Stephen E. Jones

Creation/Evolution Quotes: Unclassified quotes: May-December, 1999

[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [Quotes, Unclassified, Classified]

The following are unclassified quotes posted in my email messages in May-December, 1999. The date format is dd/mm/yy. See copyright conditions at end.

[Index: Mar-Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec]

"But what kind of mutations could bring about the major changes I have described? Could cause a tube to roll up 
into a helix? Could cause other tubes to form semi-circular canals accurately set at right angles to each other. 
Could grade sensory hairs according to length? Could cause the convenient deposit of a crystal in the one place 
it will register gravity?...It just doesn't make sense." (Taylor, G.R., "The Great Evolution Mystery," Abacus: 
London, 1983, p.106)

"As I said, we shall all be embarrassed, in the fullness of time, by the naivete of our present evolutionary 
arguments. But some will be vastly more embarrassed than others." (Piattelli-Palmarini, M., "Inevitable Illusions: 
How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds", John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1994, p.195)

"I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that [in The Origin of Species] I had two distinct objects in 
view; firstly, to shew that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been 
the chief agent of change, though largely aided by the inherited effects of habit, and slightly by the direct action 
of the surrounding conditions. I was not, however, able to annul the influence of my former belief, then almost 
universal, that each species had been purposely created; and this led to my tacit assumption that every detail of 
structure, excepting rudiments, was of some special, though unrecognised, service. Any one with this 
assumption in his mind would naturally extend too far the action of natural selection, either during past or 
present times. Some of those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, 
when criticizing my book, that I had the above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving to natural 
selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself 
probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." 
(Darwin, C.R., "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex," [1871], John Murray: London, Second 
Edition, 1874, reprint, 1922, p.92)

"Let us recognize these speculations for what they are. They are not physics but, in the strictest sense, 
metaphysics. There is no purely scientific reason to believe in an ensemble of universes. By construction these 
other worlds are unknowable by us. A possible explanation of equal intellectual respectability - and to my mind 
greater economy and elegance would be that this one world is the way it is because it is the creation of the will of 
a Creator who purposes that it should be so." (Polkinghorne, J.C., "One World: The Interaction of Science and 
Theology," [1986], SPCK: London, Reprinted, 1987, p.80)

"Looking at the SETI propoint of view in Essay 4, I demonstrate that each step leading to 
the evolution of intelligent life on earth was highly improbable and that the evolution of the human species was 
the result of a sequence of thousands of these highly improbable steps. It is a miracle that man ever happened, 
and it would be an even greater miracle if such a sequence of improbabilities had been repeated anywhere else." 
(Mayr, E.W., "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist," Harvard University Press: 
Cambridge MA, 1988, p.5)

"Another beauty - and an important weakness - of the theory of evolution by natural selection is that with a little 
imagination it is possible to come up with an explanation of anything. Evolutionary biologists like to spend their 
time making up stories about how selection has moulded the most unlikely characteristics. Sometimes they even 
turn out to be right." (Jones, S., "The Language of the Genes: Biology, History and the Evolutionary Future," 
[1993], Flamingo: London UK, 1994, p.196)

"Yet, clearly, evolution is not a "fact" in the sense that the man in the street understands the word. Without a 
time machine, we cannot prove that birds evolved from reptiles....Nor can we prove that natural selection is the 
mechanism responsible for the whole development of life on earth...." (Bowler, P.J., "Evolution: The History of an 
Idea," [1983], University of California Press: Berkeley CA, Revised Edition, 1989, p.357)

June [top]
"For myself I really think it is the most interesting book I ever read, and can only compare it to the first 
knowledge of chemistry, getting into a new world or rather behind the scenes. To me the geographical 
distribution, I mean the relation of islands to continents, is the most convincing of the proofs; and the relation of 
the oldest forms to the existing species. I dare say I don't feel enough the absence of varieties, but then I don't in 
the least know if everything now living were fossilized whether the paleontologists could distinguish them. In 
fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won't fit in, why so much the 
worse for the facts is my feeling." (Erasmus Darwin, letter to [his brother] Charles Darwin, November 23, 1859, in 
Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, 

"But as a logical theory Darwinism collapses because the keystone of the system, selection carried out by death, 
is an illusion." (Tetry, A., "Theories of Evolution," in Rostand, J. & Tetry, A., "Larousse Science of Life: A Study 
of Biology Sex, Genetics, Heredity and Evolution," [1962], Hamlyn: London, 1971, p.438)

"Certainly science has moved forward. But when science progresses, it often opens vaster mysteries to our gaze. 
Moreover, science frequently discovers that it must abandon or modify what it once believed. Sometimes it ends 
by accepting what it has previously scorned." (Eiseley, L.C., "The Firmament of Time," The Scientific Book Club: 
London UK, 1960, p.5)

"SINCE Darwin's death, all has not been rosy in the evolutionary garden. The theories of the Great Bearded One 
have been hijacked by cranks, politicians, social reformers-and scientists-to support racist and bigoted views. A 
direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement-Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton-to 
the extermination camps of Nazi Europe." (Brookes, M., "Ripe old age." Review of "Of Flies, Mice and Men," by 
Francois Jacob, Harvard University Press, 1999. _New Scientist_, Vol. 161, No. 2171, 30 January 1999, p.41)

"It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds men's minds. The derivation of life, of 
man, of man's deepest hopes and highest achievements, from the external and indirect determination of small 
chance errors, appears as the very keystone of the naturalistic universe. And the defence of natural selection 
appears, therefore, as the defence of their integrity, the independence, the dignity of science itself." (Grene, M., 
"The Faith of Darwinism," _Encounter_, Vol. 74, November 1959, pp.48-56, p.48)

"His powers of imagination were already well developed, and in addition to childish fibs, he invented a bogus 
story that he was able to produce variations in crocuses, polyanthuses, and primroses at will, by watering them 
with coloured liquids, which was of course, as he admitted, 'a monstrous fable,' but also shows that the was not 
unaware of variation, even at that age." (de Beer, G., "Charles Darwin: Evolution by Natural Selection," Nelson: 
London UK, 1963, p.24)

"Any living being possesses an enormous amount of `intelligence,' very much more than is necessary to build 
the most magnificent of cathedrals. Today, this `intelligence' is called `information,' but it is still the same thing. It 
is not programmed as in a computer, but rather it is condensed on a molecular scale in the chromosomal DNA or 
in that of any other organelle in each cell. This `intelligence' is the sine qua non [without which not] of 
life. If absent, no living being is imaginable. Where does it come from? This is a problem which concerns both 
biologists and philosophers and, at present, science seems incapable of solving it. When we consider a human 
work, we believe we know where the `intelligence' which fashioned it comes from; but when a living being is 
concerned, no one knows or ever knew, neither Darwin nor Epicurus, neither Leibniz nor Aristotle, neither 
Einstein nor Parmenides. An act of faith is necessary to make us adopt one hypothesis rather than another. 
Science, which does not accept any credo, or in any case should not, acknowledges its ignorance, its inability to 
solve this problem which, we are certain, exists and has reality. If to determine the origin of information in a 
computer is not a false problem, why should the search for the information contained in cellular nuclei be one?" 
(Grassť P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," Academic Press: 
New York NY, 1977, p.2. Parentheses mine)

"The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of 
genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the 
reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been 
brought to bear against evolutionary speculation." (Thompson, W.R.*, "Science and Common Sense: An 
Aristotelian Excursion," [1937], Magi Books: Albany NY, 1965, reprint, p.229)

" is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear articulate fashion to the experimental method of 
science itself...It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science which professionally has little to 
do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science 
today-is sustained by that assumption." (Eiseley, L.C., "Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Men Who 
Discovered It," [1958], Anchor Books: Doubleday & Co: Garden City NY, 1961, reprint, p.62)

"...chance has no power to do anything because it simply is not anything. It has no power because it has no 
being...Chance is not an entity. It is not a thing that has power to affect other things. It is no thing. To be more 
precise, it is nothing. Nothing cannot do something. Nothing is not. It has no `isness.' Chance has no isness. I 
was technically incorrect even to say that chance is nothing. Better to say that chance is not. What are the 
chances that chance can do anything? Not a chance. It has no more chance to do something than nothing has to 
do something." (Sproul R.C., "Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology," Baker: 
Grand Rapids MI, 1994, p.6)

"I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its unifying power when I was a graduate student in 
the mid-1960's. Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal description of evolution. The 
molecular assault came first, followed quickly by renewed attention to unorthodox theories of speciation and by 
challenges at the level of macroevolution itself. I have been reluctant to admit it-since beguiling is often forever-
but if Mayr's characterization of the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory, as a general proposition, is 
effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy." (Gould, S.J., "Is a new and general theory of 
evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 1980, pp.119-130, p.120)

"All that is made seems planless to the darkened mind, because there are more plans than it looked for. In these 
seas there are islands where the hairs of the turf are so fine and so closely woven together that unless a man 
looked long at them he would see neither hairs nor weaving at all, but only the same and the flat. So with the 
Great Dance. Set your eyes on one movement and it will lead you through all patterns and it will seem to you the 
master movement. But the seeming will be true. Let no mouth open to gainsay it. There seems no plan because it 
is all plan: there seems no centre because it is all centre. Blessed be He!" (Lewis C.S.*, "Perelandra," The Bodley 
Head: London, 1977, p.251)

"The united efforts of paleontology and molecular biology, the latter stripped of its dogmas, should lead to the 
discovery of the exact mechanism of evolution, possibly without revealing to us the causes of the orientations of 
lineages, of the finalities of structures, of living functions, and of cycles. Perhaps in this area biology can go no 
farther: the rest is metaphysics." (Grassť P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of 
Transformation," Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.246)

"Dr. Gray goes further. He says, `The proposition that the things and events in nature were not designed to be 
so, if logically carried out, is doubtless tantamount to atheism.' Again, `To us, a fortuitous Cosmos is simply 
inconceivable. The alternative is a designed Cosmos... If Mr. Darwin believes that the events which he supposes 
to have occurred and the results we behold around us were undirected and undesigned; or if the physicist 
believes that the natural forces to which he refers phenomena are uncaused and undirected, no argument is 
needed to show that such belief is atheistic.' We have thus arrived at the answer to our question, `What is 
Darwinism'? It is Atheism. This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his 
views are atheists; but it means that his theory is atheistic, that the exclusion of design from nature is, as Dr. Gray 
says, tantamount to atheism." (Hodge, C., in Noll, M.A. & Livingstone, D.N., eds., "What Is Darwinism?," [1874], 
Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1994, reprint, p.156)

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." 
(Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.1)

"'Social Darwinism' is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian 
corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin's image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, 
imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start- 'Darwinism' 
was always intended to explain human society." (Desmond, A. & Moore, J., "Darwin," [1991], Penguin: London 
UK, 1992, reprint, p.xix)

July [top]
"We've got to have some ancestors. We'll pick those. Why? Because we know they have to be there, and these 
are the best candidates. That's by and large the way it has worked. I am not exaggerating." (Nelson G., interview 
with journalist Tom Bethell, The Wall Street Journal, December 9, 1986, in Johnson, P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," 
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, p.76)

"It takes a while to realize that the 'thousands' of intermediates being referred to have no obvious relevance to 
the origin of lions and jellyfish and things. Most of them are simply varieties of a particular kind of creature, 
artificially arranged in a certain order to demonstrate Darwinism at work, and then rearranged every time a new 
discovery casts doubt upon the arrangement." (Hitching, F., "The Neck of the Giraffe: Or Where Darwin Went 
Wrong," Pan: London UK, 1982, p.27)

"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite 
phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show 
evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt (John 
and Miklos 1988, 307)." (Wesson, R.G., "Beyond Natural Selection," [1991], MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 
Reprinted, 1994, p.45)

"Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is 
not named but which is secretly worshipped...To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite 
by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in 
accordance with the facts." (Grassť, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms Evidence for a New Theory of 
Transformation," Academic Press: New York, 1977, p.107)

"How nucleic acid-directed protein synthesis could have occurred before ribosomes arose is unknown because 
nucleic acids are not known to interact selectively with particular amino acids. This difficulty exemplifies the 
major problem in tracing the pathway of prebiotic evolution. Suppose some sort of rudimentary nucleic acid -
influenced system arose that increased the efficiency of nucleic acid replication. This system must have 
eventually been replaced, presumably with almost no trace of its existence, by the much more efficient ribosomal 
system. Our hypothetical nucleic acid synthesis system is therefore analogous to the scaffolding used in the 
construction of a building. After the building has been erected the scaffolding is removed, leaving no physical 
evidence that it ever was there. Most of the statements in this section must therefore be taken as educated 
guesses. Without having witnessed the event, it seems unlikely that we shall ever be certain of how life 
arose." (Voet, D. & Voet, J.G., "Biochemistry," [1990] John Wiley & Sons: New York, Second edition, 1995, 
p.23. Emphasis original)

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth 
having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life 
exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent." (Provine, W.B., "Evolution: Free will and punishment and 
meaning in life," Abstract of Keynote Address, Second Annual Darwin Day Celebration, University of 
Tennessee, Knoxville, February 12, 1998)

"More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have 
led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. 
At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a 
confession of ignorance. New lines of thinking and experimentation must be tried." (Dose K., "The Origin of Life: 
More Questions Than Answers", Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988, p.348)

August [top]
"It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, 
as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists 
are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This 
suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an 
atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing)." (Shallis, M., "In the eye of a storm", _New Scientist_, January 19, 
1984, pp.42-43)

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." (Crick 
F.H.C., "What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery", [1988], Penguin Books: London UK, 1990, 
reprint, p.138)

"IT IS TOTALLY WRONG. It s wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like 
phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her 
latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution. ... Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of 
Darwinian theory, but few have been so blunt. Disagreeing with Darwin resembles creationism to the uninformed; 
therefore the stigma that any taint of creationism can bring to a scientific reputation, coupled with the 
intimidating genius of Darwin, have kept all but the boldest iconoclasts from doubting Darwinian theory in 
public. What excites Margulis is the remarkable incompleteness of general Darwinian theory. Darwinism is 
wrong by what it omits and by what it incorrectly emphasizes. A number of microbiologists, geneticists, 
theoretical biologists, mathematicians, and computer scientists are saying there is more to life than Darwinism. 
They do not reject Darwin's contribution; they simply want to move beyond it. I call them the "postdarwinians." 
(Kelly K., "Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines," [1994], Fourth Estate: London, 1995, reprint, pp.470-
471. Emphasis in original)

"Indeed nothing remains except a tactic that ill-befits a grand master...namely to blow thick pipe tobacco-smoke 
into our faces. The tactic is to argue that although the chance of arriving at the biochemical system of life as we 
know it is admitted to be utterly minuscule, there is in Nature such an enormous number of other chemical 
systems which could also support life that any old planet like the Earth would inevitably arrive sooner or later at 
one or another of them. This argument is the veriest nonsense, and if it is to be imbibed at all it must be 
swallowed with a jorum of strong ale...So far from there being very many indistinguishable chemical possibilities, 
it seems that we have an exceedingly distinguishable system, the best." (Hoyle, F. & Wickramasinghe, N.C., 
"Evolution from Space", [1981], Paladin: London UK, 1983, reprint, p.25)

"It is not surprising that large evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, 
and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any. Because they are 
difficult, evolution has occupied billions, not hundreds of thousands of years." (Wesson R.G., "Beyond Natural 
Selection," [1991], MIT Press: Cambridge MA, Reprinted, 1994, p.206)

"If I were a creationist, I would cease attacking the theory of evolution- which is so well supported by the fossil 
record-and focus instead on the origin of life. This is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology. 
The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never 
entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion." (Horgan J., "The End of Science: Facing 
the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age," [1996], Little, Brown & Co: London UK, 1997, 

"The problem for those who believe life to have arisen by spontaneous generation on the Earth is now seen to be 
acute. The origin appears to be forced back beyond 3,800 million years ago, into an era of serious geological 
disturbance, which seems as if it must have been generally inimical to life. Nor can one plausibly argue that the 
rain of cometary missiles ceased well before 3,800 million years ago, because this is close to the oldest age which 
has been obtained for any area of the lunar surface. The indication is that the Moon experienced severe 
bombardment until about 3,800 million years ago, and if this was so for the Moon it must have been even more 
surely so for the Earth. The Isua rocks appear therefore to date from about the earliest time when the Earth may 
be said to have had a tolerably stable crust. Another method has been used to search for traces of ancient life. It 
is well-known that carbon has two stable isotopes, written as 12C and 13C, with 
12C about ninety times more abundant than 13C. (Isotopes of the same chemical 
element differ in the number of neutrons contained in the central atomic nucleus, but not in the number of 
protons or in the number of electrons.) Photosynthetic organisms which convert carbon dioxide from the 
atmosphere into biological material have a slight preference for 12CO2 compared to 
13CO2. Thus biologically-generated hydrocarbons and carbonates have a small 
deficit of 13C compared to hydrocarbons and carbonates generated by inorganic processes. 
Finding a deficit of 13C in such materials within ancient sediments can therefore be taken as an 
indication that photosynthetic life was present when the sediments were laid down. C. Walters, A. Shimoyama 
and C. Ponnamperuma used this method for investigating rocks from the Isua series. Reporting their results in the 
autumn of 1979 at a meeting of the American Chemical Society, they argued that it was indicative of the presence 
of photosynthetic activity. In a broadcast interview for the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation in January 1980, 
Ponnamperuma was more positive: `... so we have now what we believe is strong evidence for life on Earth 3,800 
thousand million years [ago]. This brings the theory for the Origin of Life on Earth down to a very narrow range. 
Allowing half a billion years (for the disturbed conditions described above) we are now thinking, in geochemical 
terms, of instant life ...'" (Hoyle, F. & Wickramasinghe, N.C., "Evolution from Space," [1981], Paladin: London, 
1983, reprint, pp.79-80)

"Reduced to the initial and still crude form in which it is now emerging in the modern world, the new religious 
spirit appears, as we have said (cf. 1), as the impassioned vision and anticipation of some super- mankind. ... To 
believe and to serve was not enough: we now find that it is becoming not only possible but imperative 
literally to love evolution." (Teilhard de Chardin, P., "Christianity and Evolution," [1969], Hague, R., 
transl., Collins: London, 1971, pp.183-184. Emphasis original)

"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has 
been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, 
who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case." 
(Grassť P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation", Academic Press: 
New York NY, 1977, p.6)

24/08/1999 "It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding 
biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To try to 
figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary arguments can usefully 
be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all 
too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood." (Crick F., 
"What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery", [1988], Penguin Books: London UK, 1990, reprint, 

"Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible 
observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "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." (Birch 
L.C. & Ehrlich P.R., "Evolutionary History and Population Biology", Nature, Vol. 214, 22 April 1967, p.352)

"...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that 
strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that 
the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not." (Eldredge N., "Time 
Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria", Simon & Schuster: 
New York NY, 1985, p.144)

September [top]
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented." (Dr. William Provine, Professor of History and 
Biology, Cornell University.

"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads 
them, and inspires fallacious interpretations." (Grassť P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New 
Theory of Transformation", Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.6)

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is 
ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." (Dawkins R., "Put Your Money on 
Evolution", Review of Johanson D. & Edey M.A,, "Blueprints: Solving the Mystery of Evolution", in New York 
Times, April 9, 1989, sec. 7, p.34)

"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research 
programme-a possible framework for testable scientific theories." (Popper K.R., "Unended Quest: An Intellectual 
Autobiography", [1974], Open Court: La Salle IL, Revised Edition, 1982, p168)

"To suppose that the evolution of the wonderfully adapted biological mechanisms has depended only on a 
selection out of a haphazard set of variations, each produced by blind chance, is like suggesting that if we went 
on throwing bricks together into heaps, we should eventually be able to choose ourselves the most desirable 
house." (Waddington C.H., "The Listener", London, 13 November 1952, in Koestler A., "The Ghost in the 
Machine", [1967], Arkana: London, 1989, reprint, p.127)

"I do not think that Darwinism can explain the origin of life. I think it quite possible that life is so extremely 
improbable that nothing can `explain' why it originated; for statistical explanation must operate, in the last 
instance, with very high probabilities. But if our high probabilities are merely low probabilities which have 
become high because of the immensity of the available time (as in Boltzmann's `explanation'; see text to note 260 
in section 35), then we must not forget that in this way it is possible to "explain" almost everything. Even so, we 
have little enough reason to conjecture that any explanation of this sort is applicable to the origin of life." 
(Popper K.R., "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography", [1974], Open Court: La Salle IL, Revised Edition, 
1982, p.167)

"DNA replication is so error-prone that it needs the prior existence of protein enzymes to improve the copying 
fidelity of a gene-size piece of DNA. `Catch-22,' say Maynard Smith and Szathmary. So, wheel on RNA with its 
now recognized properties of carrying both informational and enzymatic activity, leading the authors to state: `In 
essence, the first RNA molecules did not need a protein polymerase to replicate them; they replicated 
themselves.' Is this a fact or a hope? I would have thought it relevant to point out for 'biologists in general' that 
not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (10^24) of artificially synthesized, random 
RNA sequences." (Dover G., "Looping the evolutionary loop", Review of "The Origins of Life: From the Birth of 
Life to the Origin of Language", by John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary, Oxford University Press: 1999, in 
Nature, 399, 20 May 1999, pp.217-218)

"Paleontologists (and evolutionary biologists in general) are famous for their facility in devising plausible 
stories; but they often forget that plausible stories need not be true." (Gould, S.J., Raup D.M., Sepkoski J.J., Jr., 
Schopf T.J.M., & Simberloff D.S., ", "The shape of evolution: a comparison of real and random clades", 
Paleobiology, 1977, Vol. 3, pp. 23-40, pp.34-35)

"In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of 
organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other 
such facts, might come to the conclusion that species had not been independently created, but had descended, 
like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, 
until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified, so as to acquire 
that perfection of structure and coadaptation which justly excites our admiration." (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of 
Species By Means of Natural Selection," [1859], John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, 1872, Reprinted, 1882, 

"It is not difficult to imagine how feathers, once evolved assumed additional functions, but how they arose 
initially presumably from reptilian scales, defies analysis. ... The problem has been set aside, not for want of 
interest, but for lack of evidence. No fossil structure transitional between scale and feather is known, and 
recent investigators are unwilling to found a theory on pure speculation." (Stahl, B.J., "Vertebrate history: 
Problems in Evolution," Dover: New York NY, 1985, pp.349-350) 

"It is perhaps clear to the reader that the genetic system is, in principle, isomorphic with communication systems 
designed by communications engineers. As a matter of fact, genetical systems have historical priority since 
organisms have been using the principles of information theory and coding theory for at least 3.8 x 10^9 years!" 
(Yockey H.P., "Information Theory and Molecular Biology", Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1992, 

"Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained 
phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the 
weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established 
truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, 
purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs." (Grassť,  
P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation", Academic Press: New 
York NY, 1977, p.8)

October [top]
"It is true that both  genuine homologous resemblance, that is, where
phenomenon has a clear genetic and embryological basis (which as we have seen above is far less common than 
is often presumed), and the hierarchic patterns of class relationships are suggestive of some kind of theory of 
descent. But neither tell us anything about how the descent or evolution might have occurred, as to whether the 
process was gradual or sudden, or as to whether the causal mechanism was Darwinian, Lamarckian, vitalistic or 
even creationist. Such a theory of descent is therefore devoid of any significant meaning and equally compatible 
with almost any philosophy of nature." (Denton, M.J., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", Burnett Books: London, 
1985, pp.154-155)

"The code of conduct that the naturalist wishing to understand the problem of evolution must adopt is to adhere 
to facts and sweep away all a priori ideas and dogmas. Facts must come first and theories must follow. 
The only verdict that matters is the one pronounced by the court as proved facts. Indeed, the best studies on 
evolution have been carried out by biologists who are not blinded by doctrines and who observe facts coldly 
without considering whether they agree or disagree with their theories." (Grassť P.-P., "Evolution of Living 
Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation", Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.8)

"Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we 
can suppose. I have read and heard many attempts at a systematic account of it, from materialism and 
theosophy to the Christian system or that of Kant, and I have always felt that they were much too simple. I 
suspect that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of, or can be dreamed of, in any 
philosophy." (Haldane, J.B.S., "Possible Worlds: And Other Essays," [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, 
reprint, p.286. Emphasis in the original.)

"Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinism theory search for results that will be in 
agreement with their theories and consequently orient their research in a given direction, whether it be in the field 
of ecology, ethology, sociology, demography (dynamics of populations), genetics (so-called evolutionary 
genetics), or paleontology. This intrusion of theories has unfortunate results: it deprives observations and 
experiments of their objectivity, makes them biased, and, moreover, creates false problems." (Grassť, P.-P.,  
"Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation", Academic Press: New York NY, 
1977, p.7)

"Suppose contemporary evolutionary theory had blind chance built into it so firmly that there was simply no way 
of reconciling it with any sort of divine guidance. It would still be perfectly possible for theists to reject that 
theory of evolution and accept instead a theory according to which natural processes and laws drove most of 
evolution, but God on occasion abridged those laws and inserted some crucial mutation into the course of 
events. Even were God to intervene directly to suspend natural law and inject essential new genetic material at 
various points in order to facilitate the emergence of new traits and, eventually, new species, that miraculous and 
deliberate divine intervention would by itself leave unchallenged such key theses of evolutionary theory as that 
all species derive ultimately from some common ancestor. Descent with genetic intervention is still descent-it is 
just descent with nonnatural elements in the process." (Ratzsch, D.L.*, "The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither 
Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1996, pp.187-188)

"I am opposed to Darwinism, or better said, to the transformist hypothesis as such, no matter what one 
takes to be the mechanism or cause (even perhaps teleological or theistic) of the postulated 
macroevolutionary leaps. I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism (in whatever form) is not in fact a 
scientific theory, but a pseudometaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In reality the theory 
derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the 
circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived within the 
constricted _Weltanschauung_ to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe." (Smith, W.*, "The 
Universe Is Ultimately to Be Explained in Terms of a Metacosmic Reality," in Margenau, H. & Varghese, 
R.A., ed., "Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe Life, 
and _Homo sapiens_," [1992], Open Court: La Salle IL, Second printing, 1993, pp.113-114)

"The basic framework of the theory is that evolution is a two-stage phenomenon the production of variation and 
the sorting of the variants by natural selection. Yet agreement on this basic thesis does not mean that the work of 
the evolutionist is completed. The basic theory is in many instances hardly more than a postulate and its 
application raises numerous questions in almost every concrete case." (Mayr, E.W., "Populations, Species and 
Evolution", [1963], Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1974, reprint, p.6)

November [top]
"Well, Mr. Kristol, evolution (as theory) is indeed "a conglomerate idea consisting of conflicting hypotheses," 
and I and my colleagues teach it as such." (Gould, S.J., "Darwinism Defined: The Difference Between Fact and 
Theory", Discover, January 1987, p.65)

"One of the most surprising negative results of palaeontological research in the last century is that such 
transitional forms seem to be inordinately scarce. In Darwin's time this could perhaps be ascribed with some 
justification to the incompleteness of the palaeontological record and to lack of knowledge, but with the 
enormous number of fossil species which have been discovered since then, other causes must be found for the 
almost complete absence of transitional forms." (Brouwer, A., "General Palaeontology", [1959], Transl. Kaye R.H., 
Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh & London, 1967, pp.162-163)

"The theory of evolution is quite rightly called the greatest unifying theory in biology. The diversity of 
organisms, similarities and differences between kinds of organisms, patterns of distribution and behavior, 
adaptation and interaction, all this was merely a bewildering chaos of facts until given meaning by the 
evolutionary theory. There is no area in biology in which that theory does not serve as an ordering principle. Yet 
this very universality of application has created difficulties. Evolution shows so many facets that it looks alike to 
no two persons. The more different the backgrounds of two biologists, the more different their attempts at causal 
explanation." (Mayr E.W., "Populations, Species and Evolution," [1970], Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 
1974, reprint, p.1)

"Another reason that scientists are so prone to throw the baby out with the bath water is that science itself, as I 
have suggested, is a religion. The neophyte scientist, recently come or converted to the world view of science, 
can be every bit as fanatical as a Christian crusader or a soldier of Allah. This is particularly the case when we 
have come to science from a culture and home in which belief in God is firmly associated with ignorance, 
superstition, rigidity and hypocrisy. Then we have emotional as well as intellectual motives to smash the idols of 
primitive faith. A mark of maturity in scientists, however, is their awareness that science may be as subject to 
dogmatism as any other religion." (Peck M.S, "The Road Less Travelled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional 
Values and Spiritual Growth", [1978], Arrow: London, 1990, p.238)

"Another major reason that scientists are prone to throw the baby out with the bath water is that they do not see 
the baby. Many scientists simply do not look at the evidence of the reality of God. They suffer from a kind of 
tunnel vision, a psychologically self-imposed psychological set of blinders which prevents them from turning 
their attention to the realm of the spirit." (Peck M.S, "The Road Less Travelled: A New Psychology of Love, 
Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth", [1978], Arrow: London, 1990, p241)

"How much of this can be believed? Every generation needs its own creation myths, and these are ours. They are 
probably more accurate than any that have come before, but they are undoubtedly subject to revision as we find 
out more about the nature and the history of life. The best that can be said for any scientific theory is that it 
explains all the data at hand and has no obvious internal contradictions." (Wilson E.O., et. al., "Life on Earth", 
[1973], Sinauer Associates: Sunderland MA, 1975, reprint, p.624)

"This shall be such an extraordinary note as you have never received from me, for it shall not contain one single 
question or request. I thank you for your impression on my views. Every criticism from a good man is of value to 
me. What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work will be grievously hypothetical, and large parts by 
no means worthy of being called induction, my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts." 
(Darwin C., letter to Asa Gray of November 29, 1859, in Darwin F., ed., "More Letters of Charles Darwin", John 
Murray: London, 1903, Vol. I, pp.126-127)

"Mr. Bird is concerned with origins and the evidence relevant thereto. He is basically correct that evidence, or 
proof, of origins-of the universe, of life, of all of the major groups of life, of all of the minor groups of life, indeed 
of all of the species-is weak or nonexistent when measured on an absolute scale, as it always was and will always 
be." (Nelson G.J., "Preface," in Bird W. R., "The Origin of Species Revisited", Regency: Nashville TN, 1991, Vol. I, 

"Nor does any of the above depend upon the theories of Charles Darwin, with which evolution is popularly 
associated. The opposite is true. More recent scientific insights indicate that neo-Darwinism is at best a 
partial explanation of how biological evolution occurs. The demise of Darwinian theory as a full 
explanation in no way alters the firm consensus of science that the universe has evolved. There is at the moment 
not one competing theory which can account for the observed facts." (Price B., "The Creation Science 
Controversy", Millennium Books: Sydney, 1990, p8. Emphasis in original.)

"Since we hardly know anything about the major types of organization, suggestions, and suggestions only, can 
be made. How can one confidently assert that one mechanism rather than another was at the origin of the 
creation of the plans of organization, if one relies entirely upon imagination to find a solution? Our ignorance is 
so great that we dare not even assign with any accuracy an ancestral stock to the phyla Protozoa, Arthropoda, 
Mollusca, and Vertebrata. The lack of concrete evidence relative to the "heyday" of evolution seriously impairs 
any transformist theory. In any case, a shadow is cast over the genesis of the fundamental structural plans and 
we are unable to eliminate it." (Grassť P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of 
Transformation", Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.17)

"From the standpoint of population genetics, positive Darwinian selection represents a process whereby 
advantageous mutants spread through the species. Considering their great importance in evolution, it is perhaps 
surprising that well-established cases are so scarce; for example, industrial melanisms in moths and increases of 
DDT resistance in insects are constantly being cited. On the other hand, examples showing that negative 
selection is at work to eliminate variants produced by mutation abound." (Kimura M., "Population Genetics and 
Molecular Evolution," The Johns Hopkins Medical Journal, Vol. 138, No. 6, June 1976, p.260)

"Evolution answers some questions but reveals many more questions. Some of these questions at this stage 
appear to be unanswerable in the light of present scientific knowledge. In common parlance: `The more you 
know, the more you know you don't know.'" (Price B., "The Creation Science Controversy", Millennium Books: 
Sydney, 1990, p.8)

"To say that there is a complete consensus among scientists that evolution has occurred does not mean 
there is complete understanding of the underlying mechanisms, or ways, in which evolution has occurred. Far 
from it. While evolution is a fact, how it occurs will always be the subject of debate. This is the fascination of 
science. To put it another way, there is no dispute about the fact that evolution has occurred but there is 
dispute among scientists about how it has occurred." (Price B., "The Creation Science Controversy", 
Millennium Books: Sydney, 1990, p.8. Emphasis in original.)

"The definition widely adopted in recent decades-"Evolution is the change of gene frequencies in populations"-
refers only to the transformational component. It tells us nothing about the multiplication of species nor, more 
broadly, about the origin of organic diversity. A broader definition is needed which would include both 
transformation and diversification." (Mayr E.W., "The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and 
Inheritance", Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1982, p.400)

"According to the modern theory (called neo-Darwinism), changes occur in organisms by mutations of genes. 
This leads to the existence of variation amongst individuals. Some of these individuals may survive more 
successfully than others (called natural selection), thus producing more offspring with their new features. 
Gradually these new features will extend throughout the population. If, however, the population is isolated from 
others differences cannot spread, and over a period of time two varieties come to exist. Only small changes to 
organisms have been actually observed to occur by this mechanism. e.g. Industrial melanism, resistance to 
antibiotics and insecticides. Evidence for larger changes must be deduced from the fossil record. ("evolution", in 
Heffernan D.A., "The Australian Biology Dictionary", [1987], Addison Wesley Longman Australia: Melbourne, 
Australia, 1996, reprint, p.87)

"Was it an accident that Darwin's conclusion meant just what every reader wanted it to mean? I think not. Darwin 
used the same ambiguity in his private letters. Darwinism, therefore, began as a theory that evolution could be 
explained by natural selection. It ended as a theory that evolution could be explained just as you would like it to 
be explained." (Darlington C.D., "The Origin of Darwinism", Scientific American, Vol. 201, May 1959, p.60)

"Two shafts of criticism struck Darwin more directly than the outside world was allowed to know. They touched 
his particular theory that evolution took place by natural selection, a process analogous to the artificial selection 
which plant and animal breeders were practicing with such great success at that time. The first criticism asserted 
that Darwin's thesis was not true; the second, that it was not new. Such criticisms are raised against all 
revolutionary hypotheses, but both of these were serious and well informed." (Darlington C.D., "The Origin of 
Darwinism", Scientific American, Vol. 201, May 1959, p.60)

"Another, and equally important, explanation for Darwin's success as the propounder of evolution is to be found 
in his equivocation on the central issue of selection versus direction. The issue had long been recognized as 
cardinal in any theory. Those who had taken either side unequivocally, whether that of Lamarck or of his 
opponents, had failed, though their failure was political. But Darwin confused the alternatives on all possible 
occasions. The confusion helped greatly in dealing with untrained opponents who did not notice the blurring of 
the issue. Darwin's success makes his choice in this dilemma seem deliberate and disingenuous. But it was no 
doubt unconscious, like most of his more important reasonings." (Darlington C.D., "The Origin of Darwinism", 
Scientific American, Vol. 201, May 1959, p.64)

December [top]
"In short, it is clear that Darwin's success was due to several common vices as well as to several uncommon 
virtues. His gifts as an observer in all fields concerned with the needs of a theory of evolution were extraordinary. 
His industry and patience in collecting and editing his own observations as well as other people's were hardly 
less remarkable. On the other hand, his ideas were not, as he imagined, unusually original. He was able to put his 
ideas across not so much because of his scientific integrity, but because of his opportunism, his equivocation 
and his lack of historical sense. Though his admirers will not like to believe it, he accomplished his revolution by 
personal weakness and strategic talent more than by scientific virtue." (Darlington C.D., "The Origin of 
Darwinism," Scientific American, Vol. 201, May 1959, p.66)

"And finally Darwinism itself grew more and more theoretical. The paper demonstration that such and such a 
character was or might be adaptive was regarded by many writers as sufficient proof that it must owe its origin to 
Natural Selection. Evolutionary studies became more and more merely case-books of real or supposed 
adaptations. Late nineteenth-century Darwinism came to resemble the early nineteenth-century school of Natural 
Theology. Paley redivivus, one might say, but philosophically upside down, with Natural Selection instead of a 
Divine Artificer as the Deus ex machina. There was little contact of evolutionary speculation with the concrete 
facts of cytology and heredity, or with actual experimentation." (Huxley, J., "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis," 
[1942], George Allen & Unwin: London, 1945, reprint, p.23)

"Discussions of evolution came to an end primarily because it was obvious that no progress was being made. ... 
But soon, though knowledge advanced at a great rate, and though whole ranges of phenomena which had 
seemed capricious and disorderly fell rapidly into a co-ordinated system, less and less was heard about evolution 
in genetical circles, and now the topic is dropped. When students of other sciences ask us what is now currently 
believed about the origin of species we have no clear answer to give. Faith has given place to agnosticism for 
reasons which on such an occasion as this we may profitably consider. ... Variation of many kinds, often 
considerable, we daily witness, but no origin of species. ... I have put before you very frankly the considerations 
which have made us agnostic as to the actual mode and processes of evolution. When such confessions are 
made the enemies of science see their chance. If we cannot declare here and now how species arose, they will 
obligingly offer us the solutions with which obscurantism is satisfied. Let us then proclaim in precise and 
unmistakable language that our faith in evolution is unshaken. Every available line of argument converges on 
this inevitable conclusion. The obscurantist has nothing to suggest which is worth a moment's attention. The 
difficulties which weigh upon the professional biologist need not trouble the layman. Our doubts are not as to 
the reality or truth of evolution, but as to the origin of species, a technical, almost domestic, problem. Any day 
that mystery may be solved. The discoveries of the last twenty-five years enable us for the first time to discuss 
these questions intelligently and on a basis of fact. That synthesis will follow on an analysis, we do not and 
cannot doubt." (Bateson, W., "Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts," Address delivered before the American 
Association for the Advancement of Science, December 28, 1921, at the University of Toronto, Science, 
Vol. 55, January 20, 1922, pp.55-61, pp.56-57,61)

"I do not know when the technical and popular prose of science became separated, although I accept the 
inevitability of such a division as knowledge became increasingly more precise, detailed, and specialized. We 
have now reached the point where most technical literature not only falls outside the possibility of public 
comprehension but also (as we would all admit in honest moments) outside our own competence in scientific 
disciplines far removed from our personal expertise. I trust that we all regard this situation as saddening, even 
though we accept its necessity." (Gould, S.J., "Take Another Look", Science, Vol. 286, 29 October 1999, p899)

"Darwin's book, On the Origin of Species, was published in 1859. It is perhaps the most influential book 
that has ever been published, because it was read by scientist and non-scientist alike, and it aroused violent 
controversy. Religious people disliked it because it appeared to dispense with God; scientists liked it because it 
seemed to solve the most important problem in the universe-the existence of living matter. In fact, evolution 
became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their 
observations to fit in with it. (Lipson, H.S., "A physicist looks at evolution," _Physics Bulletin_, Vol. 31, No. 4, 
May 1980, p.138)

"The purpose of science is not to find "facts" or discover "truth," but rather to formulate and use theories in 
order to solve problems and ultimately to organize, unify, and explain all the material phenomena of the universe. 
Scientists attempt to avoid the use of "fact, "proof," and "truth," because these words could easily be 
interpreted to connote absolutes. Nothing in science is deemed absolute. Science deals only with theories or 
relative "truth,"-a temporary correctness so far as can be ascertained by the rational mind at the present time." 
(Stansfield, W.D., "The Science of Evolution", [1977], Macmillan: New York NY, 1983, Eighth Printing, p.7)

"I now wish to give some reasons why I regard Darwinism as metaphysical, and as a research programme. It is 
metaphysical because it is not testable. One might think that it is. It seems to assert that, if ever on some planet 
we find life which satisfies conditions (a) and (b), then (c) will come into play and bring about in time a rich 
variety of distinct forms. Darwinism, however, does not assert as much as this. For assume that we find life on 
Mars consisting of exactly three species of bacteria with a genetic outfit similar to that of three terrestrial species. 
Is Darwinism refuted? By no means. We shall say that these three species were the only forms among the many 
mutants which were sufficiently well adjusted to survive. And we shall say the same if there is only one species 
(or none). Thus Darwinism does not really predict the evolution of variety. It therefore cannot really explain it. At 
best, it can predict the evolution of variety under "favourable conditions". But it is hardly possible to describe in 
general terms what favourable conditions are except that, in their presence, a variety of forms will emerge." 
(Popper, K.R., "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography," Open Court: La Salle IL, Revised Edition, 1982, 

"Creationists have looked forward to the day when science may actually create a "living" thing from simple 
chemicals. They claim, and rightly so, that even if such a man-made life form could be created, this would not 
prove that natural life forms were developed by a similar chemical evolutionary process. The scientist 
understands this and plods on testing theories." (Stansfield, W.D., "The Science of Evolution", [1977], 
Macmillan: New York NY, 1983, Eighth Printing, pp.10-11)

"While naturalism has often been equated with materialism, it is much broader in scope. Materialism is indeed 
naturalistic, but the converse is not necessarily true. Strictly speaking, naturalism has no ontological preference; 
i.e., no bias toward any particular set of categories of reality: dualism and monism, atheism and theism, idealism 
and materialism are all per se compatible with it. So long as all of reality is natural, no other limitations are 
imposed. Naturalists have in fact expressed a wide variety of views, even to the point of developing a theistic 
naturalism." ("naturalism", Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, 2005.

"In some instances, the evidence for evolution is meager and/or equivocal. Creationists focus attention on any 
tendency to acceptance of such evidence carte blanche. Perhaps the greatest contribution creationists are 
currently making to science is their recognition of "creeping dogmatism" in the science of evolution Through 
their efforts, it is likely that science textbooks in California will have to retreat from such dogmatic statements as 
"Life began in the primordial sea at least three billion years ago." An acceptable revision of this concept might be 
`Most scientists have interpreted from the fossil record that life began in the primordial sea at estimates 
exceeding three billion years ago.' This is as it should be. Absolutes have no place in science. The scientist 
should carefully avoid dogmatic statements, couching all conclusions in relativistic terms. When the scientist 
fails to do this, other members of the scientific community must be ready to correct such errors. If evolutionists 
do not keep their own house in order, the creationists stand ready to attack their veracity." (Stansfield, W.D., 
"The Science of Evolution", [1977], Macmillan: New York NY, 1983, Eighth Printing, p.11)

"A favorite example of those trying to find evidence of self-organization is the human eye. So exquisitely 
designed, with its adjustable lens and iris, with its retina capable of rendering images better than any camera-the 
eye surely could not have developed from the blind meanderings of evolution. Or so it seems to Darwin's critics. 
The eighteenth-century theologian William Paley considered the eye and other precisely engineered organs as 
proof of an intelligent creator. But, again, one doesn't have to be a creationist to have difficulty accepting that 
eyes arose purely from random variation and selection." (Johnson, G., "Fire in the Mind: Science, Faith, and the 
Search for Order", [1995], Penguin Books: London, 1997, p.267)

"The personal and intellectual drama of Darwin and Dana provides the main subject for this essay, but I also 
write to illustrate a broader theme in the lives of scholars and the nature of science: the integrative power of 
worldviews (the positive side), and their hold as conceptual locks upon major innovation (the negative side)." 
(Gould, S.J., "Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms: Essays on Natural History", [1998], Vintage: 
London, 1999, reprint, p.103)

"For example, the assertion that populations of organisms can change in their genetic composition from one 
generation to another (i.e., evolve) is undisputed, even by the creationists. To say without qualification that "all 
present life has evolved from more primitive forms" is unscientific because such a statement is an absolute. A 
scientifically acceptable restatement is that `scientists have found a great deal of evidence from many sources 
which they have interpreted to be consistent with the theory that all present life has evolved from more primitive 
forms.'" (Stansfield, W.D., "The Science of Evolution", [1977], Macmillan: New York NY, 1983, Eighth Printing, 

"Contemporary religious thinkers often approach the Argument from Design with a grim determination that their 
churches shall not again be made to look foolish. Recalling what happened when churchmen opposed first 
Galileo and then Darwin, they insist that religion must be based not on science but on faith. Philosophy, they 
announce, has demonstrated that Design Arguments lack all force. I hope to have shown that philosophy has 
demonstrated no such thing. Our universe, which these religious thinkers believe to be created by God, does 
look, greatly though this may dismay them, very much as if created by God." (Leslie, J., "Universes", [1989], 
Routledge: London, 1996, reprint, p.22)

* Authors with an asterisk against their name are believed not to be evolutionists. However, lack of
an asterisk does not necessarily mean that an author is an evolutionist.


Copyright © 1999-2010, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. These my quotes may be used for non-commercial purposes
only and may not be used in a book, ebook, CD, DVD, or any other medium except the Internet, without my written permission.
If used on the Internet, a link back to my home page at would be appreciated.
Created: 3 May, 1999. Updated: 4 July, 2010.