Responses to an Evolutionist who accuses Creationists of "bending the facts"

One of my arrogant correspondents accused creationists of "bending the facts so what comes out the other end is misshapen".

This caused me to do some googling for some evidence that, "there is a lot of bending the facts" going on out there!

(1) This quote from: "Scientists Confirm the Signs of God" by Muslim, Harun Yahya
"Evolutionists rely not on science but on materialist philosophy and they distort science to make it agree with this philosophy. A geneticist and an outspoken evolutionist from Harvard University, Richard Lewontin, confesses to this truth:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. (Richard Levontin, The Demon-Haunted World, The New York Review of Books, January, 9, 1997, p. 28)"


(2) Extensive website, "Evolution Fraud" http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html
"In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic"

(3) Interesting Quote - "National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism" Storrs L. Olson, Smithsonian Institution

(4) Mark Ridley, another evolutionist from Oxford University said in The New Scientist magazine in June 1981 p 831, "a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. \
They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. ...In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationalist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. "

(5) “George Wald, professor of biology at Harvard, admits, ‘One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation’ (The Physics of Life, p. 9). Notice that some scientists are so steeped in the theory of evolution, they cannot bring themselves to fully accept the absolutely irrefutable proof of scientific laboratory experiments!” (lesson 11).
It is a well guarded fact that many evolutionists rejected Darwin's theory of evolution over 20 years ago. Stephen Jay Gould, a professor at Harvard University and one of the foremost authorities on evolution in the world said, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms (missing links) in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontologists,...we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study". ...............

(6) Following from "Facts as I see them" By Dr. Don Boys http://www.cstnews.com/Code/drboys.html
Fossil expert, Stephen Gould wrote: "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change." Darwin even agreed with that! No informed evolutionist appeals to the fossil record to support his philosophy of origins. When he does so, he places himself in the category of flat-earthers, phrenologists, astrologers and snake handlers.
Dr. Soren Lovetrup, scientist from Sweden, said, "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science." He added that evolution is "anti-science," and is "false." Scientists, who don't know Lovetrup, should be driving trucks, not defending the farce, fakery, foolishness, and fraud of evolution.

(7) Astronomer, Fred Hoyle, said, "The speculations of the Origin of Species turned out to be wrong," The most respected French scientist, Pierre Grasse called Darwinian evolution, "a pseudo-science." A. E., Wilder-Smith, with three earned doctorates in science, said evolution is "impossible." (Almost all of the great scientists of the past were creationists.)

(8) Dr. H.S. Lipson, an agnostic physicist, admitted, "I think...the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." He further added, "To my mind, the theory [evolution] does not stand up at all."

(9) Following from: "Is Evolution a Scientifically Proven Theory?" by John F. McCarthy
"The origin of biological life. Dr. Collins with some evolutionary scientists admits that there is no reasonable explanation from natural causes alone for the rise of biological life on earth, and so he accepts that the first life-form was created by God. This admission makes him a theistic evolutionist, that is, one who admits that not everything on earth or in biological life has come about from purely natural forces. But many other evolutionary scientists and public education in general do not make this admission; they simply ignore the issue in the hope that some day a purely natural explanation will be given for the rise of biological life on earth. The fact is that, from what is now known about the complexity of any living cell, there is no way that life could have emerged by chance. Spontaneous generation was believed in centuries ago, but it was definitively disproved by Louis Pasteur. All life comes from previous life. The spontaneous generation of life cannot be produced in the laboratory, and it has never been observed to happen on earth."

Duane Gilchrist June, 6, 2008