And the London Daily Mail declared that the latest evidence “could cause the biggest upset in science since Darwin said man had descended from the apes.”

What Scientists Are Saying

In the book Man, Time, and Fossils evolutionist R. Moore stated: “Since 1950 the scientific evidence has pointed inescapably to one conclusion: man did not evolve in either the time or the way that Darwin and the modern evolutionists thought most probable.”

Historian Arnold Toynbee says: “I do not think that the Darwinian theory of evolution has given a positive account of an alternative way in which the universe may have been brought into existence.”

Harvard-trained lawyer Norman Macbeth, after years of careful and impartial investigation, wrote of his findings in the book Darwin Retried (1971). The book’s publishers commented: “It suggests that a fresh start is in order and, in the present state of affairs, no theory at all may be preferable to the existing one.”

Macbeth found the evidence for evolution so flimsy that he declared, after reading a typical book by a leading evolutionist: “If I had to oppose that man in court I could get his case thrown out.” On the other hand, after reading an issue of Awake! magazine on the subject of evolution, he found it to be soundly based, scientifically accurate. As a result, he warned evolutionists not to persist in saying that those who disbelieve the evolution theory are “ignorant of scientific evidence.” Macbeth, who is not a creationist, also observed:

“In examining the single parts of classical Darwinism, I concluded that they were all sadly decayed. . . . Since decayed parts will never make a sound whole, the total theory must also be decayed . . .

“I also have no objection to explanations, if they are good explanations. Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses. . . .

“This is not mere quibbling. The profession has worked itself into an embarrassing position when Sir Julian Huxley tells the television audience: ‘The first point to make about Darwin’s theory is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact,’ while at almost the same time Professor Mayr, addressing himself to serious students, says: ‘The basic theory is in many instances hardly more than a postulate.’

“Such an enormous discrepancy between two leaders . . . is bad for the standing of the profession. The public may rightly feel that it has been paltered with.”