DARWINISM – DISCREDITED BY REAL SCIENTISTS
PART 1 of 2

 

 

 

Phyllis Spivey
January 27, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

"All major scientists support evolution." This is the Darwinist’s response of choice to anyone who dares question the notion that matter, time, and chance – not God – have brought all things into existence. Darwinists assert there is neither scientific support nor intellectual basis for the Biblical account of creation.

That Darwin diehards continue to promulgate this deception characterizes the dishonesty of their entire debate. Scott M. Huse exposes this and other evolutionary fallacies in his fine book, The Collapse of Evolution, in which he presents scientific evidence for biblical creationism and shows why the theory of evolution and the scriptures are irreconcilable. Written in plain language, documented with 39 pages of endnotes, appendices, and bibliography, the book is an invaluable resource for anyone seeking the truth – including Christians.

Too many Christians, when confronted with the argument that real scientists support Darwin’s conclusions, throw in the towel for lack of knowledge. Huse’s list of pioneering, Bible-believing scientists comes to their aid. It’s comprehensive, historically reliable, and demands wide distribution.

Joseph Lister, Antiseptic Surgery
Louis Pasteur, Bacteriology
Sir Isaac Newton, Dynamics (discovered the laws of gravity, mathematics, co-discovered calculus)
Johann Kepler, Celestial Mechanics, Physical Astronomy
Robert Boyle, Chemistry
Georges Cuvier, Comparative Anatomy, Vertebrate Palentology
Charles Babbage, Computer Science
James Clerk Maxwell, Electrodynamics, Statistical Thermodynamics
Michael Faraday, Electromagnetics, Field Theory
Ambrose Fleming, Electronics
Lord William Kelvin, Energetics, Thermodynamics
Henri Fabre, Entomology
George Stokes, Fluid Mechanics
William Herschel, Galactic Astronomy
Robert Boyle, Gas Dynamics
Gregor Mendel, Genetics
Louis Agassiz, Glacial Geology, Ichthyology
James Simpson, Gynecology
Leonardo da Vinci, Hydraulics
Blaise Pascal, Hydrostatics
William Ramsay, Isotopic Chemistry
Matthew Maury, Oceanography
David Brewster, Optical Mineralogy
John Woodward, Paleontology
Rudolph Virchow, Pathology
James Joule, Reversible Thermodynamics
Sir Francis Bacon, Scientific Method
Nicholas Steno, Stratigraphy
Carolus Linnaeus, Systematic Biology
Humphrey Davy, Thermokinetics

These masters are not scientists Darwinists can dismiss. Many were contemporaries of Charles Darwin, their contributions made during Darwin’s lifetime or later. As for modern scientists, Huse points out that today there are literally thousands of highly reputable scientists representing every scientific discipline who completely dismiss the concept of organic evolution in favor of biblical creationism.

Listing 100 creation-science organizations operating worldwide, 71 of which are in the United States, Huse provides impressive examples of scientists who have outspokenly rejected evolution, including John Grebe, director of basic and nuclear research for Dow Chemical Company, who offered $1,000 to anyone who could produce just one clear proof of evolution. Holder of over 100 patents, Dr. Grebe developed Styrofoam, synthetic rubber, and Saran Wrap.

Sir Ernest Chain, co-holder of the 1945 Nobel Prize for developing penicillin, stated bluntly:

"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."

P. Lemoine, president of the Geological Society of France, editor of the Encyclopedie Francaise, and director of the Natural History Museum in Paris concluded:

"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate....It results from the summary, that the theory of evolution, is impossible."

Darwinists must be especially discomfited with the views expressed by Dr. Wernher von Braun, father of America’s space program, in a September 14, 1972 letter to the California State Board of Education, part of which is printed here.

"In response to your inquiry about my personal views concerning the ‘Case for DESIGN’ as a viable scientific theory for the origin of the universe, life and man, I am pleased to make the following observations.

For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world around us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design. We can see the will of the species to live and propagate. And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.

. . . . Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they cannot visualize a Designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airlines through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him? I am afraid that, although they really do not understand the electron either, they are ready to accept it because they managed to produce a rather clumsy mechanical model of it borrowed from rather limited experience in other fields, but they would not know how to begin building a model of God......."

Decades later, with technological advances creating ever more dilemmas for Darwinists, they perch precariously on their evolutionary "chair," as described by Scott Huse.

"As I was sitting in my chair, I knew it had no bottom there, No legs, or back, but I just sat, Ignoring little things like that."

Click Below for part two. The world’s great scientists and their views on evolution.

Click here for part -----> 2

© 2006 Phyllis Spivey - All Rights Reserved