As man's knowledge of science increases in depth and scope, in fields
ranging from genetics and cell biology to biochemistry,
Charles Darwin's theories concerning the Origin of Species are coming
under increasing scrutiny in the scientific community.
While there is scientific evidence for micro-evolution (within species),
that level of evidence is lacking for macro-evolution (between species).
Here are just a few of the many quotations from noted scientists during
the last seventy years, in which they express concerns and doubts about
Darwin's Theory of Evolution:
In Richard Goldschmidt's 1940 magnum opus, "The Material Basis of
Evolution," he wrote: "Microevolution does not lead beyond the
confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution,
the geographic races, are not incipient species." Goldschmidt,
a brilliant geneticist, did not believe that Charles Darwin's idea of
slow, gradual changes could account for the origin of species.
Forced out of his native Germany by the Nazis, he continued his research
at UC Berkeley. Although he recognized the continuous accumulation
of small population changes (microevolution), he believed they did not
lead to new species. Between true species he saw "bridgeless gaps."
In his 1956 article, "The Role of Antibiotics in Natural Processes,"
published in Giornale di Microbiologia 2, Nobel laureate Selman Waksman
wrote: "The concept of the 'struggle for existence' has been
applied to microbial interrelationships in nature in a manner comparable
to the effects assigned by Darwin to higher forms of life. It has
also been suggested that the ability of a microbe to produce an
antibiotic substance enables it to survive in competition for space and
for nutrients with other microbes. Such assumptions appear to be
totally unjustified on the basis of existing knowledge … .
All the discussion of a 'struggle for existence,' in which antibiotics
are supposed to play a part, is merely a figment of the imagination,
and an appeal to the melodramatic rather than the factual."
Selman Abraham Waksman was a Ukrainian-American biochemist and
microbiologist whose research into organic substances led to the
discovery of Streptomycin and several other antibiotics. His
four decades of work at Rutgers University as a biochemistry and
microbiology professor led to the discovery of several antibiotics
(a word which he coined) and procedures that have led to development
of many others. In 1952, Waksman was awarded the Nobel Prize
in Physiology or Medicine in recognition for his discovery of
"streptomycin," the first antibiotic active against tuberculosis.
In an April, 2001 article entitled "Scant Search for the Maker"
(published in the Times Higher Education Supplement), University of
Bristol bacteriologist Alan H. Linton wrote: "Throughout 150 years
of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species
of bacteria has changed into another … . Since there is no
evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular
life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution
from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole
array of higher multicellular organisms."
Even noted evolutionists are having qualms about the theory. For
instance, here are some more recent quotes from evolutionary biologists:
In 2004, University of Edinburgh biologists Martin Jones and Mark
Blaxter wrote, "Despite the comforting certainty of textbooks and 150
years of argument, the true relationships of the major groups (phyla)
of animals remain contentious."
In 2005, University of Wisconsin biologists Sean Carroll and Dirk
Krueger, along with Broad Institute research scientist Antonis Rokas,
wrote, "Different phylogenetic analyses can reach contradictory
inferences with absolute support."
Also in 2005, Dalhousie University biochemist W. Ford Doolittle
wrote, "We cannot infer a unique tree of organisms from the pattern of
relationships among genomes without making further assumptions about
evolutionary processes that are just that: still-unproven
assumptions. We have, for several decades, thought that our job
was to uncover the structure of a Tree of Life, whose reality we need
not question. But really, what we have been doing is testing
Darwin's hypothesis that a tree is the appropriate representation of
life's history, back to the beginning. Like any hypothesis, it
could be false."
Again in 2005, University of Illinois-Urbana microbiologist Carl R.
Woese wrote, "There never was a universal common ancestor. The
Doctrine of Common Descent has deceived us."
Writing in the August, 2005 edition of the Scientist, National Academy of
Sciences member Philip S. Skell writes: "I recently asked more than
seventy eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently
if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were
all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding discoveries
of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the
characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on
medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and
sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even
queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian
paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of
resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I
found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was
brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss."
Scientists working in academic and research fields alike are looking at
another theory, known as Intelligent Design, to explain the remarkable
diversity of life on planet Earth. The concept of Intelligent Design
is based on credible scientific evidence, and reputable scientists at major
universities believe that Intelligent Design is valid, or at least merits
further research and consideration.
The following websites provide important insights into how this scrutiny
is shaping the creation vs evolution debate and confirming the existence
of an Intelligent Designer/Creator.
ICR offers seminars, conferences, debates, various other speaking engagements, creation science workshops, radio/tv outreach, graduate school in the sciences, museum of creation and earth history, creation research,
guided tours to areas of geological interest, books, videos, publications, and free periodicals. www.ICR.org
Center for Science & Culture espouses the theory of intelligent design, which holds that certain features of the universe
and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. www.Discovery.org/csc/
Using the same scientific evidence as evolutionists, AiG attempts to show that all such facts don't speak for themselves; they must be interpreted.
The same facts when seen through a Biblical lens, not a secular one, will yield a different conclusion about origins. www.AnswersInGenesis.org
This Seattle, Washington-based organization includes a list
of more than 600 leading scientists who subscribe to this statement:
"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."
California-based public-service corporation whose primary objective has been to change the manner in which the public schools teach about evolutionary theories.
The purpose is to protect the faith of Christian children from illegal offense against their faith in the God of Creation. www.ParentCompany.com/CSRC/
Book by UC Berkeley Law School professor Phillip Johnson offers advice on avoiding common mistakes in discussions about evolution,
understanding the legacy of the Scopes trial, spotting deceptive arguments, and grasping the basic scientific issues. www.IVPress.com