Jump to content

20 reasons evolution is not science


Recommended Posts

20 reasons which show evolution is not science


Most of the quotes are taken from evolutionists own words found in there own books and articles.



1. Evolution has never been observed

Evolution has never been observed and leading evolutionists have even admitted evolution cannot be witnessed in the lifetime of an observer. The lack of a case for evolution is therefore most clearly recognized by the fact that no one has ever seen it happen.


Richard Dawkins: ‘‘Evolution... hasn't been observed while it's happening.’’


G. Ledyard Stebbins: ‘‘… the major steps of evolution have never been observed.’’


2. Evolution relies upon non-observable time periods

The theory of evolution relies upon vast periods of time, billions or millions of years. However these time periods are non-observable and non-repeatable, therefore falling outside of the scientific method.


Stephen Jay Gould: ‘‘… evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of human history.’’


3. Evolutionists do not know how to define a species

Evolutionists admit they don’t know how to define a species (this is the ‘‘Species Problem’’).


Charles Darwin: ‘‘... I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties.’’


Henry Nicholson: ‘‘No term is more difficult to define than ‘‘species’’, and on no point are zoologists more divided than as to what should be understood by this word.’’


4. Speciation has never been observed

Speciation has never actually been observed, but some evolutionists claim it has (despite the fact they can’t even define or identify what a species is) however many leading biologists and palaeontologists over the years have admitted speciation has never been witnessed.


T. H Morgan: ‘‘Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another.’’


Dr. Colin Patterson: ‘‘No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it...’’


5. Evolutionists do not know what started evolution

Evolutionists admit they don’t know what started evolution. The mechanism or driving force for evolution has even puzzled the staunchest of evolutionists.


G. G Simpson: ‘‘Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned.’’


6. No fossil evidence for evolution exists

No fossils have yet shown a transitional structure.


Charles Darwin: ‘‘Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed.’’


Stephen Jay Gould: ‘‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontologists.’’


Stephen Jay Gould: ‘‘All palaeontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record’’


David B. Kitts: ‘‘Despite the promise that palaeontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists...’’


Steven M Stanley: ‘‘The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition…’’


Carroll Robert: ‘‘What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin…’’


7. Evolution fails to meet the requirements for the scientific method

Evolution is non-observable and non-repeatable, so it cannot be put to the scientific method.


Theodosius Dobzhansky: ‘‘These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible... the applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter.’’


Henry M. Morris: ‘‘Science requires experiments that can be replicated. Evolution cannot be replicated, so it is not science’’


8. Evolutionists don’t know the origin of species

Evolutionists don’t know the origin of species. Despite Darwin’s title to his 1859 book Origin of Species he did not know of one instance of a species changing into another or where species originated.


Gordon R. Taylor: ‘‘You may be surprised to hear that the origin of species remains just as much a mystery today, despite the efforts of thousands of biologists.’’


Ernst Mayr: ‘‘…Darwin failed to solve the problem indicated in the title of his work.’’


9. The theory of evolution does not even qualify as science

Science is defined as: ‘‘The systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms’’


Or more simply:


‘‘Knowledge attained through study or practice’’


Evolution however is not observable and cannot be experimented or replicated.


Theodosius Dobzhansky: ‘‘These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible... the applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter.’’

Dr. Colin Patterson: [describing evolution] ‘‘…unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England…unique events are, by definition, not a part of science, for they are unrepeatable and not subject to test’’


Paul Ehrlich: ‘‘No one can think of ways in which to test it.’’


Henry M. Morris: ‘‘Evolution has not been and cannot be, proved. We cannot even see evolution…much less test it experimentally.’’


10. Evolution is based on assumptions, guesses and inferences not facts

Since there is no actual concrete evidence for evolution, evolutionists have to start with assuming, guessing, speculating and inferring.


George P. Conger: ‘‘Evolution is in the last analysis not a matter of evidence, but a matter of inference.’’


Austin Clark: [commentating on the evolutionist view of common ancestry] ‘‘It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived…There is not the slightest basis for this assumption’’


L. Harrison Matthews: [writing on Whales] ‘‘...we can only guess at their evolutionary history by inference.’’


11. Evolution is a mathematical impossibility

The theory of evolution is based on mutation over very long periods of time. Maths however in terms of probability speaks strongly against evolution. For example, Julian Huxley a leading evolutionist of the mid-twentieth century calculated that to create a single horse by evolution it would require 103000 mutations. However not only are mutations incredibly rare, in no way do they actually lend support for evolution (see 12 below).


12. Mutations do not cause evolution


Mutations in nearly all instances cause a loss of information, not a net gain - as the theory of evolution requires. So in no way do mutations cause evolution.


Pierre Paul Grasse: ‘‘No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.’’


Richard Goldschmidt: ‘‘It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation [a combination of many mutations]; it is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutation [one or only a few mutations].’’


13. No Evidence for common descent from similarities


The existence of similarities in different organisms is not evidence for common descent.

Sir Gavin de Beer: ‘‘It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced.’’


14. Vestigial Organs do not prove evolution

In no way do vestigial organs give credit to the theory of evolution, this is mainly due to the fact in recent years many have been found to actually have functions.

S. R. Scadding: ‘‘An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures… leads to the conclusion that vestigial organs provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.’’


Henry M. Morris: ‘‘Practically all vestigial organs in man have been shown to have definite uses and not to be vestigial at all.’’


15. Evolutionists can only interpret fossils

Fossils evolutionists attempt to use to support their theory can only be interpreted. Most evolutionists overlook this simple fact and believe fossils are direct evidence for evolution but mere interpretation is not evidence. Over the years some top zoologists have come to recognise this fact.


Professor Mark Ridley: ‘‘In any case, no real evolutionist... uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation...’’


Ronald R. West: “Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record.’’


R. W Merrit: ‘‘Interpretations of the fossil record must be made with great caution…With so few insect fossils available and fossils absent from critical geologic periods, it is difficult to base evolutionary trends in any of the insect orders solely on the fossil record.’’


16. Evolutionists create frauds because they have no evidence

The theory of evolution is filled with fraud, for example Piltdown man and Haeckel’s faked embryological drawings. Frauds are only made when no evidence for a theory is presentable.


Russell Grigg: [On Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings] ‘‘A few years later his drawings were shown to have been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was the artist.’’


Harold G. Coffin: [Writing about Piltdown Man] ‘‘Careful examination of the bone pieces revealed the startling information that the whole thing was a fabrication, a hoax perpetrated by Dawson, probably, to achieve recognition.’’


17. Many missing links

Many missing links exist within the evolution theory, especially in relation to the fossil record. Since Darwin’s day, evolutionists have still not been able to find them.


Richard E. Leakey: ‘‘Unfortunately no fossils have yet been found of animals ancestral to the bats.’’


Martin R. D: ‘‘There are no fossils available as plausible ancestors of the primates, leaving the primate tree without a trunk.’’


A. S Romer: ‘‘The origin of rodents is obscure...no transitional forms are known.’’


Robert L. Carroll: ‘‘The transition between pelycosaurs and therapsids has not been documented.’’


Robert L. Carroll: ‘‘We have no intermediate fossils between rhipidistian fish and early amphibians.’’


Alfred Sherwood Romer: ‘‘The common ancestor of the bony-fish groups is unknown.’’


18. Gaps in the fossil record

There are numerous gaps in the fossil record which pose numerous problems for the theory of evolution, even Darwin stumbled across them.


Charles Darwin: ‘‘If species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? ...Why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?’’


Ernst Mayr: ‘‘Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the palaeontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.’’


Professor Eldredge: ‘‘… the fossil record is so deficient, so full of gaps, that the predicted patterns of gradual change simply do not emerge…’’


Jeffrey H. Schwartz: ‘‘…most palaeontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species.’’


George T. Neville: ‘‘The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.’’


19. Evolutionist reconstructions are dishonest

Since evolutionists have no real evidence for evolution, they have to resort to creating hypothetical reconstructions to infer common ancestry.


Barbara J. Stahl: ‘‘Because of the nature of the fossil evidence, palaeontologists have been forced to reconstruct the first two-thirds of mammalian history in great part on the basis of tooth morphology.’’


Earnst A. Hooton: ‘‘To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip, leave no clues on the underlying bony parts…These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public.... So put not your trust in reconstructions.’’


W. Howells: ‘‘A great legend has grown up to plague both palaeontologists and anthropologists. It is that one of; men can take a tooth or a small and broken piece of bone, gaze at it, and pass his hand over his forehead once or twice, and then take a sheet of paper and draw a picture of what the whole animal looked like as it tramped the Tertiary terrain. If this were quite true, the anthropologists would make the F.B.I. look like a troop of Boy Scouts.’’


20. Evolution is pure faith

Evolution cannot be observed or experimented; it is therefore not scientific but based on pure faith or imagination. Many notable academics have noted upon this.


Karl Popper: ‘‘Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.’’


Michael Denton [On the theory of evolution] ‘‘…as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more ‘aggressive advocates’ would have us believe.’’


Dr. Fleishmann: ‘‘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.’’


L. Harrison Matthews: ‘‘The theory of evolution forms… a faith on which to base our interpretation of nature.’’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

greenyhead we have little patience for unscientific trolls around here, although we have in the past exercised a tolerance for entertaining, unscientific trolls.


Please try to be more entertaining.


Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What branch of science satisfies all of these criteria?


Chemistry is not a science because we've never directly observed parts of one atom interacting with parts of another.

Sure, you put baking soda and vinegar together and you get school project lava, but there's no evidence that the baking soda and vinegar turned into lava because we can't see into atoms as they interact.



What is the next step? Prove that science is not science?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

greenyhead we have little patience for unscientific trolls around here, although we have in the past exercised a tolerance for entertaining, unscientific trolls.


Please try to be more entertaining.


Thank you.


I have a worrying feeling that, if he were to try to be more entertaining he would be more trying and no more entertaining

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.