“Falsehood” The existence in thought of what does not exist in fact

Augustine of Hippo

Scientific Dissention From Darwinism Growing Worldwide

Since 2001 over 1,000 Scientist from all over the world from institutions such as MIT, Cambridge, Princeton, UCLA and others have signed the Dissent From Darwinism list that states:

“We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life”

www.dissentfromdarwin.org

What’s significant about this list is not so much the names and institutions listed there but what they tell you about the many Darwin skeptics in the science world who wouldn’t dare sign because they know the career cost that would come from publically challenging evolutionary theory

Scientific Dissent From Darwinism List: The Tip Of The Iceberg (evolutionnews.org)

We know intuitively that Darwinism can accomplish some things, but not others. The question is what is that boundary? Does the information content in living things exceed that boundary? Darwinists have never faced those questions. They’ve never asked scientifically, can random mutation and natural selection generate the information content in living things.

Dr. Michael Egnor Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediactrics State University Of New York

The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems.

Dr. Vladimir L. Voeikov, Professor of Biorganic, Moscow state University, member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

There can be no doubt that after a century of intensive efforts biologists have failed to validate the theory in any significance sense. The fact remains that nature has not been reduced to the continuum that Darwinian model demands, nor has the credibility of chance as the creative agency of life been secured.

Michael Denton; PhD Biochemistry Kings College London, A Theory In Crisis

Life as revealed by new technologies is more complicated than the Darwinian viewpoint anticipated. Thus evolutionary theory, which was considered to be a key foundation of biology in 1959, today has a more peripheral role. … modern science makes it possible to be a scientifically informed doubter of Darwinian theories of evolution.

Dr. Roland Hirsch, Chemist

Scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well. … Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work.

Philip S. Skell, Member National academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor Pennsylvania State University

I found it important to sign this statement because I believe intellectual freedom fuels scientific discovery. If we, as scientists are not allowed to question, ponder, explore, and critically evaluate all areas of science but forced to comply with current scientific orthodoxy then we are operating in a mode completely antithetical to the very nature of science.

Darwin’s theory needs to be questioned, challenged, and examined in order to maintain its scientific integrity and to protect it from becoming dogma.

Dr. Rebecca Keller, Biophysical Chemistry

“Because no scientist can show how Darwin’s mechanism can produce the complexity of life, every scientist should be skeptical. The fact that most won’t admit to this exposes the unhealthy effect of peer pressure on scientific discourse.”

Dr. Douglas Axe, Director of Biologic Institute and Maxwell Professor of Molecular Biology, Biola University

“When Darwinian proponents claim there is no controversy regarding the cohesiveness of the scientific evidence for evolution as creator, they are merely expressing a heartfelt desire. … There is a growing contingent of scientists who have found the evidence for Darwinian evolution wanting, and who are ready and willing to debate Darwinists on scientific grounds.”

Dr. Yvonne Boldt, Ph.D. Microbiology, University of Minnesota

Evolution As Dogma Not Science

Nothing has to be true, but everything has to sound true

Isaac Asimov, American Author, Professor of Biochemistry , Boston University

In China its O.K. to criticize Darwin but not the government, while in the United States its O.K. to criticize the government, but not Darwin

Chinese Paleontologist Dr. Jun Yaun. Chen

“One can note that the whole edifice of evolutionary theory is increasingly seen as a faith rather than objective, empirical science; and its foundations are shaky.”

Douglas Kelley: Creation and Change

Is there any dogma more unsupported by the facts than from the scientist who stands up and says, “I know there is no God?” Science is woefully unsuited to ask the question of God in the first place

Francis Collins: United States Top Geneticist, Led Human Genome Project

It is remarkable how the religion of science has grabbed hold.

Isaac Asimov, American Author, Professor of Biochemistry Boston University

It [naturalism] isn’t clearly a religion: the term “religion” is vague, and naturalism falls into the vague area of its application. Still, naturalism plays many of the same roles as a religion. In particular, it gives answers to the great human questions: Is there such a person as God? How should we live? Can we look forward to life after death? What is our place in the universe? How are we related to other creatures? Naturalism gives answers here: there is no God, and it makes no sense to hope for life after death. As to our place in the grand scheme of things, we human beings are just another animal with a peculiar way of making a living. Naturalism isn’t clearly a religion; but since it plays some of the same roles as a religion, we could properly call it a quasi-religion.

Alvin Plantinga: American Analytic Philosopher Notre Dame; Where The Conflict Really Lies p. ix-x

Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I go was silence. I tried it on the members of the evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionist, and all I go there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I do know one thing-it ought not to be taught in high school.”

Colin Patterson-Senior paleontologist British Natural History Museum, Lecture at American Museum of Natural History 1981

There were no human witnesses to the origin of the Universe, the origin of life or the origin of a single living thing. These were unique, unrepeatable events of the past that cannot be observed in nature or repeated in the laboratory. Thus neither creation nor evolution qualifies as a scientific theory and each is equally religious. As the scientific philosopher Sir Karl Popper has stated, evolution is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.

Duane Gis-Ph.D Biochemistry, University of California, Berkley (1981 Article in Science Digest)

Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell

Paul Davies-Center For Fundamental Concepts In Science, Arizona State University

We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations

Franklin M. Harold, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Colorado State University

A common objection to creationism in pre-Darwinian times was that no one could say anything about the mechanism of creation. Creationists simply pointed to the “fact” of creation and conceded ignorance of the means. But now, Darwin’s theory of natural selection is under fire and scientists are no longer sure of its general validity. Evolutionist increasingly talk like creationists in that they point to a fact but cannot provide an explanation of the means…the prevailing assumption in evolutionary science seems to be that speculative possibilities, without experimental confirmation, are all that is really necessary

Phillip E. Johnson: Darwin On Trial Chapter 1, Page 28-29

Darwinian evolutionary theory was my field of specialization in biology. Among other things, I wrote a textbook on the subject thirty years ago. Meanwhile, however I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’s origination myth. Consequently, I certainly agree that biology students at least should have the opportunity to learn about the flaws and limits of Darwin’s theory while they are learning about the theory’s strongest claims.

Dr. Stanley Salthe, Professor Emeritus, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest
deceit in the history of science.”

Soren Lovtrup, Danish Embriologist, Darwinism: The
Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), p. 422.

“The theory suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and
more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical
scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the
facts…No one can demonstrate that the limits of a species have ever
been passed. These are the Rubicons which evolutionists cannot
cross…Darwin ransacked other spheres of practical research work for
ideas…But his whole resulting scheme remains, to this day, foreign to
scientifically established zoology, since actual changes of species by
such means are still unknown.”

Albert Fleischmann, “The Doctrine of Organic Evolution in the Light of Modern Research,” Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute 65 (1933): pp. 194-95, 205-6, 208-9.

In China,“we can criticize Darwin, but not the government. In America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”

Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin Of Animal Life and the Case For Intelligent Design

Anyone who tells you that he or she knows how life started on earth some 3.4 billion years ago is a fool or a knave. Nobody knows.

Stuart Kauffman, Origin Of Life Research, University Of Calgary, Canada

The question I want to investigate is whether Darwinism is based on a fair assessment of the scientific evidence, or whether it is a another kind of fundamentalism. Do we really know for certain there exists some natural process by which human beings and all other living beings could have evolved from microbial ancestors, and eventually from non-living matter?

Phillip E Johnson: Darwin On Trial Chapter 1 Page 33

We are almost as much in the dark today about the pathway from nonlife to life as Charles Darwin was when he wrote “It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.

Paul Davies, Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science, Arizona State University

Perhaps the best argument…that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas…being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his or her theory

Imperial College of London astrophysicist Christopher J. Isham, who is Britain’s leading quantum cosmologist

The Origin Of Life And The Cosmological Argument

Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shuffling of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero. So there must be an intelligence, which designed the biochemicals and gave rise to the origin of carbonaceous life

Sir Fred Hoyle: Former Atheist, Evolution from Space p. 3, 143

Astronomers now find that they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation…And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover

Robert Jastrow; American Astronomer and Planetary Physicist; Scientist Caught p. 111

If the universe had a beginning, it becomes entirely sensible, almost inevitable, to ask what produced this beginning

Anthony Flew: English Philosophy, Former Atheist Author of There Is A God

If science has shown that God does not exist, it has not been by appealing to Big Bang cosmology. The hypothesis of God’s existence and the facts of contemporary cosmology are consistent. (Berlinski, DD, 80, emphasis original)

David Berlinski: American Author and Philosopher, Princeton and Columbia. The Devils Delusion p. 80

An undifferentiated external force (Big Bang) is simply too blunt an instrument to accomplish such a task. Energy might scatter parts around randomly. Energy might sweep parts into an orderly structure such as a vortex or funnel cloud. But energy alone will not assemble a group of parts into a highly differentiated or functionally specified system such as an airplane or cell (or into the informational sequences necessary to build one).

Stephen C. Meyer: Ph.D Science Cambridge University; Signature Of A Cell p. 257

The short answer is we don’t really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance.

Andy Knoll: Harvard Biologist

Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system . . . there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive.” Thirty years on, the situation is entirely unchanged. Despite a vast increase in knowledge of supramolecular chemistry and of cell and molecular biology; the unexpected discovery of ribozymes; and an enormous effort, both experimental and hypothetical, devoted to providing a gradualistic functionalist account of the origin of life in terms of a long series of less complex functional replicating systems (e.g., the much touted “RNA world”) leading from “chemistry” to the cell, no one has provided even the vaguest outlines of a feasible scenario, let alone a convincing one. A yawning gap still persists—empirical and theoretical. (Denton, ESTC, 121)

Michael Denton, Biochemist University Of Toronto, Evolution Still A Theory In Crisis p. 121

The Fossil Record And Abesence Of Transitional Forms

Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?

Charles Darwin; The Origin Of Species; Chapter 6 Problems With My Theory

The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places

Francis Hitching; Author of “The Neck of the Giraffe“

Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms

Niles Eldredge-Biologist, Paleontologist. Along with Stephen Jay Gould proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. 7

The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution [i.e., a species becoming a new species] accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid

Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution (Freeman, San Francisco, 1977), p. 39)

Despite the bright promise that palaeontology provides means of ‘seeing’ Evolution, it has provided 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 palaeontology does not provide them

David Kitts, Ph.D. Palaeontology and Evolutionary Theory, Evolution, Vol.28 (Sep.1974) p.467)

According to Steven Stanley, the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming contains a continuous local record of fossil deposits for about five million years, during an early period in the age of mammals. Because this record is so complete, paleontologists assumed that certain populations of the basin could be linked together to illustrate continuous evolution. On the contrary, species that were once thought to have turned into others turn out to overlap in time with their alleged descendants, and “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” In addition, species remain fundamentally unchanged for an average of more than one million years before disappearing from the record.

Steven Stanley -Paleontologist/Evolutionary Biologist University Of Hawaii, The New Evolutionary Timetable Pages 71, 93-95, 104

The evidence for the big transformations in evolution are not there in the fossil record

William Provine-Biology Professor Cornell University 8

I 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

Mark Pagel-Oxford Biologist 11

The prevailing characteristic of fossil species is stasis-the absence of change. There are numerous “living fossils” which are much the same today as they were millions of years ago, at least as far as we can determine.

Phillip E Johnson-Darwin On Trial Chapter 2, Page 44

The “evolution in action” of J. Huxley and other biologists is simply the observation of demographic facts, local fluctuations of genotypes, geographical distributions. Often the species concerned have remained practically unchanged for hundreds of centuries! Fluctuation as a result of circumstances, with prior modification of the genome, does not imply evolution, and we have tangible proof of this in many panchronic species {i.e. living fossils that remain unchanged for millions of years

Pierre Grass’e-French Zoologist, Evolution Of Living Organisms pp. 124-25,130

The emergence of anthropods in the fossil record during the Cambrian presents a problem for evolutionary biology.

American Scientist Magazine

The missing link between man and the apes…is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated…Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school…

John Adler with John Carey: Is Man a Subtle Accident, Newsweek, Vol.96, No.18 (November 3, 1980, p.95

Whatever else it may be, evolution is not a theory of origins. It is a theory of changes. It tries to explain how one creature evolved into another. But it cannot explain why there should be any creatures in the first place. Or why there should be anything at all, for that matter

Phil Ryken: President of Wheaton College

In most people’s minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It’s those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation.”

(Gary Parker Biologist/paleontologist and former ardent Evolutionist

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

(Stephen J. Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), ‘Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?’ Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pg 127)

As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record

Tom Kemp, Oxford University, Curator of Zoology, Britain Museum of Natural History

Genetics And Common Ancestry

Barely a whisper of this vibrant debate reaches the public. Take evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins‘ description in Prospect magazine last year of the gene as a replicator with “its own unique status as a unit of Darwinian selection”. It conjures up the decades-old picture of a little, autonomous stretch of DNA intent on getting itself copied, with no hint that selection operates at all levels of the biological hierarchy, including at the supraorganismal level, or that the very idea of ‘gene’ has become problematic.

Philip Ball; Editor of Journal Nature

Sixty years on, the very definition of ‘gene’ is hotly debated. We do not know what most of our DNA does, nor how, or to what extent it governs traits. In other words, we do not fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level

David Klinhofffer: Senior Fellow Discovery Institute

There would never have been a single cell that could be called the last universal common ancestor

Carl Woese-Ph.D Biophysics Yale University 8

Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branching within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves

Antonio Rokas-Cornelius Vanderbilt Chair in Biological Sciences, Vanderbilt University

The evolutionary record leaks like a sieve

Sir Fred Hoyle-Institution Of Astronomy Cambridge

As a (bio)chemist I become most skeptical about Darwinism when I was confronted with the extreme intricacy of the genetic code and its many most intelligent strategies to code, decode and protect its information, such as the U x T and ribose x deoxyribose exchanges for the DNA/RNA pair and the translation of its 4-base language to the 20AA language of life that absolutely relies on a diversity of exquisite molecular machines made by the products of such translation forming a chicken-and-egg dilemma that evolution has no chance at all to answer.”

Dr. Marcos Eberlin, member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, founder of the Thomson Mass Spectrometry Labratory

As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require — or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have — or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life — the foundation of evolution – is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.

Chris Williams, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University

Intelligent Design, Information And Complexity

In man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe. It is much more complex than the most complicated computer ever built. Wouldn’t it be logical to assume that if man’s highly intelligent brain designed the computer, then the human brain was also the product of design?

Isaac Assimov: Writer/Editor of over 500 books. Professor of Biochemistry, Boston University

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events, the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature than a creator

Albert Einstein

Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal.

Richard Dawkins: British Biologist, Root Of All Evil p. 17

Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing

Sir Isaac Newton, who is widely regarded to have been the greatest scientist of all time, as cited in Principia, regarded to be the most important scientific work of all time

“It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.” And: “How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows …”

Paul Davies-Center For Fundamental Concepts In Science, Arizona State University Life Force, New Scientist September 18, 1999

Now imagine 1050 blind persons standing shoulder to shoulder, they would more than fill our entire planetary system] each with a scrambled Rubik cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. Life must plainly be a cosmic phenomenon.

Sir fred Hoyle, Astonomer, Mathemetician. Formulated The Theory of Stellar Nucleosynthesis. Gold Medal Of Royal Astronomical Society Astronomy and Mathematics

For the synthesis of such reduced entropy systems, as for example a primate brain, requires all kinds of solid, actual information, which neither the matter of which the primeval amoeba consisted, nor the intact amoeba cell contained; similarly, inorganic matter will have to assemble huge numbers of bits of holistic information before it can synthesize an amoeba.” So he says, “Whatever it was that started the first amoeba, whatever inanimate thing started the first amoeba, would have to have collected information to make that happen.

A.E. Wilder Smith; British Organic Chemist, Three Doctorates In Science

“If anything is true about nature, it is that plants and animals seem intricately and almost perfectly designed for living their lives

Jerry Coyne-Biologist , Richard Dawkins Award Recipient (Why Evolution Is True)

Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose

Richard Dawkins-The Greatest Show On Earth page 216

On The Bird’s Lung:

Just how such a different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to evisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes.

Michael Denton-Evolution: A Theory In Crisis

It is highly improbable that the eye could have evolved by the accumulation of small mutations, because the number of mutations would have to be so large and the time available is not nearly long enough for them to appear

D.S Ulam-Mathemetician: Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation Of Evolution Symposium

The novelty and complexity of the cell is so far beyond anything inanimate in the world today that we are left baffled by how it was achieved.

Kirschner, M.W -Professor Dept. Of Systems Biology Harvard Medical School

 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form.

Andrew Knoll-Professor of Biology, Harvard, PBS Nova, “How Did Life Begin Interview July 1, 2004)

Although a biologist, I must confess that I do not understand how life came about…. I consider that life only starts at the level of a functional cell. The most primitive cells may require at least several hundred different specific biological macro-molecules. How such already quite complex structures may have come together, remains a mystery to me. The possibility of the existence of a Creator, of God, represents to me a satisfactory solution to the problem

Werner Arber, winner of the 1978 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology for the discovery of restriction endonucleases. (Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo sapiens. Henry Marenau and Roy Abraham Varghese. Peru, pp. 141-142)

How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replicating capabilities, and ‘coded chemistry’?

Anthony Flew: Western Philosophy, University Of London (former atheist) There Is A God p. 124

We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance

Richard Dawkins: The Blind Watchmaker

Mutations And Time

Virtually all the mutations studied in genetics laboratories-which are pretty macro because otherwise geneticists wouldn’t notice them-are deleterious to the animals possessing them

Richard Dawkins

Small-scale variations never produced a “specific difference” (i.e., a difference in species). Meanwhile, large-scale variations, whether achieved gradually or suddenly, inevitably resulted in sterility or death. As he put it, “It is a matter of fact that extreme variations finally degenerate or become sterile; like monstrosities they die out.”

Louis Agassiz, Former Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University

There is a considerable gap in the new-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology

Marco Schutzenberger-Mathmetician, Know for the Schutzenberger Theorem

Let us suppose that we wish, hypothetically, to form a bat or a whale . . . by a process of gradual transformation of established species. If an average chronospecies lasts nearly a million years, or even longer, and we have at our disposal only ten million years, then we have only ten or fifteen chronospecies1 to align, end-to-end, to form a continuous lineage connecting our primitive little mammal with a bat or a whale. This is clearly preposterous. Chronospecies, by definition, grade into each other, and each one encompasses very little change. A chain of ten or fifteen of these might move us from one small rodentlike form to a slightly different one, perhaps representing a new genus, but not to a bat or a whale!

Steven Stanley-Paleontologist/Evolutionary Biologist University Of Hawaii, (The New Evolutionary Timetable Pages 71,93-95,104

The single greatest problem which the fossil record poses for Darwinism is the “Cambrian explosion” of around 600 million years ago. Nearly all the animal phyla appear in the rocks of this period, without a trace of the evolutionary ancestors that Darwinists require. As Richard Dawkins puts it, “It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.”

Phillip E Johnson-Darwin On Trial page 58 Kindle Edition

The Earth Is Fine Tuned Making It Just Right For Life

There are many such examples of the universe’s life-friendly properties, so many, in fact that physicists can’t dismiss them as all mere accidents

Tim Folger: Discover Magazine Published Online December 2008

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

Sir Fred Hoyle: British Astronomer, Gold medal Astronomy and Mathematics (The Accidental Universe (Cambridge University Press 1982, page 118)

Life, it seems, is not an incidental component of the universe, burped up out of a random chemical brew on a lonely planet to endure for a few fleeting ticks of the cosmic clock. In some strange sense, it appears that we are not adapted to the universe, the universe is adapted to us

Tim Folger: (Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator) Discover Magazine

The ghostly presence of virtual particles defies rational common sense and is nonintuitive for those unacquainted with physics. Religious belief in God, and Christian belief that God became Man around two thousand years ago, may seem strange to common-sense thinking. But when the most elementary physical things behave in this way, we should be prepared to accept that the deepest aspects of our existence go beyond our common-sense intuitions

Nobel Prize winning physicist Tony Hewish as quoted in the foreword to John Polkinghorne and Nicholas Beale’s book Questions of Truth: Fifty-one Responses to Questions about God, Science, and Belief. 

Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”

“God is the creator and sustainer of the universe and of humankind, transcending the universe but immanent in it.”

George Ellis, the South African astrophysicist who was a collaborator on the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems (regarding the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe)

Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan

Arno Penzias, winner of the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics.

Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one…. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument

Cosmologist and astronomer Edward Robert Harrison

Philosophers And The Theory

While the atheist rejects God as an explanation for any mystery unexplained by science, the atheist simultaneously invokes naturalism of the gaps and materialism of the gaps for everything unexplained by science. For them, the truth of naturalism is assumed for every unexplained thing. Because of their a priori commitment to a purely naturalistic worldview, they assume the truth of naturalism in advance. Because naturalism is supposedly true they assert, there will be purely naturalistic explanations in the future for every single thing. So, with naturalism of the gaps, they provide us with an endless list of materialistic promissory notes for the vast array of things currently unexplained. In fact the atheist is unable to dismiss God of the gaps without simultaneously asserting naturalism of the gaps in its place. When the atheist cannot account for something and can give no real explanation, they automatically invoke magic words such as emergence, randomness, chance, luck and probability, coupled with naturalism of the gaps.

Ravi Zacharias, Christian Apologist

Darwin’s theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.

David Berlinski, Senior Fellow Discovery Institute’s Center For Science And Culture

“And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as
we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the
doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the
multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by
evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound
strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred
of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that
macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred.”

Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion (Rockford., Ill.: Tan Books,
1988), pp. 5-6. Dr. Smith, taught at MIT and UCLA.

“In the case of fine-tuning, we already know that minds often produce fine-tuned devices, such as Swiss watches. Postulating God—a supermind—as the explanation of fine-tuning, therefore, is a natural extrapolation from what we already observe minds to do.”

Robin Collins: Philosopher, Mathematics Degree Washington State, Ph.D Physics University of Texas, Ph.D Philosophy Notre Dame

“With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat
embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins
which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for
his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the inevitable
position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the
assumption that what, after long effort could not prove to take place
today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”

Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199.

Darwinism is not really a scientific theory because natural selection is an all-purpose explanation which can account for anything, and which therefore explains nothing

Karl Popper Philosopher Of Science-Analytic Philosophy Critical Rationalism Wursburg School

Those who have magnified more recent controversies about the relations of science and religion, and who have projected them back into historical time, simply perpetuate a historical myth. The myth of a perennial conflict between science and religion is one to which no historian of science would subscribe

Peter Harrison: Former Oxford Professor of Science and Religion

…it is absurd for the evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into anything

G.K. Chesterton English Writer, Philosopher

Do The Math : Darwinism Just Doesn’t Add Up

The human body has an average of one hundred trillion cells. In a single cell, the DNA contains the informational equivalent of roughly eight thousand books. If the DNA from one cell were uncoiled, it would extend to about three meters in length. Thus, if the DNA in an adult human were strung together, it would stretch from Earth to the sun and back roughly seventy times!

Marc Whorton : Holman Quicksource Guide To Understanding Creation

The odds of producing all the proteins necessary for a functional cell by chance is estimated to be 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. About the same odds of a tornado slashing through a junkyard and forming a Boing 747.

Sir Fred Hoyle: Astrophysicist, Institution of Astronomy Cambridge, Gold Medal Of Royal Astronomical Society and Mathematics

A typical cell has roughly 100 million proteins of 20,000 different types, and yet the entire cell is so small that a few hundred cells could fit on the dot of this letter i.

John C. Lennox- God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?, page 117

Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection’s ability to create complex biological systems – and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour.

Professor Colin Reeves, Dept. Of Mathematical Sciences, Coventry University

“Now imagine 1050 blind persons [ed: standing shoulder to shoulder, they would more than fill our entire planetary system] each with a scrambled Rubik cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. Life must plainly be a cosmic phenomenon.”

Sir Fred Hoyle, Astronomer, Mathmetician, formulated the theory of Stellar Nucleosynthesis

The odds of getting a functional protein of 150 amino acids by chance is no better than 1 in 10 to the 164th power. Now consider that there are 1,080 elementary particles in the entire universe. Thus, the probability of finding a functional protein through chance alone is a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion times smaller than the odds of finding a specific particle in a random search throughout the entire universe!

Stephen C. Meyer: Director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute

What happens when we try to assign probability to the fine-tuning of all the known constants of nature. Such a task would be impossible, since the necessary digits would be greater than the number of elementary particles in the universe.

Roger Penros: Mathematical Physicist, University of Oxford, Wolff Prize for physics shared with Stephen Hawking. The Emperor’s New Mind Concenring Computers, Minds, and Physics Page 344

I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen that none will work without God.

Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.

Physicist and mathematician James Clerk Maxwell, who is credited with formulating classical electromagnetic theory. The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell, p.376,

God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe

Nobel Prize winning physicist Paul A. M. Dirac, who made crucial early contributions to both quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics.

The ultimate reason of things must lie in a necessary substance, in which the differentiation of the changes only exists eminently as in their source; and this is what we call God.

Whence it follows that God is absolutely perfect, since perfection is nothing but magnitude of positive reality, in the strict sense, setting aside the limits or bounds in things which are limited.

Gottfried Leibniz, the German mathematician and philosopher (1646-1716) who founded calculus (concurrently with Isaac Newton)