Home | Quotes | Frauds | Contribute | Admin | Join! | Login   

• “I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know.”  — Stephen Jay Gould         
• ‘If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? There is another theory, now quite out of favour which is based upon the ideas of Larark: that is an organism needs an improvement it will develop it, and transmit it to its progeny. 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 of the experimental evidence supports it.’ — H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK)         
• SO, IS EVOLUTION SCIENTIFIC? ‘In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many more are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.’ — H.S. Lipson, FRS         
• IS IT A FACT? OR A FAITH? ‘The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- it is then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation -- both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.’ — L. Harrison Matthews, FRS         
• CONSIDER THE FACTS: Laws of science; Universal, repeatable, predictable, subject to mathematical expression—all evidence of order in creation."         
• WHAT'S NEW: This site offers information and insight—much of it from respected scholars—about inaccuracies in evolutionary theory."         
• ‘Darwin’s theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true.’ — Dr. David M. Raup (Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago)         
• QUESTION EVOLUTION! The theory of evolution is just that: a theory. But it is often presented as fact when significant evidence refutes it..."         
• Has anything changed? ‘I know that, at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so space that the theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories, have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data.’ — Dr David Pilbeam (Physical Anthropologist, Yale University, USA)         
• CAN EVOLUTION BE OBSERVED? ‘Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer.’ — David B. Kitts, Ph.D.         
• ‘This notion of species as “natural kinds” fits splendidly with creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian age. Louis Agassiz even argued that species are God’s individual thoughts, made incarnate so that we might perceive both His majesty and His message. Species, Agassiz wrote, are “instituted by the Divine Intelligence as the categories of his mode of thinking.” But how could a division of the organic world into discrete entities be justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as the fundamental fact of nature?’ — Stephen John Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University)         
• CAN IT BE TESTED? ‘It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.’ — Luther D. Sunderland         
• ‘There was little doubt that the star intellectual turn of last week’s British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Salford was Dr. John Durant, a youthful lecturer from University College Swansea. Giving the Darwin lecture to one of the biggest audiences of the last week, Durant put forward an audacious theory – that Darwin’s evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of science and social progress… Durant concludes that the secular myths of evolution have had “a damaging effect on scientific research”, leading to “distortion, to needless controversy, and to the gross misuse of science”.’ — New Scientist journal         
• ‘Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.’ — Prof. Louis Bounoure (Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research)         
• “The interpretation of evolution is in a state of upheaval: the rapid advancement of Molecular Biology has led into question many of the tenets of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism which, although valuable approaches at the time they were formulated, never fulfilled the criteria demanded by real scientific theories… In the author’s opinion, no real theory of evolution can be formulated at present.” — A. Lima-de Faria         
• CAN IT BE TESTED? ‘These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter. And yet, it is just such impossibility that is demanded by antievolutionists when they ask for “proofs” of evolution which they would magnanimously accept as satisfactory.’ — Theodosius Dobzhansky (late Emeritus Professor of Zoology and Biology, Rockefeller University)         
• ‘Darwin’s book – On the Origin of Species – I find quite unsatisfactory: It says nothing about the origin of species; it is written very tentatively, with a special chapter on “Difficulties on theory”; and it includes a great deal of discussion on why evidence for natural selection does not exist in the fossil record… As a scientist, I am not happy with these ideas. But I find it distasteful for scientists to reject a theory because it dies not fit in with their preconceived ideas.’ — H. Lipson, FRS         
• DOES THE EVIDENCE SHOW RANDOM CHANCE OR INTELLIGENT DESIGN? ‘The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer.’ — Dr. Richard Dawkins (Department of Zoology, Oxford University, UK)         
• CAN IT BE TESTED? 'Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, on which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thru “outside of empirical science” but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.' — Paul Ehrlich (Professor of Biology, Stanford University) and L. Charles Birch (Professor of Biology, University of Sydney)         
• ‘One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let’s call it a non-evolutionary view, was last year I have a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one think I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with the evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know that there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. The question is: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, 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 got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, “I do know one thing — it ought not to be taught in high school”.’ — Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London)         
• ‘Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate... It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the higher intelligences to our left, even to the extreme idealized limit of God.’ — Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (Professor of Astronomy and Applied Mathematics at University College, Cardiff)         
• “The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers … [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance.” — Hubert Yockey         
• “For use in understanding the evolution of vertebrate flight, the early record of pterosaurs and bats is disappointing: Their most primitive representatives are fully transformed as capable fliers.” — Paul C. Sereno         
• “Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: it is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings of course. However it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg.” — Carl Sagan         
• “As far as geologically more recent evidence is concerned, the discovery in East Africa of apparent remains of Homo in the same early fossil sites as both gracile and robust Australopithecines has thrown open once again the question of the direct relevance of the latter to human evolution. So one is forced to conclude that there is no clear-cut scientific picture of human evolution.” — Robert D. Martin, Ph.D.         
• “Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence.’ The author goes on to say: ‘David Pilbeam [a well-known expert in human evolution] comments wryly, “If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we’ve got he’d surely say, ‘forget it: there isn’t enough to go on’.” — Richard E. Leakey         
• SUPPORT THIS SITE! Help spread knowledge and understanding about what science really knows about evolution and intelligent design. Contribute!"         
• DO THE FACTS PROVE EVOLUTION? Darwin said: ‘For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible.’ — Charles Darwin         
• "[The evidence is] pointing against the cosmological constant, but it’s a first result describing how dark energy changes with time. We need more people to test the results and get more information. As you go back in time, the universe is pushing [outward] less and less. At some point, the pressure of dark energy is zero and is exerting no force on the universe. There is no explanation for it.” — Louisiana State University astronomer Bradley E. Schaefer         
• WELCOME! EvolutionTheLie.com is the world's preeminent voice for promoting scientific fact about unproven evolutionary theory."         
• Even creation ex nihilo? ‘In 1973, I proposed that our Universe had been created spontaneously from nothing (ex nihilo), as a result of established principles of physics. This proposal variously struck people as preposterous, enchanting, or both. The novelty of a scientific theory of creation ex nihilo is readily apparent, for science has long taught us that one cannot make something from nothing.’ — Edward P. Tryon (Professor of physics, City University of New York, USA)         
• What do the facts prove? ‘Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariable be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.’ — Professor Maxwell John Whitten (Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia)         
• “I know of no finding in archeology that has properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen.” — Dr. Clifford Wilson, former director of the Australian Institute of Archeology         
• ‘But let us have no illusions. If today we look into the situations where the analogy with the life sciences is the most striking – even if we discovered within biological systems some operation distant from the equilibrium – our research would still leave us quite unable to grasp the extreme complexity of the simplest of organisms…’ — Ilya Prigogine (Professor and Director of the Physics Department, Universite Libre de Bruxelles)         
• ‘And 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.’ — Dr. Isaac Asimov         
• What did Darwin achieve? ‘His theory had, in essence, preceded his knowledge – that is, he had hit upon a novel and evocative theory of evolution with limited knowledge at hand to satisfy either himself or others that the theory was true. He could neither accept it himself nor prove it to others. He simply did not know enough concerning the several natural history fields upon which his theory would have to be based.’ — Dr. Barry Gale (Science Historian, Darwin College, UK)         
• ‘Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information – what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence as those of the dinosaurs and trilobites are still very puzzling.’ — Dr. David M. Raup (Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago)         
• “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” — S.C. Todd         
• Evolution: Fact or faith? ‘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 unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.’ — Loren Eiseley, Ph.D. (Anthropology)         
• “Big bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rests, however, on many untested, and in some cases untestable, assumptions. Indeed, big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth.” — Geoffrey R. Burbidge         
• “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” — Richard Lewontin         
• ‘One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom and scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.' — Hubert P. Yockey         
• DO THE FOSSILS PROVE EVOLUTION? What Darwin said in the 1850’s: ‘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. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.’ — Charles Darwin         
• Darwin said before his book "Origin of Species" was published: ‘You will be greatly disappointed (by the forthcoming book); it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collecting some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of the species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas.’ — Charles Darwin         
• “It is futile to pretend to the public that we understand how an amoeba evolved into a man, when we cannot tell our students how a human egg produces a skin cell or a brain cell!" — Dr. Jérôme J. Lejeune, discoverer of the cause of Down’s syndrome, L'Institute de Progenese (Paris), formerly Professor of Fundamental Cytogenetics         
• To the philosophers? ‘I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history of books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.’ — Malcolm Muggeridge (world famous journalist and philosopher)         
• What do the facts say? ‘Facts do not "speak for themselves"; they are read in the light of theory. Creative thought, in science as much as in the arts, is the motor of changing opinion. Science is a quintessentially human activity, not a mechanized, robot-like accumulation of objective information, leading by laws of logic to inescapable interpretation.’ — Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Palenotology, Harvard University)         
• ‘I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far to complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God cannot be explained away by such naïve thoughts.’  — Ernst Chain (world famous biochemist)         
• ‘Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story that they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.’ — Dr. T.N.Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA)         
• What do the facts say? ‘Now and then a scientist stumbles across a fact that seems to solve one of the great mysteries of science overnight. Such unexpected discoveries are rare. When they occur, the scientific community gets very excited. But excitement is not the best barometer of scientific validity. Science, said Adam Smith, should be “the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm.” The case of the disappearing dinosaurs is a fascinating demonstration that science is not based on facts alone. The interpretation of the facts is even more important.’ — Robert Jastrow, Ph.D.         

Contact us     |     About this site