النتائج 1 إلى 5 من 5

الموضوع: Confessions Of The Evolutionists

  1. #1

    Exclamation Confessions Of The Evolutionists

    Confessions Of The Evolutionists

    from Harun Yahya library of books

    I'll exclude the introduction and the Conclusion
    And i'll not write all the book, just the confessions that i hope to translate it after by me or any brother or sister

    1. Charles Darwin's Confessions Regarding His Theory
    2. Evolutionists’ Confessions Regarding Darwin
    3. Regarding the Invalidity of the Theory of Evolution
    4. That They Espouse the Theory of Evolution for Ideological Reasons
    5. That Natural Selection Has No Evolutionary Power
    6. That Mutations Have No Evolutionary Power
    7. Regarding the Dead-End of Molecular Evolution
    8. Of the Sudden Emergence of Life
    9. Of the Lack of Intermediate-Form Fossils
    10. That There Is No Evidence of a Transition from Invertebrates to Vertebrates
    11. Of the Impossibility of a Transition from Water to Dry Land
    12. Of the Impossibility of Reptiles Evolving into Birds
    13. That the Theory of Evolution Cannot Account for the Origin of Mammals
    14. Regarding the Invalidity of the “Horse Series”
    15. Regarding the Forebears of Man
    16. That the Human Soul Cannot Be Explained in Terms of Evolution
    17. That Complex Organs Cannot Appear by Way of Evolution
    18. That the Theory of Evolution Cannot Explain Animal Instincts
    19. That Plants Cannot Have Arisen by Way of Evolution
    20. Regarding Variations
    21. Of the Non-existence of Vestigial Organs
    22. Of the Invalidity of the Claims of Homology
    23. That the Theory Violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics
    24. Of the Invalidity of the Theory of Recapitulation
    25. That Life Can Only Have Been Created
    26. Materialists’ Confessions That the Universe Has a Beginning
    27. That the Order in the Universe Cannot Have Come about by Chance
    28. Regarding Darwinism’s Negative Effect on Moral Values

    1. Charles Darwin's Confessions Regarding His Theory

    To be continued ..............

  2. #2


    1. Charles Darwin's Confessions Regarding His Theory

    The British physicist H.S. Lipson makes this comment about these fears of Darwin’s:
    On reading The Origin of Species, I found that Darwin was much less sure himself than he is often represented to be; the chapter entitled “Difficulties of the Theory,” for example, shows considerable self-doubt. As a physicist, I was particularly intrigued by his comments on how the eye would have arisen
    H. S. Lipson, “A Physicist's View of Darwin's Theory,” Evolution Trends in Plants, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1988, p. 6.

    Darwin was concerned that his theory was actually contradictory, inconsistent and unrealistic:
    Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered.
    Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapter 6 – “Difficulties on Theory.”

    I have now briefly recapitulated the answers and explanations which can be given to them. I have felt these difficulties far too heavily during many years to doubt their weight
    Ibid., Chapter 14 – “Recapitulation and Conclusion.”

    Nevertheless, I doubt whether the work [of writing The Origin of Species] was worth the consumption of so much time
    Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1888, p. 315

    Pray do not think that I am so blind as not to see that there are numerous immense difficulties in my notions.
    Ibid., p. 395

    From a letter to Asa Gray, a close friend and Professor of Biology at Harvard University:
    I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science
    N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation, University of Chicago, 1979, p. 2.

    You will do a wonderful amount of good in spreading the doctrine of Evolution, supporting it as you do by so many original observations. . . . Has the problem of the later stages of reduction of useless structures ever perplexed you? This problem has of late caused me much perplexity.
    Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1888, p. 358.

    From a letter to his second cousin William Darwin Fox:
    All nature is perverse and will not do as I wish it, and just at present I wish I had my old barnacles to work at and nothing new
    Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I, p. 413.

    Sometimes I fear I shall break down, for my subject gets bigger and bigger with each month
    Ibid., p. 430.

    From a letter to his friend and botanist Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker:
    I sometimes suspect I shall soon entirely fail.
    Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, p. 152.

    I fancy I have lately removed many great difficulties opposed to my notions, but God knows it may be all hallucination
    Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I, p. 439.

    I was beginning to think that perhaps I was wholly in the wrong and that [Richard Owen] was right when he said the whole subject would be forgotten in ten years
    Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, p. 117.

    You ask about my book, and all that I can say is that I am ready to commit suicide; I thought it was decently written, but find so much wants rewriting. . . .
    Ibid., p. 501

    . . . but so much has been published since the appearance of the ‘Origin of Species,’ that I very much doubt whether I retain power of mind and strength to reduce the mass into a digested whole.
    Ibid., p. 388

    From a letter to Charles Lyell, the British geologist:
    For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to phantasy
    Ibid., p. 25.

    Robert Bingham Downs, an American author and librarian states:
    As Darwin grew older, his views on religion changed. In his youth he accepted the idea of special creation without reservation. In the book Life and Letters, however, he said that mankind would be a far more perfect entity in the distant future. He then went on to add the following ideas:

    Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason, and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather, impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker. But then arises the doubt: Can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?
    Robert B. Downs, Books that Changed the World, Revised edition (March 2, 2004), New York: Signet Classics; p. 286

    At this point, Darwin raises his hands in despair and concludes by saying:
    I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all thing is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic

    To be continued ..............

  3. #3


    2. Evolutionists’ Confessions Regarding Darwin

    Thomas Huxley was Darwin’s closest friend and greatest supporter in terms of the theory of evolution. He is even remembered as “Darwin’s bulldog” for his vociferous defense of the theory of evolution on Darwin’s behalf. But even he admitted of this friend:
    Like the rest of us, he had no proper training in biological science
    Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I, p. 315.

    From a letter written to Darwin by A. Sedgwick, his closest friend:
    Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous. . . . Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions. . .
    Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, p. 43

    To be continued ..............

  4. #4


    3. Regarding the Invalidity of the Theory of Evolution

    Pierre Paul Grassé is the former president of the French Academy of Sciences and author of the book Evolution of Living Organisms. As he writes:
    Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. . . . 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 falsity of their beliefs
    Pierre Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 8.

    After setting out the impossibility of random mutations having met all the needs of the living world, Grassé goes on to say:
    There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.
    Ibid., p. 103.

    Prof. Derek Ager, who is the former president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (and head of the department of geology and oceanography at University College of Swansea):
    It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student . . . have now been debunked
    Derek Ager, “The Nature of the Fossil Record.” Proceedings of the Geological Association, Vol. 87, No. 2, 1976, p. 132.

    Dr. Robert Milikan is a Nobel Prize winner and renowned evolutionist:
    The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove
    SBS Vital Topics, David B. Loughran, April 1996, Stewarton Bible School, Stewarton, Scotland, URL :http://www.rmplc.co.uk/eduweb/ sites/sbs777/vital/evolutio.html

    Dr. Lewis Thomas, the author of Lives of a Cell:
    Biology needs a better word than error for the driving force in evolution. . . . I cannot make my peace with the randomness doctrine; I cannot abide the notion of purposelessness and blind chance in nature. And yet I do not know what to put in its place for the quieting of my mind
    Lewis Thomas, “On the Uncertainty of Science,” Key Reporter, Vol. 46 (Autumn 1980), p. 2.

    Jerry Coyne is of the Chicago University Evolution and Ecology Department:
    We conclude—unexpectedly—that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak
    H.A. Orr and Jerry Coyne (1992), “The Genetics of Adaptation: A Reassessment,” American Naturalist, pp. 140, 726.

    H. S. Lipson, the British physicist:
    I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin’s theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all.
    H. S. Lipson, “A Physicist Look at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

    Gregory Alan Pesely is Professor of Philosophy:
    One would immediately reject any lexicographer who tried to define a word by the same word, or a thinker who merely restated his proposition, or any other instance of gross redundancy; yet no one seems scandalized that men of science should be satisfied with a major principle which is no more than a tautology
    G.A. Peseley, “The Epistemological Status of Natural Selection,” Laval Theologique et Philosophique, Vol. 38 (Feb. 1982), p. 74.

    Dr. Colin Patterson is an evolutionist paleontologist and curator of London’s Natural History Museum, editor of the museum’s journal and author of the book Evolution:
    Now, one of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view—well, let’s call it non-evolutionary—was [that] last year I had a sudden realization. For over twenty years, I had thought that 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 was quite a shock, to learn that one can be so misled for so long. . . So for the last few weeks, I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.
    The question is this: ‘Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that you think is true? Is there one thing you can tell me about evolution?’ I tried this 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. But eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school
    Dr. Colin Patterson, “Evolution and Creationism: Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution?”
    November 1981 Presentation at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City.

    Dr. Albert Fleischman, zoologist at the University of Erlangen:
    The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination

    W. R. Thompson is Head of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control in - Ottawa:
    This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science
    Charles Darwin, Introduction to The Origin of Species, 6th Edition (1956) p. xxii.

    E. O. Wiley of City University of New York’s, Ichthyology Department and the American Museum of Natural History, expresses his thoughts on Norman Macbeth’s book Darwin Retried:
    Macbeth suggests that we try to look at evolution with new eyes, that we admit to the public, and, if needed, to ourselves, that we have misgivings about Darwinism, and the synthetic theory, that we open debate.
    E.O.Wiley, “Review of Darwin Retried by MacBeth.” Systematic Zoology, Vol. 24 (June. 1975), p. 270.

    Roger Lewin is a well-known evolutionist science writer and former editor of New Scientist magazine:
    Our intelligence, our reflective consciousness, our extreme technological facility, our complex spoken language, our sense of moral and ethical values—each of these is apparently sufficient to set us apart from nature . . . this gap is an “embarrassment,” something to be explained away.
    Roger Lewin, In the Age of Mankind, Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Books, 1988. p. 22.

    Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, is a Swedish geneticist and Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden:
    My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint.
    Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (lund, Swewden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. 31.

    Paul Lemoine, a former Director of the National Museum of Natural History at Paris:
    The theories of evolution in which our student youth was cradled constitute a dogma that all the world continues to teach. But each in his own specialty, zoologist or botanist, comes to the conclusion that none of the available explanations is adequate. . . . The result of this summary is that the theory of evolution is impossible.
    Introduction: De (Evolution), Encyclopedie Française, Vol. 5 (1937) p. 6.

    Norman Macbeth, a Harvard-trained lawyer, has made the study of Darwinian theory his avocation for many years:
    Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses.
    Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Boston: Gambit, 1971, p. 147

    Prof. Cemal Yıldırım, a Turkish evolutionist, is Professor of Philosophy at Middle East Technical University and visiting scholar at California State University in Northridge:
    No scientist, whether be Darwinist or neo-Darwinist, can suggest the notion that the theory of evolution is proven.
    Cemal Yildirim, Evrim Kurami ve Bagnazlik [“The Theory of Evolution and Bigotry”], Bilgi Publishing, January 1989, pp. 56-57.

    That’s right, evolution theory is not proven
    Ibid., p. 131.

    It is far from being convincing to attribute this order in living things, which seems to have a particular purpose, to chance or coincidence.
    Ibid., p. 108.

    François Jacob is a professor of cell genetics and winner of the 1965 Nobel Prize for Medicine:
    But then again, we are far from having a final explanation regarding the mechanisms of evolution in particular. . . . In addition, we are a very long way from being able to know all the mechanisms at the basis of the universe, as revealed by various observations recently made regarding, for example, the structure of chromosomes.
    François Jacob, Le Jeu des Possibles [“The Play of Possibilities”], Paris: LGF, 1986.

    To be continued ..............

  5. #5


    4. That They Espouse the Theory of Evolution for Ideological Reasons

    Prof. Chandra Wickramasinghe is Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University and Director of the Cardiff Centre for Astrobiology:
    From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. At the moment, I can’t find any rational argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion to God. We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the only logical answer to life is creation—and not accidental random shuffling
    Chandra Wickramasinghe, Interview in London Daily Express, August 14, 1981

    Prof. Fred Hoyle is a British astronomer and a mathematician at Cambridge University:
    Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific
    Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984, p. 130

    François Jacob is Professor of Cell Genetics and winner of the 1965 Nobel Prize for Medicine:
    All these debates raise serious questions, heading the list of which is; is it really possible to develop a concept of evolution independent of biologists’ preconceptions?
    François Jacob, Le Jeu des Possibles [“The Play of Possibilities”], Paris: LGF, 1986

    Dr. Michael Walker is an anthropologist at the University of Sidney in Australia:
    One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator
    Dr. Michael Walker, Quadrant, October 1982, p. 44

    Robert Shapiro is Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Chemistry at New York University:
    Another evolutionary principle is therefore needed to take us across the gap from mixtures of simple natural chemicals to the first effective replicator. This principle has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated, but it is anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and self-organization of matter. The existence of the principle is taken for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism. . .
    Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Sceptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, New York: Summit Books, 1986, p. 207

    Hubert Yockey is an evolutionist biologist in University of California at Berkeley:
    Faith in the infallible and comprehensive doctrines of dialectic materialism plays a crucial role in origin of life scenarios, and especially in exobiology and its ultimate consequence: the doctrine of advanced extra-terrestrial civilization. That life must exist somewhere in the solar system on ‘suitable planets elsewhere’ is widely and tenaciously believed, in spite of lack of evidence or even abundant evidence to the contrary
    Hubert Yockey, “Self-Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 91, 1981, pp. 27-28

    Paul R. Ehrlich, President of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University and Fellow of the AAAS, and Richard W. Holm, Professor of Biological Sciences at Standard University:
    Perpetuation of today’s theory [of evolution] as dogma will not encourage progress toward more satisfactory explanations of observed phenomena
    Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm, “Patterns and Populations,” Science, Vol. 137 (August 31, 1962), pp. 656-7

    Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ukrainian-American geneticist and evolutionist:
    The evidence has not satisfied quite everybody; a few people who are not ignorant of the pertinent facts are nevertheless antievolutionists
    Theodosius Dobzhansky, “Evolution at Work,” Science, May 9, 1958, p. 1092

    Pierre Paul Grassé is, as you saw, a French zoologist and the former President of the French Academy of Sciences:
    Chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped
    Pierre Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York, Academic Press, 1977, p.107

    Prof. Cemal Yıldırım is a Turkish evolutionist, and Professor of Philosophy at Middle East Technical University:
    There is no need to query Darwinism’s thesis of natural selection. It moves away from being a scientific concept to the extent that it regards the truth as an evident principle and acquires the nature of an ideological teaching
    Cemal Yıldırım, Evrim Kuramı ve Bağnazlık, [“The Theory of Evolution and Bigotry”] , p. 51


    Geoffrey Clark is an anthropologist at Arizona State University:
    We select among alternative sets of research conclusions in accordance with our biases and preconceptions--a process that is, at once, both political and subjective. . . [paleoanthropology] has the form, but not the substance of a science
    G. A. Clark, C. M. Willermet, Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research, New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, p. 76

    From an address that the evolutionist Greg Kirby gave at a Biology Teachers Association meeting:
    If you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there is a very strong desire there to exaggerate the importance of those fragments
    Paul S. Taylor, Origins Answer Book, 5th edition, 1995, p. 35

    To be continued ..............

معلومات الموضوع

الأعضاء الذين يشاهدون هذا الموضوع

الذين يشاهدون الموضوع الآن: 1 (0 من الأعضاء و 1 زائر)


ضوابط المشاركة

  • لا تستطيع إضافة مواضيع جديدة
  • لا تستطيع الرد على المواضيع
  • لا تستطيع إرفاق ملفات
  • لا تستطيع تعديل مشاركاتك
شبكة اصداء