It is almost invariably assumed that aminals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animal from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animals types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption. *Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), p 235-236.
The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifeatestation of the inorganic world. *Sir Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1968), p. 9 [discoverer of the thermionic valve]
Nearly all [evolutionists biologists] take an ultimately conservative stand, believing that [the problem] can be explained away by making only minor adjustments to the Darwinian framework. In this book..I have tried to show why I believe the problems are too severe and too intractable to offer any hope of resolution in terms of the orthodox Darwinian framework. *Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 16.
For all it's acceptance in the scientific works as the great unifing principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a suprising amount of trouble. *Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 12.
It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything--or at least they are not science. *George Gaylord Simpson, The Nonprevalence of Humanoids, in Science 143 (1964) p. 770.
We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we lightly to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology. Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London 177:8 (1988)
Runtime: 13:18
Added: January 02, 2010
|
Views: 136
|
Category: Creation Science
