Quotes About Creationists

In short, it is not that evolutionary naturalists have been less brazen than the scientific creationists in holding science hostage, but rather that they have been infinitely more effective in getting away with it.

Creationists (and others unencumbered by facts) cite epigenetics to assert that Darwin was wrong, and that these transgenerational epigenetic studies show Lamarckian evolution. They don't, as the changes are not perpetual and do not change the DNA sequence itself, on which natural selection acts. Even

Creationists have often made me doubt evolution, but probably not in the way they think.

[C]reationists [and] other religious enthusiasts [are], in many parts of the world ..., the most dangerous adversaries of science.

I have always felt sympathy towards the biologists who accept to debate creationists. Now I also understand them better; one can fight opinions, not articles of faith.

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.

I would defend the liberty of consenting adult creationists to practice whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own homes; but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent.

Creationists mainly are Americans who think the world was created in 1982 to coincide with the rise of Super Tramp but you can very easily dispute this by playing some of Super Tramps earlier albums.

But there is a silver lining here. By inspiring people to learn the fundamental features of nature described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, creationists can actually inspire a richer appreciation of the mechanism of evolution.

In short, it is not that evolutionary naturalists have been less brazen than the scientific creationists in holding science hostage, but rather that they have been infinitely more effective in getting away with it.

The last I knew you were going to a party. just a few friends at the McEvoys' you told me. The science club, you told me. What happened? You got into a fight about the theory of relativity? Did creationists crash the party and start a rumble?

Creationists have an argument not with science, but with argument.

Creationists hold to an Ice Age that was triggered by the Flood. The Flood occurred about 2348 b.c., which is about 4,300 years ago.1 The secularists' most recent ice age was supposedly about 10,000 years ago (by their dating system).

This is what creationists say of evolution, that it's "only" a theory, it hasn't been proved, as though this in itself is grounds for dismissal. This misrepresents the point of formulating a theory, which is to make sense of some body of evidence.

I have a strong feeling that the subject of evolution is beautiful without the excuse of creationists needing to be bashed.

Whatever the degree to which Darwin may have "misled science into a dead end," the biologist Shi V. Liu observed in commenting on Koonin's paper, "we may still appreciate the role of Darwin in helping scientists [win an] upper hand in fighting against the creationists.

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.

Creationists have also changed their name ... to intelligent design theorists who study 'irreducible complexity' and the 'abrupt appearance' of life—yet more jargon for 'God did it.' ... Notice that they have no interest in replacing evolution with native American creation myths or including the Code of Hammurabi alongside the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools.

Note to creationists: life and evolution are as inseparable as Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell.)