What Scientists Are Saying

In the book Man, Time, and Fossils evolutionist R. Moore stated: “Since 1950 the scientific evidence has pointed inescapably to one conclusion: man did not evolve in either the time or the way that Darwin and the modern evolutionists thought most probable.”

Other evolutionists agreed. In 1971 a professor of genetics from the University of California, G. L. Stebbins, an evolutionist, reflected their general attitude when he said: “Every account of human evolution written before 1950 is already or will soon be obsolete.”

Thus, by 1972 newer explanations of man’s origin had developed among evolutionists. They had abandoned many of their past ideas, and were confident that the new explanations were “fact.” But these newer ideas had barely become accepted when they too came into question. One aspect received an especially rude jolt because of evidence that came to light in late 1972.

Note a few of the many news items that appeared in November of that year: “A large section of the story of human evolution will need revision after the disclosures yesterday.” (London Times) “Existing theories of the evolution of man have been thrown into disarray.” (The Guardian, England) “The accepted theory of human evolution could easily be upset because it is based on only a few ancient skulls.” (New York Daily News) And the London Daily Mail declared that the latest evidence “could cause the biggest upset in science since Darwin said man had descended from the apes.”

Yet, all such statements resulted from only one line of evidence discovered late in 1972. There are other lines of evidence that are even more significant. Together, these have caused a growing number of people in science to question the explanations evolutionists give.

The magazine The American Biology Teacher said: “Various well known scientists express their views ranging from educated caution, to question, and on to direct opposition to the theory.” The English magazine New Scientist stated: “It is proving particularly difficult to understand the evolution of man . . . We know too little of the timing or mechanisms of evolution, nor is there enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorising out of the realms of fantasy.”

The British medical journal On Call reported: “Evolution cannot be supported by evidence available to the student of basic biology . . . and since high ranking scientists have been known to reject it, the widespread custom of presenting it as a fact is indefensible.” And Professor John Moore, Michigan State University scientist, said: “The typical evolutionary explanation doesn’t make sense in view of today’s knowledge.”

What Other Investigators Say

After studying the evidence, some people in other fields are making similar comments. Historian Arnold Toynbee says: “I do not think that the Darwinian theory of evolution has given a positive account of an alternative way in which the universe may have been brought into existence.”

Harvard-trained lawyer Norman Macbeth, after years of careful and impartial investigation, wrote of his findings in the book Darwin Retried (1971). The book’s publishers commented: “It suggests that a fresh start is in order and, in the present state of affairs, no theory at all may be preferable to the existing one.”

Macbeth found the evidence for evolution so flimsy that he declared, after reading a typical book by a leading evolutionist: “If I had to oppose that man in court I could get his case thrown out.” On the other hand, after reading an issue of Awake! magazine on the subject of evolution, he found it to be soundly based, scientifically accurate. As a result, he warned evolutionists not to persist in saying that those who disbelieve the evolution theory are “ignorant of scientific evidence.” Macbeth, who is not a creationist, also observed:

“In examining the single parts of classical Darwinism, I concluded that they were all sadly decayed. . . . Since decayed parts will never make a sound whole, the total theory must also be decayed . . .

“I also have no objection to explanations, if they are good explanations. Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses. . . .

“This is not mere quibbling. The profession has worked itself into an embarrassing position when Sir Julian Huxley tells the television audience: ‘The first point to make about Darwin’s theory is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact,’ while at almost the same time Professor Mayr, addressing himself to serious students, says: ‘The basic theory is in many instances hardly more than a postulate.’

“Such an enormous discrepancy between two leaders . . . is bad for the standing of the profession. The public may rightly feel that it has been paltered with.”

A dictionary defines “palter” as to “deal crookedly.” And this is exactly what more and more persons have come to feel about the explanations given for evolution.

[Picture on page 5]

Theory of evolution is strongly disputed

The Seattle Times, November 21, 1971

Was Darwin wrong after all?

The Washington Daily News, December 27, 1971

Scientists Say God, Not Evolution, Created Man

The Express, Easton, Pa., May 3, 1973

Many scientists now admit that this is what should be done with the evolution theory. This was even noted in the foreword of a special edition of Darwin’s famous book Origin of Species. The magazine The American Biology Teacher offered this comment about it:

“W. H. Thompson, who was selected to write the foreword to a centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species had this to say: ‘As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process.

“‘This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.’”

The biology publication goes on to note another observation by Thompson, a highly respected scientist. He said:

“But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation, where [scientific] men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.”

The continued attempt to suppress criticism has become unacceptable to more persons. This can be seen by the requests being made in recent times by many scientists, educators and parents that opposing views be given equal treatment in schools. Their feeling is typified by a comment offered in the Washington, D.C., Evening Star and Daily News, in an article by W. Willoughby:

“The Bible and a large segment of competent scientists indicate to me that it all happened one way [creation]; my children, for whom I pay tax money to the state of Virginia to have educated in the best possible way, are being taught that it happened another way [evolution]. . . .

“If there is any place in the world where there should be fair play, it should be in the scientific world. Yet the [series of biology books commonly used in schools] deliberately excludes the argument for design in the origin of the universe . . .

“What I want, then, is that a well-balanced, non-cynical presentation be given in the classrooms, on the origin of man, based on the best scholarship and research each side can present.”

“Intellectually Dishonest”

Such requests have usually met with intense opposition from many evolutionists who fight against any other idea appearing in school textbooks. But, as physicist L. Dolphin wrote to the San Francisco Chronicle: “It is intellectually dishonest to fail to answer some of these problem areas in textbooks, and to exclude other scientifically based models on the grounds that they are merely fundamentalistic religious beliefs.”

Truly it is “intellectually dishonest” not to want any opposing views heard on such a disputed matter. It has to make reasonable persons ask, Why?

Reasonable persons also consider it unworthy of serious scholarship to try to stamp out criticism of evolution by dictatorial methods, by intimidation, or by attitudes such as that of prominent American scientist Isaac Asimov, who said that questioning the theory of evolution is like “attacking the theory of gravity.” He added: “It’s a fact, not speculation.”

But gravity can be demonstrated, tested, and proved in the laboratory and elsewhere. Evolution cannot, which is why so many are challenging it. No one is challenging the idea of gravity.

Trying to insult the intelligence of critics of evolution to silence them is especially “intellectually dishonest” when many evolutionists themselves admit that the theory has not been proved. In fact, Asimov himself admitted that much of evolution is built up, in his words, “from judicious guessing”!

The reality of the situation is aptly described by New Scientist when it reviewed a book supporting evolution. It said that the book “inevitably . . . often has the ‘woolliness’ to be found in recent books on the evolution of man. We frankly do not know how or why man evolved. . . . Yet if such a [book] restricted itself to the facts it would be slim indeed.”

No, it will no longer do to try to browbeat or insult persons who challenge evolution, or to imply that they are intellectually deficient. To get to the heart of the matter, we have to put the “guessing” aside and honestly analyze the facts that are available.