Our Websites

Scientists’ Quotes About Evolution

Many make the assertion that evolution must be true because all scientists believe in it. There are, however, many thousands of scientists who do not believe in evolution. Here are quotes from just a few of them.

Evolution is not a fact. Evolution doesn’t even qualify as a theory or as a hypothesis. It in a metaphysical research program, and it is not really testable science”1 (Popper).

I suppose the reason why we leapt at the Origin of Species was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.”2 (Huxley).

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, as 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”3 (Ruse).

Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable”4 (Sir Arthur Keith).

For more of these quotes, check out my book Are You Being Brainwashed?

  1. Dr. Karl Popper—leading philosopher of science
  2. Sir Julian Huxley—Head of UNESCO—One of the world’s leading evolutions was asked in a televisions interview why did the scientific community jump at Darwin’s ideas?
  3. Ruse, M. (2000). National Post. http://www.omniology.com/HowEvolutionBecameReligion.
  4. Sir Arthur Keith. (1959). Note: he wrote the forward to the 100th anniversary edition of Darwin’s book, Origin of Species.

,

Leave17 Responses to testScientists’ Quotes About Evolution

  1. andrew Ryan September 7, 2010 at 7:45 am #

    “Many make the assertion that evolution must be true because all scientists believe in it.”

    Eric, could you show me some quotes from anyone stating that? You claim this assertion is made by ‘many’, so it shouldn’t be hard for you to produce such a quote.

    As for the quotes you offer.

    1) Popper recanted that quote: “I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation” (Dialectica 32:344-346).

    2) “I suppose the reason why we leapt at the Origin of Species was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.”

    Can you explain how this quote is showing that Huxley didn’t accept evolution?

    3) Finally, you claim that Sir Arthur Keith made this claim in 1959. The poor man died in 1955! How did you come by this quote? A ouija board? Google suggests to me that this quote is in fact completely fabricated – it’s impossible to find an original source for it, only other creationist sites repeating each other.

    Surely if so many thousands of scientists rejected evolution you wouldn’t have to rely on quotes that are either a) fabricated or b) don’t even demonstrate the rejection of evolution?

  2. James` Brady September 7, 2010 at 11:30 am #

    Well evilutionists get to pick and choose what they want to believe, it goes hand in hand with not having a sound mind I guess. Anyway they get to have faith in scientists if a lot of them agree on something, yet if they agreed on creation “which I guess some do now…” then the evilutionists get to say they aren’t scientific, and that their just silly ignorant Christians.

  3. Jeremey Chinshue September 7, 2010 at 1:21 pm #

    Silly evolutionists.

  4. Roger T. Southgate September 8, 2010 at 1:54 am #

    To Andrew Ryan:

    You make an important distinction here that needs to be made: i.e. these quotes are not from scientists that refute evolution; however they do show us that even ardent supporters of the theory can see major flaws in the logic behind it, and by their own admission perceive it as a religious position.
    As for recanting something, Darwin himself recanted his theory on his deathbed which by your logic would render your argument moot.
    Also, Keith’s quote may well have been published in 1959 having been written some years prior to his death. Or it could be a typo. It happens. But while we’re on the matter of your sources, if I type your name into Google it tells me that you’re the founder of the fictional underwater utopia ‘Rapture’ featured in the Bioshock videogame! Perhaps you should so some research that doesn’t involve tapping a name into a search engine and claiming what you see as fact.

  5. Jack Napper September 8, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    “You make an important distinction here that needs to be made: i.e. these quotes are not from scientists that refute evolution; however they do show us that even ardent supporters of the theory can see major flaws in the logic behind it, and by their own admission perceive it as a religious position.”

    Really because that’s not hand Hovind is presenting it. Try again.

    “As for recanting something, Darwin himself recanted his theory on his deathbed which by your logic would render your argument moot.”

    When even Answers in Genesis calls this story GARBAGE you should think twice about reposting it. Seriously, just type ‘Darwin recanted’ and the AiG page is in the top five results.

    “Also, Keith’s quote may well have been published in 1959 having been written some years prior to his death. Or it could be a typo. It happens.”

    When you attribute a quote and stamp a date on it you use the date the quote was made not when it appeared in publication. If you should list the publication you don’t date it but you write the publication and the date of the publication. If it’s a typo then Hovind should have done a bit better research and error correction.

    I leave the part about Rapture/Bioshock alone as you’re really just grasping at straws here and making baseless assumptions. Oddly enough I find it rather funny that you assume andrew ryan made up mistake and go off all half-cocked and Hovind gets a free pass and an ‘oh well, whoops’.

  6. andrew Ryan September 8, 2010 at 2:55 pm #

    Roger, you do not help your argument. Lady Hope’s ‘Darwin recants’ story was debunked long ago. I might as well claim Jesus converted to Hinduism on the cross.

    “Also, Keith’s quote may well have been published in 1959 having been written some years prior to his death.”

    Go on then, find the right date. And find a proper source for where it comes from. Where was this statement made?

  7. andrew Ryan September 8, 2010 at 3:05 pm #

    Roger: “these quotes are not from scientists that refute evolution”

    I agree. And yet Eric claimed: “There are, however, many thousands of scientists who do not believe in evolution. Here are quotes from just a few of them.”

  8. Julie Collins September 8, 2010 at 5:14 pm #

    to andrew

    “Popper recanted that quote” Darwin recanted his theory on his deathbed… but you still claim that also is a lie, even though it was well documented.

    “Finally, you claim that Sir Arthur Keith made this claim in 1959. The poor man died in 1955! How did you come by this quote? A ouija board? Google suggests to me that this quote is in fact completely fabricated “it’s impossible to find an original source for it, only other creationist sites repeating each other”

    i found this only on evowiki, no other source claims this besides evolutionist websites. and you have a little ad hominem on your face…

    i would agree with you that i myself cannot find the original source… but at the same time, that is like saying Confucius did not say “give advice and good guidance, than halt after such is of no avail. do not disgrace yourself for it” little do you know Andrew, that the internet was made public about 1992. so i would estimate about 99%, maybe more, of all historical documents and quotes/speeches/sayings/etc before 1992, are not listed online. in fact, over 99% of all written and spoken material nowadays are not posted on Google search, or whatever search engine you used.

    so in fact, you cannot falsify the statement Andrew. i am sure you did not read all quotes, letters, written pieces, and sayings of sir Arthur Keith. so you cannot just say it is wrong.

    whether it is true or not, we do not know.

    “Surely if so many thousands of scientists rejected evolution you wouldn’t have to rely on quotes that are either a) fabricated or b) don’t even demonstrate the rejection of evolution?”

    surely if evolution is true you would not have to go into ad hominem attacks and actually give some good scientific evidence.

  9. andrew Ryan September 8, 2010 at 4:34 pm #

    By the way, the Huxley quote appears to be of equally dubious provenance. No-one seems to know where or when it actually came from, or even which Huxley was supposed to have said it. There is no recording of the show where he is supposed to have said it, or even a transcript, only one man’s years later recollection, and that itself is disputed.

    It reads more like what a creationist might imagine an atheist might think. Natural selection wasn’t “leapt on” anyway. It took years to gain acceptance, as the real Huxley would have been aware.

    So again – find me a proper source for this quote. I assure you that you’ll find only other creationist websites quoting each other. They are the ones cutting and pasting, not me. Good luck.

  10. David McCrea September 9, 2010 at 11:51 pm #

    I have some personal thoughts and questions I’d like to ask regarding creation and evolution; thoughts and questions that have been floating around my mind for some time now. I don’t proclaim to have an answer to any of them. I view them more as “trigger” questions in order to challenge our individual belief systems and worldviews.

    Atheists believe in “Spontaneous Generation,” which is in contradistinction to the Law of Biogenesis. According to this belief, something dead somehow figured out, completely on its own, how to come alive. This formerly dead substance learned, again on its own, how to self-organize into a living cell capable of feeding itself, mobility, and self-replication.

    After millions of years, this self-organized formerly dead substance decided it no longer liked being so, well, simple. So it began the process of macro-evolution so it could become something bigger and better and wiser. After millions more years, this self-organized construct eventually evolved into every living thing on the planet today, from the bottom of the deepest ocean to the top of the highest mountain. This is quite a feat for what could easily be called “The Dumbest Force on the Planet,” especially since macro-evolution relies solely on random, unguided genetic mutations.

    So the stupidest force on the planet not only was responsible for creating the millions of living CREATURES on the planet, it also had to figure out, all on its own, how to create every single FEATURE that comprises every living creature, a number that easily numbers in the trillions, if not beyond.

    But wait. Macro-evolution isn’t finished. Far from it. You see, in addition to creating every living CREATURE and every single FEATURE that comprises every living creature, the stupidest force on the planet also had to figure out, all on its own, where to PLACE each of these trillions of features on these millions of creatures. But wait. Macro-evolution still isn’t finished, for you see, the most mindless force on the planet also had to figure out, all on its own, how to properly SIZE all the features that comprise all the creatures on the planet. Proper SIZE and proper PLACEMENT. How did macro-evolution know (learn?) how to properly size and place tear ducts, or fingernails, or vertebral discs, or the anvil/hammer/stirrup, or eyebrows and eye lashes, or lips, or taste buds, or floating knee caps, or, well, I think you get my point.

    To recap, macro-evolution, easily the stupidest force on the planet relying on random, unguided, undirected, unforeseen random genetic mutations, had to learn, all on its own, how to CREATE the million of life forms on the planet, how to create all the trillions of FEATURES that comprise each of the millions of life forms on the planet, and how to properly SIZE and PLACE each of the trillions of features that comprise each of the millions of life forms on the planet. The mathematical improbability is staggering.

    But there’s still more good news about macro-evolution. If macro-evolution created human beings, then isn’t it only logical to assert that macro-evolution, by now considered by atheistic evolutionists to be the “father of the human race,” is responsible for every single thing human beings have ever created throughout all the millenia? These ‘things” would include art, music, literature, language, eye glasses, the Golden Gate Bridge, and paper clips. What is it the bible says? Oh, now I remember. “To macro-evolution goes the glory.”

    Sarcasm aside, there IS good news, and that is Jesus loves you and wants you to get saved. The Bible says that God wants none to be lost but that all should come to repentance and know the truth of Jesus Christ. I used to believe in the god of evolution until the scales fell and my eyes were opened on June 20, 1999. My hardened heart was softened and I have been in His service ever since. Salvation is a free gift from God that has been extended to each of us through Jesus Christ the Son. We don’t deserve it, but it’s there nonetheless. Such is God’s love, grace, and mercy for His children.

    Dr. Hovind, continued blessings for you and your ministry. God bless from a fellow brother in Christ.

  11. andrew Ryan September 11, 2010 at 9:16 am #

    Julie, the only relevant part of your post to me is where you admit you have no way of verifying the quote. All we have to go on is that the date is certainly wrong and that it contradicts many verifiable quotes we have from the man. In other words, the so called quote is worthless. It would be like me giving you an atheist quote from cs Lewis dated from a few years after his death, that I could not supply a source for.

    Have you found sources for the Huxley quotes? Is the rest of the book made up of similar quotes?

  12. Jack Napper September 11, 2010 at 10:54 am #

    “Atheists believe in “Spontaneous Generation,” which is in contradistinction to the Law of Biogenesis.”

    Right off the bat we have a classic lumping in and no attempt to hide ignorance.

    The Law of Biogenesis states that living things do not appear FULLY FORMED. In other words rats do not appear from mounds of grain. This of course hasn’t stopped Creationists from trying to scrub the Wikipedia article on BIOGENESIS using the classic language of “life from non-life”.

    the rest of your post is just a heap of logical fallacies.

    STRAWMAN
    POISONING THE WELL
    more STRAWMAN arguments

    We also have some gross over-simplifications, belief that evolution is conscious and much much more.

  13. andrew Ryan September 11, 2010 at 1:58 pm #

    “Darwin recanted his theory on his deathbed, but you still claim that also is a lie, even though it was well documented.”

    Julie, it was not well documented. And yes, that claim has been well debunked.

    “i found this only on evowiki”

    Then you’re not looking hard enough. And you’re committing the same Ad Hom you claim I made. The difference is, the sites debunking the quote claims contain REFERENCES.

  14. andrew Ryan September 11, 2010 at 2:11 pm #

    “This quote often appears in Creationist publications without a primary source citation. When one is cited, it is mistakenly attributed to an introduction for a centennial edition or “100th edition” of Origin of Species. This, however, is impossible since Keith had passed away before the 100th anniversary of Darwin’s work. Furthermore, while Keith did write an introduction for Origin of Species which was used from 1928 to 1958, the words quoted here do not appear in that introduction. Additionally, secondary citations, such as given by Criswell, amount to hearsay without an original source to support them. Thus, this oft repeated “quote” should be regarded as unsubstantiated until a primary source for it can be located.”

    I would be delighted if you could debunk the above claim. Give us a source to show that Keith DID provide the introduction to the 100th edition. Or tell us where the quote was supposed to have appeared.

    As you say yourself, it’s impossible to prove someone did NOT say something, but that only means the burden of proof is on those claiming he made that quote.

    “that is like saying Confucius did not say “give advice and good guidance, than halt after such is of no avail. do not disgrace yourself for it”.”

    As it happens, we don’t have good evidence that all the sayings attributed to Confucius were said by one man. But that’s not relevant, as can still appreciate the quotes on their own merits as good advice. The whole point of Kent’s claim is that this quote came from a specific scientist. If it was instead invented by someone else completely, the whole point of Kent’s claim falls down.

    For Kent to have made this claim, he must have a source. Where is it? What book or publication? No ad homs from me, just a simple request for a source.

  15. andrew Ryan September 11, 2010 at 2:32 pm #

    Julie: “Darwin recanted his theory on his deathbed, but you still claim that also is a lie, even though it was well documented.”

    From Darwin’s daughter:

    “I was present at [my father's] deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever.”

    Henrietta Darwin, February 23, 1922

  16. Nigel McNaughton September 11, 2010 at 3:40 pm #

    Julie, Darwin’s recant is not well documented, and even Answers in Genesis notes that it is false.

    There is a 100th Anniversary edition of Origin of Species and the foreword is written by someone else. Sir Arthur Keith wrote the forword for an earlier edition well before he died, there is no record of him writing any AFTER he died.

  17. Nigel McNaughton September 11, 2010 at 4:10 pm #

    First of all David, if you really wanted to know you could easily look these up for yourself.

    Second, pretty much your entire post is a complete strawman of science.

    “Athiests” have nothing to do with it by the way. I guess that’s the first strawman.

    No one but Creationists believe in Spontaneous Generation, that would be the very defintion of Creationism.

    First of all the boundary of dead and alive at the chemical level isn’t as cut and dry as you pretend, are viruses alive?

    Scientists (actually doing the work) are finding chemical molecules that are self organizing, reproducing, evolving. Look up RNA World if you really want to know.

    But again has been pointed out many times. Evolution doesn’t care about the source of life, God did it, could be the answer.

    “bigger and better and wiser” is another strawman, there is simply variation and selection.

    The rest is again just the same strawman over and over again.