evolution
EVOLUTION; A CASE STUDY IN SCIENTIFIC DOGMATISM.
The Theory of Evolution has absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever. Scientists accept this theory for reasons that have nothing to do with science. Evolution has become a dogma – an ideology – which no scientist dares to question, since to do so would end their career in science. I mean this quite literally. Any academic scientist who questions evolution is considered to be a “whistle-blower” – a “traitor”, and is automatically “terminated”, their grants revoked, their tenure cancelled, their academic career demolished. Because of these draconian reprisals, scientists pay lip service to pseudoscience.
The reader may think that I am exaggerating here. However, in this chapter, I will first provide verbatim quotes from authoritative scientists, who agree that The Theory of Evolution is dogmatic pseudoscience. Then I will provide further quotes from authoritative sources explaining some of the deep flaws and inconsistencies in The Theory of Evolution (flaws that scientists studiously ignore). Finally I will provide case studies of the many scientists who actually lost their careers for even daring to question the sacred ideology of Evolution.
First some quotes from scientists who have stated that Evolution is (effectively) pseudoscience.
This quote is from the book Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton (Denton gained a medical degree from Bristol University in 1969 and a PhD in biochemistry from King's College London in 1974. He was a senior research fellow in the Biochemistry Department at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand from 1990 to 2005), published by Adler and Adler, 1986, pages 75 to 77:-
The author quotes Richard Dawkins:- “The theory (of evolution) is about as much in doubt as the earth goes round the sun.” Denton then comments:- “Now of course such claims are SIMPLY NONSENSE. For Darwin’s model of evolution is - - - STILL VERY MUCH IN DOUBT when it comes to macro-evolutionary phenomena - - - - THE EVIDENCE IS - - - FAR FROM COMPELLING. - - - - Once a community has elevated a theory into a self-evident truth - - - - there is no longer any point in having to establish its validity by - - - empirical facts - - - The transformation of Darwinian theory INTO DOGMA is evidenced by THE HOSTILITY THAT IS DIRECTED TOWARDS - - - DISSIDENTS - - - - Dissent becomes by definition irrational - - - - - It is HERETICAL TO QUESTION THE IDEA OF EVOLUTION. - - - Once a theory has become PETRIFIED INTO A - - - DOGMA - - - the myth will be extremely successful - - - - THE SEMBLANCE OF TRUTH IS OF COURSE A MIRAGE - - - - The raising of - - - Darwinian theory to a self-evident axiom has had the consequence that - - - - OBJECTIONS - - HAVE BECOME - - - INVISIBLE - - - CRUCIAL PROBLEMS - - -ARE VIRTUALLY NEVER DISCUSSED - - - - the overriding supremacy of the myth - - - - His general theory (of evolution) - - - is still - - - A HIGHLY SPECULATIVE HYPOTHESIS, ENTIRELY WITHOUT - - - FACTUAL SUPPORT.” (My capitals and highlighting.)
The next quotes are from the book Ever Since Darwin, by Stephen Jay Gould, (Professor of Zoology at Harvard University), published by Penguin Books, 1977,
Page 40:- “Much of what passes for evolutionary theory is - - - VACUOUS. - - Many great theories are held together by chains of dubious metaphor and analogy. Bethell has correctly identified THE HOGWASH SURROUNDING EVOLUTIONARY THEORY.” (My capitals.)
Page 271:- “Areas of evolutionary thought, WHERE RIGID DOGMAS STILL REIGN, as a consequence of unquestioned preference, old habits, or social prejudice.” (My capitals.)
The next quote is from the book Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre P Grasse (In 1929, Grassé became professor of zoology at the Université de Clermont-Ferrand. In 1935, he became an Assistant Professor at the Université de Paris where he worked alongside Germaine Cousin (1896–1992), and received the Prix Gadeau de Kerville de la Société entomologique de France. In 1939 he chaired the Société zoologique de France and in 1941 the Société entomologique de France. In 1944 he succeeded Maurice Caullery as Chair in Zoology and the Evolution of Beings. Grassé was elected a member of the Académie des sciences on November 29, 1948, in the anatomy and zoology sector and presided over the institution in 1967.), published by Academic Press, 1977, pages 6 to 7:-
“Present-day Darwinism - - - impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires FALLACIOUS INTERPRETATIONS. - - - - through use and abuse of - - - bold, OFTEN ILL-FOUNDED extrapolations, A PSEUDOSCIENCE HAS BEEN CREATED - - - Biologists who adhere blindly to - - - -Darwinism - - - search for results that will be in agreement with their theories, and consequently orientate their research in a given direction - - - It deprives observations and experiments of their objectivity, makes them biased.” (My capitals.)
The next quote is from the book Variation and Fixity in Nature, by Frank L. Marsh (M.S. Zoology, Ph.D. Botany), published by Pacific Press Publishing Association, California, 1976, pages 106 to 107:-
“Evolutionists - - - accept their - - - theory blindly. - - - - Having committed themselves for evolution, they lose the power for open-minded study IN A SMOG OF DOGMATISM - - - With the evolutionist it blinds him to the testimony of nature - - - the evolutionist pushes past natural fact.” (My capitals.)
The next quote is from the book The Creation-Evolution Controversy, by R. L. Wysong (D. V. M.), published by Inquiry Press, USA, ist edition, 3rd printing, 1978, page 31:-
Wysong quotes evolutionary anthropologist Arthur Keith (Keith was editor of the Journal of Anatomy between 1915 and 1936 and elected President of the Anatomical Society of Great Britain and Ireland for 1918 to 1920. He gave the 1927 presidential address (Darwin's Theory of Man's Descent As It Stands To-day) to the British Association meeting in Leeds. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1913. ) “EVOLUTION IS UNPROVED - - - - We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.” (My capitals.)
The next quote is from the book Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to The Creation of Life on Earth, by Robert Shapiro (Professor of Chemistry at New York University, published by Heinemann, 1986, pages 32 to 33:-
“Adherents of the best-known theory (of the origin of life) have not responded to INCREASINGLY ADVERSE EVIDENCE by questioning the validity of their beliefs - - - - rather they - - - hold it as a truth beyond question, thereby enshrining it as a mythology - - - SCIENCE HAS BEEN ABANDONED ENTIRELY in substance, though retained in name.” (My capitals.)
The next quote is from the book Delusions in Science and Spirituality, by Susan B. Martinez (Ph. D.), published by Bear and Company (USA), 2015, page 112:-
“Signatories against the - - - theory of evolution include scientists from the National Academies of Science in Russia, The Czech republic, Hungary, Poland, India, Nigeria, and The United States. Many are Professors at major institutions, such as MIT., Cambridge University, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science and Technology in Japan, and Ben-Gurion University in Israel.”
The next quote is from the book A Challenge to Evolutionists, by Douglas Dewar (Fellow of The Zoological Society), 3rd edition, 1948, published by Uplift Books (Croydon, UK) Ltd, pages 32 to 33:-
“Mt McCabe asked me to name some biologists who do not believe in evolution - - - Professor Fleischmann - - - who was - - - Professor at Erlangen - - - and Professor Vialleton - - - - Biologists who openly oppose evolution are E. G. Dehaut, D. Carazzi, M. Thomas, J. Lefevre, G. K. Hebbert. In England, Professors of biology who do not accept evolution ARE NOT LIKELY TO PROCLIAM THIS FACT LEST IT HAVE AN UNFAVOURABLE EFFECT ON THEIR ACADEMIC CAREER.” (My capitals.)
The next quotes are from the book Evolution – Fact or Fiction?, by John Blanchard, published by Evangelical press. 5th impression, 2006,
Page 7:- The author quotes Ambrose Fleming, President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. He called evolution “baseless – quite incredible”.
Page 9:- The author quotes David Kitts, Professor of Geology at The University of Oklahoma:- “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species; and palaeontology does not provide them.”
Page 19:- The author quotes Fred Hoyle (Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy at Cambridge University.):- “The notion that - - - the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at in a primordial soup is evidently NONSENSE OF THE HIGHEST ORDER.” (My capitals.)
Page 20:- The author quotes Stephen Grocott (Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute):- “The spontaneous origin of life is a CHEMICAL NONSENSE.” (My capitals.)
The next quote is from the book Why Be an Ape? (Observations on Evolution), by A London Journalist (Mr Newman Watts), published by Marshall Morgan and Scott Ltd.
Page 32:- Professor MacBride at The British Association For The Advancement of Science meeting at Norwich (1935) is quoted:- “The doctrine of Natural Selection as the cause of evolution to my mind is a complete fraud.”
The next quote is from the book:- The Revised Quote Book, edited by Doctor Andrew Snelling (who has a Ph. D. In Geology), published by Answers in Genesis
Pierre Paul Grasse is quoted (In 1929, Grassé became professor of zoology at the Université de Clermont-Ferrand. In 1935, he became an Assistant Professor at the Université de Paris where he worked alongside Germaine Cousin (1896–1992), and received the Prix Gadeau de Kerville de la Société entomologique de France. In 1939 he chaired the Société zoologique de France and in 1941 the Société entomologique de France. In 1944 he succeeded Maurice Caullery as Chair in Zoology and the Evolution of Beings. Grassé was elected a member of the Académie des sciences on November 29, 1948, in the anatomy and zoology sector and presided over the institution in 1967.):- “To insist - - - - that life appeared quite by chance, and evolved in this fashion (ie:- by chance), is an UNFOUNDED SUPPOSITION - - - - NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FACTS. - - - - The problem of evolution - - - the deceit - - - some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality.”
The next quote is from the book The New Evolutionary Timetable; Fossils, Genes, and The Origin of Species, by Steven M. Stanley (an American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. For most of his career he taught geology at Johns Hopkins University (1969-2005). In 1977 Stanley was awarded the Paleontological Society's Charles Schuchert Award which is presented "to a person under 40 whose work reflects excellence and promise in the science of paleontology." In 2007 he was awarded the Society's Paleontological Society Medal, which is "awarded to a person whose eminence is based on advancement of knowledge in paleontology." In 2006 Stanley was awarded the Mary Clark Thompson Medal by the National Academy of Sciences, and in 2008 the William H. Twenhofel Medal by the Society for Sedimentary Geology. ):- “Since the time of Darwin, palaeontologists have found themselves confronted with evidence that conflicts with gradualism, yet THE MESSAGE OF THE FOSSIL RECORD HAS BEEN IGNORED.” (My capitals.)
(My comment:- “Gradualism” implies that evolution has occurred in a long series of very small steps.)
The next quote is from the book Discourses Biological and Geological. Essays by Thomas H. Huxley. ( In July 1854, Huxley became Professor of Natural History at the Royal School of Mines and naturalist to the British Geological Survey in the following year. In addition, he was Fullerian Professor at the Royal Institution 1855–58 and 1865–67; Hunterian Professor at the Royal College of Surgeons 1863–69; President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science 1869–1870; President of the Quekett Microscopical Club 1878; President of the Royal Society 1883–85; Inspector of Fisheries 1881–85; and President of the Marine Biological Association 1884–1890.), published by Macmillan and co, 1894, pages 341 to 342:-
In answer to the question What does - - - - palaeontology testify in relation to the common doctrines of progressive modification (ie:- the theory of evolution) - - - - - I reply – It negatives these doctrines - - - no evidence for such modification.”
The next quotes are from the book The Great Evolution Mystery, by Gordon Rattray Taylor (Science Advisor to BBC Television), published by Secker and Warburg, 1983:-
Page 245:- “Progress has been prevented by THE RIGID DOGMATISM OF THE NEO-DARWINISTS” (My capitals.)
Page 245:- The author quotes Professor Rupert Riedl of Vienna (1960: State doctorate and professor at the University of Vienna. 1967 guest professor at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. From 1968: full professor und research professor of Marine Sciences at the University of North Carolina. From 1971: chief of the Institute of Zoology and Temporary chief of the Institut of Human biology, both at the University of Vienna, and Visiting Professor at the University of North Carolina. 1983-1990: chief of the Institute of Zoology und Anthropology at the University of Vienna):- “Most of the unexplained phenomena in macro-evolution - - - were - - - swept under the carpet. - - - - The attempt to present Darwinism as an established DOGMA IMMUNE FROM CRITICISM.” (My capitals.)
Page 11:- “Many eminent biologists have raised this question (whether natural selection fully explains evolution), but such has been the - - - AGGRESSIVENESS OF THE OLD GUARD, THAT THEIR VIEWS HAVE BEEN SWEPT UNDER THE CARPET AND IGNORED. There has been a tightly knit school of neo-Darwinians - - - WHO HAVE TRENCHANTLY DEFENDED THE ORTHODOXY, OFTEN IN THE FACE OF THE FACTS.” (My capitals and highlighting.)
Page 24:- Natural selection theory now hardened into a dogma known as neo-Darwinism - - - FACTS WHICH DID NOT FIT THE THEORY WERE BRUSHED UNDER THE CARPET.” (My capitals.)
Incidentally, there is no such thing as The “Theory” of Evolution. There is only The Hypothesis of Evolution; because a speculation only becomes a theory when there are at least some facts to support it. There are absolutely ZERO facts supporting Evolution. All (and I do mean ALL) the scientific facts actually contradict and undermine the HYPOTHESIS of Evolution. For a start, the fossil record absolutely contradicts the idea of one species slowly, by selected random mutations, “evolving” into another species. The majority of humans on this planet do NOT believe in The “Theory” of Evolution, which makes most of us “stupid, insane or wicked”, according to Richard Dawkins. (This is a quote from the book God’s Undertaker, by John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, published by Lion Hudson, 2007, page 93 – Lennox quotes Dawkins thus:- “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane, or wicked - - - “) It is amazing that any human being can show such contempt for his fellow humans as to abuse them in this way. Dawkins called another author who dared to question the validity of Evolution “pig-ignorant”. Scientists live in fear of this type of verbal abuse from the atheist alpha-males who walk the corridors of power in the scientific community. Most scientists want to keep their jobs, and therefore acquiesce in the censorship (and airbrushing out) of verifiable scientific facts
Here are some quotes from eminent scientists who had the moral courage to speak out against the “Theory” of Evolution:-
Doctor Etheridge, FRS, president of The Geological Society, Palaeontologist to the Geological Survey:- “Nine tenths of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense - - - - - -wholly unsupported by facts”
Will Dawkins insist that Dr Etheridge is “stupid, or insane, or wicked”?
Professor Louis Agassiz, Professor of Zoology at Harvard University:- “The Theory (of Evolution) is a mistake, untrue to the facts, unscientific in its methods.”
Will Dawkins insist that Professor Agassiz is “stupid, or insane, or wicked”?
David Kitts, Professor of Geology at The University of Oklahoma:- “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species; and paleontology does not provide them.”
Will Dawkins insist that Professor Davis Kitts is “stupid, or insane, or wicked”?
Stephen Grocott (Fellow of The Royal Australian Chemical Institute) “The spontaneous origin of life is a chemical nonsense.”
Will Dawkins insist that Stephen Grocott is “stupid, or insane, or wicked”?
Sir Ernst Chain FRS.,(Co-holder of Nobel prize for physiology):- (The development and survival of the fittest by chance mutations is) “A hypothesis based on no evidence, and irreconcilable with the facts.”
Will Dawkins insist that Sir Ernst Chain is “stupid, or insane, or wicked”?
Professor Ernest MacBride, Professor of Zoology at McGill University:- “The Doctrine of Natural Selection as the cause of evolution, to my mind, is a complete fraud.”
Will Dawkins insist that Professor MacBride is “stupid, or insane, or wicked”?
Lord Kelvin (very famous and important scientist):- “Evolution remains an unproved hypothesis.”
Will Dawkins insist that Lord Kelvin is “stupid, or insane, or wicked”?
Professor Fleischmann (Zoologist of Erlangen):- “The Darwinian theory has not a single fact to confirm it - - - - - It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of the imagination.”
Will Dawkins insist that Professor Fleischmann is “stupid, or insane, or wicked”?
Professor John Tyndall (famous scientist):- “Evolution - - - - I agree with Virchow that the proofs of it are still wanting - - - - - the doctrine is utterly discredited.”
Will Dawkins insist that John Tyndall is “stupid, or insane, or wicked”?
Here is an example of a dishonest/delusional/dogmatic passage from Richard Dawkins, trying to foist “evolution” on the public by a system of “smoke and mirrors”. He is trying to “demonstrate” the notion of “Cumulative Selection” (which would require evolution to have “FORESIGHT”, which it cannot possibly have).
The following (rather embarrassing!) quote is from the book The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins, published by Penguin Books (reissue), pages 45 to 50:-
Dawkins considers the haemoglobin molecule, consisting of 146 amino acids. He tells us that “there are 20 different kinds of amino acids commonly found in living things.” He then tells us that “the number of possible ways of arranging 20 kinds of things in chains 146 links long is an inconceivably large number.” He then tells us that this inconceivable large numbers is “a one with 190 zeros after it”. He then tells us that:- “This is the chance against happening to hit upon haemoglobin by luck.”
(My comment:- What he is effectively saying is that a random search by random mutations cannot possibly “come up with” a haemoglobin molecule.)
Now Dawkins sagely explains that a process that he calls “Cumulative Selection” indeed CAN “come up with” a haemoglobin molecule. In order to demonstrate the (supposed) “power” of “Cumulative Selection”, he takes as an example the phrase (taken from a Shakespeare play) METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.
Now Dawkins take a nonsense phrase:-
BZQU JMOX TUTN CYSO AMAU PRG
He then asks how many times a monkey on a typewriter would have to randomly type out a sequence of 28 letters and spaces before it typed the exact phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.
Dawkins now admits that the statistical odds against getting the correct phrase on the first try are (according to his own calculations) 1 chance in 10,000 million million million million million.
Now Dawkins explains that the process of (what he calls) “Cumulative Selection” can easily “reach” the phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL in less than 60 attempts. To demonstrate the “Cumulative Selection” process, Dawkins sets up a computer program. This computer program generates a sequence of 28 randomly chosen letters and spaces.
WDLMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P
The computer now “breeds” from this random phrase. It duplicates the phrase repeatedly with single letter “mutations” in each successive duplication. Now here is the important point:- (quoting Dawkins) “The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase – METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.” By this process of comparing each “mutation” with the target phrase, the computer soon reaches the target phrase. Dawkins now tells us that – “Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is CUMULATIVE SELECTION.” (My capitals and highlighting.)
Dawkins’ argument here effectively involves a comparison of nucleotides in a DNA sequence with letters in a sentence. If “CUMULATIVE SELECTION” can quickly produce a meaningful sentence from a nonsense phrase, so – similarly – (as Dawkins argues) “CUMULATIVE SELECTION”, starting with “nonsense DNA” (ie:- where all the nucleotides are randomly assorted in a chain of DNA), can quickly produce a nucleotide sequence that codes for a haemoglobin molecule. All that is required for “CUMULATIVE SELECTION” to work is to have a TARGET PHRASE or a TARGET MOLECULE.
The problem here is that the random mutations – or the nonsense DNA have to have KNOWLEDGE of what that TARGET MOLECULE is, in order to “work towards” it (by CUMULATIVE SELECTION). The problem is that the random mutations or the nonsense DNA CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE THAT KNOWLEDGE. Evolution cannot have foresight. A fish cannot “know” that it is “supposed” to end up “evolving” into a human. A collection of randomly assorted nucleotides in a chain of DNA cannot “envisage” the future haemoglobin molecule that it “wants” to “evolve” into, and then “choose” the “best” mutations that carry it towards this “goal”. In that case, “CUMULATIVE SELECTION” cannot possibly be a process by which molecules of haemoglobin (and similar complex and highly specific proteins) are formed.
On page 50 Dawkins actually make the following admission:-
“Cumulative selection - - - - is misleading - - - in each generation of selective breeding, the mutant phrases were judged according to the criterion of resemblance to a distant ideal target, the phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. Life isn’t like that. Evolution has no long term goal. THERE IS NO LONG DISTANCE TARGET, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection - - - CUMULATIVE SELECTION IS BLIND TO THE FUTURE, AND HAS NO LONG TERM GOAL.”
My comment:- Suppose that I were to write the following:-
“I wish to make a statement. The statement is that A is equal to B. The statement that I have just made is misleading. In fact A is NOT equal to B.”
This would be pretty stupid – right?
In fact, this is exactly what Dawkins has done here. First he tells us that “Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is CUMULATIVE SELECTION.”
Then he tells us that “Cumulative selection - - - - is misleading - - - Evolution has no long term goal. THERE IS NO LONG DISTANCE TARGET - - - CUMULATIVE SELECTION IS BLIND TO THE FUTURE, AND HAS NO LONG TERM GOAL.”
Dawkins needs to “get his story straight”!
The notion of “Cumulative Selection” is a kind of “mystical thinking” imputing “knowledge” (or “foreknowledge”) to random assortments of nucleotides that they cannot possibly possess. The notion of “Cumulative Selection” is in the same category as The Flat Earth Theory, The Hollow Earth Theory, The Perpetual Motion Theory, The Phlogiston Theory, Alchemy etc. The “Cumulative Selection” Theory is essentially a “crank” theory, an obfuscatory device, a “smoke and mirrors” strategy, deliberately designed to mislead.
Here are some comments from authoritative sources regarding Dawkins computer program with the “target phrase” METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL:-
Here is a quote from the book – No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased Without Intelligence – by William Dembski (Dembski completed an undergraduate degree in psychology (1981, University of Illinois at Chicago) and master's degrees in statistics, mathematics, and philosophy (1983, University of Illinois at Chicago; 1985, University of Chicago; 1993, University of Illinois at Chicago, respectively), two PhDs, one in mathematics and one in philosophy (1988, University of Chicago; 1996, University of Illinois at Chicago, respectively)), published by Rowman and Littlefield, 2002, pages 181 to 183:-
“Choosing a pre-specified target sequence as Dawkins does here is deeply teleological.”
Here is a quote from a book edited by William Dembski (author of the above quote). The book is entitled Uncommon Dissent, published by ISI Books, 2004. The essay:- The Deniable Darwin, by David Berlinsky (who taught philosophy and logic at Stanford University), pages 263 to 306:-
(Pages 277 to 279) Berlinski states – “ The entire exercise is, however, AN ACHIEVEMENT IN SELF-DECEPTION.” Berlinsky points out that “Any definition of natural selection must plainly meet - - - - a RULE AGAINST DEFERRED SUCCESS.” (My capitals and highlighting.)
Here is another quote from the same book. This quote is from the essay by Paul Schutzenberger (Professor of The Faculty of Sciences at The University of Paris – trained as a mathematician) entitled:- The Miracles of Darwinism, pages 41 to 50:-
Schutzenberger comments on Dawkins’ demonstration of “Cumulative Selection”:- “THIS DEMONSTRATION IS BOGUS - - - The trick involved in DAWKINS’ EMBARRASSING EXAMPLE.” (My capitals and highlighting.)
(My comment:- Yes – EMBARRASSING is the right word here!)
The next two quotes are from the book God’s Undertaker, by John C. Lennox (Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University), published by Liam Hudson, 2007:-
Pages 157 to 159:- Lennox points out that – “Dawkins’ analogies depend on introducing to his model the very feature (ie:- a “target phrase”, or an evolutionary “target”, or a teleological “plan”) whose existence in the real world he denies.”
Pages 162 to 163:- Lennox comments:- “Dawkins’ model is useless as a simulation of how complexity, in the sense of getting letters in the right order, can be built up from a random sequence by an undirected evolutionary process - - - - Dawkins’ - - - - proposal - - - - - the - - -argument - - - is fatally flawed.” Then Lennox quotes Marcel Paul Schutzenberger (Professor of The Faculty of Sciences at The University of Paris – trained as a mathematician) who states that Dawkins’ model is “out of touch with palpable biological realities.”
Just to show the amazing degree of dogmatism that exists among the proponents of evolution, here is a quote from the book Paradise Regained. Unravelling The Mysteries of Modern Science, by John L. Casti (Ph.D.), published by Abacus, 2001, page 58:- “One may well ask: What’s wrong with alternatives to evolution? Why shouldn’t students hear all sides of a controversy? WELL, WHAT’S WRONG IS THAT THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY.” (My capitals and highlighting.) (My comment:- You cannot get into deeper denial than that!)
The Theory of Evolution has absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever. Scientists accept this theory for reasons that have nothing to do with science. Evolution has become a dogma – an ideology – which no scientist dares to question, since to do so would end their career in science.