"We are supposed to be emotionally-driven, child-hungry people"

T.L. Moor, paleontologist: "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." (cited in _Origins?_, BG Ranganathan, p.22)

John T. Bonner: "We [evolutionists] have been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and therefore it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice." (cited in _The Twilight of Evolution_, Henry M. Morris, p.91)

Miles Eldredge, paleontologist: "We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [gradual adaptive change], all the while really knowing that it does not." (cited in _Darwin on Trial_, Phillip Johnson, p.59)

Mary Leakey, paleoanthropologist: "All these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense." (from an interview with Associated Press, Dec 10 1996)

Charles Darwin: "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." (from a letter to Asa Gray, Harvard biology professor, cited in _Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation_, N.C. Gillespie, p.2)

Pierre-Paul Grasse, past President of the French Academie des Sciences, Editor of the 35-volume _Traite de Zoologie_: "Today [1977] our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us.  Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths.  The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."

 Bounoure, past Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research, France: "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grownups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science.  It is useless." (_Le Monde Et La Vie_, Oct 1963)

Art Battson, professor, University of CA - Berkley:  "We must bear in mind that just because neo-Darwinian evolution is the most plausible naturalistic explanation of origins, we should not assume that it is necessarily true.... In retrospect, it seems as though Darwinists have been less concerned with the scientific question of accurately explaining the empirical data of natural history, and more concerned with the religious or philosophical question of explaining the design found in nature without a designer.  Darwin's general theory of evolution may, in the final analysis, be little more than an unwarranted extrapolation from microevolution based more upon philosophy than fact.  The problem is that Darwinism continues to distort natural science." ("Facts, Fossils, and Philosophy", 17 May 1997)

G.A. Kerkut, biochemistry professor at the University of Southampton: "The philosophy of evolution is based upon assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified... Whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both limited and circumstantial in nature." (cited in _Biology_, Keith Graham et al, p.363)

Roger Lewin: "It is in fact a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions.  Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions." (_Bones of Contention_, p.68)

David Pilbeam: "I have come to believe that many statements we make about the how and whys of human evolution say as much about us, the paleoanthropologists and the larger society in which we live, as about anything that really happened." (cited in _Bones of Contention_, Roger Lewin, p.85)

W.R. Thompson, Introduction to _Origin of the Species_ by Darwin: "This situation, where men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.... I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial."

Francis Crick, Nobel Prize recipient for discovery of DNA structure: "Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts." (_Life Itself_, p.153)

John Ambrose Fleming, President British Assoc. for Advancement of Science: "Evolution is baseless and quite incredible." (_The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought_)

Michael Denton: "The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious 20th century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists.... The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved 100 years ago and that all subsequent biological research - paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology - has provided ever-increasing evidence of Darwinian ideas... There has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless... Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the 20th century. Like the Genesis-based cosmology which it replaced, and like the creation myths of ancient man, it satisfies the same deep psychological need for an all-embracing explanation for the origin of the world which has motivated all the cosmogenic myth makers of the past." (_Evolution: A Theory in Crisis_, p.306, 327, 358.)

Dr. Colin Patterson, paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History: "The explanatory value of the hypothesis of common ancestry is nil... I feel that the effects of the hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge, I think it has been positively anti-knowledge... Well, we're back to the question I've been putting to people: 'Is there one thing you can tell me about evolution?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true:  evolution does not convey any knowledge, or if so, I haven't yet heard it." (from speech at the American Museum of Natural History, NYC, Nov 5, 1981)

Louis Agassiz, Harvard professor, pioneer in glaciation: "The theory of evolution is a scientific mistake." (cited in H. Enoch, _Evolution or Creation_, p.139)

S. Lovtrup, professor of zoophysiology at Universityof Umea, Sweden: "I have already shown that the arguments advanced by the early champions [of Darwinian theory of natural selection] were not very compelling, and that there are now [1987] considerable numbers of empirical facts which do not fit with the theory.  Hence, to all intents and purposes the theory has been falsified, so why has it not been abandoned?" (_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_ p.352)

Steven Jay Gould, paleontologist: "We are left with very little time between the development of suitable conditions for life on the Earth's surface and the origin of life... Life apparently arose about as soon as the Earth became cool enough to support it." ("An Early Start", _Natural History_, Feb 1978)

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists is the trade secret of paleontology... In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ansectors; it appears all at once and fully formed." ("Evolution's Erratic Pace", _Natural History_, May 1977)

"I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record... We have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." ("The Ediacaran Experiment", _Natural History_, Feb 1984)

"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument.  We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study." (_The Panda's Thumb_, p.181)