Re: self organization

mortongr@flash.net
Thu, 14 Oct 1999 20:10:56 +0000

At 11:22 AM 10/14/1999 EDT, Bertvan@aol.com wrote:
>No one has called you a "rabid and radical evolutionist". I merely agree
>with a growing number of scientists who regard "Random mutation and
natural
>selection" as an inadequate explanation of macro evolution.

Please list the scientists in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 who have come
out against random mutation and natural selection. I want to see if this is
truly a 'growing number of scientists.' And I want to see if your claim is
any better than the claims of those that went before you.

I have heard this claim since the early 60s. Note the dates as I list these
out. And then ask yourself. If these claims that more and more scientists
were abandoning random mutation and natural selection where are all these
people?
Why are there still so few? I contend it is all self delusion.

"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

"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 skeptisism" ~ 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

"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

"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

"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

"In spite of the enormous influence of Darwin's theories in modern
education, many specialists in the natural sciences are becoming convinced
that 'nature' could neither have created nor have increased the complexity
of the physical universe." ~ John C. Whitcomb, The Early Earth, (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 13

"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.

(of course he names none of them)

"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

"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

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

"Many secularists today have abandoned strict naturalism in favor of hazy
New-Age thinking. 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

"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.
glenn

Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm

Lots of information on creation/evolution