RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (638) < ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... >   
  Topic: The Bathroom Wall, A PT tradition< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Casey Powell

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,07:58   

And besides...I have more "actual" concrete evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ than you could ever imagine for the existence of Charles Darwin period.

Jesus Freak

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,07:58   

What you don't understand is this is not a petition.  This is an assertion putting to rest the idea that Darwinism is not a religion.  Cheers my friends...good luck tackling that question "scientifically."  Ad hominems typically are not effective.  And your postmodern viewpoints are self refuting.  So I'm not impressed with your claims.

Dr. Morgan Greenwood

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,07:58   

Hey guys, I think this Casey guy has a point.  I am an actual eye doctor and I support Intelligent Design.  As a matter of fact, I travel from conference to conference all around the world and you would be very fascinated with the increase of Intelligent Design that is growing outside of the country.  The United States is generally looked down upon because of their Evolutionary views.  According to a doctor that I met in Sweden, the Evolutionary theory has been outgrown in most parts of Europe.  This is also the case in China and Australia.  These countries typically look down upon Evolutionists, as they see most of them being Biologists unwilling to conform with actual Scientific standards that Intelligent Designers have been informed about.  As a matter of fact, Dr. Simon Smith, an Anthropologist from the Czech Republic made a general comment about this site.  Apparently, this site is not gaining very good publicity across the rest of the world.  As such, I being an eye doctor must disagree with Evolution.  There is simply no evidence from my experiences to accept Evolution, and thus I deny it being a plausible theorum.  Casey, keep up the good work.

Inga Briskanske

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,07:58   

Right on Dr. Greenwood.  I think most Americans are very much uninterested in understanding the Intelligent Design Theorum simply because they are unwilling to conform with actual measurements of Science.  The Wells breakdown on the Evolutionary background actually does much to show why Evolution is no longer needed and simply can not be supported by viable Evidence.  We, in the Russian community, are as well not impressed with the Dover Pennsylvania case.  I have a PHD in Cellular and Molecular Biology and I agree with you and Casey both.  Intelligent Design may not be a mainstay within America as of yet, though we do see it growing amongst certain states, which is a positive sign.  Evolutionary positions have been refuted through empirically tested evidence and have been rejected even in Russia as well.  We still have a few Biologists unwilling to conform, but it is primarily the American population that supports the, as we call it in Russia, "Hypothesis" of Evolution.   Darwin's point of view was great 150 years ago, but its support has diminished to absolutely nothing in almost every part of the world with the exception of the United States.  I am all supportive of a change within the Biology community.  Peace be with you all.  

CHEERS,
Inga Briskanske
PHD
Department of Biology, GSD

dre

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,07:58   

man, the parodies have become so lifelike i can hardly tell them from the genuine article. i'm confused. it's been fun, but i should go...

Where is the PETA website?

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,07:58   

<quote>I’m simply pointing out a very simplistic problem with stating that Evolution is anything less than a cult. It is based around faith believe it or not! What if Charles Darwin went insane while he was at the Galapogos Islands? I have friends who went there and never saw the finches……were they really there? Were they a mirage? You will never know this. As such….you’re so called wonderful scientific “theory” is useless.</quote>

Unfortunately your solipsist silliness leaves you without any knowledge of god either. Stifle your sobbing, it will be alright.

At any rate, I can see my farsicle comments about this dolphin petition has attracted all other kinds of other silliness too.  For that I apologize.  

All I really wantted to ask was what does a dolphin petition have to do with evolution or ID nonsense?  There are pleanty of sites to save animals and people and trees, and the climate....I just had hoped this wouldn't be one of them.

Inoculated Mind

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,07:58   

Casey Powell said: "And your postmodern viewpoints are self refuting."

Sounds like someone's been listening to Nancy Pearcey a little too much. If you mean that if intelligence and the capacity to hold ideas evolved, then who's to say that anything you think could possibly be true, rather than just the result of selection..?

Think long and hard about this: What possible advantage could it give an animal to believe that an orange is tasty and nutritious, and that a cliff is dangerous?

Wait... because it is in an animal's BEST INTEREST TO HAVE ITS IDEAS REFLECT REALITY because they interact with reality oni a daily basis. Science is a way of checking your ideas against reality, something you should do more often.

What's your fantastic evidence for jesus's resurrection over darwin's existence? We have documents upon documents written by him, log books with his name in them, paintings, possessions... and none of the same about your religious icon. To answer your question, the experts say you're an idiot.

Darwinian Faith!

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,07:59   

I'm simply pointing out a very simplistic problem with stating that Evolution is anything less than a cult.  It is based around faith believe it or not!  What if Charles Darwin went insane while he was at the Galapogos Islands?  I have friends who went there and never saw the finches......were they really there?  Were they a mirage?  You will never know this.  As such....you're so called wonderful scientific "theory" is useless.

Honest Question

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,09:12   

Sir, a Christian Scientist one time told me that they were not a cult and their beliefs were not a cultish issue.  Was I ever surprised to find that they were.  Why can we not say the same for Evolution?  What beliefs make Evolution not a cult?  Why believe in Evolution?  What does Evolution have to offer me?  Does believing in Evolution help me in getting to heaven?  What would Charles Darwin do?  What do eyewitness accounts say about Charles Darwin?  Do we have any outside proof of his existence?  Where can I find a local church in regards to the belief of Evolution?  Why do people still worship Charles Darwin's teachings today?  Thanks for your time and have a great day.  

Honest questions about Charles Darwin:

Sir,
I have a question.  Was Darwin a liar, a lunatic or a loser?  Was he an idiot?  
Question no. 2  Did Darwin go crazy at the Galapogos Islands?  Was he hallucinating?  What do the experts say?
Question no. 3  Are there any eyewitness accounts of Darwin?  What do the eyewitness accounts of Darwin at the Galapogos say?  Can we prove through Science that Charles Darwin ever existed?

Thanks for your time sir.  Have a good day.

A few more honest questions

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,09:12   

Why are we trying to save the whales?  Who's trying to kill them?  Did Charles Darwin have any Disciples?  How about any outside references outside his book?  Thanks for your responses.

heddle

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,09:16   

Buddha, congratulations.  You win PT's coveted "I can descend into irrelevancy faster than a New York taxi driver blows his horn at a changing traffic light" award. In a rare PT post that actually deals with science rather than politics, on just the second comment posted, you initiated the degradation. Nicely done! Although there is some room for improvement.

John West

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,09:16   

This is a message concerning the Kansas State Board of Educators.....I must first inform all of you of the misconception of the statement that I had made in previous statements.  I consider what I say a blasphemy to the Scientific community.  As such, I issue a formal apology to the opponents of Evolution.  I will further make the claim that I back the Kansas decision to include Intelligent Design into the Scientific Curriculum of our schooling systems.  Based on the growth of Intelligent Design outside of the United States, I think its publicity needs to be seen for what it truly entails.  Biologists alike generally assume the position of those against Intelligent Design.  However, while the Dover case did not go the way as would perceivably be intended, it certainly is no reflection on the Kansas School Board's decision and I'm sure in the future many other school systems across the United States.  Again, this is a public apology regarding the issue.

Mr. John West
KBSOE

K.E.

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,09:16   

Heddle to the metal banged on about:<i>B... on just the second comment posted, (must have been WWJD)</i>

or the eighteenth comment...eh?

....is that 9 times more irrelevant?

Just how many light years is the old "Son of Mary" beyond Titan now Heddle, presuming of course WWJD could not travel faster than light...you're the physicist.

And here's my take on WWJD ...if he wanted to explore Titan....collect taxes in the US and send a rocket.

Your worst nightmare

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,09:16   

Sir, a Christian Scientist one time told me that they were not a cult and their beliefs were not a cultish issue.  Was I ever surprised to find that they were.  Why can we not say the same for Evolution?  What beliefs make Evolution not a cult?  Why believe in Evolution?  What does Evolution have to offer me?  Does believing in Evolution help me in getting to heaven?  What would Charles Darwin do?  What do eyewitness accounts say about Charles Darwin?  Do we have any outside proof of his existence?  Where can I find a local church in regards to the belief of Evolution?  Why do people still worship Charles Darwin's teachings today?  Thanks for your time and have a great day.  

Honest questions about Charles Darwin:

Sir,
I have a question.  Was Darwin a liar, a lunatic or a loser?  Was he an idiot?  
Question no. 2  Did Darwin go crazy at the Galapogos Islands?  Was he hallucinating?  What do the experts say?
Question no. 3  Are there any eyewitness accounts of Darwin?  What do the eyewitness accounts of Darwin at the Galapogos say?  Can we prove through Science that Charles Darwin ever existed?

Thanks for your time sir.  Have a good day.

Casey Powell

The real demise of Evolution

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,09:16   

The more and more I see on this site, the more and more I see a resemblance of the mapmakers argument that the world was flat some 500 years ago.  Evolution's doom is indeed imminent....

I want to show you one of the Evolutionistic arguments that has become popularized and fooled many on the web (including a gentleman with a PHD in Cellular Biology named John Timmer who I just recently won a debate against online).  This is basically the claim.  What we see here is a gentleman by the name of Glenn Morton.  His background is very speculative, one of uniformitarian turned Evolutionist, though for the most part, Dr. Morton is revered among the Darwinistic community as a Christian turned Evolutionist:  

 The Imminent Demise of Evolution:
The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism

Copyright 2002  G.R. Morton. This can be freely distributed so long as no changes are made and no charges are made.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

Free Hit Counter Visitors to these pages since 12-29-97
In recent reading of Dembski and other ID proponents I saw them make a claim which has been made for over 40 years.  This claim is one that the young-earthers have been making.  The claim is  that the theory of evolution (or major supporting concepts for it)  is increasingly being abandoned by scientists, or is about to fall.  This claim has many forms and has been made for over 178 years.  This is a compilation of the claims over time. The purpose of this compilation is two-fold. First, it is to show that the claim has been made for a long, long time. Secondly, it is to show that entire careers have passed without seeing any of this movement away from evolution.  Third, it is to show that the creationists are merely making these statements for the purpose of keeping hope alive that they are making progress towards their goal.  In point of fact, no such progress is being made as anyone who has watched this area  for the last 40 years can testify. The claim is false as history and present-day events show, yet that doesn't stop anyone wanting to sell books from making that claim.  Now for the claims in chronological order.
1825
"...Physical philosophy, for a long time past, had taken upon itself to deny the truth of the Mosaical statements, and often with much sarcasm, because it assigned a date of not more than about four thousand years ago, for the period of a Revolution which was able to cause marine substances to be imbedded in all parts of this inhabited earth; even in places the most remote from the sea, and in elevations very considerably above its present level. But, the progress of physical research during the last few years, conducted by naturalists of acute and honest minds, has at last terminated in so signal a concession to the testimony of the Mosaical record in this particular; that, added to the authority of Bacon's and Newton's philosophy, it renders that testimony paramount, as the rule by which all inquiries concerning revolutions general to the globe ought henceforth to be conducted. For, the mineral geology has been brought at length, by physical phenomena alone, to these conclusions; 'That the soils of all the plains were deposited in the bosom of a tranquil water; that their actual order is only to be dated from the period of the retreat of that water; that the date of that period is not very ancient; and, that it cannot be carried back above five or six thousand years.'" Granville Penn, Mineral and Mosaic Geologies, Vol. 2, (London: James Duncan, 1825), p. 6
1840
Speaking of the diluvial theories of Granville Penn and the imminent demise of the old earth viewpoint:  
"Till within a few years, these two [Neptunism and Huttonism] have been the prevailing system; but another has lately appeared which seems likely, I think, to supercede them: it is called by Mr. Granville Penn, who is its great champion, the MOSAIC GEOLOGY, because it is chiefly derived from the Mosaic History of the Creation and the Deluge." Granville Penn, Conversations on Geology, (London: J. W. Southgate and Son, 1840), p. 38
For those who don't know, Hutton was the predecessor of Charles Lyell and believed in an old earth without a global flood.
Of the concordance of history and the Biblical account:
"As time rolls on, new accessions of proof are unfolded; these will accumulate age by age continually, as Providence lifts the veil, until in the fulness of time, they shall merge into one mighty and irresistible blaze of truth, which will consume all the cobwebs of sophistry, and forever confound the infidel." John Murray, Truth of Revelation, (London: William Smith, 1840), p. xv, xvi
1850
Of the disappearance of old earth geology and evolution [physical development]:
"Perhaps the author of the 'Rambles' could favour us with the induction process that converted himself; and, as the attainment of truth, and not victory, is my object, I promise either to acquiesce in or rationally refute it. Till then I hold by my antiquated tenets, that our world, nay, the whole material universe, was created about six or seven thousand years ago, and that  in a state of physical excellence of which we have in our present fallen world only the 'vestiges of creation.' I conclude by mentioning that this view I have held now for nearly thirty years, and, amidst all the vicissitudes of the philosophical world during that period, I have never seen cause to change it. Of course, with this view I was, during the interval referred to, a constant opponent of the once famous, though now exploded, nebular hypothesis of La Place; and I yet expect to see physical development and long chronology wither also on this earth, now that THEIR ROOT (the said hypothesis) has been eradicated from the sky.[!!!]--I am, Sir, your most obedient servant, "Philalethes."  Scottish Press, cited by Hugh Miller, Footsteps of the Creator, originally published in 1850. (Edinburgh: William Nimmo, 1869), p. 257
1871
“Long ago, when all astronomers as well as modern geologists, were against me in the then amalgamated nebular and geological hypotheses, I ventured to prophesy, and that on the principles of our starting postulates, that both these hypotheses, being spurious, were destined to succumb under the advancing light of science properly so called. One of these, and that by far the more plausible, has since become extinct. And now again I venture, (but indeed there is no venture in the case,) to repeat the same prophecy regarding the survivor, that the time is on the wing, whether we require to wait for it short or long, when it will follow its better-half to the lower regions.” Patrick M’Farlane, Esq., L.M.V.I., Antidote Against the Unscriptural and Unscientific Tendency of Modern Geology; with Remarks on Several Cognate Subjects, (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1871), p. 89
1878
"There are some signs of this whimsical theory of Evolution soon taking another phase. Carl Vogt has given hints that perhaps they have, after all, made a mistake as to the line of descent. It may be found, he conjectures, that Man is not descended from the Ape family but from the Dog!
   "Other theories may soon be heard of--for the human mind is restless under the burthen of mystery." Thomas Cooper, Evolution, The Stone Book and The Mosaic Record of Creation, (London: Hodder and Stoughton), p. 186-187
1894
"It is true that a tide of criticism hostile to the integrity of Genesis has been rising for some years; but it seems to beat vainly against a solid rock, and the ebb has now evidently set in. The battle of historical and linguistic criticism may indeed rage for a time over the history and date of the Mosaic law, but in so far as Genesis is concerned it has been practically decided by scientific exploration." ~ J. William Dawson, The Meeting Place of History and Geology, (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1894), p. 206

1895
"In conclusion, we venture to say that we expect one good result from the publication of Professor Prestwich's treatise, and that is that the flippant style of speaking of the Deluge, said to have  been adopted in recent times by some who might, one would suppose, have known better, will henceforth be dropped;..." F. R. Wegg-Prosser, "Art. VIII.---Scientific Evidence of the Deluge," Dublin Review, p. 415
1903

"It must be stated that the supremacy of this philosophy has not been such as was predicted by its
defenders at the outset.  A mere glance at the history of the theory during the four decades that it has been before the public shows that the beginning of the end is at hand."
   "Such utterances are now very common in the periodicals of Germany, it is said.  It seems plain the reaction has commenced and that the pendulum that has swung so strongly in the direction of Evolution, is now oscillating the other way.  It required twenty years for Evolution to reach us from abroad.  Is it necesary for us to wait twenty years more to reverse our opinions?" Prof. Zockler, The Other Side of Evolution,  1903, p. 31-32 cited in Ronald L. Numbers, Creationism In Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of  Documents, 1903-1961 (New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1995) Source: Talk Origins message  MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com ...

1904
   "Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science.  It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past.  A few decades hence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of Descent, they will confess that the years between 1860 and 1880 were in many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the excitement attending some mad revel." Eberhard Dennert,  At the Deathbed of Darwinism, 1904, cited by Ronald L. Numbers, Creationism In Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of  Documents, 1903-1961 (New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1995) Source: Talk Origins message  MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com ...
1905  
Book title:
Collapse of Evolution, by Luther Tracy Townsend -- Source: Talk Origins message  MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com ... Presages Scott Huse's book by the same title in 1983
1912
Of his theory of the flood, which he thought was being accepted, Isaac Vail wrote:
" It was this independent research in a very wide field of thought that led me to enlarge the pamphlet of 1874 to a book of 400 pages in 1885; and again it was revised and enlarged in 1902; and I have been greatly encouraged by the fact that this last edition is now used in some of the colleges, and in at least two universities as an educator. "
   "When the first volume was published in 1874 it was a rare thing to meet with a scientist who would admit that the earth had a ring system; to-day it is as rare to meet with one who does not concede the great fact, and the great problem is resolving itself into this form: How did the earth's rings fall back to the surface of the planet?" ~ Isaac Newton Vail, The Earth's Annular System, 4th ed. (Pasadena: The Annular World Co., 1912), p. v
Book title
"The Passing of Evolution", by George Frederick Wright.  Volume VII of the Fundamentals (1910-1915) . Source: Talk Origins message  MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com ...
1922
"The science of twenty or thirty years ago was in high glee at the thought of having almost proved the theory of biological evolution. Today, for every careful, candid inquirer, these hopes are crushed; and with weary, reluctant sadness does modern biology now confess that the Church has probably been right all the time" - George McCready Price, quoted in J. E. Conant’s The Church The Schools And Evolution (1922), p.18 Taken from Troy Britain's reply at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html  
The American Association for the Advancement of Science felt forced to formally deny such a claim . They issued a  report which says:
Since it has been asserted that there is not a fact in the universe in support of this theory, that it is a "mere guess" which leading scientists are now abandoning, and that even the American Association for the Advancement of Science at its last meeting in Toronto, Canada, approved this revolt against evolution, and
Inasmuch as such statements have been given wide publicity through the press and are misleading public opinion on this subject, therefore,
The Council of the American Association for the Advancement of Science has thought it advisable to take formal steps upon this matter, in order that there may be no ground for misunderstanding of the attitude of this Association, which is one of the largest scientific bodies in the world, with a membership of more than 11,000 persons, including the American authorities in all branches of science. The following statements represent the position of the Council with regard to the theory of evolution.
The Council of the Association affirms that, so far as the scientific evidences of evolution of plants and animals and man are concerned, there is no ground whatever for the assertion that these evidences constitute a "mere guess." No scientific generalization is more strongly supported by thoroughly tested evidences than is that of organic evolution." http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=156
1924
"…I am convinced that science is making substantial progress. Darwinism has been definitely outgrown. As a doctrine it is merely of historical interest. True, the current teaching of geology still occupy the center of the stage, and the real modern discoveries which completely discredit these teachings are only beginning to get a hearing. The New Catastrophism is the theory of tomorrow in the science of geology; and under the teaching of this new view of geology the whole theory of evolution will take its place with the many ‘perishing dreams and the wrecks of forgotten deliriums’. And at that time the entire teaching of science along these lines will be found to be in complete harmony with the opening chapters of the Ancient Hebrew Scriptures. ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." - George McCready Price, quoted in Alexander Hardie’s Evolution: Is It Philosophical, Scientific Or Scriptural? (1924), pp.125-126   Taken from Troy Britain's reply at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html  
1929
"The world has had enough of evolution … In the future, evolution will be remembered only as the crowning deception which the arch-enemy of human souls foisted upon the race in his attempt to lead man away from the Savior. The Science of the future will be creationism. As the ages roll by, the mysteries of creation week will be cleared up, and as we have learned to read the secrets of creative power in the lives of animals and plants about us, we shall understand much that our dim senses cannot now fathom. If we hope to continue scientific study in the laboratories and fields of the earth restored, we must begin to get the lessons of truth now. The time is ripe for a rebellion against the dominion of evolution, and for a return to the fundamentals of true science," Back To Creationism. - Harold W. Clark (1929) Back To Creationism, p. 139 Taken from Troy Britain's reply at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html  
1935
"The chain of evidence that purports to support the theory of evolution is a chain indeed, but its links are formed of sand and mist. Analyze the evidence and it melts away; turn the light of true investigation upon its demonstrations and they fade like fog before the freshening breeze. The theory stands today positively disproved, and we will venture the prophecy that in another two decades, when younger men, free from the blind prejudices of a passing generation are allowed to investigate the new evidence, examine the facts, and form their own conclusions, the theory will take its place in the limbo of disproved tidings. In that day the world of science will be forced to come back to the unshakable foundation of fact that is the basis of the true philosophy of the origin of life." Harry Rimmer, The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1935), p. 113-114

( I would like to thank J. Barber for pointing this out to me. He had previously quoted it at:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_equus.html The above comes from my copy of the book.
1940
"The Bible is the one foundation on which all true science must finally rest: because it is the one book of ultimate origins. Science established on this  foundation will endure. In fact, there can be no true science without this foundation. False science must fall. Already, its decline is evident." L. Allen Higley, Science and Truth, (London: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1940), p. 10
1961
"I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist. On the balance of the things that I have both read and discovered for myself I am a creationist, so far as mega-evolution is concerned. By mega-evolution one refers to the origin of kingdoms, phyla, classes and orders, the largest groups in any classification of living things. I concede micro-evolution, of course, which is the origin by evolutionary processes of species, genera, and even families. An increasing number of thoughtful scientists seem to be adopting this view, which I should add is decades old, and far from being original." ~ Evan Shute, Flaws in the Theory of Evolution, (Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press, 1961) p. 2

1963
"In spite of the tremendous pressure that exists in the scientific world on the side of evolutionary propaganda, there are increasing signs of discontent and skepticism" ~ Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84
"Here and there, surprisingly enough, even in the standard scientific publications media, there are beginning to appear evidences of doubts concerning evolution. Nothing much which is overtly skeptical of evolution as a whole can be published, of course, but at least signs are appearing which indicate there may exist a very substantial substratum of doubt concerning evolution today." ~ Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84

1970
"Indeed, of late, more and more have come to recognize not only the reality but also the importance of the spiritual. Dryden says that scientists have come to realize that atrophy of the moral and spiritual life is inconsistent with well-rounded development. " ~ John W. Klotz, Gene, Genesis and Evolution, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1970), p. 14
1975
"QUESTION--Do non-Christian scientists still argue that man has
descended from apes or monkeys?

ANSWER--In many school textbooks this is accepted almost as if it is fact, but many biologists and other scientists have long since swung away from this view. There are many and varied theories of evolution today, but scientists who reject divine creation are beset with serious problems and these are being increasingly recognized." ~ Clifford Wilson, In the Beginning God..., (Balston Spa, New York: Word of Truth Productions, 1975), p. 32

1976
"But even at that time there were some evolutionists who were beginning to express doubts concerning this formulation of evolution theory. A decade later, these incipient cracks have widened to the point that some, formerly strongly committed to this theory, are now expressing disillusionment." Duane T. Gish, "Cracks in the NeoDarwinian Jericho, Part 1," Impact, 42(Dec. 1976). http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-042.htm
1980
"Is Darwinism on it's Last Leg?" http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/images/cej1_03.jpg

1983
Scott M. Huse's book title: , The Collapse of Evolution,

1984
"Furthermore, even if it wasn't clear in Darwin's day, the modern scientific creationist movement has made it abundantly clear in our day that all the real facts of science support this Biblical position. Despite all the bombastic books and articles, both by secular evolutionists and compromising evangelicals, which have opposed the modern literature on scientific Biblical creationism/catastrophism, the evidence is sound, and more and more scientists are becoming creationists all the time."   Henry M. Morris, A History of Modern Creationism, (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 329-330
"One of the encouraging signs of our day is to see the large number of young people who are beginning to realize they are being manipulated by the educational system. In my lectures on university campuses and elsewhere, I am encouraged by the increasing awareness of young people to this problem. More and more young scientists are interested in searching out the creationist explanation for origins and earth history. Some excellent creationist research is also being accomplished by these young people even at the graduate level. They are not receiving much encouragement from the educational establishment, but they are going ahead anyway." ~ Donald E. Chittick, The Controversy: Roots of the Creation-Evolution Conflict, (Creation Compass, 1984), p. 191

1985
"There are still some die-hard uniformitarians who would question the first assumption but, as documented in the preceding chapter, more and more in the modern school of geologists are saying that everything in the geologic column is a record of catastrophe." ~ Henry M. Morris, Creation and the Modern Christian, (El Cajon, California: Master Book Publishers, 1985), p. 241
1987
"Evolution is in absolute chaos today and has been especially for this decade of the '80's. The '80's has been extremely bad for Evolution. Every major pillar of Evolution has crumbled in the decade of the   '80's." D. James Kennedy on "The John Ankerberg Show," 1987  
1988
"Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had finally been figured out and settled are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They have discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries. This has necessitated a change in their basic philosophical
position on origins. Others are admitting great weaknesses in evolution theory. One of the world's most highly respected philosophers of science, Dr. Karl Popper, has argued that one theory of origins, almost universally accepted as a scientific fact, does not even qualify as a scientific theory. A 1980 display at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History made the same admission." ~ Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma,
(Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), p. 7,8
"Leading scientists are abandoning their faith in Darwin's theory of evolution. Why?" Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma, (Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), Back cover.

1989
"Although the history of the earth and life has long been interpreted by the uniformitarian maxim, 'the present is the key to the past,' more and more geologists are returning to catastrophism." ~ Henry M. Morris, "Evolution - A House Divided," Impact, 194, August, 1989, p. iii.

1990
"Even though the large majority of modern scientists still embrace an evolutionary view of origins, there is a significant and growing number of scientists who have abandoned evolution altogether and have accepted creation instead." ~ Mark Looy, "I Think; Therefore, There is a Supreme Thinker," Impact, 208, October, 1990, p. i  
1991  
Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories. In fact, theories based on plasma processes and a revised steady-state theory have already been advanced to replace Big Bang cosmologies." Duane T. Gish, "The Big Bang Theory Collapses" Impact, 216 (June 1991), p. iv.

1993
"Today, however, the 'creative' role of natural selection is being questioned by a growing number of scientists. Yet most of these scientists have not reconsidered the intelligent design argument which was replaced by natural selection as the supposed source of apparent design." ~ Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 67
Today, there is a growing recognition among scientists of the dramatic implication that the principle of uniformity holds for the origin of functional information. This is not an argument against Darwinian evolution. It is, however, an important scientific inference in favor of the intelligent origin of genetic messages." ~ Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 64
     "There are hopeful signs, however.  Evolution theory itself has now collapsed under scientific scrutiny. Further, the foundations have not been totally abandoned by scientists." ~ T. V. Varughese, "Christianity and Technological Advance," Impact, 245, p. iv.

1994
"Even scientists are leaving Darwinian evolution in droves, recognizing that strictly natural processes, operating at random on inorganic chemicals, could never have produced complex living cells. They have grown weary of arguing how random mutations in a highly complex genetic code provide improvements in it." ~ John D. Morris, The Young Earth, (Colorado Springs: Master Books, 1994), p. 121
"Well, the Big Bang has started to fizzle! Astronomer Hoyle says that a 'sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.' The Big Bang has fallen with a big bang! Eminent scientists who reject the BBT include Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven, astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer Jayant Narlikar, astronomer N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge, physicist Allen Allen, physicist Hermann bondi, physicist Robert Oldershaw and physicist G. de Vaucouleurs." ~ Don Boys, Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith, (Largo, Fl: Freedom Publications, 1994), p. 44-45
1995
"The cosmologists (with a number of notable exceptions) are all committed to the 'Big Bang' theory of cosmic origin, the date of which is the age for which they are searching. But the 'Big Bang' itself is highly speculative, and there are a growing number of astronomers who are questioning it." ~ Henry M. Morris, "Cosmology's Holy Grail," Back To Genesis February, 1995,No. 74, p. b.
"Of course, I take a different view. In my opinion, much of the history of the twentieth century will be seen in retrospect as a failed experiment in scientific atheism. The thinkers most responsible for making the twentieth century mindset were Darwin, Marx, and Freud. Freud has now lost most of his scientific standing, and Marx has been so spectacularly discredited that he retains his influence only in the loftiest academic ivory towers. Darwinism is still untouchable, but the most widely used college evolutionary biology textbook (by Douglas Futuyma) links his achievement to that of the other two. Phillip E. Johnson, "What (If Anything) Hath God Wrought? Academic Freedom and the Religious Professor" Academe, Sept. 1995. http://www.leaderu.com/pjohnson/wrought.html
GRM: Sounds a bit like Harold Clark's 1929 statement.
1996
"We are the only people ever to see (or need) direct scientific proof not only of God's existence, but also for His transcendent capacity to create space and time dimensions, as well as to operate in dimensions independent from our own four." ~ Hugh Ross, Beyond the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1996), p. 33
"The Behe argument is as revolutionary for our time as was Darwin's argument was for his. If true, it presages not just a change in a scientific theory, but an overthrow of the worldview that has dominated intellectual life ever since the triumph of Darwinism, the metaphysical doctrine of scientific materialism or naturalism. A lot is at stake, and not just for science." ~ Phillip E. Johnson, "The Storyteller and the Scientist", First Things, Oct. 1996, p.47.
1997
"Even though the Big Bang is still the cosmogony of choice for the majority of astronomers, there is a rapidly growing body of very competent dissenters. "Henry Morris, Back to Genesis,101, May, 1997, p. a,b
1998
“Darwin gave us a creation story, one in which God was absent and undirected natural processes did all the work. That creation story has held sway for more than a hundred years. It is now on the way out. When it goes, so will all the edifices that have been built on its foundation.” William A. Dembski, “Introduction to Mere Creation,” in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 13-30, p. 29
"What is science going to look like once intelligent design replaces it?" William A. Dembski, "Redesigning Science," in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 93-112, p. 93
Of Evolution:
"In appearance it is as impregnable as the Soviet Union seemed a few years ago. But the ship has sprung a metaphysical leak, and that leak widens as more and more people understand it and draw attention to the conflict between empirical science and materialist philosophy. The more perceptive of the ship's officers know that the ship is doomed if the leak cannot be plugged. The struggle to save the ship will go on for a while, and meanwhile there will even be academic wine-and-cheese parties on the deck. In the end the ship's great firepower and ponderous armor will only help drag it to the bottom." Phillip Johnson, "How to Sink a Battleship," in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 446-453, p. 453
“I believe that at some time well before 2059, the bicentennial year of Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species,’ perhaps as early as 2009 or 2019, there will be another celebration that will mark the demise of the Darwinist ideology that was so triumphant in 1959.’” Phillip Johnson, “How to Sink a Battleship,’ in Mere Creation, ed. By William A. Dembski, (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 446-453, p. 448
1999
"Meanwhile, it is my personal hope that these positions newly adopted by scholars in the scientific community when they do reach the larger world, will lead to turn to a renewal of philosophy and humane letters, and that an enhanced confidence in the ordered structure of physical reality will afford men and women a more assured, firmer stride in the paths of narrative and poetic composition. Actually, I have no doubt that this will be the case, at least after my time, and I cherish the suspicion that future students of literary history, not so terribly far down the road, may look back to these past two centuries as a somewhat weird period, during which an extraordinary multitude of singularly disturbed authors composed an inordinate number of very bizarre and disquieting books. 'Yes,' their teachers will be obliged to inform them, 'a lot of people back in those unfortunate days had gotten it into their silly heads that the whole world and everything in it had somehow evolved by accident, you see. It was all rather strange." Patrick Henry Reardon, "The World as Text," Touchstone, July/August, 1999, p. 89
“Darwinists will no doubt object to this characterization of their theory.  For them Darwinism continues to be a fruitful theory—one whose imminent demise I am greatly exaggerating.” William Dembski, Intelligent Design, (Downers Grove, Illinois, 1999), p. 113

2000
"There is growing interest in a biological theory of intelligent design around the world. While many still vigorously oppose all such ideas, there is a much greater openness than ever before. Philosophers, mathematicians, chemists, engineers, and biologists are willing to suggest, even demand, that a more rigorous study of intelligent design in relation to biological organisms be pursued. A renaissance may be around the corner." Ray Bohlin, "The Natural Limits to Biological Change," in Ray Bohlin, ed., Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2000), p. 44
2001
"Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution." Henry Morris, "The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary, Part II", Impact, 331(2001) http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-331.htm
"Intellectual honesty will soon force many scientists to abandon Darwin's theory of the evolution of species in exchange for intelligent design or outright Biblical creation." Gregory J. Brewer, "The Immanent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design," Impact, 341(2001), p. i
2002
"Creation scientists may be in the minority so far, but their number is growing, and most of them (like this writer) were evolutionists at one time, having changed to creationism at least in part because of what they decided was the weight of scientific evidence." Henry Morris, "What are Evolutionists Afraid of?" Back to Genesis, No. 168(Dec. 2002).
“As the evidence mounts, many biologists and others are returning to a belief in a Creation-God.” Ralph O. Muncaster, Why Are Scientists Turning to God?, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 19

“The good news is that the ever-increasing acquisition of knowledge is now pointing scientists back to God! Based on historical factors, eventually that belief will filter down to the schools and the general public.” Ralph O. Muncaster, Why Are Scientists Turning to God?, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 21  
"Others may fear a need to change their lifestyles to please a God. Still others make their livelihood trying to prove naturalistic evolution.  There are many possible reasons, yet the scientific trend, particularly in microbiology, is a return to consideration of God.” Ralph O. Muncaster, Why Are Scientists Turning to God?, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 35
In Aug 2002, Paul Nelson predicted that common descent (CD) would be gasping for breath.  Well it is now 2.5 years.  I don't hear the wheezing:
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002 4:58:47 PM)
"Here's a prediction. Universal CD will be gasping for breath in two or three years, if not sooner." http://www.iscid.org/workshops-2002-paulnelson.php accessed 1-26-05
2003
“In fact, the common presupposition that evolution is right may soon be behind us.” Ralph O. Muncaster, Dismantling Evolution, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), p. 56
“However, in 1991, Mayr boldly stated,
‘There is probably no biologist left today who would question that all organisms now found on the earth have descended from a single origin of life.’
    “In the ten years since Mayr made this statement, however, support for it has been shattered.” Ralph O. Muncaster, Dismantling Evolution, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), p. 72
    “What should one make of these evolutionary controversies among atheists? The individuals engaging in the controversies would tell us that these  are simply family fights about details. Just be patient, they explain, and all the controversies will be resolved in favor of a universe in which God is irrelevant. My view is that several of the disputes appear to be about basics, not details. And I think there is some probability that the entire paradigm may come crashing down at some time in the future. “Henry F. Schaefer, Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?" (Watkinsville, GA: The Apollo Trust, 2003), p.  96
    “As a result of the tremendous advances in the study of genetics, molecular biology, and the acknowledgement that the fossil record does not provide any support for the theory of evolution, a growing number of scientists have either publicly rejected evolution or have expressed very serious reservations about Darwin’s theory.” Grant R. Jeffrey, Creation, (Toronto: Frontier Research Publications, 2003), p.168
“In fact, the scientific problems and inconsistencies of the theory of evolution are so overwhelmingly obvious that it now faces collapse on all fronts. The only thing holding the tattered theory of evolution together is the powerful desire of millions of people to hold on to the notion of evolution regardless of its scientific weakness, because the alternative is unthinkable to its practitioners.” Grant R. Jeffrey, Creation, (Toronto: Frontier Research Publications, 2003), p. 174
2004
    “History seems to be repeating itself. Just as the first Darwinists gave up on the earliest versions of abiogenesis, so scientists today are abandoning long-cherished pillars of the naturalistic origin-of-life paradigm. Many now speculate that life may have originated somewhere other than on Earth.” Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Origins of Life, (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2004), p. 27
“At the time, Darwin offered a powerful vision for understanding biology and therewith the world. That vision is now faltering, and a new vision is offering to replace it.” William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution, Downer's Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 28
“Yes, we are interested in and write about the theological and cultural implications of Darwinism’s imminent demise and replacement by intelligent design.” William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 50
[GRM: One is tempted to ask Dembski if it wouldn't be more likely for ID to replace evolution if lots of non-religious scientists were accepting ID?]
"Touchstone: Where is the ID movement going in the next ten years?  What new issues will it be exploring, and what new challenges  will it be offering Darwinism?"
"Dembski: In the next five years, molecular Darwinism -- the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures  at the subcellular level -- will be dead.  When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because  evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules.   I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years." Anonymous (Touchstone Magazine), (2004).  "The Measure of Design: A conversation about the past, present & future of Darwinism and Design."  Touchstone, 17(6), pp. 60-65.p. 64.
World Magazine published a series of articles on what the world would look like in 2025. This classic statement came from an article by Phillip Johnson.
"The collapse of the Soviet Union put an end to the Soviet myth, just as the scientific collapse of Darwinism, preceded as it was by the discrediting of Marxism and Freudianism, prepared the way for the culture to turn aside from the mythology of naturalism to rediscover the buried treasure that the mythology had been concealing." Phillip Johnson, "The Demise of Naturalism," World, April 3, 2004, http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/04-03-04/cover_2.asp
From that same issue we find Jonathan Wells saying the same silly things.
"Now, a mere quarter of a century later, Darwinian evolution is little more than a historical footnote in biology textbooks. Just as students learn that scientists used to believe that the Sun moves around the Earth and maggots are spontaneously generated in rotting meat, so students also learn that scientists used to believe that human beings evolved through random mutations and natural selection. How could a belief that was so influential in 2000 become so obsolete by 2025? Whatever happened to evolutionary theory?" Jonathan Wells, "What ever happened to Evolution?" World, April 3, 2004, http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/04-03-04/cover_3.asp
Then of course there is this:
"The house of evolution is falling. Its various theorists are increasingly at war with each other over the basic question of how evolution is supposed to work, and its materialistic and naturalistic foundation is becoming increasingly clear. The evolutionists tenaciously hold to their theory on the basis of faith and as an axiom of their worldview. The publication of these two articles in influential magazines indicates that proponents of evolution see the Intelligent Design movement as a real threat. They are right." R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky http://www.christianpost.com/dbase....tm
2006
Posted on Sun, Apr. 02, 2006
Evolution theory on last legs, says seminary teacher
By Dylan T. Lovan
ASSOCIATED PRESS
LOUISVILLE - To William Dembski, all the debate in this country over evolution won't matter in a decade.
   By then, he says, the theory of evolution put forth by Charles Darwin 150 years ago will be dead.
   The mathematician turned Darwin critic says there is much to be learned about how life evolved on this planet. And he thinks the model of evolution accepted by the scientific community won't be able to supply the answers.
   "I see this all disintegrating very quickly," he said."
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld....y_state
accessed 4-2-06


Seeing all this, one can reasonably ask the question: When exactly will the demise of evolution be apparent to the rest of us?
Acknowledgement: Thanks to all who have pointed out quotations which were added to the original document.
Back to DMD Publishing Home Page

Okay, this is quite a cocky response.  Obviously too cocky to be objectively accurate.  Let me show you what I have done to this argument.  Having knowledge that Creationism began in the 1960s, this is what can be stated:  First of all, Spontaneous Generation was disproven 100 years ago, so these quotes have been around for a while yes.  The issue at hand is Evolution vs. Creationism.    

To his Glenn Morton source, I stated:    
1925 - Jim Jones stated in his article, "The beast and the creature" "Evolution is sure to reign for the next 20 years.  Regardless of what Creationists say, they are always wrong."

1934 - Uncle Jim Bob Blue from Timbuktu writes in his book, Evolution Screams "Evolution will be believed by anybody.  The advances in Science are sure to point towards Evolution, with absolutely no evidence against it or revoking it whatsoever."

1954 - Miguel Cabrera writes in his book Nacho Rancho , "I have no idea what I'm talking about, (I can't even speak English) but Creationism is not Science."

1967 - Alice states in her book Alice in Wonderland, "Creationists have no explanation for the rabbit evolution.  The court systems are in our favor, and I'm sure Snow White and the 7 dwarfs could agree."

1976 - Donald Duck states, "When it comes to Evolution, John Timmer is a quack."

1990 - Whyclamigo QUAOKC! states, "Evolution is my best friend.  Charles Darwin was sooooo smart!"

1995 - the Unabomber proudly proclaims, "Evolution is a blast."

My point is, who cares?  Without any significant evidence of what he has to say, he has no point.

I am not impressed with a skeptic.  Glenn Morton's argument is quite deceiving.  When we take his skeptical voice out of the writing, I notice a general inclination towards where we are now.  If the debate was not real, Creationism would not have a site and it would not be all over the internet like it is.  Propaganda like this comes from an extremely cynical and skeptical source and should be excluded.  Show me the facts, or I'll show you the door sir.

To illustrate how opinionated the source was, I simply re-represented the evidence from a different angle:  Lets take out Morton's opinion!  

Over the years, we have seen an evolutionary curve of Creationists and Intelligent Designers coming onto the scene!  The circus act that many Evolutionists charge Creationists with putting on a spectacle seems to be becoming a true threat to the theory of Evolution.  Mr. Morton provides a great summary of how strong Creationism has become within the Scientific community over the past half century.
1961
"I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist. On the balance of the things that I have both read and discovered for myself I am a creationist, so far as mega-evolution is concerned. By mega-evolution one refers to the origin of kingdoms, phyla, classes and orders, the largest groups in any classification of living things. I concede micro-evolution, of course, which is the origin by evolutionary processes of species, genera, and even families. An increasing number of thoughtful scientists seem to be adopting this view, which I should add is decades old, and far from being original." ~ Evan Shute, Flaws in the Theory of Evolution, (Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press, 1961) p. 2
1963
"In spite of the tremendous pressure that exists in the scientific world on the side of evolutionary propaganda, there are increasing signs of discontent and skepticism" ~ Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84
"Here and there, surprisingly enough, even in the standard scientific publications media, there are beginning to appear evidences of doubts concerning evolution. Nothing much which is overtly skeptical of evolution as a whole can be published, of course, but at least signs are appearing which indicate there may exist a very substantial substratum of doubt concerning evolution today." ~ Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84

1970
"Indeed, of late, more and more have come to recognize not only the reality but also the importance of the spiritual. Dryden says that scientists have come to realize that atrophy of the moral and spiritual life is inconsistent with well-rounded development. " ~ John W. Klotz, Gene, Genesis and Evolution, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1970), p. 14
1975
"QUESTION--Do non-Christian scientists still argue that man has
descended from apes or monkeys?

ANSWER--In many school textbooks this is accepted almost as if it is fact, but many biologists and other scientists have long since swung away from this view. There are many and varied theories of evolution today, but scientists who reject divine creation are beset with serious problems and these are being increasingly recognized." ~ Clifford Wilson, In the Beginning God..., (Balston Spa, New York: Word of Truth Productions, 1975), p. 32
1976
"But even at that time there were some evolutionists who were beginning to express doubts concerning this formulation of evolution theory. A decade later, these incipient cracks have widened to the point that some, formerly strongly committed to this theory, are now expressing disillusionment." Duane T. Gish, "Cracks in the NeoDarwinian Jericho, Part 1," Impact, 42(Dec. 1976). http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-042.htm
1980
"Is Darwinism on it's Last Leg?" http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/images/cej1_03.jpg

1983
Scott M. Huse's book title: , The Collapse of Evolution,
1984
"Furthermore, even if it wasn't clear in Darwin's day, the modern scientific creationist movement has made it abundantly clear in our day that all the real facts of science support this Biblical position. Despite all the bombastic books and articles, both by secular evolutionists and compromising evangelicals, which have opposed the modern literature on scientific Biblical creationism/catastrophism, the evidence is sound, and more and more scientists are becoming creationists all the time."   Henry M. Morris, A History of Modern Creationism, (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 329-330
"One of the encouraging signs of our day is to see the large number of young people who are beginning to realize they are being manipulated by the educational system. In my lectures on university campuses and elsewhere, I am encouraged by the increasing awareness of young people to this problem. More and more young scientists are interested in searching out the creationist explanation for origins and earth history. Some excellent creationist research is also being accomplished by these young people even at the graduate level. They are not receiving much encouragement from the educational establishment, but they are going ahead anyway." ~ Donald E. Chittick, The Controversy: Roots of the Creation-Evolution Conflict, (Creation Compass, 1984), p. 191

1985
"There are still some die-hard uniformitarians who would question the first assumption but, as documented in the preceding chapter, more and more in the modern school of geologists are saying that everything in the geologic column is a record of catastrophe." ~ Henry M. Morris, Creation and the Modern Christian, (El Cajon, California: Master Book Publishers, 1985), p. 241
1987
"Evolution is in absolute chaos today and has been especially for this decade of the '80's. The '80's has been extremely bad for Evolution. Every major pillar of Evolution has crumbled in the decade of the   '80's." D. James Kennedy on "The John Ankerberg Show," 1987  
1988
"Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had finally been figured out and settled are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They have discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries. This has necessitated a change in their basic philosophical
position on origins. Others are admitting great weaknesses in evolution theory. One of the world's most highly respected philosophers of science, Dr. Karl Popper, has argued that one theory of origins, almost universally accepted as a scientific fact, does not even qualify as a scientific theory. A 1980 display at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History made the same admission." ~ Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma,
(Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), p. 7,8
"Leading scientists are abandoning their faith in Darwin's theory of evolution. Why?" Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma, (Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), Back cover.

1989
"Although the history of the earth and life has long been interpreted by the uniformitarian maxim, 'the present is the key to the past,' more and more geologists are returning to catastrophism." ~ Henry M. Morris, "Evolution - A House Divided," Impact, 194, August, 1989, p. iii.

1990
"Even though the large majority of modern scientists still embrace an evolutionary view of origins, there is a significant and growing number of scientists who have abandoned evolution altogether and have accepted creation instead." ~ Mark Looy, "I Think; Therefore, There is a Supreme Thinker," Impact, 208, October, 1990, p. i  
1991  
Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories. In fact, theories based on plasma processes and a revised steady-state theory have already been advanced to replace Big Bang cosmologies." Duane T. Gish, "The Big Bang Theory Collapses" Impact, 216 (June 1991), p. iv.

1993
"Today, however, the 'creative' role of natural selection is being questioned by a growing number of scientists. Yet most of these scientists have not reconsidered the intelligent design argument which was replaced by natural selection as the supposed source of apparent design." ~ Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 67
Today, there is a growing recognition among scientists of the dramatic implication that the principle of uniformity holds for the origin of functional information. This is not an argument against Darwinian evolution. It is, however, an important scientific inference in favor of the intelligent origin of genetic messages." ~ Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 64
     "There are hopeful signs, however.  Evolution theory itself has now collapsed under scientific scrutiny. Further, the foundations have not been totally abandoned by scientists." ~ T. V. Varughese, "Christianity and Technological Advance," Impact, 245, p. iv.
1994
"Even scientists are leaving Darwinian evolution in droves, recognizing that strictly natural processes, operating at random on inorganic chemicals, could never have produced complex living cells. They have grown weary of arguing how random mutations in a highly complex genetic code provide improvements in it." ~ John D. Morris, The Young Earth, (Colorado Springs: Master Books, 1994), p. 121
"Well, the Big Bang has started to fizzle! Astronomer Hoyle says that a 'sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.' The Big Bang has fallen with a big bang! Eminent scientists who reject the BBT include Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven, astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer Jayant Narlikar, astronomer N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge, physicist Allen Allen, physicist Hermann bondi, physicist Robert Oldershaw and physicist G. de Vaucouleurs." ~ Don Boys, Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith, (Largo, Fl: Freedom Publications, 1994), p. 44-45
1995
"The cosmologists (with a number of notable exceptions) are all committed to the 'Big Bang' theory of cosmic origin, the date of which is the age for which they are searching. But the 'Big Bang' itself is highly speculative, and there are a growing number of astronomers who are questioning it." ~ Henry M. Morris, "Cosmology's Holy Grail," Back To Genesis February, 1995,No. 74, p. b.
"Of course, I take a different view. In my opinion, much of the history of the twentieth century will be seen in retrospect as a failed experiment in scientific atheism. The thinkers most responsible for making the twentieth century mindset were Darwin, Marx, and Freud. Freud has now lost most of his scientific standing, and Marx has been so spectacularly discredited that he retains his influence only in the loftiest academic ivory towers. Darwinism is still untouchable, but the most widely used college evolutionary biology textbook (by Douglas Futuyma) links his achievement to that of the other two. Phillip E. Johnson, "What (If Anything) Hath God Wrought? Academic Freedom and the Religious Professor" Academe, Sept. 1995. http://www.leaderu.com/pjohnson/wrought.html
1996
"We are the only people ever to see (or need) direct scientific proof not only of God's existence, but also for His transcendent capacity to create space and time dimensions, as well as to operate in dimensions independent from our own four." ~ Hugh Ross, Beyond the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1996), p. 33
"The Behe argument is as revolutionary for our time as was Darwin's argument was for his. If true, it presages not just a change in a scientific theory, but an overthrow of the worldview that has dominated intellectual life ever since the triumph of Darwinism, the metaphysical doctrine of scientific materialism or naturalism. A lot is at stake, and not just for science." ~ Phillip E. Johnson, "The Storyteller and the Scientist", First Things, Oct. 1996, p.47.
1997
"Even though the Big Bang is still the cosmogony of choice for the majority of astronomers, there is a rapidly growing body of very competent dissenters. "Henry Morris, Back to Genesis,101, May, 1997, p. a,b
1998
“Darwin gave us a creation story, one in which God was absent and undirected natural processes did all the work. That creation story has held sway for more than a hundred years. It is now on the way out. When it goes, so will all the edifices that have been built on its foundation.” William A. Dembski, “Introduction to Mere Creation,” in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 13-30, p. 29
"What is science going to look like once intelligent design replaces it?" William A. Dembski, "Redesigning Science," in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 93-112, p. 93
Of Evolution:
"In appearance it is as impregnable as the Soviet Union seemed a few years ago. But the ship has sprung a metaphysical leak, and that leak widens as more and more people understand it and draw attention to the conflict between empirical science and materialist philosophy. The more perceptive of the ship's officers know that the ship is doomed if the leak cannot be plugged. The struggle to save the ship will go on for a while, and meanwhile there will even be academic wine-and-cheese parties on the deck. In the end the ship's great firepower and ponderous armor will only help drag it to the bottom." Phillip Johnson, "How to Sink a Battleship," in William A. Dembski, ed.,  Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 446-453, p. 453
“I believe that at some time well before 2059, the bicentennial year of Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species,’ perhaps as early as 2009 or 2019, there will be another celebration that will mark the demise of the Darwinist ideology that was so triumphant in 1959.’” Phillip Johnson, “How to Sink a Battleship,’ in Mere Creation, ed. By William A. Dembski, (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 446-453, p. 448
1999
"Meanwhile, it is my personal hope that these positions newly adopted by scholars in the scientific community when they do reach the larger world, will lead to turn to a renewal of philosophy and humane letters, and that an enhanced confidence in the ordered structure of physical reality will afford men and women a more assured, firmer stride in the paths of narrative and poetic composition. Actually, I have no doubt that this will be the case, at least after my time, and I cherish the suspicion that future students of literary history, not so terribly far down the road, may look back to these past two centuries as a somewhat weird period, during which an extraordinary multitude of singularly disturbed authors composed an inordinate number of very bizarre and disquieting books. 'Yes,' their teachers will be obliged to inform them, 'a lot of people back in those unfortunate days had gotten it into their silly heads that the whole world and everything in it had somehow evolved by accident, you see. It was all rather strange." Patrick Henry Reardon, "The World as Text," Touchstone, July/August, 1999, p. 89
“Darwinists will no doubt object to this characterization of their theory.  For them Darwinism continues to be a fruitful theory—one whose imminent demise I am greatly exaggerating.” William Dembski, Intelligent Design, (Downers Grove, Illinois, 1999), p. 113

2000
"There is growing interest in a biological theory of intelligent design around the world. While many still vigorously oppose all such ideas, there is a much greater openness than ever before. Philosophers, mathematicians, chemists, engineers, and biologists are willing to suggest, even demand, that a more rigorous study of intelligent design in relation to biological organisms be pursued. A renaissance may be around the corner." Ray Bohlin, "The Natural Limits to Biological Change," in Ray Bohlin, ed., Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2000), p. 44
2001
"Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution." Henry Morris, "The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary, Part II", Impact, 331(2001) http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-331.htm
"Intellectual honesty will soon force many scientists to abandon Darwin's theory of the evolution of species in exchange for intelligent design or outright Biblical creation." Gregory J. Brewer, "The Immanent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design," Impact, 341(2001), p. i
2002
"Creation scientists may be in the minority so far, but their number is growing, and most of them (like this writer) were evolutionists at one time, having changed to creationism at least in part because of what they decided was the weight of scientific evid

K.E.

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,09:16   

Casey....who?

Charles ain't here man.

K.E.

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,09:16   

ooooooh argumentum ad infinitum in ONE post.
...Snicker

Is that a new record?

The Demise pt. 2

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,09:16   

“History seems to be repeating itself. Just as the first Darwinists gave up on the earliest versions of abiogenesis, so scientists today are abandoning long-cherished pillars of the naturalistic origin-of-life paradigm. Many now speculate that life may have originated somewhere other than on Earth.” Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Origins of Life, (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2004), p. 27
“At the time, Darwin offered a powerful vision for understanding biology and therewith the world. That vision is now faltering, and a new vision is offering to replace it.” William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution, Downer's Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 28
“Yes, we are interested in and write about the theological and cultural implications of Darwinism’s imminent demise and replacement by intelligent design.” William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 50
"Touchstone: Where is the ID movement going in the next ten years?  What new issues will it be exploring, and what new challenges  will it be offering Darwinism?"
"Dembski: In the next five years, molecular Darwinism -- the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures  at the subcellular level -- will be dead.  When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because  evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules.   I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years." Anonymous (Touchstone Magazine), (2004).  "The Measure of Design: A conversation about the past, present & future of Darwinism and Design."  Touchstone, 17(6), pp. 60-65.p. 64.
World Magazine published a series of articles on what the world would look like in 2025. This classic statement came from an article by Phillip Johnson.
"The collapse of the Soviet Union put an end to the Soviet myth, just as the scientific collapse of Darwinism, preceded as it was by the discrediting of Marxism and Freudianism, prepared the way for the culture to turn aside from the mythology of naturalism to rediscover the buried treasure that the mythology had been concealing." Phillip Johnson, "The Demise of Naturalism," World, April 3, 2004, http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/04-03-04/cover_2.asp

"Now, a mere quarter of a century later, Darwinian evolution is little more than a historical footnote in biology textbooks. Just as students learn that scientists used to believe that the Sun moves around the Earth and maggots are spontaneously generated in rotting meat, so students also learn that scientists used to believe that human beings evolved through random mutations and natural selection. How could a belief that was so influential in 2000 become so obsolete by 2025? Whatever happened to evolutionary theory?" Jonathan Wells, "What ever happened to Evolution?" World, April 3, 2004, http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/04-03-04/cover_3.asp
Then of course there is this:
"The house of evolution is falling. Its various theorists are increasingly at war with each other over the basic question of how evolution is supposed to work, and its materialistic and naturalistic foundation is becoming increasingly clear. The evolutionists tenaciously hold to their theory on the basis of faith and as an axiom of their worldview. The publication of these two articles in influential magazines indicates that proponents of evolution see the Intelligent Design movement as a real threat. They are right." R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky http://www.christianpost.com/dbase....tm

Over the past 5 years, the quotes are becoming more and more prevalent among the Scientific community.  Based on the trends, it appears that Creationism really is starting to rule the Scientific community.  A special thanks to Dr. Glenn Morton for his hard work in researching the material.
It appears that most Scientists are actually Creationists or Intelligent Designers after all.  What ever happened to Glenn Morton?  Where is he in the midst?  Did he miss something here?  And what happened to that Jonathan Wells quote?????  Didn't see it.  Sorry.  Instead of addressing the issue of Intelligent Design, they try to laugh it away, or simply claim its not a problem.  From my personal experience of being a college graduate, I can personally state that most of the teachers I know did not teach what they wanted to in the classes of which I participated (many even wanted to teach Intelligent Design).  That should tell you a little bit about where the community really is.  Evolutionists have resorted to brainwashing tactics.

Why is this conjecture still around?  The media!  What else?
I hope this helps your site sir.  God bless.

Come on guys, you need to work on your argumentative skills.  Take a philosophy class.

K.E.

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,09:16   

Come on Casey, you need to work on your cut and paste skills. Take an  <url href="http://www.tammyyee.com/origami.html">origami</url>.class ...you could do pop up books with Noah's Ark complete with dinosaurs...giggle.

gwangung

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,09:17   

<i> Over the past 5 years, the quotes are becoming more and more prevalent among the Scientific community.  </i>

No, they aren't.

Now stop trolling.

Darwinianism is Deadism!

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,09:17   

Was Charles ever here?  Did it come from Hitler?  The world may never know.  Lets try getting our heads out of our asses for one minute here.  Who are you really following?  As I understand, the "grand glorious story" of Charles Darwin involved a man with poor mental health writing about some stupid island population in the 19th century.  And with the Glenn Morton case, notice that the quotes are becoming more and more frequent!  He self destructs his own argument.  Thats the point here, not that one person said it in 1820.  Get with the 21st century here guys.  The world is no longer flat.  As such neither is Darwinism credible.  It has simply become a cult in denial.  Not impressed.

Evidence...WHERE?

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,09:17   

I need eyewitness accounts other than Darwin that saw him there at the Galapogos Islands.  Otherwise, nothign to believe.

buddha

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,09:17   

<quote author = "heddle">You win PT’s coveted “I can descend into irrelevancy faster than a New York taxi driver blows his horn at a changing traffic light” award.</quote>

Thanks, but I learned by example, heddle.

My evidence

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,09:17   

And thats what I thought.  I will leave you to your cult now.  Don't forget Josephus..."Josephus, a secular historian and one of the most popular historians of his day was a strong conservative Jew, was writing to a hostile Jewish audience and stated in his Antiquities book in 60 A.D., “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”   I decided to figure out why so much speculation and skepticism has been provided against this quotation.  Well ultimately the conclusion was come to when I visited the public library.  The book, Antiquities, was in the nonfictional section at the library.  Upon investigation of the book, I certainly found the quote and the reason as to why to not believe the Christian skeptics on this subject.  This quotation has been circled by controversy from Christian skeptics, however, ultimately, the justifiable conclusion as to whether or not this was actually what Josephus actually stated was made by, oddly enough, another Jewish Historian himself who stated that this was DEFINITELY in the original Josephan text.  Eusebius who lived in A.D. 324 stated that this was the exact wording used by Josephus as well.  The evidence used contrarily against this statement was written by the Melkite historian Agapius 1000 years after the life of Josephus, plenty of time for manipulation, and once again, mythological elements being inserted into the text.  The Agapian source is not much different in regards to what Josephus stated.  Both state that Christ did exist and that he rose from the dead.  One states that he was perhaps the Messiah and the other states that he definitely was the Messiah.  As to why some scholars debate that the Antiquities were manipulated by a Christian hand could this not imply that Josephus became a Christian himself?  We have no evidence as to what this statement means exactly.  But we can defiantly conclude that this exact passage that evidence shows that the passage I included was what Josephus stated.  It is the word for word quotation taken from the standard version of the Antiquities book. Other outside evidence of Christ is from Ignatius who was a martyr who died for his belief in Christ. He is quoted as saying in 50 A.D. “...nearness to the sword is nearness to God; to be among the wild beasts is to be in the arms of God; only let it be in the name of Jesus Christ. I endure all things that I may suffer together with him, since he who became perfect man strengthens me...We have not only to be called Christians, but to be Christians."

K.E.

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,09:17   

Beautiful

<i>I need eyewitness accounts other than Darwin that saw him there at the Galapogos Islands. Otherwise, nothign to believe</i>

Casey just for you. (BTW Darwin is buried in England's most prestigious Church...Westminster Cathedral..something not even you could hope to do).

<b>Top 10 Signs You Are A Fundamentalist</b>
<i>
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite #### of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian</i>

shaking head

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,09:17   

You completely avoid my question.  I did not say where his body was.  We have thousands of bodies of religious leaders (by the way, Jesus's has never been found).  And your ad hominem attack will just ignored.  I want to know, who say him at the Galapogos Islands?

steve s

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,09:17   

hey "evidence where" "the demise pt 2" etc, you should check out http://helives.blogspot.com/ . It's a site featuring the same kind of brilliance you've demonstrated here. Same kind of penetrating insight.

K.E.

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,09:17   

ad hominem attack ? Bwhhhahahahah

Oh well, beats attacking a dead man.

And on WWJD body not being found, heck that's careless isn't it? losing a body! Did somone sue?

GuyeFaux

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,09:17   

<quote> losing a body! Did somone sue?</quote>
Funny, but maybe a dash inappropriate.

Whether Charles Darwin visited the Galapagos is completely irrelevant to science. It's only of historical interest.

You know, that's the eaxct opposite of fundamentalism, where everything hinges on the eye-witness testimonies of a ~2000 year old historical event.

Losers

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,09:17   

You're absolutely right.  This means that Charles Darwin's views are completely irrelevant to Science, right?  We have no idea whether or not the finches exist or not.  We have no idea whether or not that is technically Charles Darwin's body. It could all be a complete legend.  Whether Darwin exists or if he went to Galapogos is extremely significant.  That is the story you put your faith in and your supposed "foundation of Science".  Ciao!

  19135 replies since Jan. 17 2006,08:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (638) < ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]