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)
“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
The idea that the universe, the galaxy, the solar system, the earth, life upon the earth, and the human mind, all arose by random chance and therefore have no real meaning staggers the human imagination - at least some human imaginations. Many ideas are initially appealing to the human mind simply because they are so foreign to common sense. Nevertheless, many scientists have prided themselves in believing the unbelievable and condemning the rest of society for not placidly following their example. As the White Queen boasted to Alice in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." — Steve Rowitt has a B.S. and a Th.M. He graduated All But Dissertation (ABD) from Touro University International’s Ph.D. in Health Sciences program in 2006. He graduated with a Ph.D. in Health Sciences (minor in Theology) from the Graduate Theological Foundation’s ABD completion program in 2011. He currently serves as the Chief Technical Advisor to the Creation Studies Institute in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
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)
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)
Since no immediate precursors of trilobites have been found, Darwinists are without any evidence as to how an organism with an eye as complex as a trilobite could have arisen, especially in such a relatively short time in the lowest multi-cellular fossil-bearing stratum, near the very beginning of life. — Johnny R. Maury-Evertsz, M.Sc.in chemical engineering, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez.
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)
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.
‘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
‘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)
‘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
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)
The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. — Steve Rowitt has a B.S. and a Th.M. He graduated All But Dissertation (ABD) from Touro University International’s Ph.D. in Health Sciences program in 2006. He graduated with a Ph.D. in Health Sciences (minor in Theology) from the Graduate Theological Foundation’s ABD completion program in 2011. He currently serves as the Chief Technical Advisor to the Creation Studies Institute in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
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
‘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)
‘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)
Since the complexities that have just been described were all present and fully functional in one of the first multicellular animals for which there is a record, the questions may be asked: Where did these complexities come from? Where and when did evolution take place? There is no indisputable evidence of any earlier form from which they could have been derived. — Johnny R. Maury-Evertsz, M.Sc.in chemical engineering, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez.
‘One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let’s call it a non-evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization that 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 thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled for so long. Either there was something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with the evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know 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)
Despite the generally discontinuous character of the fossil record, there are some exception cases where a species does appear to be intermediate with respect to other groups. The classic case of this is, of course,
, a picture of which is shown in Figure 8.2. This primitive bird did indeed possess certain skeletal reptilian features – teeth, a long tail, claws on its wings. However, in one respect, flight, the most characteristic feature of birds,
, was already truly bird. On its wing, there are flight feathers as fully developed as any modern bird, and recent research reported in 1979 suggests that it was as capable of powered flight as a modern bird (Denton, 2001). — Steven Rowitt, Ph.D. in Health Sciences ABD from Touro University International in 2005. Ph.D. in Health Sciences minor in Theology from Graduate Theological Foundation in 2011.
‘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)
“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
“The explanatory value of the hypothesis of common ancestry is nil... I feel that the effects of the hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge, I think it has been positively anti-knowledge... Well, we're back to the question I've been putting to people: 'Is there one thing you can tell me about evolution?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true: evolution does not convey any knowledge, or if so, I haven't yet heard it," (Patterson, 1981). — Steven Rowitt, Ph.D. in Health Sciences ABD from Touro University International in 2005. Ph.D. in Health Sciences minor in Theology from Graduate Theological Foundation in 2011.
“The vestigial organs are organs that serve no useful function in the organism” (Miller and Levine 2004). Dr. Menton corrected the erroneous statements of Darwinian scientists that the human tailbone was a vestigial structure and noted, “all true tails have bones in them that are a posterior extension of the vertebral column. Also, all true tails have muscles associated with their vertebrae which permit some movement of the tail” (Menton 1994). — Steven Rowitt, Ph.D. in Health Sciences ABD from Touro University International in 2005. Ph.D. in Health Sciences minor in Theology from Graduate Theological Foundation in 2011.
‘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
Dr. Paul Steinhardt, professor of Physics at Princeton University, gave his assessment of the cosmological inflation aspect of the Big Bang. With regard to the announcment that evidence of gravitational inflation had been discovered, Dr. Steinhardt stated, “...the inflationary paradigm is fundamentally untestable, and hence scientifically meaningless.” (Steinhardt 2014) — Johnny R. Maury-Evertsz, M.Sc.in chemical engineering, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez.
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)
“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
“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
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)
‘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
“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
William Parker at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C. said, “Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks” and “Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a vestigial organ.” — Steven Rowitt, Ph.D. in Health Sciences ABD from Touro University International in 2005. Ph.D. in Health Sciences minor in Theology from Graduate Theological Foundation in 2011.
To detect the earth’s magnetic field, loggerhead turtles must have some sort of magnetic sensor—thus, by Haldane’s criterion, proving evolution false (Keim, 2011). — David Catchpoole received his B.Ag.Sc. (Hons) from the University of Adelaide and a Ph.D. from the University of New England (New South Wales).
While the proponents of the evolutionary version of the miracle of abiogenesis have been reporting the original Miller Urey experiment understated the researcher’s findings, the truth very different (Wikipedia, 2015). As always, the Devil is in the details. What the original experiment produced was in Miller’s own words, “In an interview, Stanley Miller stated: ”Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids.” — Steven Rowitt, Ph.D. in Health Sciences ABD from Touro University International in 2005. Ph.D. in Health Sciences minor in Theology from Graduate Theological Foundation in 2011.
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)
With regard to the Russian Spacecraft FOTON M3 and testing the viability of microorganisms after reentry. The spacecraft was retrieved, the microfossils survived, but the
was burned black, although their outlines remained. Frances Westall, Centre of Molecular Biophysics in Orleans. — Steven Rowitt, Ph.D. in Health Sciences ABD from Touro University International in 2005. Ph.D. in Health Sciences minor in Theology from Graduate Theological Foundation in 2011.
Darwin questioned anatomy experts about why men, and several of their alleged ape-like ancestors, had lost the ability to move their ears in ways similar to other mammals. He attributed this to the ability that apes and men have to
move their heads in a horizontal plane
(emphasis added), allowing them to catch sounds from all directions (Darwin 1890). Just one more so-called vestigial organ that was presented as evidence for his theory that Darwin got wrong. — Steven Rowitt, Ph.D. in Health Sciences ABD from Touro University International in 2005. Ph.D. in Health Sciences minor in Theology from Graduate Theological Foundation in 2011.
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
“I have dealt with biologists over the last twenty years now. I have found that, in a way, they are hampered by having too much education. They have been steeped from their childhood in the Darwinian views, and, as a result, it has taken possession of their minds to such an extent that they are almost unable to see many facts that are not in harmony with Darwinism. These facts simply aren’t there for them often, and other ones are sort of suppressed or distorted," (Macbeth, 1983). — Steven Rowitt, Ph.D. in Health Sciences ABD from Touro University International in 2005. Ph.D. in Health Sciences minor in Theology from Graduate Theological Foundation in 2011.
‘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)
“They claim in the paper that by examining the anatomy of adapids (
extinct small mostly diurnal lower primates that fed on leaves and fruit)
, these animals have something to do with the direct line of human ancestry and living monkeys and apes. This claim is buttressed with almost no evidence,” said paleontologist Richard Kay of Duke University. “And they failed to cite a body of literature that’s been going on since at least 1984 that presents evidence against their hypothesis.” — Steven Rowitt, Ph.D. in Health Sciences ABD from Touro University International in 2005. Ph.D. in Health Sciences minor in Theology from Graduate Theological Foundation in 2011.
The radioactive potassium-argon dating method has been demonstrated to fail on 1949, 1954, and 1975 lava flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, in spite of the quality of the laboratory’s K–Ar analytical work. Argon gas, brought up from deep inside the earth within the molten rock, was already present in the lavas when they cooled. We know the true ages of the rocks because they were observed to form less than 50 years ago. Yet they yield ‘ages’ up to 3.5 million years which are thus false. How can we trust the use of this same ‘dating’ method on rocks whose ages we don’t know? If the method fails on rocks when we have an independent eye-witness account, then why should we trust it on other rocks where there are no independent historical cross-checks? — Andrew Snelling, PhD in Geology
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
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
If DNA is the language of life, it obviously begs the question, who designed the blueprint? The answer cannot be chance, natural selection, mutation or any other naturalistic combination thereof can account for this library of biochemical information that serves as the blueprint for the building blocks for all living things.
— Sean M. Walsh has a MA Theology, MA Spanish Literature & BA Philosophy from Villanova University, Villanova, PA
The theory of evolution is just that: a theory. But it is often presented as fact when significant evidence refutes it..."
The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world. — John Ambrose Fleming, FRS (1845-1945) Electrical Engineer, Inventor & Physicist
CONSIDER THE FACTS:
Laws of science; Universal, repeatable, predictable, subject to mathematical expression—all evidence of order in creation."
‘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)
‘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)
“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
Charles Darwin was well aware that transitional fossils were missing; therefore, he states, "But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" — Steven Rowitt, Ph.D. in Health Sciences ABD from Touro University International in 2005. Ph.D. in Health Sciences minor in Theology from Graduate Theological Foundation in 2011.
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
‘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)
So if matter (energy) cannot be created or destroyed, where did all this matter come from? — Steven Rowitt, Ph.D. in Health Sciences ABD from Touro University International in 2005. Ph.D. in Health Sciences minor in Theology from Graduate Theological Foundation in 2011.
On natural selection treated as dogma within scientific community: “In that book [Nei, 1987]... I discuss the problem of natural selection not being proven. The chapter did not convince a lot of people, I think, because they already had a preconceived notion that natural selection must be the driving force because Darwin said so. Darwin is a god in evolution, so you can’t criticize Darwin. If you do, you’re branded as arrogant.” — Johnny R. Maury-Evertsz, M.Sc. in chemical engineering, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez.
‘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)
“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
EvolutionTheLie.com is the world's preeminent voice for promoting scientific fact about unproven evolutionary theory."
Depending on which version you hear, human beings share 70% of our DNA with sea sponges (Mann, 2010) and, according to the humorous quip by British geneticist Steve Jones (2002), “we also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas and that does not make us half bananas…” Well, maybe in the case of those who embrace the fantastical Theory of Evolution, half bananas is not so far off the mark." — Steven Rowitt, Ph.D. in Health Sciences ABD from Touro University International in 2005. Ph.D. in Health Sciences minor in Theology from Graduate Theological Foundation in 2011.
Dr. Patterson admitted that he had a change of heart concerning evolution. He said, "One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. That was quite a shock, to learn that one can be so misled for so long." — Dr. Colin Patterson (1933-1998) was an evolutionist paleontologist and curator of London's Natural History Museum, editor of the museum's journal and author of the book Evolution
“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
Dr. Safarti reminds the reader that modern dentistry has identified the problem with wisdom teeth as being primarily linked to the diet in modern cultures. In non-technological cultures, impacted wisdom teeth are extremely rare as their tougher diet exercises their jaw muscles properly during chewing, thus helping the jaw to develop properly. — Steven Rowitt, Ph.D. in Health Sciences ABD from Touro University International in 2005. Ph.D. in Health Sciences minor in Theology from Graduate Theological Foundation in 2011.
This site offers information and insight—much of it from respected scholars—about inaccuracies in 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)
SUPPORT THIS SITE!
Help spread knowledge and understanding about what science really knows about evolution and intelligent design. Contribute!"
When an honest assessment is made concerning the acceptability of Darwin’s theory among biologists, a substantial number reject Darwin’s claims. “Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endles
(Denton, 1986). — Steven Rowitt, Ph.D. in Health Sciences ABD from Touro University International in 2005. Ph.D. in Health Sciences minor in Theology from Graduate Theological Foundation in 2011.
The wings of these flightless birds have a function. Some possible functions, depending on the species of flightless bird, are: balance while running, cooling in hot weather, protection of the rib-cage in falls, mating rituals, scaring predators (emus will run at perceived enemies of their chicks, mouth open and wings flapping), sheltering of chicks, etc. If wings are useless, why are the muscles functional, allowing these birds to move their wings (Safarti, 2008:205-06)? — Steven Rowitt, Ph.D. in Health Sciences ABD from Touro University International in 2005. Ph.D. in Health Sciences minor in Theology from Graduate Theological Foundation in 2011.
We must conclude with Chadwick and DeHaan (2000) that: “The complex biochemical systems and the integrated organ systems of the trilobite just described did not happen by accident. — Johnny R. Maury-Evertsz, M.Sc.in chemical engineering, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez.
“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
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.
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record, (Gould,1977). — Steven Rowitt, Ph.D. in Health Sciences ABD from Touro University International in 2005. Ph.D. in Health Sciences minor in Theology from Graduate Theological Foundation in 2011.
“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.
Paleoanthropologist, Mary Leakey (1913-1996), admitted, "all these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense." — Steven Rowitt, Ph.D. in Health Sciences ABD from Touro University International in 2005. Ph.D. in Health Sciences minor in Theology from Graduate Theological Foundation in 2011.
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."
— Steven Rowitt, Ph.D. in Health Sciences ABD from Touro University International in 2005. Ph.D. in Health Sciences minor in Theology from Graduate Theological Foundation in 2011.
The dirty little secret within the evolutionary community, and in the sciences in general, is that sometimes the evolutionary faithful have to address dissension in their own ranks. Not only do evolutionary scientists disagree with one another, they sometimes come to contradictory conclusions. — Steven Rowitt, Ph.D. in Health Sciences ABD from Touro University International in 2005. Ph.D. in Health Sciences minor in Theology from Graduate Theological Foundation in 2011.
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
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)
“I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know.” — Stephen Jay Gould
“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
Your request could not be processed.
The page you requested could not be found; the missing page has been logged and reported. Please try again later.
Copyright © 2010-2016 Evolution The Lie, Inc. Portions copyright respective owners. All rights reserved.
About this site