Taken from an article on scientists who believe in creationism:
Sir Ernest Chain, co-holder of the 1945 Nobel Prize for developing penicillin, stated bluntly:
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no
evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and
intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without
a murmur of protest."
P. Lemoine, president of the Geological Society of France, editor of the Encyclopedie Francaise, and director of the Natural History Museum in Paris
concluded:
"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but
each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate....It results from the summary,
that the theory of evolution, is impossible."
Darwinists must be especially discomfited with the views expressed by Dr. Wernher von Braun, father of America’s space program, in a September 14,
1972 letter to the California State Board of Education, part of which is printed here.
"In response to your inquiry about my personal views concerning the ‘Case for DESIGN’ as a viable scientific theory for the origin of the
universe, life and man, I am pleased to make the following observations.
For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe
without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world around us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an
ordered, structured plan or design. We can see the will of the species to live and propagate. And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a
galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The
better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it
is based. Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they cannot visualize a Designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? The
electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airlines
through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as
real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him? I am afraid that, although they really do not
understand the electron either, they are ready to accept it because they managed to produce a rather clumsy mechanical model of it borrowed from
rather limited experience in other fields, but they would not know how to begin building a model of God......."
Decades later, with technological advances creating ever more dilemmas for Darwinists, they perch precariously on their evolutionary "chair," as
described by Scott Huse.
"As I was sitting in my chair, I knew it had no bottom there, No legs, or back, but I just sat, Ignoring little things like that."
Rocket scientist Werner von Braun oversaw the team of scientists that sent the first American into space and masterminded the moon landing. In a
letter to the California State Board of Education, von Braun stated:
"There are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of
the human eye? ...To be forced to believe one conclusion – that everything in the universe happened by chance – would violate the very objectivity
of science itself."
Von Braun also observed:
"Manned space flight is an amazing achievement, but it has opened for mankind thus far only a tiny door for viewing the awesome reaches of space. An
outlook through this peephole at the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. "
In 1959, Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, was even more blunt:
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever.
In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."
Louis Bounoure, director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, then director of research at the French National Center of Scientific Research, stated
in 1984:
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless. "
Dr. Wolfgang Smith, science writer and teacher at MIT and UCLA, said in 1988:
"And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary
transformation have ever occurred."
Original Article
