The Facts on Creation vs. Evolution (Harvest House, 1993), pp. 33-34
Are there evolutionary scientists who say the evidence lies in favor of special creation?
Some evolutionists are frank enough to admit that special creation actually is the better theory, either in whole or part. Unfortunately, it seems that most scientists assume evolution has been proven in other fields and that their field of specialty is the only one with difficulties. For example, the botanist E.J.H. Corner of Cambridge University believes that evidence for evolution exists in certain other fields, although he admits to difficulty in finding evidence in his own field:
Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the theory of evolution—from biology, bio-geography and paleontology, but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation…. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition.*
Writing in the Physics Bulletin for May 1980, H. S. Lipson, of the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology and a Fellow of the Royal Society, confesses the following: “I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last 30 years or so fit in with Darwin’s theory. I do not think that they do.”*
*For documentation see The Facts on Creation vs. Evolution.