Atheists want to make you feel dumb for believing in creationism, that it is pseudoscience. Pastor Kim is going to give you tons of documentations and quotes of scientists, astounding scientists who actually believe in creationism and who do not believe in evolution.

Scientists’ Counter Arguments on Evolution

Not only is evolution all hypothesis, it is a most peculiar and strange one. This is a conclusion of a number of conscientious scientists. Let me read it right here:

“Fundamental truths about evolution have so far eluded us all, and that uncritical acceptance of Darwinism may be counterproductive as well as expedient. Far from ignoring or ridiculing the groundswell of opposition to Darwinism that is growing, for example, in the United States, we should well commit as an opportunity to re-examine our sacred cow more closely.”

So this is found by B. Storehouse, who wrote the introduction to Michael Pittman’s Adam and Evolution, 1984, page 12.

So let’s read some more scientists right here:

“Scientists should be willing to accept change as new light comes. We should not remain more abundant in an imaginary theory without any evidence. If an idea doesn’t work out, it isn’t worth holding onto.”

Why is that?

“Do not think for a moment, though, that you know the real atom. The atom is an idea, a theory, a hypothesis. It is whatever you need to account for the facts of experience. A good deal will happen in the future, and the changes in, our understanding of, the atom will continue. An idea in science, remember, lasts only as long as it is useful.”

So that’s by Emmett L. Williams and George Molfinger, Jr. at Physical Science for Christian Schools, 1974, pages 662 to 663.

Now let me give some more quotes right here. This is by Errol White in Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London, 177:8 at 1988:

“We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the overconfident claims in some quarters. Nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology.”

So you notice right here that they hardly know anything now, and apparently nothing more will likely be learned.

Here’s another one. You’re going to find out right here we have faith to go on. For why? There are no facts. Why is that? J. W. N. Sullivan in The Limitations of Science, 1933, page 95:

“The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is at present still an article of faith.”

They also call this an understatement. This is by the World Book Encyclopedia, 1988, Volume 8, page 334:

“No one should make the mistake of saying that evolution is fully understood.“

See, it’s considered to be an understatement. So if they keep questioning our Bible and questioning how creationism works, “Hey, if you’re an honest scientist, you’re going to be in the same boat as well. You got the same burden as well. ” Whereas Bible believers already have textual evidence.

Evolutionists retreat to, “We don’t have an answer yet, but science does have the answer.” Bible believers can also argue: “Well, we don’t have all the answers, but we will find the answer. The Word of God will show us.” It shows both sides are on the same boat.

Here’s another one where basically it does not fit in with reality and practically nothing with science here. This is by George Gaylord Simpson at “The Non-prevalence of Humanoids” in Science 143, 1964, page 770:

“It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything or at least they are not science.”

Look at these guys talking: Neil deGrasse Tyson, and then Richard Dawkins, and then Lawrence Krauss want to give out theories that things could happen as time passes by, and this sci-fi thing can happen. Pastor Kim can work up any hypothesis, too – he has some concerning four cherubims and cold-blooded reptilians. They’re all in the same boat.

OK, so let’s start off with Romans chapter 1 right here. What is it concerning about intellectuals? The intellectual realm, they profess themselves to be intellectual:

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” (Romans 1:22-23)

Now it’s hilarious that they call creationism foolish, right? However, the more that you study the complexity of biology, anatomy, DNA, etc, there is no doubt you to have a creator putting everything into place. Creationism is considered to be wisdom. That’s how God sees it as.

The evolutionists’ own God is science. It’s the creation of this world which somehow created itself sporadically. Why? Because they don’t want to give God the glory for the creation. Look at verse 20:

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” (Romans 1:20)

When you study DNA, there has to be a creator. A car doesn’t just “happen there and then.” A car is simpler than a human being!

“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” (Romans 1:21)

And their foolish heart was darkened, see: professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. This fits perfectly to a tee at verse 20 through 23 concerning evolution, there is no doubt about that.

Now, let’s read some more statements right here concerning how there are different scientists, what they believe concerning evolution:

“In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct? Or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus proved. So it’s still a theory that stands in splendid isolation from experiment and evidence.”

Founded by L. H. Matthews in his introduction toward The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, 1971 edition.

Here’s another one right here:

“Unfortunately in the field of evolution, most explanations are not good. What? As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all. They are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses.”

So that’s by Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried, 1971, page 147.

So here’s another one right here by R. H. Peters in “Tautology in Evolution and Ecology,” in The American Naturalist, 1976, volume 110, number one, page one:

“I argue that the theory of evolution does not take predictions so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms theories and to show the relationships with such a classification implies these theories are actually topologies and as such cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all.”

Yeah, in The American Naturalist, you can read that, okay?

Here’s another one: Francisco J. Ayala, “Biological Evolution: Natural Selection or Random Walk,” in American Scientist, Volume 62, November to December Edition, 1974, page 700:

“A hypothesis is empirically scientific only if it can be tested by experience. A hypothesis or theory which cannot be, at least in principle, falsified by empirical observation and experiments does not belong to the realm of science.”

That’s something important to underlie before you do some kind of evolution experiments, okay? Before you say, “It is science.” No, you gotta think about that as a foundation first. It’s a theory, but it’s a logical theory. Yeah, we can do the same thing with the Bible too. We can make it logical. Creationism sounds logical too, but does that make it true? See that? They don’t think about that. They think that as long as it logically ties in, then it can be true.

OK, here’s another one. This is by Luther Sunderland in Darwin’s Enigma, 1988, page 31:

“It is generally recognized that the original version of a theory might not be entirely correct, but not necessarily false in every respect either. Thus, it is permissible for scientists to attempt to salvage a theory that has flunked a test by making secondary modifications to the theory and trying to make it fit new facts not previously considered. A theory loses credibility if it must be repeatedly modified over years of testing or if it requires excuses being continually made for why its predictions are not consistent with new discoveries of data. It is not a propitious attribute for a theory to have required numerous secondary modifications. Some evolutionists misunderstand this and attempt to point to the continuous string of modifications to evolution theory as a justification for classifying it as the exclusive, respectable scientific theory on origins. They often make the strange claim that creation theory could not be scientific because it fits the evidence so perfectly that it never has required any modification. That line of reasoning is like saying that the law of gravity is not scientific since it fits the facts so perfectly that it never needs modification.”

By Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1985, page 358:

“Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the 20th century.”

Johann von Goethe sums it up (historical figure, 1749 to 1832), quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, page 257:

“Science has been seriously retarded by the study of what is not worth knowing.”

Okay, here are some thoughtful scientists who have concluded not only is evolution theory a total waste of time, but it has greatly hindered scientific advance as well:

Quote by Bonor, Le Monde et la Vie, October 1983, director of research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France:

“Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”

Anyways, here’s another one: H. Nilsson, 1954, page 11:

“It obstructs, as has been repeatedly shown, the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material, for everything must ultimately be found to fit this theory, and exact biology cannot therefore be built up.”

Another one by M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1985, page 353:

“The doctrine of continuity, such as evolutionary theory, has always necessitated a retreat from pure empiricism. And contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach.”

Here’s another one by Colin Patterson in The Listener. He’s a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London:

“Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the creator and his plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in almost the deity of Darwin. They’ve seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way, some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science.”

Here’s another one by L. L. Cohen in his book Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities, 1985:

“It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions. Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back.”

Now, the evidence is Pastor Kim also at first-hand experience when he was studying research methods and experiments. His professor said this:the majority of scientists, when they do the empirical experiment, they redo it again. They think they’re wrong. It contradicts already their theory that they have faith in believing in. So even if the data conflicts their theory, they believe theory more than the data itself.

You see why this is a problem with evolution? They have that much faith in theory. So what happens when the data conflicts that? They resort back to faith.

Famous Creationist Scientists

There are a lot of creationist scientists and they’re respectable people in their profession. This is by W. R. Thompson in his introduction to Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species:

“I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. The success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity.”

Before you come up with a biased conclusion that creationism does not consist of respectable scientists, why don’t you go through a list first of all the respectable scientists?

There are creationists who believed in God creating all the world, all the universe, and they established scientific disciplines today:

  • Antiseptic Surgery: Joseph Lister (1827–1912)
  • Bacteriology: Louis Pasteur
  • Calculus: Isaac Newton
  • Celestial Mechanics: Johannes Kepler
  • Chemistry: Robert Boyle
  • Comparative Anatomy: Georges Cuvier
  • Computer Science: Charles Babbage
  • Dimensional Analysis: Lord Rayleigh
  • Dynamics: Isaac Newton
  • Electronics: John Ambrose Fleming
  • Electrodynamics: James Clerk Maxwell
  • Electromagnetics: Michael Faraday
  • Energetics: Lord Kelvin
  • Entomology of Living Insects: Henri Fabre
  • Field Theory: Michael Faraday
  • Fluid Mechanics: George Stokes
  • Galactic Astronomy: William Herschel
  • Gas Dynamics: Robert Boyle
  • Genetics: Gregor Mendel
  • Glacial Geology: Louis Agassiz
  • Gynecology: James Simpson
  • Hydraulics: Leonardo da Vinci
  • Hydrography: Pastor Kim doesn’t know all these terminologies—Matthew Maury
  • Hydrostatics: Blaise Pascal
  • Ichthyology: Louis Agassiz
  • Isotopic Chemistry: William Ramsay
  • Model Analysis: Lord Rayleigh
  • Natural History: John Ray
  • Non-Euclidean Geometry: Bernhard Riemann
  • Oceanography: Matthew Maury
  • Optical Mineralogy: David Brewster
  • Paleontology: John Woodward
  • Pathology: Rudolf Virchow
  • Physical Astronomy: Johannes Kepler
  • Reversible Thermodynamics: James Joule
  • Statistical Thermodynamics: James Clerk Maxwell
  • Stratigraphy: Nicolas Steno
  • Systematic Biology: Carolus Linnaeus
  • Thermodynamics: Lord Kelvin
  • Thermokinetics: Humphry Davy
  • Vertebrate Paleontology: Georges Cuvier

Notable inventions, discoveries, or developments by creationist scientists include:

  • Absolute Temperature Scale: Lord Kelvin
  • Actuarial Tables: Charles Babbage
  • Barometer: Blaise Pascal
  • Biogenesis Law: Louis Pasteur
  • Calculating Machine: Charles Babbage
  • Chloroform: James Simpson
  • Classification System: Carolus Linnaeus
  • Double Stars: William Herschel
  • Electric Generator: Michael Faraday
  • Electric Motor: Joseph Henry
  • Ephemeris Tables: Johannes Kepler
  • Fermentation Control: Louis Pasteur
  • Galvanometer: Joseph Henry
  • Global Star Catalog: John Herschel
  • Inert Gases: William Ramsay
  • Kaleidoscope: David Brewster
  • Law of Gravity: Isaac Newton
  • Miner’s Safety Lamp: Humphry Davy
  • Pasteurization: Louis Pasteur
  • Reflecting Telescope: Isaac Newton
  • Scientific Method: Francis Bacon
  • Self-Induction: Joseph Henry
  • Telegraph: Samuel F. B. Morse
  • Thermionic Valve: Ambrose Fleming
  • Transatlantic Cable: Lord Kelvin
  • Vaccination and Immunization: Louis Pasteur

What’s parabolical is that scientists would not be using all those experiments, tools, and foundations to prove their evolutionary theory had it not been for the creationists. What did believing in God and creationism do? A lot of work on their field today. That’s thanks to the work creationist scientists have been doing.