Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.I worked in Civil Court for a local country years ago, and one lawsuit involved the Transcendental Meditation folks being sued. The most mind-boggling piece of evidence was a thick, 500-page statistical study that purported to prove that TM actually had an effect on the local crime rate.
In spite of the truly absurd premise of that study, it was very scholarly and involved a hell of a lot complex statistical analysis, citations from scientific texts, and other pretentious 'evidence'. People with a lot of money at stake can really crank out pretentious crap to support just about any absurd premise.
*REAL* scientists (the ones who go to MIT and CalTech) are maybe 97-98% in support of evolution. There simply is no support whatsoever for evolution among the real scientific community. The insane boilerplate copy-n-pasted by Pahu is exactly the sort of silly, pseudo-scientific crap that you'd expect from Cretinists who are trying to make their absurd nonsense sound plausible to the non-educated.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.
Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin,*Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
An asterisk (*) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
"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."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped .. We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].