What evolution scientist have said - Reader comments at The New York Sun

Recent Blog Posts

Reader comment on:
Evolution's Trap
in response to reader comment: consider the source

Submitted by Donald Dunnam, May 25, 2007 14:13

Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University:

‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic'

Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.

‘Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence.' The author goes on to say: ‘David Pilbeam [a well-known expert in human evolution] comments wryly, "If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, ‘forget it: there isn't enough to go on'."

(Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Michael Joseph Limited, London, 1981, p. 43)

As the non-creationist information theorist Hubert Yockey observed over 20 years ago (and he has not revised his opinion since):

‘Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened.

One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.'

Yockey, H.P., A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67:377–398, 1977; quotes from pp. 379, 396.

‘The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers … [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn't happen by chance.'

Hubert Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 257.

Sir Arthur Keith was a British anthropologist, an atheistic evolutionist and an anti-Nazi, but he drew this chilling conclusion:

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.'

Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.

Other reader comments on this article

Comment	By	Date
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble... [MORE]	James Collins	Jun 1, 2007 11:01
At the end I would change "opposition to conservative Christian beliefs" to "opposition to religious beliefs". Christians do not have a monopoly... [MORE]	D Hollander	May 27, 2007 21:49
They believe, to generalize broadly, that evolution is just one of the ways that a deity or deities works in... [MORE]	MPW	May 28, 2007 13:02
One does not "believe" in evolution anymore than one believes in gravity. Gravity exists, and exerts its influence throughout the... [MORE]	MacTurk	May 25, 2007 13:01
MacTurk comments that "One does not believe in evolution any more than one believes in gravity. Gravity exists ... "... [MORE]	Steve Bartholomew	May 27, 2007 22:00
Regarding those writers who believe that evolution is an absolute fact have yet to show me the creatures or whatever... [MORE]	E. Koos	May 25, 2007 04:51
Dear Sir, This was a deliberate, scripted, planned in advance question designed to embarass the candidates. It was posed by a... [MORE]	Roy Lofquist	May 25, 2007 01:41
It'shard to believe that anyone claiming to be aware of the science in biology would at this date still be... [MORE]	Harry Eagar	May 24, 2007 23:37
There have been 22 species of human alone. Perhaps if we weren't in the unusual point of our evolutionary history... [MORE]	Scott Baker	May 24, 2007 16:49
When a politician is asked about evolution the question could be rephrased: "Does religion trump science in the arena of... [MORE]	Del Dodge	May 24, 2007 14:52
Its even easier to just say yes, and that evolution is just one of many laws (gravity, electromagnetism) and processes... [MORE]	Charles Miller	May 24, 2007 14:15
Mr. Blackwell is wrong on everything. First, there is no difference between macro and micro evolution. One is just a... [MORE]	Scott Baker	May 24, 2007 11:02
We can't DO evolution. We can DO hybridization (aritifical selection). We can breed animals to our hearts content, and my... [MORE]	Pepper	May 24, 2007 13:24
Scott Baker made a misstep when he talks about intermediate forms in nature. It is true there exist fish and... [MORE]	Paul Hamilton	May 24, 2007 13:50
If one is longer and more complicated then that is in fact a difference. A fish eye is a fish... [MORE]	Wallyhuck	May 24, 2007 14:31
Mr. Baker, you seem to be needlessly blind on just about every subject Mr. Blackwell mentions. 1. Microevolution and macroevolution, as... [MORE]	Mark Romer	May 24, 2007 18:31
No intermediate forms? Then why do horses have "chestnuts"? Why do whales have vestigial pelvises? Could a flying squirrel be... [MORE]	Thomas Collet	May 25, 2007 14:28
Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. Blackwell should really learn some real science, and not the religion infused garbage he's been reading. The... [MORE]	Grant Canyon	May 24, 2007 09:55
As the previous two comments demonstrate, "evolution" is an emotionally freighted term that is broadly defined. It seems to be... [MORE]	Charles Putnam	May 24, 2007 14:02
There is a myth propagated by opponents of Darwinian evolution that many credentialed scientists question evolution's veracity. The only serious... [MORE]	Thomas Collet	May 24, 2007 17:59
There are a plethora of scientists that will say evolution does not have a leg to stand on. Many of... [MORE]	Chris Leach	May 25, 2007 07:52
Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University: ‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an...	Donald Dunnam	May 25, 2007 14:13
If any scientist can disprove evolution he needs to get his paper typed up and off to the Nobel commitee... [MORE]	Thomas Collet	May 25, 2007 17:33
You start out by claiming there are a bunch of atheist scientists who have come out against evolutionary theory. One... [MORE]	MPW	May 28, 2007 14:07

Reader comment on:Evolution's Trapin response to reader comment: consider the source

Other reader comments on this article

Comment on Evolution's Trap

Reader comment on:
Evolution's Trap
in response to reader comment: consider the source