“The evidence for Darwinism was never any good—even in Darwin’s day. But with advances in contemporary science, Darwinism becomes utterly insupportable. What are Darwinists to do? Rather than admit that their theory is at fault (and thus lose credibility), they keep the propaganda mills running overtime…”

(Geoffrey Simmons, M.D., What Darwin Didn’t Know, Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2004, from Foreword by William A. Dembski, Ph.D., 9)

“To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed as uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.”

(Geoffrey Simmons, M.D., What Darwin Didn’t Know, Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2004, Author citing Professor Sir Ernst Chain, 1945 Noble Prize Laureate for Medicine or Physiology, 42)

Darwinism

How could Darwin’s clunky mechanism—one tiny, random change at a time, each followed by a long, fitful, and uncertain period of natural selection, with no ability to anticipate future needs—account for the molecular marvels that modern biology had uncovered? Increasingly the answer became, it couldn’t. The more science advanced and the more elegance and complexity was uncovered, the more biologists drifted away from Darwinism.

(Michael J. Behe, A Mousetrap For Darwin, Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, Kindle, 2020, 14 of 556)