Hier volg aanhalings van selfs evolusioniste wat erken dat evolusie nie bydra tot enige nuttige wetenskaplike inligting nie. Dit is daarom tragies dat daar soveel wetenskaplikes is wat soveel tyd en geld spandeer aan ’n onderwerp wat niks waarde toevoeg nie. Inteendeel, dit beroof baie mense van hulle geloof (kyk Hoe evolusie (en liberalisme) mense se geloof beïnvloed).
*****************
Prof Louis Bounoure
Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.
Evolusie is ’n feëverhaal vir volwassenes. Hierdie teorie het niks gehelp in die bevordering van wetenskap nie. Dit is nutteloos.
[Prof. Louis Bounoure, Former: President Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research The Advocate, March 8, 1984, p. 17]
*****************
Anoniem
You use your ID perspective to get the research done, but you’re not allowed to talk about it in public.
[Uit die DVD Expelled, 0:14:50. Kyk ook die onderhoud met Michael Egnor in die ekstras van die DVD.]
*****************
Philip Skell
Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. … I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. …
The efforts mentioned there are not experimental biology; they are attempts to explain already authenticated phenomena in Darwinian terms, things like human nature. Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.
Darwinian evolution—whatever its other virtues—does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.
[Uit Darwinian explanations are too flexible to be useful (Skell), Philip Skell, ‘Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology’, The Scientist19(16):10, 29 August 2005. Die hele artikel kan HIER gelees word. Daar is ook ’n soortgelyke artikel deur Philip S. Skell: The Dangers Of Overselling Evolution: Focusing on Darwin and his theory doesn’t further scientific progress, Forbes magazine, 23 February 2009.]
*****************
Marc Kirschner
(Voorsitter van die Departement van Systeembiologie, Harvard Mediese Skool)
“In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
[Cited by Peter Dizikes, Missing Links, Boston Globe, 23 October 2005. Accessed at www.boston.com, 4 November 2010.]
*****************
Peter Harrison
(Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford, Fellow of Harris Manchester College)
It is commonly supposed that when in the early modern period individuals began to look at the world in a different way, they could no longer believe what they read in the Bible. In this book I shall suggest that the reverse is the case: that when in the sixteenth century people began to read the Bible in a different way, they found themselves forced to jettison traditional conceptions of the world.
Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.
[Uit The biblical roots of modern science.]
*****************
Larry Witham
“Surprisingly, however, the most notable aspect of natural scientists in assembly is how little they focus on evolution. Its day-to-day irrelevance is a great ‘paradox’ in biology, according to a BioEssays special issue on evolution in 2000. ‘While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas”, the editor wrote. “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” The annual programs of science conventions also tell the story. When the zoologists met in 1995 (and changed their name to the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology), just a few dozen of the 400 academic papers read were on evolution. The North American Paleontological Convention of 1996 featured 430 papers, but only a few included the word ‘evolution’ in their titles. The 1998 AAS meeting organised 150 scientific sessions, but just 5 focused on evolution—as it relates to biotechnology, the classification of species, language, race and primate families.”
(Uit Evolution: superfluous to real biological research, Witham, Larry A., Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America (hardcover), p. 43, Oxford University Press, 2002. Witham is an anti-creationist. Kyk ook resensie deur Jerry Bergman, Journal of Creation17(3):22–24, 2003.)
*****************