Apologetics

---

Darwin’s Hostile Witnesses


I think it would be fair to quote some of the atheists and their views about intelligent design. I guess we could start with Fred Hoyle. Hoyle created the Steady State Theory to neutralize the Big Bang Theory. Of course the Steady State Theory implies there was no beginning so there wouldn’t be any need for god in this scenario. When hearing about the new miraculous spontaneous emergence of single-cell organisms from random couplings of chemicals Hoyle stated, “Such an occurrence is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 hit by a tornado whirling through a junkyard.” There is more testimony from Hoyle. He also said, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology and there are blind forces worth speaking about in nature.” This is a puzzling statement for someone who is anti intelligent design. This is hostile witness testimony at its best.

Let’s call upon another atheist to give testimony on evolution. Atheist scientist Richard Dawkins admits concerning the creationist evidence of fossils, “The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and we reject this alternative.” He also says the gradualist (Darwinian) school of thought despise so called scientific creationists. It certainly didn’t appear to delight the Darwinians. Here again we can see into the problem. For one we can see the word despise used by Dawkins. As with Hoyle’s statement this appears to be a pro intelligent design statement. It’s looking like the atheist’s statements are turning out to be hostile statements in favor of intelligent design.

You might be puzzled by now and start getting the feeling something is wrong with this picture. One day Merv Griffin was interviewing the late Julian Huxley, a leading Darwinist, and Griffin asked him what actually was behind the evolution agenda. For some unknown reason Huxley answered truthfully, “The reason we accepted Darwinism, even without proof, is because we didn’t want God to interfere with our sexual mores. In Darwinism there’s no moral accountability.” We can certainly read where Hitler and Stalin had no moral accountability either.

Let’s take a chance and call Darwin to the stand next. We would find out that Darwin was not an avowed atheist but rather an admitted agnostic. Darwin admitted, “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a fantasy.” Have they found any transitional forms since the death of Darwin? Yet, another atheist scientist Eldredge Niles says, many trends exist more in the minds of the analysts that in phylogenetic history.” He is confirming what Darwin feared. Upon reflecting on his studies Darwin says, “I was a young man with uninformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions all the time over everything: and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of it. It is a cursed evil to any man to become as absorbed in any subject as I am in mine.” Even the man the Darwinian evolutionists follow appears to have dropped out of his own group.

While we can see that species, within their own species, change over time to adapt to their enviroment, there is absolutely no evidence, nor has there ever been any evidence that one species develops into another higher species. Another non Christian scientist, Jeffrey Schwartz, might say it best, “Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a conditional state of motion, it follows logically that the fossil record should be abundant with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved.”

What does atheist scientist Stephen Gould say about the fossil record? We (paleontologists) fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of (Darwinian) evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study.”

A more recent Nobel Prize winner Stephen Weisman made this statement in the Scientific American, “The universe is incredibly fine tuned for life.” As you might guess Stephen Weisman is another hostile witness. He is an atheist.

Finally Darwinist Harvard Professor Richard Lewontin admits they accept “just so-so” stories because of their prior commitment to materialism. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.”

With the above testimony given by the hostile witnesses I believe our witnesses will not be needed. We have all the evidence we need.

---

PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR BELOW LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE