Quotessence
Home / Topics / Macroevolution Quotes

Macroevolution Quotes

Browse 29 quotes about Macroevolution.

Macroevolution Quotes

“A physicist that I know commented that many other scientific disciplines, such as geology, anthropology, astronomy, are also challenged by biblical fundamentalism, but their people seem to be able to get on with their work without worrying unduly. Only Darwinians seem thrown into a frenzy that sends them running to litigation and demanding censorship. His explanation was that it's a rival religion.”

ScienceReligionEvolutionNaturalismDarwinismMacroevolution
Author:James P. Hogan
Create image

“Johnson is a radical skeptic, insisting, in the best Socratic tradition, that everything be put on the table for examination. By contrast, most skeptics opposed to him are selective skeptics, applying their skepticism to the things they dislike (notably religion) and refusing to apply their skepticism to the things they do like (notably Darwinism). On two occasions I’ve urged Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic Magazine, to put me on its editorial board as the resident skeptic of Darwinism. Though Shermer and I know each other and are quite friendly, he never got back to me about joining his editorial board.”

ReligionEvolutionSkepticismBiasCritical ThinkingDarwinismScepticismMacroevolutionMacro Evolution
Author:William A. Dembski
Create image

“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”

ScienceEvolutionBiologyFossilsDarwinismDarwinPaleontologyMacroevolutionMacro EvolutionNeo DarwinismConfessions Of The DarwinistsDarwinist ConfessionsFossil Record
Book:In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life
Create image

“Random mutations much more easily debilitate genes than improve them, and that this is true even of the helpful mutations. Let me emphasize, our experience with malaria’s effects on humans (arguably our most highly studied genetic system) shows that most helpful mutations degrade genes. What’s more, as a group the mutations are incoherent, meaning that they are not adding up to some new system. They are just small changes - mostly degradative - in pre-existing, unrelated genes. The take-home lesson is that this is certainly not the kind of process we would expect to build the astonishingly elegant machinery of the cell. If random mutation plus selective pressure substantially trashes the human genome, why should we think that it would be a constructive force in the long term? There is no reason to think so.”

ScienceChanceEvolutionBiologyDarwinismMalariaMacroevolutionMacro EvolutionMutations
Author:Michael J. Behe
Create image

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

ScienceEvolutionMajorityGlobal WarmingConsensusScientific MethodDarwinismScientific ResearchScientific DiscoveryIntelligent DesignScientific Theory9 11MinorityScientific RevolutionIdMacroevolutionMacro EvolutionSeptember 11 AttacksFluorideScientific InquiryMsgMajority ViewScientific ProcessMinority ViewExcitotoxinsMan Made Global WarmingBisphenol ABpaManmade Global WarmingMonosodium GlutamateDr Jack Cohen Podiatrist
Author:Michael Crichton
Create image

“Regardless of one's point of view, it's quite easy to see that Darwinism is not in the same league as the hard sciences. For instance, Darwinists will often compare their theory favorably to Einsteinian physics, claiming that Darwinism is just as well established as general relativity. Yet how many physicists, while arguing for the truth of Einsteinian physics, will claim that general relativity is as well established as Darwin’s theory? Zero.”

ScienceEvolutionDarwinismScientific TheoryEinsteinMacroevolutionGeneral RelativityMacro EvolutionSpeciationScientific TheoriesHard Science
Book:Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing
Create image

“Teaching students the evidence for and against Darwinism is not the same as teaching intelligent design. The U.S. Congress has officially endorsed teaching students 'the full range of scientific views' about Darwinian evolution.”

ScienceEvolutionBiologyDarwinismIntelligent DesignIdMacroevolutionMacro EvolutionScientific Inquiry
Book:The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
Create image

“Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest... The origin of species — Darwin’s problem — remains unsolved.”

ScienceEvolutionBiologyDarwinismDarwinMacroevolutionMacro EvolutionNeo DarwinismConfessions Of The DarwinistsDarwinist Confessions
Author:Scott F. Gilbert
Create image

“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”

ScienceEvolutionMajorityGlobal WarmingConsensusScientific MethodDarwinismScientific ResearchScientific DiscoveryIntelligent DesignScientific Theory9 11MinorityScientific RevolutionIdMacroevolutionMacro EvolutionSeptember 11 AttacksFluorideScientific InquiryMsgMajority ViewScientific ProcessMinority ViewExcitotoxinsMan Made Global WarmingBisphenol ABpaManmade Global WarmingMonosodium Glutamate
Author:Michael Crichton
Create image

“The most essential prediction of Darwinism is that, given an astronomical number of chances, unintelligent processes can make seemingly-designed systems, ones of the complexity of those found in the cell. ID specifically denies this, predicting that in the absence of intelligent input no such systems would develop. So Darwinism and ID make clear, opposite predictions of what we should find when we examine genetic results from a stupendous number of organisms that are under relentless pressure from natural selection. The recent genetic results are a stringent test. The results: 1) Darwinism’s prediction is falsified; 2) Design’s prediction is confirmed.”

ScienceChanceEvolutionBiologyPredictionsNatural SelectionNaturalismDarwinismIntelligent DesignIdMacroevolutionMacro Evolution
Author:Michael J. Behe
Create image

“The controversy between Darwinism and intelligent design has the characteristics of major scientific revolutions in the past. Darwinists are losing power because they treat with contempt the very people on whom they depend the most: American taxpayers. The outcome of this scientific revolution will be decided by young people who have the courage to question dogmatism and follow the evidence wherever it leads.”

ScienceEvolutionBiologyDarwinismIntelligent DesignScientific RevolutionIdMacroevolutionMacro EvolutionScientific Inquiry
Book:The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
Create image

“Ewww... intelligent design people! They're just buck-toothed, Bible-pushing nincompoops with community-college degrees who're trying to sell a gussied-up creationism to a cretinous public! No need to address their concerns or respond to their arguments. They are Not Science. They are poopy-heads. There. I just saved you the trouble of reading 90 percent of the responses to the ID position... This is how losers act just before they lose: arrogant, self-satisfied, too important to be bothered with substantive refutation, and disdainful of their own faults... The only remaining question is whether Darwinism will exit gracefully, or whether it will go down biting, screaming, censoring, and denouncing to the bitter end. — Tech Central Station contributor Douglas Kern, 2005”

ScienceEvolutionBiologyDarwinismIntelligent DesignScientific RevolutionIdMacroevolutionMacro EvolutionNeo DarwinismDouglas KernNeodarwinism
Book:The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
Create image

“If Darwinists are opposed to mentioning scientific problems with their view, you would think they would be even more opposed to mentioning intelligent design. Yet Darwinists have been discussing ID in public school science classes for years... Biology textbooks have been mentioning intelligent design since the late 1990s—but only to misrepresent and disparage it.”

ScienceEvolutionBiologyDarwinismIntelligent DesignIdMacroevolutionMacro EvolutionScientific Inquiry
Book:The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
Create image

“For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any critical analysis of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.”

ScienceEvolutionBiologyDarwinismDarwinMacroevolutionMacro EvolutionNeo Darwinism
Author:James A. Shapiro
Create image

“[...] if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all. [review of The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life, Nature 442, 983-984 (31 August 2006)]”

ScienceEvolutionBiologySpeculationDarwinismConjectureDarwinMacroevolutionMacro EvolutionPseudo ScienceNeo DarwinismConfessions Of The DarwinistsDarwinist Confessions
Author:Jerry A. Coyne
Create image

“The phrase 'the fossil record' sounds impressive and authoritative. As used by some persons it becomes, as intended, intimidating, taking on the aura of esoteric truth as expounded by an elite class of specialists. But what is it, really, this fossil record? Only data in search of interpretation. All claims to the contrary that I know, and I know of several, are so much superstition.”

ScienceEvolutionBiologyFossilsDarwinismDarwinPaleontologyMacroevolutionMacro EvolutionNeo DarwinismFossil Record
Author:Gareth J. Nelson
Create image

“God without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing.”

ScienceEvolutionScience And ReligionNaturalismDarwinismIntelligent DesignIdMacroevolutionReligion And Science
Book:The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy
Create image

“Before you can ask 'Is Darwinian theory correct or not?', You have to ask the preliminary question 'Is it clear enough so that it could be correct?'. That's a very different question. One of my prevailing doctrines about Darwinian theory is 'Man, that thing is just a mess. It's like looking into a room full of smoke.' Nothing in the theory is precisely, clearly, carefully defined or delineated. It lacks all of the rigor one expects from mathematical physics, and mathematical physics lacks all the rigor one expects from mathematics. So we're talking about a gradual descent down the level of intelligibility until we reach evolutionary biology.”

ScienceEvolutionClarityBiologyDarwinismMacroevolutionMacro EvolutionAmbiguitydefinitions
Author:David Berlinski
Create image

“Real arms races are run by highly intelligent, bespectacled engineers in glass offices thoughtfully designing shiny weapons on modern computers. But there's no thinking in the mud and cold of nature's trenches. At best, weapons thrown together amidst the explosions and confusion of smoky battlefields are tiny variations on old ones, held together by chewing gum. If they don't work, then something else is thrown at the enemy, including the kitchen sink - there's nothing "progressive" about that. At its usual worst, trench warfare is fought by attrition. If the enemy can be stopped or slowed by burning your own bridges and bombing your own radio towers and oil refineries, then away they go. Darwinian trench warfare does not lead to progress - it leads back to the Stone Age.”

ScienceEvolutionBiologyDarwinismMutationArms RaceMacroevolutionMacro Evolution
Book:The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
Create image

“In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.”

ScienceEvolutionBiologySpeculationDarwinismConjectureDarwinMacroevolutionMacro EvolutionPseudo ScienceNeo DarwinismConfessions Of The DarwinistsDarwinist Confessions
Author:Jerry A. Coyne
Create image

“I recently asked more than seventy eminent researchers if they would have done I their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: no. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome: the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions: improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”

ScienceEvolutionBiologyDarwinismDarwinMacroevolutionMacro EvolutionNeo Darwinism
Book:Why do we invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology
Create image

“Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another... Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [i.e., bacterial] to eukaryotic [i.e., plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.”

ScienceEvolutionBiologyDarwinismDarwinMacroevolutionMacro EvolutionNeo Darwinism
Author:Alan H. Linton
Create image

“I am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in favour of Darwinian dogma. Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all. Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as George Bernard Shaw used to say.”

ScienceEvolutionBiologyDarwinismDarwinMacroevolutionMacro EvolutionNeo DarwinismGeorge Bernard Shaw
Author:Raul O. Leguizamon
Create image

“All disciplines of science are built on the causality of the relationships governing related events. Yet the theory of evolution is built upon the idea of accidental changes that resulted in complex living systems. I was unable to comprehend how the notion that an infinite number of random accidents systematically happened to produce living species, and kept improving these beings, is justified.”

ScienceEvolutionBiologyDarwinismDarwinMacroevolutionMacro EvolutionNeo Darwinism
Book:Clinging to a Myth: The Story Behind Evolution
Create image

“The theory of phlogiston was an inversion of the true nature of combustion. Removing phlogiston was in reality adding oxygen, while adding phlogiston was actually removing oxygen. The theory was a total misrepresentation of reality. Phlogiston did not even exist, and yet its existence was firmly believed and the theory adhered to rigidly for nearly one hundred years throughout the eighteenth century. ... As experimentation continued the properties of phlogiston became more bizarre and contradictory. But instead of questioning the existence of this mysterious substance it was made to serve more comprehensive purposes. ... For the skeptic or indeed to anyone prepared to step out of the circle of Darwinian belief, it is not hard to find inversions of common sense in modern evolutionary thought which are strikingly reminiscent of the mental gymnastics of the phlogiston chemists or the medieval astronomers. To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence!”

ScienceChanceEvolutionCoincidenceConsensusNaturalismSerendipityDarwinismOrigin Of LifeMacroevolutionMacro EvolutionMajority ViewOrigin Of InformationScientific Consensus
Book:Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
Create image

“Teachers seeking to 'teach the controversy' over Darwinian evolution in today's climate will likely be met with false warnings that it is unconstitutional to say anything negative about Darwinian evolution. Students who attempt to raise questions about Darwinism, or who try to elicit from the teacher an honest answer about the status of intelligent design theory will trigger administrators' concerns about whether they stand in Constitutional jeopardy. A chilling effect on open inquiry is being felt in several states already, including Ohio. South Carolina, and Pennsylvania. [District Court] Judge Jones's message is clear: give Darwin only praise, or else face the wrath of the judiciary.”

ScienceEvolutionBiologyDarwinismIntelligent DesignIdMacroevolutionMacro EvolutionScientific Inquiry
Book:Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision
Create image