Evolution Vs Creationism Quotes

Catholics have seldom had the difficulties and embarrassments many Protestants have had about creation vs. evolution. Ever since Augustine, they have interpreted Genesis‘ “days” non-literally.

When Mother Nature speaks, even the Gods hold silence.

You say that your scientific peers “have no just right to expect” the “imperfect” geological record to refute your theory, yet you maintain the “just right” to manipulate, as “required”, that very same “imperfect” record to “prove” your theory. This is Orwellian double-think.

Cave paintings done by Indians in America seem to clearly depict a dinosaur. Since scientists accept the mammoth drawings done by Indians, why not the dinosaur-like drawings? However, the evolutionary indoctrination that man didn't live at the same time as dinosaurs preclude evolutionary scientists even considering these drawings as dinosaurs that lived at the same time as the Indians.

BioLogos claims there is no conflict between the theory of evolution and creationism. Huh? Here is where the creationists seem to have the intellectual advantage: they at least see the conflict. Actually, it is not that BioLogos isn't aware of the conflict, but rather, it has come up with the answer to the long-standing conflict between Darwinism and creationism: simply pretend there is no conflict.

In the beginning of the eighteenth century, De Maillet made the first serious attempt to apply the doctrine [of evolution] to the living world. In the latter part of it, Erasmus Darwin, Goethe, and Lamarck took up the work more vigorously and with better qualifications. The question of special creation, or evolution, lay at the bottom of the fierce disputes which broke out in the French Academy between Cuvier and St.-Hilaire; and, for a time, the supporters of biological evolution were silenced, if not answered, by the alliance of the greatest naturalist of the age with their ecclesiastical opponents. Catastrophism, a short-sighted teleology, and a still more short-sighted orthodoxy, joined forces to crush evolution.

The only part of evolution in which any considerable interest is felt is evolution applied to man. A hypothesis in regard to the rocks and plant life does not affect the philosophy upon which one's life is built. Evolution applied to fish, birds and beasts would not materially affect man's view of his own responsibilities except as the acceptance of an unsupported hypothesis as to these would be used to support a similar hypothesis as to man. The evolution that is harmful—distinctly so—is the evolution that destroys man's family tree as taught by the Bible and makes him a descendant of the lower forms of life. This ... is a very vital matter.

I approach the creation-evolution dispute not as a scientist but as a problem of law, which means among other things that I know something about the ways that words are used in arguments. What first drew my attention to the question was the way the rules of argument seemed to be structured to make it impossible to question whether what we are being told about evolution is really true. For example, the Academy's rule against negative argument automatically eliminates the possibility that science has not discovered how complex organisms could have developed. However wrong the current answer may be, it stands until a better answer arrives. It is as if a criminal defendant were not allowed to present an alibi unless he could also show who did commit the crime.

Recently, a professor at Penn State told my son Joshua's class that during a trip to Africa, he had a mysterious encounter with a witch doctor of a tribe. He watched with horror as this witch doctor put a man into a trance and made the man put his face into burning coals and move them around with his nose on the ground. The man received no burns and wasn't even aware of the sensation of burning his flesh. The professor, being a committed naturalist, had no way to understand this obviously satanic phenomena. His scientific model didn't include any supernatural cause, whether it be godly or satanic. He admitted this fact to the class. He said that he saw what happened yet he did not believe it, because he couldn't fit it into what he called his scientific model . . . If their presuppositions rule out the supernatural, that is that! There is no more.

Linda continued stubbornly, “Evolution can’t be true, because if humans evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?” “Frankly, Linda, it is exactly that kind of bone-headed statement that demonstrates a complete ignorance of evolutionary processes by the staggeringly misinformed. Humans did not descend from apes, humans and apes shared a common ancestor millions of years ago. Humans and apes are distant cousins, with chimpanzees as our closest cousins sharing roughly ninety-eight percent of our genome, who together share an even earlier common ancestor with gorillas.” “I am not descended from a monkey,” Linda stated hotly. “Humans are created in the image of God and appeared on Earth in our present form. We did not evolve from pond scum!” “You are free to believe that and persist in your ignorance, but as the renowned evolutionary biologist and zoologist, Richard Dawkins, wrote in A Devil’s Chaplain—” “Aha!” Linda burst out, “there you go, admitting it’s the work of the devil.

A second point that caught my attention was that the very persons who insist upon keeping religion and science separate are eager to use their science as a basis for pronouncements about religion. The literature of Darwinism is full of anti-theistic conclusions, such as that the universe was not designed and has no purpose, and that we humans are the product of blind natural processes that care nothing about us. What is more, these statements are not presented as personal opinions but as the logical implications of evolutionary science. Another factor that makes evolutionary science seem a lot like religion is the evident zeal of Darwinists to evangelize the world, by insisting that even non-scientists accept the truth of their theory as a matter of moral obligation. Richard Dawkins, an Oxford Zoologist who is one of the most influential figures in evolutionary science, is unabashedly explicit about the religious side of Darwinism. his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker is at one level about biology, but at a more fundamental level it is a sustained argument for atheism. According to Dawkins, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." When he contemplates the perfidy of those who refuse to believe, Dawkins can scarcely restrain his fury. "It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." Dawkins went to explain, by the way, that what he dislikes particularly about creationists is that they are intolerant.

One of the first signs of a repressive regime is the capture of the education systems of their respective countries. Whether the theocrats have taken over by force or by subterfuge (as is being attempted in the United States), they dumb down learning, crush knowledge, and then supplant it with their dogma. They then gain secure political power because the population isn’t educated enough to critically examine what is really going on.

The refusal of religious conservatives to acknowledge established scientific evidence reminds me of a movie, A Guide for the Married Man, with a scene acted by comedian Joey Bishop. Bishop’s wife catches him in bed with another woman. Both Bishop and his lady friend get out of bed and get dressed, while Bishop keeps denying what his wife is witnessing. “What woman? What bed? What are you talking about?” he says as he strolls into the living room, sits down, and begins reading a newspaper in front of his bewildered wife, who then closes the door behind the departing other woman. “I don’t know what you are talking about,” he says in reply to her befuddled protests. “I’ve been sitting here this whole time, reading, and waiting for you to make dinner.” She eventually stops believing her own eyes and goes off to make dinner. It worked for Bishop and it works for the religious science deniers. Keep denying what is known and repeating what is false, and soon, because it is easier, your listeners will lose their conviction because they will get tired of having to refute you so much. The deniers win because the less the listener has to argue, the happier they’ll be—and the more they can be manipulated because they have to pay more attention to earning a living so that they can put food on the table.

If Atheism can be described as a religion, then the Theoretical Scientists are its High Priests,

But there is no observable evidence and a few of the Big Bangists themselves even admit as much.

Because Hawking, by his own admission, can neither “define” nor “measure” the events prior to the Big Bang, he simply “cuts them out” of cosmic history.

natural selection," not only changes in individual species

Theoretical Science employs assumptions, abstractions and mathematical models to explain possibilities or outcomes.

All "simple" life is complex and integrated; and cannot come from non-life.

The fact that the political Left, for its own ulterior purposes, gave a huge early boost to Darwinism is absolutely undeniable.

So you see my dear Darwinists, neither the fossil record nor sediment depths can establish the age of rocks.

Out of the countless fossils in the world, not one transitional chain of species can be definitively identified as such.

it is the hallowed Scientific Method which dooms the "theoretical science" of Darwinian Evolution to the toilet bowl of pseudo-scientific error.

In fact, as even prominent Evolutionists openly admit, the fossil record actually appears to show that new life forms came on to the scene very suddenly.

Theistic Evolution is based on psychological insecurity and the need for acceptance; not science.

At most, all Darwin ever succeeded in demonstrating was that minor variations and adaptations within a species can occur through the ‘Survival of the Fitness” phenomena (Darwin’s Finches).

It was later discovered that Haeckel had faked the embryo drawings which he used as evidence for the theory.

The use of the geological record to establish the age of fossils is an exercise in Circular Reasoning.

Would you prefer to believe in a world created by mere chance that is utterly meaningless or would you prefer to believe in a world created with a purpose by an intelligent designer who loves you personally? Complete nothingness and lack of hope vs a life lived incredibly joyfully... The answer is oh so clear to myself.

Once male and female poles have bonded together, the undifferentiated energies of life can then circulate through us. Looking at the state of the earth, it's no surprise that we worship the patriarchal state of stillness and silence while disregarding the feminine artistic and biological forces. We exist in a patriarchal society where the feminine influence of production has been distorted and ignored. The profound feminine intelligence within us is our souls, the spirit world, the natural world, and our emotions. These were all stolen, killed, or demonized. The patriarchal axis forces us into stereotypical awareness. In somatic studies, the brain, the "working" force, and our rational minds are portrayed. We need that force to shed light on our ideas, to act upon our feminine intuition. There will always be two polarities of masculine forms of consciousness at odds with one another. The masculine vs. the feminine, me vs. someone else— what we see as opposite and inward and outwardly warring forces. There is a triple form of consciousness rooted in the feminine pole: the power to see two things but also what lies between them, to access liminal space, to continually create and re-create. In the end, this is the power from which we all emerge to separate into binary consciousness. Only by revering intensely the feminine force of existence, by linking the head with the body, the masculine with the feminine, may we push beyond the constraints of patriarchal truth and into awareness of the divine concept that gave birth to all of us. It is an incorrect assumption to state that awakening kundalini is purely feminine energy or energy of the goddess. The power of creation and evolution, which are profoundly feminine powers, certainly never stops being. Yet illumination arrives as the masculine and feminine powers within us intertwine and embrace each other rather than hinder each other. By merging these feminine and masculine principles, we move into wholeness beyond a state of separation and thus become fully realized. We become masculine and feminine, empty, and full. We can even go beyond those states and witness them, observe consciousness or energy waves that flow through our body. In kundalini awakenings, the completion state is not one of a single energy chain streaming from the genitals through the top of the head or into the brain, but of all energies merging and becoming one, and both flowing downwards, entangled, into the space of the heart. This is a state of being constantly at odds with each other within and without, between two forces— male and female, void and non-void, extension and contraction, fullness, and absence. This is a state of being both forces at the same time, as well as falling between them.

Furthermore, a cell has no ability to improve its basic function. Bacteria that becomes resistant to antibiotics are still bacteria. Fruit flies that develop mutations are still fruit flies. Moths that change color are still moths. Birds that develop longer and shorter beaks are still birds. Therefore, one organism has no natural ability to change into another organism. (chapter 10)

So put your stubbornness to rest, Yes, open up your eyes. No big bang has ever happened, Was God brought us to life.

How strange it is beholding this, and, very confident, proclaim that such magnificence occurred by accident.

If it has been revealed to man that the Almighty made him out of the dust of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, it is in vain to tell a Christian that man was originally a speck of albumen, and passed through the stages of monads and monkeys, before he attained his present intellectual preeminence. If it be a received truth that the Creator has repeatedly interposed in the government of the universe and displayed his immediate agency in miraculous interpositions, it is an insult to any reader to tell him that the being slumbers on his throne and rules under a "primal arrangement in his counsels," and "by a code of laws of unbending operation.

The surname of an atheist is compound unfortunate plus being, therefore unfortunate-beings, making all atheists unfortunate beings because human beings are created by God and not products of big bang atoms undergoing evolution.

Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life’s history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion—that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.

The point is that the science is accurate in describing how the universe works, independent of the metaphysical implications one derives from it. The same is of course true for evolution, which happened and is happening, whether or not one chooses to believe in God.

In science class we would never look at the evidence against the existence of God, but it seems to be perfectly acceptable to challenge the scientific standpoint in the religion class,

Forget the buildings and the monuments. Let the softness of dark come in, all those light-years between stars and planets. Cities were the works of men but the earth before and after those cities, outside and beneath and around them, was the dream of a sleeping leviathan--it was god sleeping there and dreaming, the same god that was time and transfiguration. From whatever dreamed the dream at the source, atom or energy, flowed all the miracles of evolution--tiger, tiger burning bright, the massive whales in the deep, luminescent specters in their mystery. The pearls that were their eyes, their tongues that were wet leaves, their bodies that were the bodies of the fantastic. Spectacular bestiaries of heaven, the limbs and tails of the gentle and the fearsome, silent or raging at will . . . they could never be known in every detail and they never should be.

It takes not a few centuries, or even millenniums, but millions of years for a subtle evolutionary change to become noticeable.