News | Speaking Schedule | Quotes | Resources | FAQ | Bibliography | Skeptics

Contact Us

Quotes

Updated 05/07/09

"There are certainly a good number of scientists who now reject the concepts of evolution -- not on religious grounds, but on strictly scientific grounds. Most of them are keeping their own council. Outwardly they support evolution (so as to be in step with their peers) but inwardly they have second thoughts on the subject. It is not too easy to take a stand against the beliefs of the majority, and expose oneself to ridicule, especially when one's job and academic and professional prospects are on the line. It is only the very brave and those highly placed scientists whose standings are universally acknowledged (and thus, secure) that can afford to contradict the general trend."

Cohen, I.L. in Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities. New Research Publications, Inc., New York, NY (1984), p.213-214.

QUOTATIONS are often an excellent source of information and also serve to stimulate futher research on Darwin and Design topics. We recognize that many critics of Darwin skeptics often blast the irresponsible use of quotes, and we agree that quotes often have been abused and misused contextually, factually, and in other ways. However, this is not an effective argument against the use of quotations for stimulating research and discusison on this or any topic. Quotes may also be legitimately used to inform readers of opinions about topics in a responsible manner, and can help inform readers about the opinions of those who have something worthwhile to say on topics related to Darwin and Design. This page is intended to provide you with a glimpse into a quotes database project that has been underway for some time now. The quotes presented on this page are but a sampling of commentary available on the topic of Darwin and Design. Also, it should be pointed out that many of these quotes point out many of the problems and issues worth investigating in this debate. The intent of this project is to produce a database of verified quotes that represent the most accurate and intended context possible for the quoted sources. There are some safeguards that can and should be put in place to ensure the accuracy of both the text and the intended meaning behind a quote, and some of those safeguards include:

1) Accuracy of text and source. In spite of the best efforts of some, many times a quote is reprinted in error. For that reason, we have people who only enter quotes into our database (Admins) and other people who only verify quotes (verification agents). No one is permitted to both enter and verify a quote. This system of checks and balances helps to ensure the reliability and accuracy of the quotes we manage as they are printed in the original sources.

2) Commentary. The project allows for comments to add more context and history behind a quote (for example, and author of a quote might have changed his mind after writing his remarks). It also allows for the addition of important nuances and background information that would helpful for the reader to better understand with greater accuracy the context of a quote.

3) Quote Validation. With this quote project, we've set up a system that allows for the presentation of the actual text from a book or periodical source to validate the quote. This enables the reader to not only see the quote in context, but also see for himself what the actual source looks like, in context.

We currently have nearly 2,000 quotes in our growing database, and we produce over 10,000 reports each day -- each report is based on a unique keyword. Keyword reports contain anywhere from 1 to over 200 quotes as of this writing. We also manage over 750 author reports -- these reports list all the quotes in our system attributed to each author.

So long as these and other safeguards are put in place, quotes can be managed as an effective tool to help others gain a more accurate understanding behind a quote. If you would like to participate in this project, dedicated to adding and validating our growing database of quotes, please contact us at sodeditor [at] gmail [dot] com.

If you would like us to generate a free keyword report, send your keyword or author report suggestion to the email address above, using the words "QUOTE REPORT" in the subject line. We can't promise to handle every request, but we can sure provide a few here. Just think of a keyword or an author related to Darwin and Design, and we can probably produce something you'll like.

SAMPLE KEYWORD QUOTE REPORTS

The contents for these reports were created from the free online database located at the MyEvolutionQuotes web site.

PROBABILITY report -- ONLINE / MSWORD -- posted 12/24/08

IMAGINATION, SPECULATION and EXTRAPOLATION report -- ONLINE PDF -- posted 05/07/09

SAMPLE TOPICAL QUOTE PAGES

WHO'S YOUR DADDY? - a stunning collection of quotes on the origin of various vertebrate groups. What we discover is that most scientists resort to loads of speculation about how most critters allegedly evolved. Not surprisingly, in most cases they offer conjectures based on guesses piled on top of speculations supported by extrapolations.

SELECT QUOTES ABOUT EVOLUTION

Note: Verification has not been established for some of these quotes. Please report any errors to sodeditor [at] gmail [dot] com

"At the time I rather pooh-poohed what Mr. Gish said, but ... I have been thinking about them ever since. ...Heretical though it may be to say this-and many of my scientist friends would be only too happy to chain me to the stake and to light the faggots piled around-I now think the Creationists like Mr. Gish are absolutely right in their complaint. 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. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint-and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it-the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."

Ruse, Michael. How Evolution Became a Religion: Darwinians Wrongly Mix Science with Morality, Politics in National Post, May 13, 2000, p.1.

"Our theory of evolution has become...one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training."

Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch. Evolutionary History and Population Biology in Nature, 214:, 349-352, 1967.

"However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as "industrial melanism," we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry."

Popper, Karl. Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind in Dialectica, 32(3), 1978, p.344.

"The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation."

Thompson, W.R. in Science and Common Sense: An Aristotelian Excursion. Magi Books, Albany, NY (1965), p.229.

"The human mind has a well-known capacity for retaining political or religious beliefs well beyond the point at which reason suggests they should be modified or abandoned. The claim of science is that it differs fundamentally from other belief systems in that it rests demonstrably upon reason alone. But the claim must be modified in light of what historians have to say about scientists' resistance to scientific ideas and their penchant for seeing the world through the prism of their own theories.

The fact is that the way in which science actually works, the process by which the existing rock of scientific knowledge is extended or restructured, is not by any means an entirely rational process... The existence of a logical structure in scientific knowledge has led to the assumption that the structure was logically built. But the process of doing science, as distinct from the body of scientific knowledge, is created and governed by a different set of principles. Logical inference and the intent of being objective are important among them. But rhetoric, propaganda, appeal to authority, and all the usual arts of human persuasion are also influential in winning acceptance for a scientific theory."

Broad, William and Nicholas Wade in Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science. Touchstone, New York, NY (1982), p.140.

Edit your post:

James, you seriously need to read this book because you are ranting and raving and making inaccurate assumptions about what it says and what our message is. The message is about freedom to ask questions without reprisals. Darwinism is just a major flashpoint for those freedoms. Is ID religious? Absolutely not. Is it consistent with some religious views? Absolutely. Is that any reason to reject ID notions? No way. You need to take a step back and look at this issue by asking the key question "was a mind required to create life or did it just all happen by chance?" This is a fair question, and yes, it might have religious implications, but it's not first and foremost a "religious" question. The presence of Intelligence can be examined and detected by looking at the scientific evidence without having anything to say about who that intelligence was. Let's read what scholar Francis Beckwith has to say: "Intelligent Design is not one theory. It is a shorthand name for a cluster of arguments that offer a variety of cases that attempt to show, by reasoning unaccompanied by religious authority or sacred scripture, that intelligent agency rather than unguided matter better accounts for apparently natural phenomena and/or the universe as a whole. Some of these arguments challenge aspects of neo-Darwinism. Others make a case for a universe designed at its outset, and thus do not challenge any theory of biological evolution. Nevertheless, they all have in common the notion that the human intellect has the capacity to acquire knowledge of, or at least have rational warrant to believe in, an inference that mind, rather than nonmind, best accounts from some apparently natural phenomena or the universe as a whole." Beckwith, Francis J. "Intelligent Design, Religious Motives, and the Constitution's Religious Clauses" in Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse in Dialogue, Stewart, Robert B., ed. Fortress, Minneapolis, MN (2007), p.91. If by "scientific discussions require scientific method" you mean the ability to test evolutionary precepts, then I'm afraid you won't get very far. Evolution of bacteria in the lab is one thing, but historical evolution is quite another. As for "Thumpers" not being able to understand "Scientific discussions," this problem isn't monopolized by them. Plenty of pretty smart folks (including Nobel Prize winners) have noticed the non-science aspects of modern Darwinism, and have commented on it. I'd like to see more classroom discussions about this. Take for example: "Most important of all, however, the presence of such corollaries raises the concern that much of present-day biological knowledge is ideological. A key symptom of ideological thinking is the explanation that has no implications and cannot be tested. I call such logical dead ends antitheories because they have exactly the opposite effect of real theories: they stop thinking rather than stimulate it. Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize finds that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong." Robert Laughlin, Ph.D., Nobel Prize in Physics 1998, "A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down" p 168-170 (Basic Books, New York, 2005) This refrain is repeated quite often by many Darwinians and Darwin critics alike. There seems to be quite a bit of commentary on this point if you care to look for it. "There are certainly a good number of scientists who now reject the concepts of evolution -- not on religious grounds, but on strictly scientific grounds. Most of them are keeping their own council. Outwardly they support evolution (so as to be in step with their peers) but inwardly they have second thoughts on the subject. It is not too easy to take a stand against the beliefs of the majority, and expose oneself to ridicule, especially when one's job and academic and professional prospects are on the line. It is only the very brave and those highly placed scientists whose standings are universally acknowledged (and thus, secure) that can afford to contradict the general trend." Cohen, I.L. in Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities. New Research Publications, Inc., New York, NY (1984), p.213-214. "Our theory of evolution has become...one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch. Evolutionary History and Population Biology in Nature, 214:, 349-352, 1967. "However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as "industrial melanism," we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry." Popper, Karl. Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind in Dialectica, 32(3), 1978, p.344. The discussion about the "scientific" and testable nature of evolution has received much scrutiny from many sources who have determined that this issue is worth investigating, and none of them are "religious" in the conventional sense that most of us think of religion. In fact, there continues to be some discussion about whether Darwinism is itself "religious" in nature. So we could say that Darwinism has it's own "Thumpers." But you won't find many candid discussions about this criticism of modern Darwinism being voiced in many classrooms because of the fear that such critiques might result in problems for the educator. I say that examining the debate over the nature of what is "religious" and what isn't IS relevant in a discussion about modern Darwinism in a science classroom. This doesn't mean an educator must or would automatically endorse any religious view. But a discussion about it would certainly be both healthy, educational, and stimulating for students. Let's hope we get there some day. Students are currently being held hostage from such discussions by the agendas of those who, like you, think they know better. "At the time I rather pooh-poohed what Mr. Gish said, but ... I have been thinking about them ever since. ...Heretical though it may be to say this-and many of my scientist friends would be only too happy to chain me to the stake and to light the faggots piled around-I now think the Creationists like Mr. Gish are absolutely right in their complaint. 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. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint-and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it-the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." Ruse, Michael. How Evolution Became a Religion: Darwinians Wrongly Mix Science with Morality, Politics in National Post, May 13, 2000, p.1. "The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation." Thompson, W.R. in Science and Common Sense: An Aristotelian Excursion. Magi Books, Albany, NY (1965), p.229. Are there problems with the ability of scientists to remain neutral to religious questions? Are they capable of being led astray from an unbiased andobjective approach to the evidence? This principle of the unbiased and objective nature of scientific inquiry is a great ambition, but is often not lived up to. Do you think many classrooms engage in discussions on such subjects like this? I think they should, because there are thousands of reasons to get real about the fallability of scientific investigation, and students should be at least imprinted with some great examples of this, from the Piltdown bones (how many years did this fake survive before scientists discovered it was a hoax?) to the recent HIV-causes-AIDS debacle (which lasted well over 20 years longer than should have due to the influence of "peer-reviewed" articles in Science magazine). "The human mind has a well-known capacity for retaining political or religious beliefs well beyond the point at which reason suggests they should be modified or abandoned. The claim of science is that it differs fundamentally from other belief systems in that it rests demonstrably upon reason alone. But the claim must be modified in light of what historians have to say about scientists' resistance to scientific ideas and their penchant for seeing the world through the prism of their own theories. The fact is that the way in which science actually works, the process by which the existing rock of scientific knowledge is extended or restructured, is not by any means an entirely rational process... The existence of a logical structure in scientific knowledge has led to the assumption that the structure was logically built. But the process of doing science, as distinct from the body of scientific knowledge, is created and governed by a different set of principles. Logical inference and the intent of being objective are important among them. But rhetoric, propaganda, appeal to authority, and all the usual arts of human persuasion are also influential in winning acceptance for a scientific theory." Broad, William and Nicholas Wade in Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science. Touchstone, New York, NY (1982), p.140. Finally, I'd love to see more science classes talk about whether natural selection is a tautology. Surely you wouldn't object to that on "religious" grounds. "...there is no evidence for beneficial spontaneous genetic mutation; there is no evidence for natural selection (except as an empty tautology); there is no evidence for either as significant evolutionary mechanisms. There is only evidence of an unquenchable optimisim among Darwinists that, given enough time anything can happen--the argument from probability." Milton, Richard in Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. Park Street Press, Rochester, VT (1997), p.169. "To speak of an animal as "fittest" does not necessarily imply that it is strongest or most healthy, or would win a beauty competition. Essentially it denotes nothing more than leaving most offspring. The general principle of natural selection, in fact, merely amounts to the statement that the individuals which leave most offspring are those which leave most offspring. It is a tautology." Waddington, C.H. in The Strategy of the Genes. Allen & Unwin, London, (1957), p.64-65. "One of the most frequent objections against the theory of natural selection is that it is a sophisticated tautology. Most evolutionary biologists seem unconcerned about the charge and make only a token effort to explain the tautology away. The remainder, such as Professors Waddington and Simpson, will simply concede the fact. For them, natural selection is a tautology which states a heretofore unrecognized relation: the fittest-defined as those who will leave the most offspring-will leave the most offspring. What is most unsettling is that some evolutionary biologists have no qualms about proposing tautologies as explanations. One would immediately reject any lexicographer who tried to define a word by the same word, or a thinker who merely restated his proposition, or any other instance of gross redundancy; yet no one seems scandalized that men of science should be satisfied with a major principle which is no more than a tautology." Peseley, G.A.. The Epistemological Status of Natural Selection in Laval Theologique et Philosophique, 38(74), February, 1982.

   

Guidelines

Edit your post:

James, you seriously need to read this book because you are ranting and raving and making inaccurate assumptions about what it says and what our message is. The message is about freedom to ask questions without reprisals. Darwinism is just a major flashpoint for those freedoms. Is ID religious? Absolutely not. Is it consistent with some religious views? Absolutely. Is that any reason to reject ID notions? No way. You need to take a step back and look at this issue by asking the key question "was a mind required to create life or did it just all happen by chance?" This is a fair question, and yes, it might have religious implications, but it's not first and foremost a "religious" question. The presence of Intelligence can be examined and detected by looking at the scientific evidence without having anything to say about who that intelligence was. Let's read what scholar Francis Beckwith has to say: "Intelligent Design is not one theory. It is a shorthand name for a cluster of arguments that offer a variety of cases that attempt to show, by reasoning unaccompanied by religious authority or sacred scripture, that intelligent agency rather than unguided matter better accounts for apparently natural phenomena and/or the universe as a whole. Some of these arguments challenge aspects of neo-Darwinism. Others make a case for a universe designed at its outset, and thus do not challenge any theory of biological evolution. Nevertheless, they all have in common the notion that the human intellect has the capacity to acquire knowledge of, or at least have rational warrant to believe in, an inference that mind, rather than nonmind, best accounts from some apparently natural phenomena or the universe as a whole." Beckwith, Francis J. "Intelligent Design, Religious Motives, and the Constitution's Religious Clauses" in Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse in Dialogue, Stewart, Robert B., ed. Fortress, Minneapolis, MN (2007), p.91. If by "scientific discussions require scientific method" you mean the ability to test evolutionary precepts, then I'm afraid you won't get very far. Evolution of bacteria in the lab is one thing, but historical evolution is quite another. As for "Thumpers" not being able to understand "Scientific discussions," this problem isn't monopolized by them. Plenty of pretty smart folks (including Nobel Prize winners) have noticed the non-science aspects of modern Darwinism, and have commented on it. I'd like to see more classroom discussions about this. Take for example: "Most important of all, however, the presence of such corollaries raises the concern that much of present-day biological knowledge is ideological. A key symptom of ideological thinking is the explanation that has no implications and cannot be tested. I call such logical dead ends antitheories because they have exactly the opposite effect of real theories: they stop thinking rather than stimulate it. Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize finds that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong." Robert Laughlin, Ph.D., Nobel Prize in Physics 1998, "A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down" p 168-170 (Basic Books, New York, 2005) This refrain is repeated quite often by many Darwinians and Darwin critics alike. There seems to be quite a bit of commentary on this point if you care to look for it. "There are certainly a good number of scientists who now reject the concepts of evolution -- not on religious grounds, but on strictly scientific grounds. Most of them are keeping their own council. Outwardly they support evolution (so as to be in step with their peers) but inwardly they have second thoughts on the subject. It is not too easy to take a stand against the beliefs of the majority, and expose oneself to ridicule, especially when one's job and academic and professional prospects are on the line. It is only the very brave and those highly placed scientists whose standings are universally acknowledged (and thus, secure) that can afford to contradict the general trend." Cohen, I.L. in Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities. New Research Publications, Inc., New York, NY (1984), p.213-214. "Our theory of evolution has become...one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch. Evolutionary History and Population Biology in Nature, 214:, 349-352, 1967. "However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as "industrial melanism," we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry." Popper, Karl. Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind in Dialectica, 32(3), 1978, p.344. The discussion about the "scientific" and testable nature of evolution has received much scrutiny from many sources who have determined that this issue is worth investigating, and none of them are "religious" in the conventional sense that most of us think of religion. In fact, there continues to be some discussion about whether Darwinism is itself "religious" in nature. So we could say that Darwinism has it's own "Thumpers." But you won't find many candid discussions about this criticism of modern Darwinism being voiced in many classrooms because of the fear that such critiques might result in problems for the educator. I say that examining the debate over the nature of what is "religious" and what isn't IS relevant in a discussion about modern Darwinism in a science classroom. This doesn't mean an educator must or would automatically endorse any religious view. But a discussion about it would certainly be both healthy, educational, and stimulating for students. Let's hope we get there some day. Students are currently being held hostage from such discussions by the agendas of those who, like you, think they know better. "At the time I rather pooh-poohed what Mr. Gish said, but ... I have been thinking about them ever since. ...Heretical though it may be to say this-and many of my scientist friends would be only too happy to chain me to the stake and to light the faggots piled around-I now think the Creationists like Mr. Gish are absolutely right in their complaint. 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. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint-and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it-the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." Ruse, Michael. How Evolution Became a Religion: Darwinians Wrongly Mix Science with Morality, Politics in National Post, May 13, 2000, p.1. "The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation." Thompson, W.R. in Science and Common Sense: An Aristotelian Excursion. Magi Books, Albany, NY (1965), p.229. Are there problems with the ability of scientists to remain neutral to religious questions? Are they capable of being led astray from an unbiased andobjective approach to the evidence? This principle of the unbiased and objective nature of scientific inquiry is a great ambition, but is often not lived up to. Do you think many classrooms engage in discussions on such subjects like this? I think they should, because there are thousands of reasons to get real about the fallability of scientific investigation, and students should be at least imprinted with some great examples of this, from the Piltdown bones (how many years did this fake survive before scientists discovered it was a hoax?) to the recent HIV-causes-AIDS debacle (which lasted well over 20 years longer than should have due to the influence of "peer-reviewed" articles in Science magazine). "The human mind has a well-known capacity for retaining political or religious beliefs well beyond the point at which reason suggests they should be modified or abandoned. The claim of science is that it differs fundamentally from other belief systems in that it rests demonstrably upon reason alone. But the claim must be modified in light of what historians have to say about scientists' resistance to scientific ideas and their penchant for seeing the world through the prism of their own theories. The fact is that the way in which science actually works, the process by which the existing rock of scientific knowledge is extended or restructured, is not by any means an entirely rational process... The existence of a logical structure in scientific knowledge has led to the assumption that the structure was logically built. But the process of doing science, as distinct from the body of scientific knowledge, is created and governed by a different set of principles. Logical inference and the intent of being objective are important among them. But rhetoric, propaganda, appeal to authority, and all the usual arts of human persuasion are also influential in winning acceptance for a scientific theory." Broad, William and Nicholas Wade in Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science. Touchstone, New York, NY (1982), p.140. Finally, I'd love to see more science classes talk about whether natural selection is a tautology. Surely you wouldn't object to that on "religious" grounds. "...there is no evidence for beneficial spontaneous genetic mutation; there is no evidence for natural selection (except as an empty tautology); there is no evidence for either as significant evolutionary mechanisms. There is only evidence of an unquenchable optimisim among Darwinists that, given enough time anything can happen--the argument from probability." Milton, Richard in Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. Park Street Press, Rochester, VT (1997), p.169. "To speak of an animal as "fittest" does not necessarily imply that it is strongest or most healthy, or would win a beauty competition. Essentially it denotes nothing more than leaving most offspring. The general principle of natural selection, in fact, merely amounts to the statement that the individuals which leave most offspring are those which leave most offspring. It is a tautology." Waddington, C.H. in The Strategy of the Genes. Allen & Unwin, London, (1957), p.64-65. "One of the most frequent objections against the theory of natural selection is that it is a sophisticated tautology. Most evolutionary biologists seem unconcerned about the charge and make only a token effort to explain the tautology away. The remainder, such as Professors Waddington and Simpson, will simply concede the fact. For them, natural selection is a tautology which states a heretofore unrecognized relation: the fittest-defined as those who will leave the most offspring-will leave the most offspring. What is most unsettling is that some evolutionary biologists have no qualms about proposing tautologies as explanations. One would immediately reject any lexicographer who tried to define a word by the same word, or a thinker who merely restated his proposition, or any other instance of gross redundancy; yet no one seems scandalized that men of science should be satisfied with a major principle which is no more than a tautology." Peseley, G.A.. The Epistemological Status of Natural Selection in Laval Theologique et Philosophique, 38(74), February, 1982.

   

Guidelines