Macro-Evolutionists consistently say that no reputable scientist would support anything but Evolution, their pet model. This is a typical smokescreen because an ever increasing number of highly placed scientists, including some famous macro-evolutionists, are challenging the assumptions of the Doctrine of Macro-Evolution based on scientific evidence and statistical probability.

Since Discovery Institute first published its Statement of Dissent from Darwin in 2001, more than 600 scientists have courageously stepped forward and signed onto a growing list of scientists of all disciplines voicing their skepticism over the central tenets of Darwin’s theory of evolution. The full statement reads: ‘We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.’ Prominent scientists who have signed the list include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe, quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia, and Giuseppe Sermonti the Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum. The list also includes scientists from Princeton, Cornell, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Ohio State University, Purdue and University of Washington among others. To view the list along with other information about it go to:www.dissentfromdarwin.org.[i]

Chemist Henry Schaefer, named above, has been nominated multiple times for the Nobel Prize. Other notable signatories who are unafraid to state their dissent from the theory of evolution include Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco and emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University.

Peer Prejudice Rules

As noted on the Institute for Creation Research web site:

It is extremely difficult today for creationists to get Ph.D. degrees or to secure and retain faculty positions in the major universities. Similarly the major scientific societies and periodicals are controlled by committed evolutionists. Students in science programs are exposed only to evolution in their classes and textbooks and often their advancement after graduation depends in part on conformity to the system. Under such circumstances it is remarkable that thousands of scientists have become creationists anyhow. One organization alone, the Creation Research Society, has had well over 700 members who have postgraduate degrees. Even though the modern scientists whose names are most familiar to the public are evolutionists (Sagan, Gould, Leakey, etc.) there are nevertheless many creation scientists today who hold equally important and demanding positions in scientific research and development.[ii]

A list of just 80 of the 700 Creation Research Scientists, by name and with credentials, includes many with medical doctor qualifications and more than 50 with Ph.D.s in various fields.[iii] They are committed to pursuing the truth regardless of the intimidation they face in today’s universities and laboratories. In principle, their politically correct atmosphere is no different than the one brought about by the intimidating thought police in the former atheistic Soviet Union. And it is no coincidence that these anti-American bastions of liberalism are largely controlled by those sympathetic to God-less socialism. Again, the Doctrine of Evolution is the fulcrum of the atheistic Worldview of Materialism. But do its high priests still believe in this Doctrine?

Even Their Elites Now Debunk Evolution

There are many reasons why dissent from the evolutionary view is steadily increasing. Despite investing a staggering amount of resources and talent for over 175 years to unearth a “missing link” between any “kinds” of animals, evolutionists have found not even one such scientifically verifiable transitional fossil, as the following three prominent evolutionists sheepishly admit:

Stephen J. Gould: The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist 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 ….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 never see the very process we profess to study.[iv]

Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, published an article in the January 1979 issue of the museum’s journal entitled Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology in which he stated that :

The 250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.”[v]

Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History:

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument.[vi]

Statistical Probability says “Impossible”

The Doctrine of Evolution’s track record is scientifically abysmal. Apologetics Press points out that evolutionists as well as creationists believe that the random formation of life is not statistically possible: 

Over the years, investigators have elucidated quite successfully what are known today as the “laws of probability.” Building upon the work of such men as Blaise Pascal, the famous French mathematician and scientist, others forged the principles that are employed today on a daily basis in almost every scientific discipline. George Gamow was one such individual (1961). Emile Borel was another. Dr. Borel, one of the world’s foremost experts on mathematical probability, formulated what scientists and mathematicians alike refer to as the basic “law of probability,” which we would like to discuss here.…it is interesting to note from the scientific literature some of the probability estimates regarding the formation of life by purely mechanistic processes. For example, Dr. Morowitz (George Mason University Professor and Staff Scientist of the Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study) himself estimated that the 1×10340,000,000 [that is one chance out of 1 followed by 340 million zeroes] (1968, p. 99). The size of this figure is truly staggering, since there are supposed to be only approximately 1080 elementary particles (electrons and protons) in the whole Universe (Sagan, 1997, 22:967).

The late Carl Sagan estimated that the chance of life evolving on any given single planet, like the Earth, is one chance in 1×102,000,000,000 [that is one chance out of 1 followed by 2 billion zeroes] (1973, p. 46). This figure is so large that it would take 6,000 books of 300 pages each just to write the number! A number this large is so infinitely beyond one followed by 50 zeroes (Borel’s upper limit for such an event to occur) that it is simply mind-boggling. There is, then according to Borel’s law of probability, absolutely no chance that life could have ‘evolved spontaneously’ on the Earth.[vii]

According to Dr. Michael Denton, a molecular biologist, “Neither of the two fundamental axioms of Darwin’s macro evolutionary theory [that all of life evolves from a primeval cell and that life resulted merely from blind chance] have been validated by one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859.”[viii]

Sir Fred Hoyle, a world famous astronomer, once wrote, “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”[ix]

It is a dismal day for this destructive doctrine when even the elite evolutionists agree it can’t happen. Conversely, it is a happy one for anyone living under the consequences of its lies, provided they reject it and embrace the truth. But this is not easy to do when the levers of power and influence are largely controlled by Secularists whose main aim is to remove God and exalt man. In their stubbornness, they pave the way for not only their own ultimate destruction but all who swallow their poison. The next chapter will expose more of their deceptions and provide the antidote.

Additional resource on this topic: www.creationism.org, “12 Quotes from Leading Evolutionists”.

---

[i] Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture, “Questions about Criticism of Darwinian Evolution”, http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#generalQuestions, retrieved April 13, 2007.

[ii] Institute for Creation Research, “Creation and its Critics: Answers to Common Questions and Criticisms on the Creation Movement,” Henry M. Morris, Ph.D., http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_caic/#iv, retrieved April 13, 2007.

 [iii] Institute for Creation Research, “Scientists in the Physical Sciences” and “Scientists in the Biological Sciences,” http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_physci/, retrieved April 13, 2007.

[iv] Stephen J. Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.

[v] David Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology,” Bulletin, Chicago Field Museum of Natural History as quoted by Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, 1984. Retrieved April 13, 2007 from www.creationism.org, http://www.creationism.org/books/sunderland/DarwinsEnigma/DarwinsEnigma_01TheProblem.htm.

[vi] The Talk Origins Archive, “Patterson Misquoted-A Tale of Two ‘Cites’,” Lionel Theunissen, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html, retrieved April 13, 2007. Per the website, “The quote is from a personal letter dated 10th April 1979 from Dr. Patterson to creationist Luther D. Sunderland and is referring to Dr. Patterson’s book “Evolution” (1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.).”

[vii] Apologetics Press, “Sensible Science: 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American’s Nonsense-Argument #8,” Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D., http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=5&itemid=2083, retrieved April 13, 2007.

[viii] Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, 1986, p. 345.

[ix] Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin On Trial, Downers Grove: Illinois Intervarsity Press, 1993, p. 106.