{"quotes":[{"text":"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born.","author":"Richard Dawkins","tags":["atheism","darwinism","evolution","naturalism"],"id":992,"author_id":"Richard+Dawkins"},{"text":"But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?","author":"Charles Darwin","tags":["contradiction","darwin-s-doubts","darwinism","evolution","human-mind","macro-evolution","macroevolution","mind","self-refuting"],"id":8425,"author_id":"Charles+Darwin"},{"text":"For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any critical analysis of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.","author":"James A. Shapiro","tags":["biology","darwin","darwinism","evolution","macro-evolution","macroevolution","neo-darwinism","science"],"id":9166,"author_id":"James+A.+Shapiro"},{"text":"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.","author":"Henry Gee","tags":["biology","confessions-of-the-darwinists","darwin","darwinism","darwinist-confessions","evolution","fossil-record","fossils","macro-evolution","macroevolution","neo-darwinism","paleontology","science"],"id":30607,"author_id":"Henry+Gee"},{"text":"It is high time we stop using the term “theory” while mentioning Evolution. The term “theory” somehow makes some people think of Evolution as an unproven “hypothesis”. Theory of Evolution is an incontrovertible fact of science. It is not a fictitious story like Creationism. It’s a hard reality. It is the bed-rock of Biology. Defying evolution means defying one’s own existence as a human being.","author":"Abhijit Naskar","tags":["biology","brainy","darwinism","evolution","science","theory-of-evolution"],"id":32793,"author_id":"Abhijit+Naskar"},{"text":"No Lord Almighty created the humans out of personal will. Creationism is simply a myth created by the weak and ignorant humans out of a psychological need to have a sense of eternal security.","author":"Abhijit Naskar","tags":["biology","brainy","creationism","creationists","darwin","darwinism","evolution","fundamentalism","god","ignorance","life","mysticism","reasoning","religion","science","science-and-religion","truth","words-of-wisdom"],"id":37842,"author_id":"Abhijit+Naskar"},{"text":"Somehow creationists keep us naturalists in track to some extent. They are the representation of human stupidity at its extreme. And we need some stupidity in the society for true intellect to be adored.","author":"Abhijit Naskar","tags":["brainy","creationism","darwinism","evolution","inspirational","naturalism","science"],"id":38891,"author_id":"Abhijit+Naskar"},{"text":"Regardless of one's point of view, it's quite easy to see that Darwinism is not in the same league as the hard sciences. For instance, Darwinists will often compare their theory favorably to Einsteinian physics, claiming that Darwinism is just as well established as general relativity. Yet how many physicists, while arguing for the truth of Einsteinian physics, will claim that general relativity is as well established as Darwin’s theory? Zero.","author":"William A. Dembski","tags":["darwinism","einstein","evolution","general-relativity","hard-science","macro-evolution","macroevolution","science","scientific-theories","scientific-theory","speciation"],"id":51612,"author_id":"William+A.+Dembski"},{"text":"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree...The difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection , though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered subversive of the theory.","author":"Charles Darwin","tags":["biology","confessions-of-the-darwinists","conjecture","darwin","darwinism","darwinist-confessions","evolution","eye","human-eye","macro-evolution","macroevolution","natural-selection","neo-darwinism","pseudo-science","science","speculation"],"id":51857,"author_id":"Charles+Darwin"},{"text":"In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike 'harder' scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.","author":"Jerry A. Coyne","tags":["biology","confessions-of-the-darwinists","conjecture","darwin","darwinism","darwinist-confessions","evolution","macro-evolution","macroevolution","neo-darwinism","pseudo-science","science","speculation"],"id":60005,"author_id":"Jerry+A.+Coyne"}],"pagination":{"page":1,"page_size":10,"total":89,"pages":9,"next":"?page=2\u0026page_size=10"}}