SJ:
"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than
the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century. Like the Genesis
based cosmology which it replaced, and like the creation myths of
ancient man, it satisfies the same deep psychological need for an all
embracing explanation for the origin of the world which has-motivated
all the cosmogenic myth makers of the past, from the shamans of
primitive peoples to the ideologues of the medieval church." (Denton
M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", 1985, pp358-359)
SJ:"Darwinist evolution is an imaginative story about who we are and
where we came from, which is to say it is a creation myth. (Johnson
P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, p133-134).
Nice redefinition of myth versus science. Why the need to redefine words
to suggest that there is no difference between a creation myth based on
unprovable assumptions of a super natural being and a story of evolution
(which is btw not creation, a common confusion) ? The creationists already
have confused matters by discussing evolution in a wider sense and
conclude that since this violates the SLOT that therefor evolution in the
narrower sense also violates the SLOT.
Such confusion and incorrect logic only serve to complicate discussion on
a scientific level of the issues.
SJ: "The concept of organic evolution is very highly prized by
biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious
devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle.
This is probably the reason why severe methodological criticism
employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to
bear on evolutionary speculation." (Conklin E., "Man Real and
Ideal", 1943, p147, in Bird W.R., "The Origin of Species Revisited",
1991, Vol. II, p75)
A bit dated isn't it ? However such quotes, however interesting, do not
further a scientific discussion either.