1926 : “No One Believes In Evolution”

Catholic Press (Sydney, NSW : 1895 – 1942),
Thursday 10 June 1926, page 7


A Bankrupt, Theory.


(Director of the Observatory at Bourges).

“Fifty years ago, almost any naturalist would have answered that question with an unhesitating Yes. At that time science was still obsessed by the daring, hypotheses advanced by Lamarck and Darwin. But what enormous progress has been made since that time! If we ask the present masters of Paleontology, or Zoology, or Anatomy, what have they to tell ns on the subject? A Dead Theory. ”

10 Jun 1926 – DARWINISM. – Trove

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to 1926 : “No One Believes In Evolution”

  1. Marko says:


  2. Mike d says:

    Sadly most of the moronic unread never read Darwin’s “species” , and would be shocked to know evolution was well developed before he was born. As a pigeon breeder he simply applied his real life knowledge to explain how various species could evolve. Sadly for the morons their are blocks of rock with clear development of a specie ( Graptolytes is one example) .most of the quality geologists are busy providing minerals in support of humanity to get involved in this twaddle. Thanks Tony !

  3. arn says:

    Off topic:
    Next soccer player with heart problems :Aubameyang(probably the best scoring african player of the last 10 years)

  4. neil bonsor says:

    I think Tony is bowling a googly here. I declare for God after listening to Dr James Tour :
    Now the brickbats descend.

  5. Reflects the sad state of the academy in the West. If they can get away with such absolute nonsense as anthropogenic global warming, there is no upper bound to the idiocy which can be promoted. I anticipate that astrology will soon become a legitimate ‘science’.

  6. Garner Clay says:

    This quotation is from the last paragraph of Darwin’s “Origin of species” 6th edition (note Darwin’s conclusion remained after six revisions).

    “ Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher
    animals, directly follows.

    There is grandeur in this view of life,
    with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the
    Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet
    has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so
    simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful
    have been, and are being evolved.’’

    Leon Trotsky wrote, after reading Darwin’s book – “Darwin was not an atheist.’’

    Reading Darwin’s book confirmed my doubts about Darwinism.

  7. Garner Clay says:

    These are the epigraphs from “Origin of Species” –

    “ Quotations ‘But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this – we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws.’ WHEWELL: Bridgewater Treatise.

    ‘The only distinct meaning of the word ‘natural’ is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once.’ BUTLER: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

    ‘To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both.’

    BACON: Advancement of Learning. Down, Beckenham, Kent, First Edition, November 24th, 1859. Sixth Edition, Jan. 1872.

    Surprising, considering the fame of Darwin’s book. Appears that not many supporters have carefully read his book.

    Darwin was not adamant about atheism. Was convinced species do change over time. Everyone accepts this. That doesn’t explain – “origin of species”.

    Darwin agreed. As he wrote.

    Truth stranger than fiction.

  8. GreyGeek says:

    Stephen J Gould, a famous prof of Biology and evolutionist was a thorn in the side of Cladists, who believe in long periods of very slow mutations leading to new species. Their search for the “missing link” produced none of the supposedly myriads of samples that should have existed in the fossil record. Not being a Cladist, Gould had noted that the Cambrian Explosion, which occurred around 540 million years ago, resulted in ALL the major plant and animal phyla that exist today. He proposed “Punctuated Equilibrium”, where short, intense periods of mutation were separated by long periods of no change. The Cladists felt that would allow the nose of the Creationist camel in under the tent and ridiculed his proposal, calling it “Punk Eek”. Eventually, they modified some definitions, some interpretations of previous discoveries and lathered on some new theories to merge it all into something that, as pure materialists, they could support.

    In recent years astrophysicists discovered that during the “Big Bang” the fabric of space itself spread out at speeds greater than the speed of light. In Job 9:8, Isiah 40:22 and 42:5 the scribes of the Bible stated the same thing, just 5,000 years earlier than modern astrophysicists.

  9. Jeff Jones says:

    Classic Darwinism is easily disprovable using science. The Second Law prohibits the steady progression to more order that evolution demands. The fossil record and especially the Cambrian explosion of life totally debunk the steady progression theory.

    Finally the laws of probability make the whole concept ludricous. I have a calculation for the probability of a single simple protein forming by chance, assuming it did the deed in a ‘soup’ containing only the required building blocks in the proper concentrations. Result is a chance in 10^130 trials to get the stack needed. Given the size of an average protein, that requires a cube 20 light years on a side to contain all the misfires.

    How long do you guess it took for an optically prefect, perfectly clear living tissue to evolve? Then how much longer for it to attach itself to an optically correct eyeball and develop a sophisticated focussing apparatus?

    Sorry, I just don’t have enough faith to be an agnostic.

  10. Garner Clay says:

    Following from my review of “Bornoulli’s Fallacy” by Aubery Clayton –

    Clayton also presents the background of the disaster . . .

    “This also brings us into the age of evolution, the main driver behind the development of most of the new statistical tools. In this setting, in contrast to the lyric descriptions of the average man we saw from Quetelet, the quantification of human differences started to take on a menacing undertone, infused with racism, ableism, and settler colonialism.’’

    Man, this is really . . . bad. How bad?

    “One possible explanation is that they were equally dogmatic about what they wanted to do with statistics, for which they needed to assert an authority founded on what they claimed was objective truth. In a continuation of the trend we’ve already observed, their methods became more cloaked in objectivity as statistics gained more political importance, until by the end the stakes were such that they couldn’t allow any hint of subjectivity. Galton, Pearson, and Fisher were the mathematical equivalent of religious fundamentalists, and they claimed to follow a strictly literal reading of their holy texts.’’

    ‘Closed minds don’t produce reliable science. What impact?

    “It was during Fisher’s lifetime that the eugenics movement attained its most horrific final form in Nazi Germany. Elements of Adolf Hitler’s eugenics “project” were, in fact, descended from Galton’s in a surprisingly direct manner and therefore cousins of Fisher’s, by way of America.’’

    I was stunned. Science and statistics were purposely warped by desire to twist evidence for political motives. Especially genocide and extermination of undesirables.


    And Clayton explains this in great detail. Many pages. Just . . . just . . . overwhelming!

    As he writes in introduction, this misuse, this broken science, this warped technique, controls modern thought.


    Clayton explains the importance of Bayesian analysis.


  11. Kurt Goodwin says:

    Such an interesting example of looking at the data for confirmation rather than learning or comparing theories. essentially saying that evolution could not havehappened because we find evidence of some species a long way back in the geologic record. No comment on the fact that other species don’t show in those long ago records or alternative speculation of how they had arrived. and it looks like some journalists didnt have questioning minds back then either.

  12. No true scientist ‘believes in’ evolution, it is a working hypothesis, like every other scientific theory. Darwin begins his ‘Origin of Species’ with the observation that artificial selection has been going on since the beginning of agriculture. It is essentially an aspect of systems theory, rather than biology. Ross-Ashby, with his homeostat, demonstrated that random adaptation of a system was effective in maintaining the state within acceptable bounds. The entropy argument is nonsense because the organism is not a closed system. The actual system consists of the organism interacting with an environment. The reduction of entropy of the organism can only be achieved by an increase in entropy of the environment. To claim this is impossible is to state that steam cannot condense in the condenser, or no heat engine of any form can possibly work. I also have difficulty relating these dogmatic religious views to say the Ten Commandments, this pre-occupation with moral irrelevance is lousy theology, let alone lousy science.

  13. David Berry says:

    The problem lies in the definition of evolution. Most agree that species adapt into different forms, like 50 breeds of dog – micro-evolution, say. But if a dog would change to a point when it could no longer breed with dogs but it could breed with it’s own kind, that would be a new species, via macro- evolution, which has never been observed naturally.

    • Jeff Jones says:

      And using the huge variety of dog breeds as a continuing example, allowing them to go wild and crossbreed, the result within a few generations is a standard version of a yellow dingo from which they were first bred. There is NO fossil evidence of missing links which should outnumber specific species, there is NO natural cmeical process that can be demonstrated to generate building blocks of life and laws of probability infinitely disprove the theory. And regardless of how one call on ‘open systems’ to allow massive violations of rhe second law, honest scientists must reject that fantasy. i haqven’t seen anyone try yo describe that process. Evolutionary theory is in all aspects a religion, not a science.

Leave a Reply to Vegieman Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *