Aanhalings – Evolusie ’n geloof/Wetenskap nie objektief

*****************

Ken Ham
(Skeppingsleerder. Direkteur van Answers in Genesis.)

“Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.”

*****************

Richard Lewontin
(Evolusionis)

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.

Ons neem die kant van die wetenskap, ten spyte van die ooglopende absurditeit van sommige van sy konstruksies, ten spyte van sy versuim om baie van sy buitensporige beloftes van gesondheid en die lewe te vervul, ten spyte van die verdraagsaamheid van die wetenskaplike gemeenskap vir ongegronde stories, want ons het ’n vooropgestelde verbintenis, ’n verbintenis tot materialisme.

Dit is nie dat die metodes en instansies van die wetenskap ons op een of ander manier dwing om vir ons ’n materialistiese verduideliking van die waarneembare wêreld te aanvaar nie, inteendeel, ons word gedwing deur ons vooropgestelde nakoming tot materialisme wat ’n apparaat vir ondersoek en ’n stel konsepte skep wat ’n materialistiese verduideliking veroorsaak, maak nie saak hoe teen-intuïtief nie, maak nie saak hoe verborge aan die oningewydes. Verder, materialisme is ’n absolute, want ons kan nie ’n Goddelike voet in die deur toelaat nie.

Die vooraanstaande Kant-geleerde Lewis Beck het gesê dat enigiemand wat in God kan glo, kan in enigiets glo. Om ’n beroep op ’n almagtige godheid te maak is om enige oomblik toe te laat dat die reëlmatigheid van die natuur gebreek kan word, dat wonderwerke kan gebeur.

[Uit Amazing admission]

En:

Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big truths.

Wetenskaplikes, net soos ander, vertel soms doelbewuste leuens, omdat hulle glo dat klein leuens groot waarhede kan dien.

*****************

Michael Shallis

‘It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing).’

Dit is nie meer ketters om te sê dat die heelal geen doel vertoon nie, soos Hoyle gedoen het, as om te sê dat dit sinneloos is, soos Steven Weinberg gedoen het. Beide stellings is metafisies en buite die wetenskap. Tog blyk dit dat wetenskaplikes deur hul eie kollegas toegelaat word om metafisiese dinge te sê oor die gebrek aan die doel en nie die omgekeerde nie. Dit dui vir my daarop dat die wetenskap, in die feit dat hierdie metafisiese siening toegelaat word, sien homself as godsdiens en vermoedelik as ’n ateïstiese godsdiens (as daar so iets bestaan).

[Shallis, M. [Astrophysicist, Oxford University], In the eye of a storm, New Scientist, pp. 42–43, January 19, 1984. [Quotable quote: The religion of scientism]

*****************

Richard Dickerson
(Evolusionis)

‘Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule. Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behaviour of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.’

Wetenskap is fundamenteel ’n speletjie. Dit is ’n spel met een oorheersende en definiërende reël. Reël nommer 1: Kom ons kyk hoe ver en tot watter mate kan ons die gedrag van die fisiese en materiële heelal verduidelik in terme van suiwer fisiese en materiële oorsake, sonder aanroeping van die bonatuurlike.

[Uit Games some people play]

*****************

Onbekende professor

“You may well be right; special creation is probably the truth and evolution is wrong. Nevertheless, evolution is science, and creation is religion, so only evolution should be taught in schools.”

Jy mag reg wees, spesiale skepping is waarskynlik die waarheid en evolusie is verkeerd. Tog, evolusie is wetenskap, en skeppingsleer is godsdiens, daarom moet net evolusie in skole onderrig word.

[Uit Games some people play]

*****************

Dr Michael Walker

“One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator…”

Mens is gedwing om tot die gevolgtrekking te kom dat baie wetenskaplikes en tegnoloë lippe-diens aan die Darwiniaanse teorie betaal net omdat dit kwansuis ’n Skepper uitsluit …

(Dr. Michael Walker Senior Lecturer, Anthropology, Sydney University Quadrant, Oct 1982, p. 44)

*****************

Scott (SC) Todd

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.

Selfs as al die data op ’n intelligente ontwerper dui, is so ’n hipotese uitgesluit van die wetenskap, want dit is nie naturalisties nie.

[‘DNA marvellous messages or mostly mess?’, Creation 25(2), bl. 26-31, 2003, S. C. Todd in sy korrespondensie aan Nature 401, bl. 423, 30 Sep. 1999] [Uit A designer is unscientific even if all the evidence supports one]

*****************

Michael Ruse
(Professor in filosofie en dierkunde. Sien homself as ’n ateïs en agnos.)

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion – a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. … Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. … Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.

Evolusie word deur sy praktisyns as meer as net wetenskap bevorder. Evolusie word gepromulgeer as ’n ideologie, ’n sekulêre godsdiens – ’n volwaardige alternatief tot die Christelike geloof, met betekenis en moraliteit. … Evolusie is ’n geloof. Dit was waar van evolusie in die begin, en dit is vandag nog waar van evolusie. … Evolusie het dus tot stand gekom as ’n soort sekulêre ideologie, ’n eksplisiete plaasvervanger vir Christenskap.

[‘Did creationists ‘hijack’ Gould’s idea?’, TJ 16(2), bl. 22-24, 2002] [Michael Ruse (professor in filosofie en dierkunde, University of Guelph, Kanada), National Post, 13 Mei 2000, bl. B1, B3 en B7] Michael Ruse – evolution is a religion]

*****************

Michael Behe
(Lid van die Intelligente Ontwerp beweging. Dus is hy teen evolusie, maar nie noodwendig ’n Christen nie.)

“The fourth and most powerful reason for science’s reluctance to embrace a theory of intelligent design is also based on philosophical considerations. Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don’t want there to be anything beyond nature. They don’t want a supernatural being to affect nature, no matter how brief or constructive the interaction may have been. In other words … they bring an a priori philosophical commitment to their science that restricts what kinds of explanations they will accept about the physical world. Sometimes this leads to rather odd behavior.”

[M. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, p.243.]

*****************

Jun-Yuan Chen

“In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.”

[Chinese paleontologist, quoted by Berkeley law professor and Darwin critic Phillip E. Johnson. Uit http://bevets.com/equotesc.htm.]

*****************

Charles Lyell

Charles Lyell (author of “Principles of Geology”), stated in 1881 that his aim was to “free science from Moses” (Vol 1, p268) – not a geological aim but a philosophical aim.

[Kyk Charles Lyell’s hidden agenda—to free science “from Moses”]

*****************

Julian Huxley
(Evolusionis en ongelowige.)

Scientists jumped on Darwin’s Origin of Species because the idea of God was too restrictive to their sexual morals.

Wetenskaplikes het Darwin se Origin of Species aangegryp, omdat die idee van God te beperkend was op hul seksuele morele waardes.

[Julian Huxley, genoem “the bulldog of Darwin” op ’n VSA TV-program ’Evolution’s Bloopers and Blunders’]

*****************

John MacArthur

…skryf in sy boek, The Battle for the Beginning, die volgende oor evolusie:

“Thanks to the theory of evolution, naturalism is now the dominant religion of modern society”.

“Naturalism has now replaced Christianity as the main religion of the Western world, and evolution has become naturalism’s principal doctrine.”

“Danksy die teorie van evolusie, is naturalisme nou die oorheersende godsdiens van die moderne samelewing”.

“Naturalisme het nou die Christendom as die hoof godsdiens van die Westerse wêreld vervang, en evolusie het naturalisme se belangrikste leer geword.”

*****************

Luther Sunderland

…, in sy boek, Darwin’s Enigma, skryf die volgende:

“Darwin has had a more significant impact on every facet of society throughout the world than any other person in the last several hundred years. To some degree, the theory of evolution has influenced the fields of philosophy, economics, education, science, politics, and to a minor degree, all major organized religious denominations, which now teach it exclusively in their seminaries, either implicitly or explicitly.”

“Darwin het ’n groter impak gehad op elke faset van die samelewing in die wêreld as enige ander persoon in die laaste paar honderd jaar. In ’n mate het die teorie van evolusie die velde van die filosofie, ekonomie, onderwys, wetenskap, politiek, en tot ’n mindere mate, al die groot georganiseerde godsdienstige denominasies beïnvloed, wat dit nou uitsluitlik in hul kweekskole onderrig, hetsy implisiet of uitdruklik.”

*****************

James Hutton
(Skotse geoloog en naturalis.)

“The past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now.”

“Die geskiedenis van ons wêreld moet verduidelik word deur dit wat gesien kan word nou besig is om te gebeur.” [Hierdie is presies die definisie van naturalisme.]

James Hutton (1726-97) Theory of the Earth

*****************

Darwinism—a cult?

Sometimes logic and reason against the tide of evolutionary indoctrination come to the fore in surprising places. The following challenge to the British Broadcasting Corporation appeared on the Peter Hitchens feature page of the International Express (UK), on 5 January 2000:

“Darwin’s bizarre cult

The BBC teased religious leaders by asking them if they believed in the literal truth of the great Bible stories. I would like to ask BBC chiefs and the rest of our secular establishment if they believe in the literal truth of evolution. Evolution is an unproven theory. If what its fundamentalist supporters believe is true, fishes decided to grow lungs and legs and walk up the beach. The idea is so comically daft that only one thing explains its survival—that lonely, frightened people wanted to expel God from the Universe because they found the idea that He exists profoundly uncomfortable.”

[Uit Darwinisma cult]

*****************

Gerald D. Fischbach

In September 1992, a Scientific American article called ‘Mind and Brain’ said that human brain is …

‘the most complex structure in the known universe, complex enough to coordinate the fingers of a concert pianist or to create a three-dimensional landscape from light that falls on a two-dimensional retina’. A few lines further on, the author said,

‘the current version [of the brain] is the result of millions of years of evolution. It is difficult to understand the brain because, unlike a computer, it was not built with specific purposes or principles of design in mind. Natural selection, the engine of evolution, is responsible.’

This is the stark reality of what evolutionary science is teaching our generation—even the most complex structure in the universe is said to have no plan, no purpose, in defiance of all ordinary logic. Trying to explain design without a designer—in other words, justifying atheism, is what evolution has always been all about, despite the attempts by ‘theistic evolutionism’ to disguise the obvious.

(Source: Gerald D. Fischbach, ‘Mind and Brain’, Scientific American 267(3):24, September 1992.
[Uit Twisted thinking]

*****************

Professor Jerome Lejeune

“We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation…”

From a French recording of internationally recognised geneticist, Professor Jerome Lejeune, at a lecture given in Paris on March 17, 1985. Translated by Peter Wilders of Monaco.

“Ons het nie op die oomblik ’n aanvaarbare teorie vir evolusie nie. Daar is geen; en ek kan nie die teorie aanvaar wat ek tans aan my studente onderrig elke jaar nie. Laat ek verduidelik. Ek onderrig die sintetiese teorie bekend as die neo-Darwinistiese een, vir een rede alleenlik: nie omdat dit goed is nie, ons weet dit is sleg nie, maar omdat daar nie ’n ander is nie. Terwyl ons wag om iets beter te kry, word jy iets onderrig wat ons weet nie akkuraat is nie, wat ’n eerste benadering is… “

Van ’n Franse opname van die internasionaal erkende genetikus, Professor Jerome Lejeune, by ’n lesing gegee in Parys op 17 Maart 1985. Vertaal na Engels deur Peter Wilders van Monaco.

[Uit No acceptable theory of evolution lejeune]

*****************

Hubert P Yockey
(Nie ’n skeppingsleerder nie)

‘Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions.’

‘The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life.’

[Uit Primeval soupfailed paradigm – Yockey]

‘Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened.

One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.’

[Uit Chemical evolution: based on (blind) faith not fact (Yockey)]

*****************

James A Shapiro (1997)
(Department van Biochemie en Molekulêre Biologie, Universiteit van Chicago.)

But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of enquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists’ criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.

Maar die neo-Darwinistiese voorstaanders maak daarop aanspraak dat hulle wetenskaplik is, en ons kan daarom tereg van hulle verwag om ’n meer oop en ondersoekende gees te hê. In plaas daarvan, openbaar hulle ’n verdedigende houding van woedende ortodoksie en handhaaf ’n onaanvegbare aanspraak op die waarheid, wat net die kreasioniste se kritiek bevestig dat Darwinisme meer van ’n geloof as ’n wetenskap is.

*****************

CS Lewis
(Christen.)

‘Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared—the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’

[Uit Quotable Quote: C.S. Lewis: Science began with belief in a Lawmaker]

*****************

Franklin M Harold

“There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

“Daar is tans geen gedetailleerde Darwinistiese weergawe van die evolusie van enige biochemiese of sellulêre stelsel, net ’n verskeidenheid van wensdenkende bespiegelings.”

[The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, (Oxford University Press, New York, 2001), p. 205.]

*****************

Philip Skell
(Chemie-professor)

“Darwinian explanations … are often too supple. … 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.”

“Darwin se verduideliking … is dikwels te soepel. … Wanneer ’n verduideliking so soepel is dat dit enige gedrag kan verduidelik, is dit moeilik om dit eksperimenteel te toets, nog minder geskik om dit te gebruik as ’n katalisator vir wetenskaplike ontdekking.”

[‘Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology’, The Scientist 19(16):10, 29 August 2005.]

*****************

Karl Popper
(Filosoof, evolusionis en agnos.)

“Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme … ”

“Darwinisme is nie ’n toetsbare wetenskaplike teorie nie, maar ’n metafisiese navorsing program …”

Alhoewel hy dit gesê het, het hy nogtans gedink dat evolusie waardevol is om dinge in die wêreld te verduidelik.

[Unended Quest, Fontana-Collins, Glasgow, p. 151, 1976.]

*****************

Henry Gee
(Paleontoloog en evolusionis)

We have all seen the canonical parade of apes each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line up is tosh (nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates. … almost every time someone claims to have found a new species of hominin, someone else refutes it.

Ons almal het die kanonieke (kerklike) parade van ape gesien waar elkeen besig is om meer menslik te word. Ons weet egter dat, as ’n uitbeelding van evolusie, hierdie gelid nonsens is. Tog hou ons daaraan vas. Idees van wat menslike evolusie behoort te gewees het kleur steeds ons debatte in. … byna elke keer as iemand beweer dat hy het ’n nuwe Hominide-spesie gevind het, kom iemand anders en weerlê dit.

[Henry Gee in “Cranium with clout …”, Nature 478: 34, 2011. Kyk ook Henry Gee in Nature: “We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh. Yet we cling to it.”]

*****************

Tim White
(Paleo-antropoloog en evolusionis)

The unilineal depiction of human evolution popularized by the familiar iconography of an evolutionary ‘march to modern man’ has been proven wrong for more than 60 years. However the cartoon continues to provide a popular straw man for scientists, writers and editors alike.

Die enkelafstammeling uitbeelding van menslike evolusie wat gewild gemaak is deur die bekende ikonografie van ’n evolusionêre ‘mars na die moderne mens’ is al vir meer as 60 jaar verkeerd bewys. Maar, die strokiesprent voorsien steeds ’n gewilde strooipop vir wetenskaplikes, skrywers en redakteurs.

[Palaeoanthropology: Five’s a crowd in our family tree by Tim White.]

*****************

‘n Ateïs

…after about 45 minutes we got to the point where I [David Catchpoole] asked him a simple yes/no question about whether there was any possibility that the history outlined in the Bible might be true. To my amazement, Brev said (after a long reflective pause) something that I’ve never previously heard any atheist or agnostic dare to admit:

“Uh-oh, I can see where that question leads … but it can’t, we can’t go there … because the consequences of that would change my whole life—if the Bible’s history is true then I’d have to devote my whole life to serving God … The commitment would be too great … No, it’s impossible.”

[Uit A candid admission: The real issue behind the creation/evolution battle over origins]

*****************

Richard Dawkins

We are condemned to live only for a few decades and that’s too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on.

Ons is verdoem om net vir ’n paar dekades te leef en dit is te stadig, ’n te klein tydskaal om evolusie te sien voortgaan.

[Gesê in ’n gesprek met Lawrence Krauss – kyk Something From Nothing?]

*****************

Charles Darwin

We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages, and then so imperfect is our view into long-past geological ages, that we see only that the forms of life are now different from what they formerly were.

Ons sien niks van hierdie stadige veranderinge wat aan die gang is nie, tot en met die hand van die tyd die verloop van die eeue gemerk het, en dan is ons kyk tot in ’n ou verlede van geologiese ouderdomme so onperfek, dat ons slegs sien dat die vorme van lewe tans anders is as wat hulle voorheen was.

[Uit Origin of Species.]

*****************

Roger Lewin

“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. … At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.”

Die sentrale vraag van die Chicago-konferensie was of die meganismes onderliggend aan mikro-evolusie geëkstrapoleer kan word om die verskynsel van makro-evolusie te verduidelik. … As die risiko geneem kan word om kwaad te doen aan sekere mense se posisies by die vergadering, moet die antwoord gegee word as ’n duidelike “nee”.

Dr. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science. Vol. 210, 21 November 1980. p. 883-887. Kyk ook Microevolution Will Never Produce Macroevolution

*****************

Michael Crichton

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.

Daar is nie so iets soos konsensus wetenskap. As dit konsensus is, is dit nie wetenskap nie. As dit wetenskap is, is dit nie konsensus nie. Punt.

[Uit Michael Crichton on consensus science.]

*****************

Colin Patterson

Patterson het in die programrede by die Amerikaanse Museum vir Natuurgeskiedenis op 5 November 1981, die volgende gesê:

“Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, “I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school”.

[Uit That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils]

*****************

Colin Patterson

“all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth”

My hele lewe lank is ek bedrieg deur evolusionisme as geopenbaarde waarheid te aanvaar.

[Uit Evolution Is Religion, Not Science.]

*****************

Ernst Mayr

(Kyk ook Ernst Mayr, bevets.com)

Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science — the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.

Darwin het historisiteit in wetenskap bekendgestel. Evolusionêre biologie, in teenstelling met fisika en chemie, is ’n historiese wetenskap – die evolusionis poog om gebeurtenisse en prosesse wat reeds plaasgevind het te verklaar. Wette en eksperimente is onvanpaste tegnieke vir die uiteensetting van sodanige gebeurtenisse en prosesse. In plaas daarvan bou mens ’n historiese verhaal, wat bestaan uit ’n tentatiewe rekonstruksie van die spesifieke scenario wat gelei het tot die gebeure wat ’n mens probeer verduidelik.

[Uit “Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought”, Scientific American, July 2000, p.68]

*****************

Steven Vogel

‘… the evolutionary process faces constraints far more severe than anything impeding human designers. We biologists recognise these constraints, but we don’t often rise above our natural chauvinism and make enough noise about them. Every organism must grow from an initially smaller to an ultimately larger size. Nature in effect must transmute a motorcycle into an automobile while providing continuous transportation. The need for growth without loss of function can impose severe geometrical limitations.’

[Uit Critical characteristics and the irreducible knee joint.]

*****************

Gail Kennedy

The problem with those who are unable to see evolution, I think, is that they don’t have imaginations.

[Onderhoud met Ray Comfort as deel van die fliek Evolution vs. God.]