Is Evolution a Scientific Fact?

I've heard it so many times before. Maybe you've heard it, too. When talking with an evolutionist, they will often bring up the objection that evolution is a "scientific fact," but creation is a "religion." I disagree; they are both religions. As Joe White and Nicholas Comninellis stated in their book Darwin's Demise, “the difference between a ‘philosophy’ like humanism and naturalism, and a ‘religion’ is not definable. Both describe a particular way of viewing the world, history, human nature, and morality. A ‘religion’ may or may not include reference to a supernatural being. Beyond this trait, however, ‘philosophy’ and a ‘religion’ are largely indistinguishable.”

Apologist Ron Rhodes agrees: "Too often the creation-evolution debate has been portrayed as a faith-based system (creation) in opposition to a fact-based system (evolution). But both systems are, in reality, faith-based," he says in his book The 10 Things You Should Know About the Creation Vs. Evolution Debate. In fact, Dr. Wolfgang Smith once stated, "A growing number of respectable scientist are defecting from the evolutionist camp… moreover, for the most part these ‘experts’ have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully" (emphasis mine).

White and Comninellis rightfully state, "More than one Christian apologist has noted the inconsistency in excluding creationism from serious consideration because it is ‘religious’ when in fact evolutionism favors the religious position of secular humanism." Today, I would like to point you to several telling quotes on evolution that serve to demonstrate that evolution is in fact a "religion" -- a faith that is grounded in absolutely no proof:

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable." ~ Sir Arthur Keith

"To my mind, the theory of [evolution] does not stand up at all. If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation [i.e., time, chance, and chemistry], how has it come into being? I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation." ~ H.S. Lipson

"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons), therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." ~ Dr. George Wald

"Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." ~ Professor D.M.S. Watson

"Darwin’s evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of science and social progress…. The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to the gross misuse of science…. I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling." ~ Dr. Colin  Patterson, evolution

“The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination.” ~ Dr. Ambrose Flemming, President of the Philosophical Society of Great Britain

"…Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge…. Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it." ~ Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist

"After biologist Michael Denton identified himself on television as a skeptic regarding both creation and evolution, the interviewer asked him what he thought the chief impact of Darwin’s book had been. After a pause, Denton replied that its chief impact had been to make atheism possible, or at least respectable." [Source: Creation: Facts of Life by Gary Parker; for a good summary of how atheism ties in with evolution, see "Atheism and It's Problems" and "Questioning the Faith of Atheism."]

"For myself, faith begins with a realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan, there is intelligence, an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered –'in the beginning God.'" ~ Dr. Arthur Compton, Nobel Prize winner in physics


  1. Amazing quotes! I just need all atheists to see these now. :D

  2.  I would urge you, and anyone else who has stubborn evolutionist friends, not to  use this to debate anyone. "You cannot reason a person out of a position that they did not arrive at by reason." I spent a long time debating the holes in evolutionary theory with friends, and it really amounts to a waste of time. 

    I am somewhat argumentative by nature and I enjoy debating, but one day I was confronted by the Proverb about "arguing with fools" and realized that there is a difference between an intelligent debate and a childish argument.

  3. Wow. What a load of nonsense! Well done for finding a tiny handful of scientists who disagree with evolution, but I note you've not mentioned the 99%+ of ALL other scientists that don't! Have you heard of the 'Steve Project'? There are more scientist called 'Steve' that agree with evolution than there are of any name that disagree with it.

    As for evolution 'causing' do you explain people like Kenneth Miller? He's done more to debunk Irreducible Complexity than anyone else, is a firm and confident advocate of evolution, and is a believing Catholic.

    Seriously, you lot are pathetically desperate.

  4. Fireproof, I see what you're saying. Constantly. I received an obscene diatribe within two hours of linking to this article. There was no reason in it, just emotion and personal attacks.

    The overwhelming majority of evolutionists that challenge me are obstreperous atheists, and they have a fa├žade of "reason", but use a boatload of logical fallacies in their challenges. IF they use reason at first, it quickly deteriorates into absence of logic; they are indeed based on emotion.

    For that matter, their beliefs are faith in scientism, and if I dare challenge their "facts", I am a doo-doo head who is incapable of reason.

  5. Alex B,

    I think we can both agree that a person's opinions should be treated with respect; calling it "a load of nonsense" is not the way to do that. If you wish to hold a legitimate conversation on this topic, I recommend you check out the comment policy beforehand.

    Furthermore, to your claim that I have picked "a tiny handful of scientists who disagree with evolution," I would like to point out that their is a growing Database of Quotes on this site where more than a "small handful" of scientists are voicing their disagreement with evolution; please read that before accusing me of picking a small handful of scientists out of a hat who
    agree with me that evolution is false. I have actually examined quite a bit of material from both sides of the creation vs. evolution debate and have come to my own conclusions based upon that -- not based upon a small handful of
    scientists who happen to agree with me.

    Additionally, I would like to point out that just because the majority of scientists today believe in evolution, this does not mean that the minority that do not are wrong; it is a matter of examining the evidence to reach a
    conclusion, and different people reach different conclusions based on that evidence. And I'm not too convinced that because there is a "Steve Project" that this proves evolution is true. That would be like saying that just because the majority of people used to believed the earth was flat, that this proves it was.... majority opinion has been known to be wrong from time to time.

    As for Kenneth Miller, I am not sure that his argument against Irreducible Complexity is a good one. He breaks a mousetrap piece by piece to say that irreducible complexity is false. That may sound plausible to some, but it doesn't address the issue of the flagella or any other complex creature that God has made -- how all of these things could function at each stage before
    the other pieces had evolved. You can't take away wings from a bird and say that the bird can still fly. The fact that the pieces of a mousetrap could be "reduced" and still be used for various functions only shows the similarity in design -- it does not show that irreducible complexity is false.


Post a Comment

All comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Please keep in mind that the topics are not open to debate; however, I do allow (and encourage) friendly discussion and dialogue. Check out the comment policy for details before commenting. Thank you for visiting!

Popular Posts

Did Pontius Pilate actually exist?

April Fools

Quote of the Week: Ravi Zacharias On The Problem of Evil