"It is easy to see why the Darwinists feel they have to present evidence in a selective and slanted manner. Under any kind of objective analysis, it would become apparent that the Darwinists have never discovered a mechanism capable of creating new complex organs, or changing one kind of body plan into another."

- Phillip E. Johnson



Where did man come from?
5) evolutionists on neo-Darwinism


"Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved by logical, coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."

- D.M.S. Watson

"I will not accept [creation] philosophically, because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible - spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

- George Wald
1971 Nobel prize for biology


10.18 Modern evolutionists on Darwinian evolution

What probably seems most strange about all of these failed missing links and exposed hoaxes is that most, if not all of them, remain stated as evolutionary facts in many modern textbooks and films. Sir Fred Hoyle expresses his personal frustration about so many of his anti-creationist colleagues who remain silent on the known impossibility of Darwinian evolution:

...there are so many flaws in Darwinism that one can wonder why it swept so completely through the scientific world, and why it is still endemic today. 34 [emphasis mine]

Hoyle reveals that the answer to his question is just as shockingly unscientific as he believes Darwinism to be:

This situation is well-known to geneticists and yet nobody seems prepared to blow the whistle decisively on the theory. If Darwinism were not considered socially desirable, and even essential to the peace of mind of the body politic, it would of course be otherwise. 35 [emphasis mine]

Though the errors of Darwin's theory are not politically correct to speak of, one hundred and fifty years of failure to find any of those missing links has taken a serious toll on the evolutionary community. Paul Lemione, President of the Geological Society of France and Director of the Natural History Museum in Paris, said this of Darwin's beliefs:

The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of appearances, no one any longer believes in it... Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer believe, but which they maintain for their people. 36

Chandra Wickramasinghe made a similar comparison in speaking of adherents of Darwinian evolution:

I think they turned a blind eye to anything that doesn't tie up with their (essentially) theology. There's no evidence for any of the basic tenets of Darwinian evolution. I don't believe that there ever was any evidence for it. It was a social force that took over the world in 1860, and I think it has been a disaster for science ever since. 37 [emphasis mine]

The chief paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, Colin Patterson, deserted his own personal belief in evolution. In April of 1979, he was asked why he did not include a picture of any one of the seven million fossils at the museum as representing a transitional form or missing link. He responded,

If I knew of any, fossil or living, I certainly would have included them. 38

By 1981, Patterson regarded Darwinian evolution as "telling stories". The British Museum then drew criticism as many of its displays were appended with the preface, "If the theory of evolution is true...". Nature magazine ran an article over this entitled Darwin's Death in South Kensington. The article described the museum's public display of doubt in evolution as "shot through with heresy". 39

Dr. Etheridge of the British Museum of Science:

Nine tenths of the theory of evolution is sheer nonsense...This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of [evolutionists'] views.

Ambrose Fleming, president of the Philosophical Society of Great Britain:

The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination.

Canada's Dr. W.R. Thompson of the Commonwealth Institute for Biological Control is also considered to have sinned against Darwin when he associated the acceptance of evolution with a breakdown in scientific integrity. Hoyle agrees that such a breakdown has taken place as he has personally observed:

We have received hints and even warnings from our friends and colleagues that our views on these matters are generally repugnant to the scientific world. We in our turn have been disturbed to discover how little attention is generally paid to fact and how much to myths and prejudice. 40

Another anti-creationist who has assaulted classic Darwinian evolution is Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould. Gould, along with Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History, is not among those who have timidly remaining silent on Darwinism. Gould reportedly announced to a conference at the Field Museum in Chicago,

It has long been a trade secret of paleontologists that transitional forms do not exist; that missing links do not exist. 41

It is on the absence of transitional forms that Gould and Eldredge developed the next major contribution to the theory of evolution: punctuated equilibria.


(top of page)

NEXT: PART 6) Punctuated equilibria

See also:

What is science?

How the theory of evolution changed document analysis

Printing Tips, Contact, Search,
Links & Bibles,
The Gospel







Nothing is more welcome to an evolutionist than the discovery of a fellow evolutionist. Or is it?

Lots of people who don't believe in God or the Bible also don't believe in Darwinism or neo-Darwinism as most conceive it.

Terrified of being mistaken as Christian, those evolutionists are carefully but boldly speaking out, and the reception they're getting may surprise you.