>Here are a few quotes from the scientific community regarding evolution:

>T. N. George (1951):    "In the anthropocentric view...its (evolution's)
>progress (is) marked by the appearance of successively higher forms of
>life.  In the light of the evidence now available...such a view invites
>rejection.... A 'line' of evolution is a convenient fiction....There is
>no steady march of progress.  The reptiles did not evolve out of the
>ruling amphibians, or the mammals out of the ruling reptiles....  The
>general picture is not one of continued advance (even as measured by
>arbitrary yardsticks), but of replacement...  [T]here manifestly has been
>no pregressive evolutionary rise from one group to another....  [I]t is
>impossible to discern a single over-riding motif in evolution."

>M. Lamotte:    "Lacking a rigorous logical demonstration, which is 
>rendered impossible by the very nature of the field... we have not an
>acceptable theory of the mechanisms of evolution."

>Zuckermann:    "The difficulty is not only that stories of human 
>phylogeny can never be more than a series of probablilities largely base
>on guesswork.  We also have to consider the fact that speculation clouds
>almost every single stage in the treatment of the physical evidence
>itself.  It begins with decisions to which fragments found in a deposit
>are to be individually associated with each other.  It continues into the
>stage where their anatomical framework of evolutionary change to which
>the facts can be fitted.  When to all theser we add the uncertainties
>associatged with the geological dating of fossil remains...we have all
>the ingredients necessary to produce endless speculation and controversy."

>Dodson & Saunders:    "[I]t may be well to recall the admonition of Hyman
>that 'the exact steps in the evolution of the various grades of
>invertebrate structure are not and presumably never can be known.'
>Statements about them are inferred from anatomical and embriological
>evidence and in no case should be regarded as established fact."

>D. M. S. Watson:    "Since Darwin wrote his theroy of natural selection,
>[it] ha[s] been constantly in the minds of naturalists, who have
>designed, but never really satisfactorily carried out, experiments to show
>that natural selection does in fact occur."

>W. W. Howells:    "Darwin was probably right the first time, then, and
>natural selection is more imoprtant in racial adaption than he himself
>later came to think.  Curiously however, it is extremely difficult to
>find demonstrable, or even logically appealing adaptive advantages in 
>racial features."  (In other words, the threory is probably correct, but,
>"curiously", the evidence does not support it!!!"

>R. Good:      "For a variety of reasons, the hypothesis of natural
>selection gradually acquired a not altogether healthy degree of prestige,
>which is hard to break down.  It has become, if only by reiteration, so
>firmly ensconced as a part of out general outlook on nature that it needs
>real determination to cast doubt on it.  Biologists are conditioned to it
>from their earliest education and are seldom taught that there are
>conflicting opinions about it."

>W. D. Wallis:    "I have sought, and in vain, for an anatomist who would
>venture to say from examining the bony inside of a skull whether the
>individual was a mute or an orator....Yet to this very year the
>statements are made, in some instances by anatomists, that
>Pithecanthropus as indicated by the skull(!), probably had speech.  As
>mentioned, those same anatomists would not make pronouncements regarding
>the speech abilities of a contemporary individual if they had not only
>the bones of the brain case, nut also the brain."

>Taken from "Evolution: A Convenient Fiction" by Hugh W. Nibley Nate
END**********************************************************************