intelligence, our reflective consciousness, our extreme technological facility, our complex spoken language, our sense of moral and ethical values-each of these is apparently sufficient to set us apart from nature... this gap is an "embarrassment," something to be explained away.37
Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, is a Swedish geneticist and professor of botany at the University of Lund in Sweden:
My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint.38
Paul Lemoine, a former director of the National Museum of Natural History in Paris:
The theories of evolution in which our student youth was cradled constitute a dogma that all the world continues to teach. But each in his own specialty, zoologist or botanist, comes to the conclusion that none of the available explanations is adequate... The result of this summary is that the theory of evolution is impossible.39
Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses.40
Prof. Cemal Yıldırım, a Turkish evolutionist, is professor of philosophy at Middle East Technical University and visiting scholar at California State University in Northridge:
No scientist, whether be Darwinist or neo-Darwinist, can suggest the notion that the theory of evolution is proven.41That's right, evolution theory is not proven.42It is far from being convincing to attribute this order in living things, which seems to have a particular purpose, to chance or coincidence.43
C. D. Darlington, an English biologist, geneticist and director of the John Innes Centre:
Gradually, we are told, step by step, men produced the arts and crafts, this and that, until they emerged in the light of history... Those soporific words "gradually" and "step-by-step" repeated incessantly, are aimed at covering an ignorance which is both vast and surprising. One should like to inquire: Which steps? But then one is lulled, overwhelmed and stupefied by the gradualness of it all, which is at best a platitude, only good for pacifying the mind, since no one is willing to imagine that civilization appeared in a thunderclap.44
Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France explains how Darwin’s tree-of-life concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded:
We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.45
25- Pierre Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 8.
26- Ibid., p. 103.
27- Derek Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record." Proceedings of the Geological Association, Vol. 87, No. 2, 1976, p. 132.
28- SBS Vital Topics, David B. Loughran, April 1996, Stewarton Bible School, Stewarton, Scotland, URL:http://www.rmplc.co.uk/eduweb/ sites/sbs777/vital/evolutio.html
29- Lewis Thomas, "On the Uncertainty of Science," Key Reporter, Vol. 46 (Autumn 1980), p. 2.
30- H.A. Orr and Jerry Coyne (1992), "The Genetics of Adaptation: A Reassessment," American Naturalist, pp. 140, 726.
31- H. S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
32- G.A. Pesely, "The Epistemological Status of Natural Selection," Laval Theologique et Philosophique, Vol. 38 (Feb. 1982), p. 74.
33- Dr. Colin Patterson, "Evolution and Creationism: Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution?", November 1981 Presentation at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City.
34- http://www.rmplc. co. uk/eduweb/sites/sbs777/vital/evolutio.html
35- Charles Darwin, Introduction to The Origin of Species, 6th Edition (1956) p. xxii.
36- E.O.Wiley, "Review of Darwin Retried by MacBeth." Systematic Zoology, Vol. 24 (June. 1975), p. 270.
37- Roger Lewin, In the Age of Mankind, Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Books, 1988. p. 22.
38- Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (lund, Swewden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. 31.
39- Introduction: De (Evolution), Encyclopedie Française, Vol. 5 (1937) p. 6.
40- Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Boston: Gambit, 1971, p. 147
41- Cemal Yildirim, Evrim Kurami ve Bagnazlik ["The Theory of Evolution and Bigotry"], Bilgi Publishing, January 1989, pp. 56-57.
42- Ibid., p. 131.
43- Ibid., p. 108.
44- Giorgio de Santillana, and Hertha von Dechend, Hamlet's Mill: An Essay Investigating the Origins of Human Knowledge and Its Transmission Through Myth (Boston: Gambit Inc., 1969), p. 68..
45- Graham Lawton, “Uprooting Darwin’s Tree,” New Scientist, (24 January 2009), p. 34