Does teaching evolution harm Christianity?

Exactly. Evolution has become its own religion, which is basically the United States' state religion. After all, evolution is taught in our schools, is it not? And any and all opposing voices are drowned out, sued, or silenced outright.

It takes as much faith to believe evolution as it does to become a Christian... more actually.

But our kids are being indoctrinated from a very early age (as JWI said) to believe in evolution. Which is the same thing Muslims do with their children, as well as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and any other false religion or cult.

By capturing them at a young, tender, impressionable age, the proponents of evolution sidestep the skepticism that comes with age. By indoctrinating them early, they make our kids anti-Christian in their outlook on life, as well as their world view.

Does evolution harm Christianity? Definitely.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Funny, almost all those who post here who accept evolution came to that position later in life due to studying the issue. Most of us were "indoctrinated" with YEC.

 

Actually, I was indoctrinated into evolution from the get-go. I was the architypical child of science.

It was this background of evolution that held me back from coming to Christ several years earlier.

I am now what is called a YEC. Why? Because that is the way the Bible descibes it.

The entire bible rises or falls on Genesis. If Genesis is not what it says it is, the rest of the scriptures crumbles around it.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

" As are origins and unobserved/unrecorded history... although not completely. You cannot interpret the data for natural history without making non-scientific assumptions.

To assume that a creator was not directly responsible for something that exists is just as metaphysical as to assume one was."

Evolution is based on observations so you cannot say that it is "unobserved."

Second, if you want to try and make the case that God would have created things recently to look as if evolution happened, then be my guest. I welcome your admission that our observations of creation are consistent with evolution and your attempt to justify your metaphysical assumption that God would have chosen to create in such a manner.

" You also take on faith that evolution occurred, that naturalism is a legitimate limitation on origins theories, and that God "would not have done it that way"."

No faith need. It is observation.

Again, I look forward to your presentation on your metaphysical assumption that God would have created life on earth to look as if it were the product of evolution.

" You can do it every bit as much as proving that even one species arose from a completely different one.... ever."

This is a response to my statement that you could not scientifically investigate Jesus coming to the earth.

Could you please tell me your proposal for how to research this even using the scientific method? I am at a loss about how such a thing could be done. But you say it could be. Let's have at it.

But as far as species go, we have plenty of observations to support one species becoming another. We even have modern examples of where we have directly observd just this very thing.

" It is also unable to put history in a box and study it. You can speculate how something might have happened by undirected natural forces just like one can speculate how something happened due to intelligent cause..."

As I have asked in the past, take some of my specific examples and tell me what you think it should look like if it were caused by intelligent design, how you propose to test this and how we can tell the difference between it and common descent.

" Only if you presuppose evolution when before you interpret the data.[i/]"

Then make a different set of assumptions and show how your interpretations with your assertions better fit the observations. Tell us how we can differentiate your interpretation from common descent.

" You have assigned a motive where none has been established. You have attempted to make God to blame if naturalists misinterpret what they see.

The evidence does not "indicate"... it doesn't "speak"... it doesn't "suggest". It simply lays there until someone interprets it. "

And the best interpretation is common descent. If you have a better one, present it. There are plenty of opportunities floating around on the various threads.

" No. Common ascent... that simple forms become more complex by an unproven process of acquiring complexity and genetic information from some other source than the "kind" that reproduced them."

You are equivocating meanings here. That is a fallacy. Common descent just mens common ancestry.

As far as the process goes, the post immediately after your again addressed this issue and shows mechanisms that can and do provide novel genetic sequences.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3217/11.html#000157

" That is a metaphysical assumption that is no more likely true than the idea that one can only use the same code on any given silicon chip."

Mixing analogies there?

I make the simple observation that if you were going to reuse a given protein that it is unlikely that you would change the genetic sequence that makes that protein around for every different use. It ignores the logic that you use when you advocate common design in the first place. It is contradictory to suggest that commonalities are the result of common design and then to balk when it is pointed out that things with the same design at the protein level often have a different design at the DNA level.

Make up your mind!

" So? This doesn't even effectively knock down the straw man assumption you constructed."

If you consider it a strawman then give us your metaphysical assumptions and logic where you show this to be what you would expect to see given common recent design.

 

UTEOTW said,

"But as far as species go, we have plenty of observations to support one species becoming another. We even have modern examples of where we have directly observd just this very thing"

That is nonsense. We do NOT have plenty of observations to support one species becoming another.

In fact, honest evolutionists have admitted MANY times that there are NO true transistions. Zero, Nada, Zilch, NONE!

"Dr. Austin H. Clark, F.R.G.S., who is recognized as one of the world’s greatest biologists and, at one time, biologist of the United States national museum, bluntly stated that Darwin, Lamarck and all their followers were wrong on almost all vital points. "so far as concern the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any of the major group arose from any other. Each is a special animal-complex… appearing as a special and distinct creation--the greatest groups of animals in life do not merge into another. They are and have been fixed from the beginning… back-boned animal is always unmistakably a back-boned animal, a starfish is always a starfish, and insect is always an insect, no matter whether we find it as a fossil or catch it alive at the present day… If we are willing to accept the facts, we must believe that there were never such intermediates,… That these major group, from the very first, bore the same relation to each other that do at the present."

I know you hate quote mining, so I will spare you from seeing at least 20 other similar quotes.

This is a person who has the credentials and knows the subject.

You are simply unwilling to ACCEPT THE FACTS.

"There is not the slightest evidence that any of the major group arose from any other."

"If we are willing to accept the facts, we must believe that there were never such intermediates,… That these major group, from the very first, bore the same relation to each other that do at the present."


This is what people and science observe. They observe one species that appeared suddenly. Sometimes they disappear suddenly. This is simply extinction and has been observed many times.

Evolutionists know this is true. But they search for any similarites between one species and another. This is pretty easy as all animals share many similarities. Then they claim a relation.

But evolutionists also KNOW there are no transistional fossils. This is why they have had to resort to fantastic theories to explain why they cannot be found.

You do not hate these quotes because they are dishonest. You hate them because they are HONEST.

"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist]."

Here a biochemist admits the evidence supports creation and contradicts evolution.

UTEOTW, if you could show convincing proof as you falsely claim exists, you would be world famous. You cannot produce this evidence. And neither can anyone else.

If you want to ignore the true evidence that is your problem.

But quit making the claim for all these observations. It is completely untrue.

 

No need to respond to any of your quotes. You have not shown that any of these quotes are from scientists who accept evolution nor have you provided links where the quotes may be read in context. You even left the date off the first one. Note: it was nearly 100 years ago when it was said. Got anything germane, recent and accurate?

This deserves a response.

You continue to falsely assert that PE is based on a lack of evidence and you refuse to address that material presented that shows that just the opposite is true.

Perhaps you could use the paper which introduced the world to PE to make your point.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.pdf

Or, maybe you respond to this from the last time you made these claims.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3200/8.html#000119

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

So, if you are correctly representing PE, why is it that the originator of the idea says that transitions are abundant in the fossil record?

So, if you are correctly representing PE, why is it that the originator of the idea says that the theory explains actual trends in the actual fossil record and is not based on a lack of evidence as you keep falsely asserting?

[Also notice that little hyperlink thingy. I gave you a quote and a link where can go read the whole thing although it is unlikely that anyone would think that I am misrepresenting Gould.]

As to your claim that PE has anything to do with transitions at higher levels, I'll again let the originators speak.

Gould and Eldredge. (1977) "PE: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered." Paleobiology 3:115.

One more for you.

http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~theobal/PE.html

Did you get that? The theory is based on evidence, not a lack of evidence.</font>[/QUOTE]

 

Back to the original post: Yes, teaching evolution is damaging to Christianity. It teaches God did not really create man.

Science should stick to science. There is no place for faith in science.

In science, what benefit is there to teaching something that can never be proven and must be taken by faith? Is that really science?

 

I tried to post this yesterday, but my computer refused to cooperate. As a YEC'er myself, I still find the quote mining discusting. If I pulled quotes like those and used them in a reasearch paper the way most YEC'ers use them, that paper would be torn up and I would receive a failing grade for that paper. We (Christians) should be above the rest in everything we do. Now if you would show the entire quote in context so we could actually see that the person meant what YEC'ers say, then that would be something.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I don't think teaching evolution harms Christianity. I was well aquainted with the theory of evolution before I came to Christ through many dinosaur books I had read. That did not stop me from receiving Jesus as my Lord and Savior. When the Holy Spirit works in someone's life, no teaching of man will stop it.

 

I really don't see how there can be this much discussion about something that is basically pretty simple.

If you believe in evolution as the way things started in the universe, then you can't claim Gods word as the basis for creation of all things.

If you believe that God is the creator, and from Him all things come, then you can't accept evolution as a viable theory of how things started.

I don't think the teaching of evolution is necessarily damaging, unless those who are being taught do not have the resources (or family, friends, church, etc.) who can also show them the story of creation as believed in the Bible.

I know from my own experience, I was taught God as creator from an early age, and by the time evolution was taught in school, I had a pretty good stance on what I believed as far as how things were created. It was then up to me to distinguish what I needed to know for test purposes in classes, and what I could hold onto as my belief in the creation of all things.

 

Strange indirect admission.

"Science", as redefined by naturalists, is dependent on "conceive of a way"...

Scientists can "conceive" ideas in their mind to be accomplished by the undirected forces of nature without a shred of proof and we are supposed to accept it... because it excludes dependence on a supernatural force.

That's the main problem UTE. Most of what you call "evidence supporting" or "proof" for evolution is really only what evolutionists can "conceive" happened... not observation, not repeatable experiments.

Again, mind experiments are fine for accommodating evidence... but you can't then turn around and claim the hard data as proof when all you have done is "conceive" of how it could have occurred in accordance with the theory.

 

To the extent that this is true, I agree.

Creationists would probably be better pointing out the inconsistencies, ie. "On this occasion he said.... but on this occasion he said... So what does he really believe? Or else, are his positions dictated by the convenience of the moment... or perhaps he was honest on one occasion but attempting to hide a weakness in ToE on the other?"

However, the facts are what they are. People say what they say and regardless of accusations of quote mining and the like, there is does appear to be a lack of transitionals. PE is an answer to that lack.

In fact, there are no demonstrable transitionals. There is no evidence that what we have found are not simply differently adapted animals within a species or long ago extinct animals with no living descendents. To say otherwise is nothing more than a speculative interpretation.

 

No it isn't. It is based on wildly optimistic extrapolations of observation... often in spite of what additional scientific observation suggests.

Animals adapt. From that, evolutionists say that a species can continue to adapt until it becomes a different species. The hard evidence is that species strongly resist this level of change. The hard evidence is that species that adapt to extremes and become fixed genetically do not become a new "center" with the ability to adapt indifferent directions but rather go extinct due to an inability to adapt.

The argument isn't about microevolution/adaptation. It is about macroevolution and the supposed ascension of new, more complex species from lower forms.

Implicit in your statement is a falsehood.

God didn't create things "to look as if evolution happened". That is an interpretation based on naturalistic presuppositions- not the evidence. The evidence can and has been explained other ways. You scoff, demand proof, and consider them incredible. But the fact is that they are no more speculative than what you deem "proven" and "credible".

Then quit acting as if I haven't given evolution its due consideration. I have. It is speculative. It asks me to believe unproven, unproveable things that are far more improbable than simply believing what God told us He did.

If you believe this then it is not only faith... but self-blinded faith.

We have not observed the most critical aspects of what evolution requires. We do not see new complex biological systems arising or even small events that suggest it will occur... only that the possibility cannot be categorically ruled out.

None necessary. The proof is on you. I look forward to your presentation as to why God would have created life on earth via billions of years of undirected natural processes then vainly claim credit for Himself and concoct a fairy tale to deceive those who believed in Him most faithfully for at least 4000 years of human history.

As for my assumptions: a) I never denied they were metaphysical... though more objective than what you ultimately depend on. b) I reject the notion that creation "looks" as if it evolved. Evolution is a speculative explanation- not an ironclad, proven truth to the exclusion of all other possibilities.

Even the rule of parsimony and homologies you point to result in significant levels of improbability. Evolutionists ignore them because even the improbable scenario they present is superior to acknowledging any possibility that involves a supernatural, intelligent designer/creator.

 

Yes it is.

Evolutionists style... you would say that none of the hard facts disprove that He came, I can "conceive" of a way that He could have come, my presuppositions lead me to the notion that this is the only qualified conclusion that has been proposed, therefore... it must be true.

Depends on what you call a species and even evolutionists don't agree on it or even the notion that the emergence of new species has been observed. It is not entirely honest for you to make such an unqualified claim.

And I won't waste my time since you obviously aren't reading my responses.

This statement only validates what I said before. I have proposed a framework. It depends on nothing more than the mechanisms observed in nature and often employed by evolutionists. It allows that a process of speciation has occurred.

The difference is that your assumption is that naturalism created simple forms that became more complex while my assumption is that God created perfect, adaptable, highly complex animals that have "descended" into lesser creatures.

That is an opinion... and a very vain one at best that presumes that you have heard and reasonably considered every alternative.

I believe that I have. Repeatedly.

I agree with common ancestory. In some form or another, we all do. But that is not an accurate description of what you propose. Even "ancestory" alludes to the notion that the descendent is wholly derived from its predecessors.

You don't believe that. You believe that descendents haven't descended at all but rather have ascended by some unobserved mechanism from which it has derived greater complexity than that of its ancestors.

No it isn't. That's an assertion not worthy of your intelligence.

It's akin to saying that all steel can only be used to assemble widgets. But since widgets and gadgets are both made from steel... they must have descended from a common ancestor.

I have. But... I must ask "Why" you make such a demand. When evolutionists confront new information and modify their theories... you call that good science. When you perceive that a creationist has done it... you call it equivocation and "proof" that we are wrong.

 

"To the extent that this is true, I agree."

[Applause]

If one is going to use quotes, one should at least be sure that they are accurate.

"However, the facts are what they are. People say what they say and regardless of accusations of quote mining and the like, there is does appear to be a lack of transitionals. PE is an answer to that lack."

Please go back and read the materials from Eldridge and Gould. They based PE on observed trends in which there are periods of relatively rapid change in relatively small populations along side of relative stasis. These trends can be observed both in modern times and in the fossil record. From memory, I think that the case that they discussed in their publications were fossil examples of such trends.

They also very pointedly state that PE is to be applied to species level change. Which in a way is the funny part about YEers trying to make use of PE. PE uses observed trends in species level changes to explain why you should expect to rarely find well preserved records of such change. They clearly point out that larger scale changes are well represented in the fossil record. Yet YEers assert that there should ONLY be species level change. So when they reference PE, they are referencing a theory about why we rarely find examples of the only kind of change that they say should be possible and we find many examples of the kind of change that they say should not exist.

"In fact, there are no demonstrable transitionals. "

Depends on your definitions.

If you require that one have a watertight case that a particular fossil is directly ancestral to another fossil or extant organism, then you may be right. But you are also using such a narrow definition as to be useless.

If you define a transitional as being intermediate between two other organisms without regard for whether it is directly ancestral or possible on a side branch, then we have innumerable examples of transitional fossils.

"There is no evidence that what we have found are not simply differently adapted animals within a species or long ago extinct animals with no living descendents. To say otherwise is nothing more than a speculative interpretation. "

It is far more speculative to say that the intermediates that have been found represent only unrelated species than that they represent actual transitionals.

There is a variety of evidence that makes much more sense when viewed in the light of common descent than in the light of individually created kinds. No need to be too long here, for we have already discussed much of this before. But as you are aware, I fell that genetics presents a powerful case for common descent, especially in how it matches up to independent lines of evidence. Much of the genetics falls into what may be termed shared rare genomic events. These are relatively rare occurances such as insertions (whether retroviral, retroposons or other), duplications, deletions and point mutations. Often these are in noncoding DNA which poses problems for the counter assertion that they are merely part of an underlying design. Even in coding DNA, there are silent point mutations which alter the sequences without altering the expression.

The genome itself also has the characteristics that one would expect if it had been built up over time though evolutionary mechanisms.

In all these, the patterns are over and over consistent with what one would expect based on common descent. If one removes the light of common dwcent, it is hard to come up with a logical reason for things to be the way they are. There simply is not another explanation which can be tested against common descent for these observations.

Chronology of the fossils is also important. Now because evolution generally happens by branching, it is not uncommon for several generations of a given series to be contemporaries of one another. So overlap is common. But studies have also consistently shown that there is a statistically significant correlation of the order in which fossils are found with the order of branching from phylogeny.

 

Which in a way is the funny part about YEers trying to make use of PE. PE uses observed trends in species level changes to explain why you should expect to rarely find well preserved records of such change.

We are not and have not argued variation, which is all 'species level changes' are. What we are arguing is that those variations, which potential already exists within the gene pool of a given population, can in any way, shape, or form, lead to a radical change of form and/or function no matter how much time you want to give it. You are make a false jump from variation to change in form and function and there is nothing in genetics or the fossil record which supports that.

EXACTLY! It is all a matter of interpretation! That is the point I and many others have been trying to drive home for a long time!

Your presuppositions will almost always determine your conclusions.

The genome itself also has the characteristics that one would expect if it had been built up over time though evolutionary mechanisms.

If that were true, then we would not be seeing so many 'revisions' and 'corrections' of evolutionary ideas based on surprises that are constantly being found!

But studies have also consistently shown that there is a statistically significant correlation of the order in which fossils are found with the order of branching from phylogeny.

Some of which is severely at odds with what we are seeing genetically!

There simply is not another explanation which can be tested against common descent for these observations.

Certainly there is. Special creation of distinct kinds -- which explains much more of what we see genetically and biologically than evolution ever could.

 

And given respect with consideration to context... in that regard, evolutionists are at least as guilty as creationists in misusing the words of the opposition.

IOW's, we are right about the implications? It seems so.

The lack of transitionals is accounted for while presuming that they were somehow there in order to account for the presumed "larger scale" "species level" changes.

Make up your mind. Your explanation doesn't differ substanatively from the one you object to.

Not at all. And I don't even think that this is the kind of transitionals that PE is attempting to gloss over.

Small adaptive differences are found. It is the transitional forms that would make that huge species leap that are lacking.

That's true. Demanding that evolutionists actually prove that one animal ascended from a lower form is too much to expect I know. Expecting them to employ something more than verbose speculation makes me unreasonable.

Nope. You have fossils that show similarity with one another. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Only if you assume that naturalism and evolution are true as a premise for determining what is speculative... You know I don't.

The problem is that you all aren't consistent. You condemn creationists for claiming things that you yourself depend on. You accept convergent evolutionary models when they suit you... but when similar arguments are used by creationists you object.

You argue on the one hand that the same event can happen twice in two different lines if it is necessary to support an evolutionists argument but condemn me for saying that if something can happen once it can happen twice. I even went the next level deep.

If the original kinds were more adaptable and "open" genetically then it is not unreasonable to assume that they would have been more susceptable to the kind of parallel events that even evolutionists acknowledge MUST have happened in some cases.

Only in your mind. You have constructed limitations that do not necessarily exist then demand that the evidence supports your conclusions.

I of course have acknowledged a form of common descent. They aren't evolutionary mechanisms btw... they are inherited traits.

Not necessarily. Actually, the problem is the shadow cast by the presupposition of naturalism that will not allow you to consider a different starting point than evolution does.

Or, these branches represent adaptations within a more complex, genetically variable kind of animal. The branching did occur but it didn't take millions of years to occur... no more than it takes millions of years to breed polled cattle.

Of course those animals are seldom found on top of one another. Assumptions of their age are made partly on where they should fit into the tree... and so the shell game continues.

 

Why are my "mine quotes" disgusting??

Most of my mine quotes have come from famous and known evolutionists.

Evolutionists will certainly not listen to creationists.

So, my only reason is to show that even dogmatic evolutionists admit serious problems with evolution.

I HAVE to show evidence from evolutionists. An evolutionist will listen to no-one else.

Look, Gould is one of the most famous evolutionists of all times. He was an expert in evolution. But Gould was honest enough to admit that there are no true transitional fossils.

Despite this lack of evidence, Gould formulated a theory (PE)which would ACCOMODATE the true scientific evidence.

Of course PE fits the true evidence. How could it not???

Now, this should make every student of evolution alarmed. When you have to create a new theory to accomodate the evidence, this is a violation of Occam's Razor, especially when the Theory of Creation fits the true fossil record without need of extra theory.

And many evolutionists have admitted that creation theory fits the true evidence better than evolution.

And it is not just one or two evolutionists making these admissions. There are literally hundreds of quotes.

Now, just because these persons continue to believe in evolution and formulate new theories to accomodate the true evidence does not change the fact that the evidence supports creation much better than evolution.

An example from another field. Take the Big Bang theory. Many astronomers and cosmologists are presenting evidence today that the Big Bang theory is not, and cannot be true. Despite this, the majority of astronomers and cosmologists cling to this theory. But as the evidence mounts, alternate theories are being advanced. The Big Bang is losing credibility. It is very likely that the BB will be rejected by science in the near future. The evidence against it is too strong.

This is not unusual. Many theories in the history of science have been abandoned as new evidence comes in.

If creationists made hundreds of statements admitting serious problems with creation, evolutionists would be all over it. And rightfully so.

A person should never be afraid of the truth.

Just look at all these quotes from evolutionists. You may be saying these were taken out of context. Maybe so, but there is an amazing consistency and coincidence in these statements.

How can anyone believe in a theory that the known experts express great doubts and tremendous problems with?

Lack of Identifiable Phylogeny


"It is, however, very difficult to establish the precise lines of descent, termed phylogenies, for most organisms." (Ayala, F. J. and Valentine J. W., Evolving: The Theory and Process of Organic Evolution, 1978, p. 230)


"Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191)


"There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multi-cellular life. There is no question about that. That's a real phenomenon." (Niles Eldredge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Book Publishers, Santee, California, 1988, p. 45)


"Whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing." (Quoted in W. R. Bird, _The Origin of Species Revisited_ [Nashville: Regency, 1991; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1987], 1:62-63)


"The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms." (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641)


"It should come as no surprise that it would be extremely difficult to find a specific fossil species that is both intermediate in morphology between two other taxa and is also in the appropriate stratigraphic position." (Cracraft, J., "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism," 1983, p. 180)


"Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors." (Eldredge, N., 1989, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22)


"Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95)



"Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. ...In fact, I do not think it unfair to say that fossils, or at least the traditional interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny." (Fortey, P. L., "Neontological Analysis Versus Palaeontological Stores," 1982, p. 120-121)


"Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations." (Gould, Stephen J. and Eldredge, Niles, "Species Selection: Its Range and Power," 1988, p. 19)


"The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 million years ago. Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then." ("Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376)


"Many 'trends' singled out by evolutionary biologists are ex post facto rendering of phylogenetic history: biologists may simply pick out species at different points in geological time that seem to fit on some line of directional modification through time. Many trends, in other words, may exist more in the minds of the analysts than in phylogenetic history. This is particularly so in situations, especially common prior to about 1970, in which analysis of the phylogenetic relationships among species was incompletely or poorly done." (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 134)


"The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. ...The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground." (Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59)


"Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even historical theories." (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, p. 353-354)


Stasis and Sudden Appearance


"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)


"Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat. ...If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants." (Bengtson, Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature, vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), p. 765-766)


"Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago - and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This 'Cambrian explosion' marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years." (Gould, Stephen J., Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, p. 23-24)


"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..." (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 238-239)


"The majority of major groups appear suddenly in the rocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 82)


"Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors." (Eldredge, (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22)


"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." (Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360)


"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of any record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement or one by another, and change is more or less abrupt." (Wesson, R., Beyond Natural Selection, 1991, p. 45)


"All through the fossil record, groups - both large and small - abruptly appear and disappear. ...The earliest phase of rapid change usually is undiscovered, and must be inferred by comparison with its probable relatives." (Newell, N. D., Creation and Evolution: Myth or Reality, 1984, p. 10)


"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism...and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record." (Mayr, E., Our Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138)


"The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type." (Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 1984, p. 187)


"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23)


"A major problem in proving the theory (of evolution) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." (Czarnecki, Mark, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56)


"Eldredge and Gould, by contrast, decided to take the record at face value. On this view, there is little evidence of modification within species, or of forms intermediate between species because neither generally occurred. A species forms and evolves almost instantaneously (on the geological timescale) and then remains virtually unchanged until it disappears, yielding its habitat to a new species." (Smith, Peter J., "Evolution's Most Worrisome Questions," Review of Life Pulse by Niles Eldredge, New Scientist, 1987, p. 59)


"The principle problem is morphological stasis. A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record." (Williamson, Peter G., "Morphological Stasis and Developmental Constraint: Real Problems for Neo-Darwinism," Nature, Vol. 294, 19 November 1981, p. 214)


"It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their duration..." (Eldredge, Niles, The Pattern of Evolution, 1998, p. 157)


"But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition." (Woodroff, D.S., Science, vol. 208, 1980, p. 716)


"We have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it off upon an imperfect fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Paradox of the First Tier: An Agenda for Paleobiology," Paleobiology, 1985, p. 7)


"Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages." (Eldredge, Niles, "Progress in Evolution?" New Scientist, vol. 110, 1986, p. 55)


"In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong.' A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it? ...As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly - the 'punctuated equilibrium' pattern of Eldredge and Gould." (Kemp, Tom S., "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, p. 66-67)


"The old Darwinian view of evolution as a ladder of more and more efficient forms leading up to the present is not borne out by the evidence. Most changes are random rather than systematic modifications, until species drop out. There is no sign of directed order here. Trends do occur in many lines, but they are not the rule." (Newell, N. D., "Systematics and Evolution," 1984, p. 10)


"Well-represented species are usually stable throughout their temporal range, or alter so little and in such superficial ways (usually in size alone), that an extrapolation of observed change into longer periods of geological time could not possibly yield the extensive modifications that mark general pathways of evolution in larger groups. Most of the time, when the evidence is best, nothing much happens to most species." (Gould Stephen J., "Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness," Natural History, 1988, p. 14)


"Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution). (Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p. 15)


"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ...That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. ...The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46)


Large Gaps


"We have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multi-cellular organisms, the origin of the vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups." (McGowan, C., In the Beginning... A Scientist Shows Why the Creationists are Wrong, Prometheus Books, 1984, p. 95)


"There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups - between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be." (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65)


"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 229-230)


"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189)


"One of the most surprising negative results of paleontological research in the last century is that such transitional forms seem to be inordinately scarce. In Darwin's time this could perhaps be ascribed with some justification to the incompleteness of the paleontological record and to lack of knowledge, but with the enormous number of fossil species which have been discovered since then, other causes must be found for the almost complete absence of transitional forms." (Brouwer, A., "General Paleontology," [1959], Transl. Kaye R.H., Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh & London, 1967, p. 162-163)


"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (Neville, George, T., "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, p. 1-3)


"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history not the artifact of a poor fossil record...The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution Columbia University Press, 1982, p. 59, 163)


"Gaps between families and taxa of even higher rank could not be so easily explained as the mere artifacts of a poor fossil record." (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22)


"The fossil record is much less incomplete than is generally accepted." (Paul, C.R.C, "The Adequacy of the Fossil Record," 1982, p. 75)


"Links are missing just where we most fervently desire them, and it is all too probable that many 'links' will continue to be missing." (Jepsen, L. Glenn; Mayr, Ernst; Simpson George Gaylord. Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution, New York, Athenaeum, 1963, p. 114)


"For over a hundred years paleontologists have recognized the large number of gaps in the fossil record. Creationists make it seem like gaps are a deep, dark secret of paleontology..." (Cracraft, in Awbrey & Thwaites, Evolutionists Confront Creationists", 1984)


"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." (Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?" "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831)


"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 gradualist accounts of evolution." (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, p. 127)


"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places." (Hitching, Francis, The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong, Penguin Books, 1982, p.19)


"If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." (The Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol 119, no 22, p. 1)


"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89)


"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)


"A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates." (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163)


Miscellaneous


"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did." (Urey, Harold C., quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4)


"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? 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.J. Lipson, F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138)


"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition." (E.J.H. Corner "Evolution" in A.M. MacLeod and L.S. Cobley, eds., Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books, 1961, at 95, 97 from Bird, I, p. 234)


"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." (More, Louis T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160)


"At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth." (Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World, John Wiley & Sons, 1982, p. 164)


"One of its (evolutions) weak points is that it does not have any recognizable way in which conscious life could have emerged." (Sir John Eccles, "A Divine Design: Some Questions on Origins" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)


"I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe." (Wolfgang, Smith, "The Universe is Ultimately to be Explained in Terms of a Metacosmic Reality" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 113)


"The origin of life is still a mystery. As long as it has not been demonstrated by experimental realization, I cannot conceive of any physical or chemical condition [allowing evolution]...I cannot be satisfied by the idea that fortuitous mutation...can explain the complex and rational organization of the brain, but also of lungs, heart, kidneys, and even joints and muscles. How is it possible to escape the idea of some intelligent and organizing force?" (d'Aubigne, Merle, "How Is It Possible to Escape the Idea of Some Intelligent and Organizing Force?" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 158)


"Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have occurred by chance." (Rubin, Harry, "Life, Even in Bacteria, Is Too Complex to Have Occurred by Chance" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)


"The third assumption was the Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa and the higher animals were all interrelated...We have as yet no definite evidence about the way in which the Viruses, Bacteria or Protozoa are interrelated." (Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergammon Press, 1960, p. 151)


"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law. They ask themselves, "How did life arise out of inanimate matter? And what is the probability of that happening?" And to their chagrin they have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened, and furthermore, they do not know the chance of its happening. Perhaps the chance is very small, and the appearance of life on a planet is an event of miraculously low probability. Perhaps life on the earth is unique in this Universe. No scientific evidence precludes that possibility." (Jastrow, Robert, The Enchanted Loom: Mind In the Universe, 1981, p. 19)


"...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not." (Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44)


"With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny." (Paul, C. R. C., 1989, "Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates", Allen, K. C. and Briggs, D. E. G. (editors), Evolution and the Fossil Record, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C., 1989, p. 105)


"The rapid development as far as we can judge of all the higher plants within recent geological times is an abominable mystery." (Darwin, Charles R., letter to J.D. Hooker, July 22nd 1879, in Darwin F. & Seward A.C., eds., "More Letters of Charles Darwin: A Record of His Work in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Papers," John Murray: London, 1903, Vol. II, p. 20-21)


"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle. So many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)


"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1902 p. 341-342)


"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)


"The geological record has provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes." (Norman, J., A History of Fishes, 1963, p. 298)


"None of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates." (Stahl, B., Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover Publications, Inc., NY, 1985, p. 148)

Oh yeah, it is dishonest to show all these serious problems that evolutionist admit with the theory.

NOT!

 

In referencing the OP, teaching any sort of science topic does not harm Christianity, or any other faith.

 

"Why are my "mine quotes" disgusting??"

BEACAUSE THEY ARE CONSISTENTLY SHOWN TO BE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT AND TO NOT REFLECT THE OPINION OF THE SPEAKER ACCURATELY!

What part of that is hard to understand?

"Look, Gould is one of the most famous evolutionists of all times. He was an expert in evolution. But Gould was honest enough to admit that there are no true transitional fossils."

Please look at the first post on this page...

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3217/12.html#000165

...where this assertion is addressed once again. Please address the response rather than continuing to post the same false assertions.

And I'll look at your quotes when you demonstrate that the people are what you claim and you provide links to read the quotes in context.

Just look at how badly you misrepresented Patterson and Feduccia in your last round.