[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [Quotes, Unclassified, Classified]
The following are unclassified quotes posted in my email messages in July-December, 2002.
The date format is dd/mm/yy. See copyright conditions at end.
[January-June, July, August, September, October, November, December]
July
19/07/02
"For most of their evolutionary history, fundamental aspects of the anatomy and way of life of these
lineages do not change significantly. Very few intermediates between groups are known from the fossil
record. This pattern is most conspicuous for the major groups of nonvertebrate metazoans ... over a very
short time in the Early Cambrian, they underwent an explosive radiation. Over a period of approximately 5
million years, they gave rise to all the major groups alive today, as well as a smaller number of extinct groups
(Bowring et al. 1993). By 525 million years ago, all of the living phyla and most of their constituent
classes had diverged. Sponges, arthropods, primitive chordates, echinoderms, bryozoans, brachiopods,
molluscs, annelids, and so on were all recognizable by this time. Among the molluscs, all the modern classes
- scaphopods, gastropods, monoplacophorans, and pelecypods - were known by the end of the Lower
Cambrian. ... In all the major lineages, the earliest known members had already achieved the basic body plan
of their living descendants. ... Few fossils are yet known of plausible intermediates between the invertebrate
phyla, and there is no evidence for the gradual evolution of the major features by which the individual phyla
or classes are characterized." (Carroll, R.L., "Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution," Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge UK, 1997, pp.2,4)
19/07/02
"I call this experiment `replaying life's tape.' You press the rewind button and, making sure you thoroughly
erase everything that actually happened, go back to any time and place in the past-say, to the seas of the
Burgess Shale. Then let the tape run again and see if the repetition looks at all like the original. ... Run the
tape again, and let the tiny twig of Homo sapiens expire in Africa. Other hominids may have stood on
the threshold of what we know as human possibilities, but many sensible scenarios would never generate
our level of mentality. Run the tape again, and this time Neanderthal perishes in Europe and Homo
erectus in Asia (as they did in our world). The sole surviving human stock, Homo erectus in
Africa, stumbles along for a while, even prospers, but does not speciate and therefore remains stable. A
mutated virus then wipes Homo erectus out, or a change in climate reconverts Africa into
inhospitable forest. One little twig on the mammalian branch, a lineage with interesting possibilities that were
never realized, joins the vast majority of species in extinction. So what? Most possibilities are never realized,
and who will ever know the difference?" (Gould, S.J., "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of
History," [1989], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, pp.48, 320)
19/07/02
"One of the creationist arguments has been that the concept of evolution is invalid because it cannot be
reproduced in the laboratory and it cannot be tested experimentally. If true, this argument would be serious,
because a scientific theory is valid only if it can be tested by experiments that might show it to be wrong. If
the experiments are carried out and do not contradict it, the theory remains acceptable. But it is not true that
the occurrence of evolution cannot be tested in the laboratory. We have just described some experiments
with bacteria and fruitflies that have clearly demonstrated the occurrence of natural selection, adaptation,
and speciation. Of course, the evolutionary events that took place over a period of many thousands of years
cannot be reproduced in the laboratory." (Dulbecco, R., "The Design of Life," Yale University Press: New
Haven CT, 1987, p.444)
20/07/02
"Evolution in biology is a loose and comprehensive term applied to cover any and every change occurring
in the constitution of systematic units of animals and plants, from the formation of a new subspecies or
variety to the trends, continued through hundreds of millions of years, to be observed in large groups."
(Huxley, J.S., "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis," [1942], George Allen & Unwin: London, 1945, reprint,
p.42)
21/07/02
"The origin of life on the surface of the Earth is a unique historical event whose character cannot be
established by experiments in contemporary laboratories ... Many scientists have taken this position on the
origin of life. Jacques Monod, the distinguished French molecular biologist, said as much in 1970 in his
elegant book Chance and Necessity. There is no way, he argued, that an event as improbable as the
emergence of life on Earth could be analyzed by science, which is able to deal only `with events that form a
class. ... A decade later, Francis H.C. Crick, co-originator of the structure of DNA, put the argument more
specifically: the chances that the long polymer molecules that vitally sustain all living things, both proteins
and DNA, could have been assembled by random processes from the chemical units of which they are made
are so small as to be negligible, prompting the question whether the surface of the Earth was fertilized from
elsewhere, perhaps from interstellar space. `Panspermia' is the name for that." (Maddox, J., "What Remains
To Be Discovered:. Mapping the Secrets of the Universe, the Origins of Life, and the Future of the Human
Race," [1998], Touchstone: New York NY, 1999, reprint, p.131)
23/07/02
"The basic structure of my argument is this. Scientists, historians, and detectives observe data and proceed
thence to some theory about what best explains the occurrence of these data. We can analyse the criteria
which they use in reaching a conclusion that a certain theory is better supported by the data than a different
theory that is, is more likely, on the basis of those data, to be true. Using those same criteria, we find that the
view that there is a God explains everything we observe, not just some narrow range of data. It
explains the fact that there is a universe at all, that scientific laws operate within it, that it contains conscious
animals and humans with very complex intricately organized bodies, that we have abundant opportunities
for developing ourselves and the world, as well as the more particular data that humans report miracles and
have religious experiences. In so far as scientific causes and laws explain some of these things (and in part
they do), these very causes and laws need explaining, and God's action explains them. The very same criteria
which scientists use to reach their own theories lead us to move beyond those theories to a creator God
who sustains everything in existence." (Swinburne, R.G., "Is There a God?," Oxford University Press: Oxford
UK, 1996, p.2. Emphasis in original)
23/07/02
"And yet the more we know about the universe, the more we come to see how little we know. When the
cosmos was thought to be but a tidy garden, with the sky its ceiling and the earth its floor and its history
coextensive with that of the human family tree, 'It was still possible to imagine that we might one day
comprehend it in both plan and detail. That illusion can no longer be sustained. We might eventually obtain
some sort of bedrock understanding of cosmic structure, but we will never understand the universe in detail;
it is just too big and varied for that. If we possessed an atlas of our galaxy that devoted but a single page to
each star system in the Milky Way (so that the sun and all its planets were crammed on one page), that atlas
would run to more than ten million volumes of ten thousand pages each. It would take a library the size of
Harvard's to house the atlas, and merely to flip through it, at the rate of a page per second, would require
over ten thousand years. Add the details of planetary cartography, potential extraterrestrial biology, the
subtleties of the scientific principles involved, and the historical dimensions of change, and it becomes clear
that we are never going to learn more than a tiny fraction of the story of our galaxy alone-and there are a
hundred billion more galaxies. As the physician Lewis Thomas writes, "The greatest of all the
accomplishments of twentieth-century science has been the discovery of human ignorance." Our ignorance,
of course, has always been with us, and always Will be. What is new is our awareness of it, our awakening
to its fathomless dimensions, and it is this, more than anything else, that marks the coming of age of our
species." (Ferris, T., "Coming of Age in the Milky Way," [1988], Vintage: London, 1991, reprint, p.382-383)
25/07/02
"But suppose we lay aside a priori prohibitions against design. In that case, what is wrong with explaining
something as designed by an intelligent agent? Certainly there are many everyday occurrences which we
explain by appealing to design. Moreover, in our workaday lives it is absolutely crucial to distinguish
accident from design. We demand answers to such questions as, Did she fall or was she pushed? Did
someone die accidentally or commit suicide? Was this song conceived independently or was it plagiarized?
Did someone just get lucky on the stock market or was there insider trading? Not only do we demand
answers to such questions, but entire industries are devoted to drawing the distinction between accident
and design. Here we can include forensic science, intellectual property law, insurance claims investigation,
cryptography, and random number generation-to name but a few. Science itself needs to draw this
distinction to keep itself honest. As a January 1998 issue of Science made clear, plagiarism and data
falsification are far more common in science than we would like to admit. What keeps these abuses in check
is our ability to detect them." (Dembski, W.A.*, "No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be
Purchased without Intelligence," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, 2002, p.5)
25/07/02
"In its affirmative form, the Law of Biogenesis states that all living organisms are the progeny of living
organisms that went be fore them. The familiar Latin tag is Omne vivum ex vivo-All that is alive came from
something living; in other words, every organism has an unbroken genealogical pedigree extending back to
the first living things. In its negative form, the law can be taken to deny the occurrence (or even the
possibility) of spontaneous generation. Moreover, the progeny of mice are mice and of men, men-
"homogenesis," or like begetting like. The Law of Biogenesis is arguably the most fundamental in biology,
for evolution may be construed as a form of biogenesis that provides for the occasional begetting of a
variant form." (Medawar P.B. & Medawar J.S., "Aristotle to Zoos: A Philosophical Dictionary of Biology,"
Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1983, p.39)
25/07/02
"I have been scanning the stars in search of extraterrestrial intelligence (an activity now abbreviated as
SETI, and pronounced SETee) for more than thirty years. ... With the marvelous technological advances we
have made in the intervening years, we could repeat the whole of Project Ozma today in a fraction of a
second. We could scan for signals from a million stars or more at a time, at distances of at least a
thousand light-years from Earth. ... Until the late 1980s, the fact that we had not yet found another
civilization, despite continued global efforts and better equipment, simply meant we had not looked long
enough or hard enough. No knowledgeable person was disappointed by our inability to detect alien
intelligence, as this in no way proved that extraterrestrials did not exist. Rather, our failure simply confirmed
that our efforts were puny in relation to the enormity of the task-somewhat like hunting for a needle in a
cosmic haystack of inconceivable size ... I am telling my story because I see a pressing need to prepare
thinking adults for the outcome of the present search activity-the imminent detection of signals from an
extraterrestrial civilization. This discovery, which I fully expect to witness before the year 2000, will
profoundly change the world." (Drake, F. & Sobel, D., "Is Anyone Out There?: The Scientific Search for
Extraterrestrial Intelligence," [1991], Pocket Books: New York, 1994, pp.xi-xiii)
26/07/02
"Because so much of medicine is applied biology, it might be judged a selfevident truth that biology has
exercised a penetrating, wide-ranging, and wholly beneficent effect on medical education and on the
physician's thinking. In reality this has not been so. Biology in an old-fashioned sense (that which would
have been recognized by Charles Darwin) has imposed an almost intolerable pedagogic burden on medical
education and has been deemed responsible, too, for such grave fallacies as the Panglossism we shall
discuss below. It is indeed a profoundly important lesson that a human being is an animal, but it was not a
biologist who taught it. Aristotle was aware of it, and it is implicit in Plato's great chain of being. In any
event, it was a London physician, Edward Tyson, who in 1669 demonstrated for all to see the affinity
between monkey, man, and a baby chimpanzee (a "pygmie")." (Medawar, P.B. & Medawar, J.S., "Aristotle to
Zoos: A Philosophical Dictionary of Biology," Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1983, pp.39-40)
29/07/02
"The tough-minded scientist is a mechanist through and through. He usually denies that he has any
metaphysical beliefs at all. Yet mechanism is as much a metaphysical belief as is panexperientalism or any
other organismic philosophy." (Birch, L.C., "Biology and the Riddle of Life," University of New South Wales
Press: Sydney, Australia, 1999, p.54)
29/07/02
"But one of its premisses was shown by Darwin and his successors to be clearly false. Complex animals and
plants can be produced through generation by less complex animals and plants- species are not eternally
distinct; and simple animals and plants can be produced by natural processes from inorganic matter. This
discovery led to the virtual disappearance of the argument from design from popular apologetic-mistakenly,
I think, since it can easily be reconstructed in a form which does not rely on the premisses shown to be false
by Darwin. This can be done even for the argument from spatial order. We can reconstruct the argument
from spatial order as follows. We see around us animals and plants, intricate examples of spatial order in the
ways which Paley set out, similar to machines of the kind which men make. We know that these animals and
plants have evolved by natural processes from inorganic matter. But clearly this evolution can only have
taken place, given certain special natural laws. These are first, the chemical laws stating how under certain
circumstances inorganic molecules combine to make organic ones and organic ones combine to make
organisms. And secondly, there are the biological laws of evolution stating how organisms have very many
offspring, some of which vary in one or more characteristics from their parents, and how some of these
characteristics are passed on to most offspring, from which it follows that, given shortage of food and other
environmental needs, there will be competition for survival, in which the fittest will survive. Among
organisms very well fitted for survival will be organisms of such complex and subtle construction as to allow
easy adaptation to a changing environment. These organisms will evince great spatial order. So the laws of
nature are such as, under certain circumstances, to give rise to striking examples of spatial order similar to
the machines which men make. Nature, that is, is a machine-making machine. In the twentieth century men
make not only machines, but machine making machines. They may therefore naturally infer from nature
which produces animals and plants, to a creator of nature similar to men who make machine-making
machines." (Swinburne, R.G., "The Existence of God," Clarendon Press: Oxford UK, Revised Edition, 1991,
pp.135-136)
29/07/02
"I conclude that the easy acceptance of neo-Darwinism as a complete and adequate explanation for all
biological reality has indeed been based in the metaphysical needs of a dominant materialistic consensus.
One can be a theistic `Darwinian,' but no one can be an atheistic `Creationist.'" (Wilcox D.L., "Tamed
Tornadoes," in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?" Foundation for Thought and
Ethics: Richardson TX, 1994, p.215. http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter13b.html)
31/07/02
"The organic diversity becomes, however, reasonable and understandable if the Creator has created the
living world not by caprice but by evolution propelled by natural selection. It is wrong to hold creation and
evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is
God's, or Nature's, method of Creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 b.c.; it is a process
that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way." (Dobzhansky T.G., "Nothing in Biology Makes
Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," in Zetterberg J.P., ed., "Evolution Versus Creationism: The Public
Education Controversy," Oryx Press: Phoenix AZ, 1983, p.22. Emphasis in original) [top]
August
1/08/02
"Fossils of trilobites appeared suddenly in the geological record during the early part, but not quite at the
base of the Cambrian period, perhaps 540 million years ago. If you are tempted by the word 'dramatic' then
this is one occasion where you could be forgiven for weakening. When you visit a rock section spanning
the right bit of the early Cambrian - and there are such profiles in Newfoundland, Mongolia and Siberia -
there will be not a sniff of a trilobite as you work your way upwards from one bed to its successor: this is the
most methodical way to trudge upwards through geological time. Then, quite suddenly, a whole
Profallotaspis or an Olenellus as big as a crab will pop out into your waiting hands as you split the rock.
These are trilobites with lots of segments and big eyes: striking things, not little squitty objects. It is an
appearance as dramatic as that of the sorcerer in Swan Lake, who accompanied the first theatrical explosion I
ever experienced. You are tempted to cry out: 'bang!'. And as you continue to collect a foot or so higher into
younger strata, the first trilobite will be joined by others, maybe half a dozen or so different species, and all
individually distinctive ones at that." (Fortey R.A., "Trilobite!: Eyewitness to Evolution," [2000], Flamingo:
London, 2001, reprint, p.115)
2/08/02
"As a grace-note on this discovery, Riccardo noticed that the trilobite's design had been anticipated by the
great seventeenth century Dutch scientist Christian Huygens (1629-95) and the French polymath Rene
Descartes (1586-1650). They had sketched out an optical 'cure' for spherical aberration in a lens which
proposed a compensating bowl designed almost exactly like that of the trilobite. This may indeed be a
wonderful example of Art imitating Nature, or perhaps rather of Nature anticipating Science - by more than
400 million years. S. J. Gould commented in an article in Natural History in 1984 that 'the eyes of trilobites ...
have never been exceeded for complexity and acuity by later arthropods ... I regard the failure to find a clear
"vector of progress" in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.' The point Gould makes is
that it is hard to see how the trilobite could have achieved its optical design in a still more sophisticated
fashion; there remains a feeling that arthropods ought to have learned some cleverer visual tricks since the
Devonian." (Fortey R.A., "Trilobite!: Eyewitness to Evolution," [2000], Flamingo: London, 2001, reprint,
p.102)
2/08/02
"But if we look at the individual elements of the trilobite eye, we find that the lens systems were very
different from what we now have. Riccardo Levi-Setti (a Field Museum research associate in geology and
professor of physics at the University of Chicago) has recently done some spectacular work on the optics of
these lens systems. Figure 7 shows sketches of a common type of trilobite lens. Each lens is a doublet (that
is, made up of two lenses. The lower lens is shaded in these sketches and the upper one is blank. The shape
of the boundary between the two lenses is unlike any now in use either by humans or animals. But the
shape is nearly identical to designs published independently by Descartes and Huygens in the seventeenth
century. The Descartes and Huygens designs had the purpose of avoiding spherical aberration and were
what is known as aplanatic lenses. The only significant difference between them and the trilobite lens is that
the Descartes and Huygens lenses were not doublets - that is, they did not have the lower lens. But, as
Levi-Setti has shown, for these designs to work underwater where the trilobite lived, the lower lens was
necessary. Thus, the trilobites 450 million years ago used an optimal design which would require a well
trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today-or one who was familiar with the seventeenth
century optical literature." (Raup D.M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of
Natural History Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History: Chicago IL, January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.22-29,
p.24).
2/08/02
"The very fact that we have three great, independently established facts pointing to the resurrection of
Jesus-namely, the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith is a
powerful argument from coherence for the historicity of the resurrection. ... But does the resurrection of
Jesus adequately explain this body of evidence? Is it any better an explanation than the implausible
naturalistic explanations proferred in the past? ... The resurrection hypothesis, we have seen, exceeds
counter-explanations like hallucinations or the wrong tomb theory precisely by explaining all three of the
great facts at issue, whereas these rival hypotheses only explain one or two. ... This is perhaps the greatest
strength of the resurrection hypothesis. The conspiracy theory or the apparent death theory just do not
convincingly account for the empty tomb, resurrection appearances, or origin of the Christian faith: on these
theories the data (for example, the transformation in the disciples, the historical credibility of the narratives)
become very improbable. By contrast, on the hypothesis of the resurrection it seems extremely probable that
the observable data with respect to the empty tomb, the appearances, and the disciples' coming to believe in
Jesus' resurrection should be just as it is." (Craig W.L., "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and
Apologetics," [1984], Crossway Books: Wheaton IL, Revised Edition, 1994, pp.294-295)
2/08/02
"Even more interesting, however, than the confession itself was what followed it: the admission [by Darwin
in his Descent of Man] of a new factor in the variation of species, more momentous in its implications for his
theory than even sexual selection, and which he did not afterward elaborate upon or so much as refer to
again (except in the conclusion, where the point was repeated in almost exactly the same words). Falling
under none of the other categories that he recognized as responsible for evolution-natural selection, sexual
selection, the direct action of the environment, the effect of use and disuse, and correlation of structure- the
variation induced by this new factor was of no service to the organism, either in its inception or in its later
development. And the nature of its cause was unknown. Darwin could only assume that, whatever its cause,
so long as it continued to act `uniformly and energetically' over a long period, the result would be the
production not of `mere slight individual differences, but well-marked constant modifications.' (Darwin, C.,
"Descent of Man," 1st edition, 1871, Vol. I, p.153) Not only did these variations arise `spontaneously,' in the
sense he had used the term in the Origin, but-and here he went far beyond the Origin-having so arisen, they
were not subject to any selective process, natural or sexual, since they were in no way beneficial to the
organism (although injurious variations would be eliminated by selection). And these variations would
persist so long as either the original conditions producing them persisted or as the free crossing of
individuals insured the normal operation of heredity. The latter, he suspected, was more important than the
former: `They relate much more closely to the constitution of the varying organism, than to the nature of the
conditions to which it has been subjected.' (p.154) Darwin had come far indeed from the doctrine of natural
selection. As Mivart and others were quick to point out, this admission of an unknown cause as one of the
means by which man attained his present state-"aided perhaps by others as yet undiscovered' dangerously
undermined Darwin's enterprise. What before was said to be entirely explained was now, at a critical point,
left unexplained. The admission that `strange and strongly-marked peculiarities of structured could arise
from unknown causes, and could be perpetuated without reference to any principle of selection or
adaptation, opened the way for those sudden leaps of nature-and of God-which had traditionally been
invoked to explain the origin of species, and especially the origin of man." (Himmelfarb G., "Darwin and the
Darwinian Revolution," [1959], Elephant Paperbacks: Chicago IL, 1996, reprint, pp.368-370)
3/08/02
"Piltdown Man became an anomaly after the discovery of `Peking Man' in China in the 1930s (in which
Teilhard also played an important role) led the experts to hypothesize a different path of evolution for early
man, and retesting eventually established in 1953 that the skull skilfully combined the jaw of an orangutan
with the skull of a modern man. Until the Piltdown fossil became inconvenient, after the British scientists
who received the credit for its discovery had passed from the scene, the skull was guarded from skeptical
investigators in a safe in the British Natural History Museum. Considering that some knowledgeable
scientists had expressed skepticism about Piltdown Man from the time of its discovery, this concealment of
the evidence is a greater scandal than the original fraud." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial," InterVarsity
Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, p.203)
3/08/02
"Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume under the form of an abstract,
I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts
all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. ... I look with
confidence to the future,- to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the
question with impartiality ... for thus only can the load of prejudice by which this subject is overwhelmed be
removed." (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library,
J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.456)
4/08/02
"By the very standards scientists choose to limit what may properly fall under the purview of their
discipline, the theory of evolution does not qualify. Even Theodosius Dobzhansky admits that theories of
evolution evade the scientific process. Dobzhansky laments the fact that `evolutionary happenings are
unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a vertebrate into a fish as it is to effect the
reverse transformation.' Dobzhansky is chagrined and reluctantly acknowledges that `the applicability of the
experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by
the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter.' Embarrassing, to say
the least. Here is a body of thought, incapable of being scientifically tested, claiming to be scientific in
nature. It can't be observed, it can't be reproduced, it can't be tested, and yet its proponents demand that it
be regarded as the supreme, unimpeachable truth regarding the origin and development of life!" (Rifkin J.,
"Algeny," Viking Press: New York NY, 1983, p.118)
4/08/02
"Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly
and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the
other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them.
The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them. The
open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old applewoman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just
as you believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a murder. The plain, popular course is to
trust the peasant's word about the ghost exactly as far as you trust the peasant's word about the landlord.
Being a peasant he will probably have a great deal of healthy agnosticism about both. Still you could fill the
British Museum with evidence uttered by the peasant, and given in favour of the ghost. If it comes to
human testimony there is a choking cataract of human testimony in favour of the supernatural. If you reject
it, you can only mean one of two things. You reject the peasant's story about the ghost either because the
man is a peasant or because the story is a ghost story. That is, you either deny the main principle of
democracy, or you affirm the main principle of materialism-the abstract impossibility of miracle. You have a
perfect right to do so; but in that case you are the dogmatist." (Chesterton G.K., "Orthodoxy," [1908],
Fontana: London, 1961, reprint, p.149)
4/08/02
"All argument against these plain facts is always argument in a circle. If I say, `Medieval documents attest
certain miracles as much as they attest certain battles,' they answer, `But medievals were superstitious', if I
want to know in what they were superstitious, the only ultimate answer is that they believed in miracles. If I
say `a peasant saw a ghost,' I am told, `But peasants are so credulous.' If I ask, `Why credulous?' the only
answer is- that they see ghosts. Iceland is impossible because only stupid sailors have seen it; and the
sailors are only stupid because they say they have seen Iceland." (Chesterton G.K., "Orthodoxy," [1908],
Fontana: London, 1961, reprint, pp.149-150)
4/08/02
"...the unbeliever ... may say that there has been in many miraculous stories a notion of spiritual preparation
and acceptance; in short, that the miracle could only come to him who believed in it. It may be so, and if it is
so how are we to test it? If we are inquiring whether certain results follow faith, it is useless to repeat wearily
that (if they happen) they do follow faith. If faith is one of the conditions, those without faith have a most
healthy right to laugh. But they have no right to judge. Being a believer may be, if you like, as bad as being
drunk, still if we were extracting psychological facts from drunkards, it would be absurd to be always
taunting them with having been drunk. Suppose we were investigating whether angry men really saw a red
mist before their eyes. Suppose sixty excellent householders swore that when angry they had seen this
crimson cloud: surely it would be absurd to answer `Oh, but you admit you were angry at the time.' They
might reasonably rejoin (in a stentorian chorus), `How the blazes could we discover, without being angry,
whether angry people see red?' So the saints and ascetics might rationally reply, ` Suppose that the question
is whether believers can see visions-even then, if you are interested in visions it is no point to object to
believers.' You are still arguing in a circle-in that old mad circle with which this book began." (Chesterton
G.K., "Orthodoxy," [1908], Fontana: London, 1961, reprint, p.150)
4/08/02
"Atheism provides some valuable correctives to and modifications of theism. Many of its arguments either
correct misconceptions some theists have of God or of his relation to the world or else they expose
contradictory theistic concepts. ... However, as a total world view atheism does not measure up. First, its
arguments are invalid and often self-defeating. Second, many atheistic arguments are really reversible into
reasons for believing in God. Finally, atheism provides no solution to basic metaphysical questions
regarding the existence of the universe or the origin of personality and the actualization of the world
process." (Geisler N.L.*, "Christian Apologetics," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1976, pp.234-235)
5/08/02
"The major problem with our current teaching of evolution is that it is being taught solely from the
philosophic viewpoint of a closed system, a system which excludes God. If we teach our children that all
that exists is a cosmic machine, and it is governed by pure chance, then how do we answer their questions
about the meaning and purpose of human life? If all we teach is the closed system view of the world,
our children tend to picture themselves and others as mere objects-cogs in the cosmic machine-the end-
products of genetics plus environment. In the final analysis a human being becomes nothing more than a
highly sophisticated computer, an object to be manipulated and reprogrammed at will. The alternative is to
accept the open system view of the world. This system not only allows for an outside power in the
forming of the Universe, it offers us a whole new perspective for our lives. Our minds are freed from the
bondage of the closed cosmic machine to contemplate the God who created the universe-the God who made
us-the power whom we can come to know and rely on in our personal daily lives. Thus, we can find meaning
and significance in our lives." (Wiester J.L., "The Genesis Connection," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, 1983,
pp.216-217. Emphasis in original)
5/08/02
"One may here surely dismiss that quite brainless piece of pedantry which talks about the need for
`scientific conditions' in connection with alleged spiritual phenomena. If we are asking whether a dead soul
can communicate with a living it is ludicrous to insist that it shall be under conditions in which no two living
souls in their senses would seriously communicate with each other. The fact that ghosts prefer darkness no
more disproves the existence of ghosts than the fact that lovers prefer darkness disproves the existence of
love. If you choose to say, `I will believe that Miss Brown called her fiance a periwinkle or any other
endearing term, if she will repeat the word before seventeen psychologists,' then I shall reply, `Very well, if
those are your conditions, you will never get the truth, for she certainly will not say it.' It is just as
unscientific as it is unphilosophical to be surprised that in an unsympathetic atmosphere certain
extraordinary sympathies do not arise. It is as if I said that I could not tell if there was a fog because the air
was not clear enough; or as if I insisted on perfect sunlight in order to see a solar eclipse." (Chesterton
G.K.*, "Orthodoxy," [1908], Fontana: London, 1961, reprint, pp.150-151)
5/08/02
"There can be no response to the question of the meaning of life if we leave our own life out. Schopenhauer
described materialism as the philosophy of the subject who forgets to take account of himself." (Birch L.C.,
"Biology and the Riddle of Life," University of New South Wales Press: Sydney, Australia, 1999, p.135)
7/08/02
"A rash of books published over the last twenty years has claimed-directly or indirectly-that human
selfishness is to be expected, given our evolutionary history. After pointing to examples of selfish behavior
in a variety of animal species, the writers imply (as if describing the animal behaviors were sufficient) that
because self-interested behavior is seen throughout nature perhaps humans need not feel so ashamed of
their narcissism and greed. ... The flaws in this argument are obvious. Anyone with a modest knowledge of
animal behavior and only minimal inferential skill can find examples of animal behavior to support almost any
ethical message desired. Those who wish to sanctify the institution of marriage can point to the pair
bonding of gibbons; those who think infidelity is more natural can point to chimpanzees. If you believe that
people are naturally sociable, point to baboons; if you think they are solitary, point to orangutans. If you
believe sex should replace fighting, point to bonobo chimpanzees. If you want mothers to care for infants,
point to rhesus monkeys; if you prefer the father to be the primary caretaker, point to titi monkeys. If you
believe that surrogate care is closer to nature, point to lionesses. If you are certain that men should
dominate harems of beautiful women, point to elephant seals; if you believe women should be in positions
of dominance, point to elephants. Nature has enough diversity to fit almost any ethical taste." (Kagan J.,
"Three Seductive Ideas," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1998, p.188)
8/08/02
"Wracked by doubts and indecision, and fearful of the controversy his theories might unleash, Darwin
nevertheless pushed forward to finish The Origin of Species. Published on November 24, 1859, the
book forever demolished the premise that God had created the earth precisely at 9:00 AM on October 23,
4004 B.C.-and that all species of living creatures had been immutably produced during the following six
days-as seventeenth-century churchmen had so carefully formulated." (Jones J.S. [Steve], "Introduction,"
Darwin, C.R., "The Voyage of the Beagle: Journal of Researches Into the Natural History and
Geology of the Countries Visited During the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle Round the World," [1909],
Modern Library: New York NY, 2001, reprint, pp.iii.-iv)
12/08/02
Darwin assumed the presence in nature of individual variations which were inherited. Modern experimental
work has done much to clear up this situation. It is now known that many individual differences are due to
the influence of the environment and are not passed on to descendants and that most other individual
characters do not mark the appearance of new features but are merely the result of varied combinations of
characters already present in the species. Under such circumstances, all selection could do would be to sort
out the best of the existing factors. Beyond this the evolutionary process could not go, were it not that
occasionally there occur mutations-definite changes in the germ cells which give rise to the next generation-
produced seemingly without relation to the needs of the animal and making definite, although usually small,
changes in the structure of the descendants. Though mainly injurious and hence quickly weeded out, an
occasional favorable mutation would offer new material for the selective process to work upon; a "chance"
mutation increasing the length of a giraffe's neck without other unfavorable accompanying features might
tend to be bred into the race. Such an evolutionary process would obviously be slow in action." (Romer
A.S., "Vertebrate Paleontology," [1933], University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Second Edition, 1945, Fifth
Impression, 1953, p.4)
12/08/02
"In many groups of fossils it would seem that there has been no such `indecision' as the theory just outlined
would suggest; groups once started along an evolutionary line have seemingly kept straight on toward a
`goal' without deviation. Because of this, there has been built up a theory of orthogenesis, or `straight-line'
evolution. But the apparent absence of side branches may be due to the fact that they were nipped in the
bud; selection alone might have resulted in an advance in the single direction of greatest adaptive value.
Much seeming orthogenesis may thus be explained through mutation and selection. There are still, however,
many puzzling facts; and we are far from a complete and satisfactory solution to all of our problems of
vertebrate evolution." (Romer A.S., "Vertebrate Paleontology," [1933], University of Chicago Press: Chicago
IL, Second Edition, 1945, Fifth Impression, 1953, p.4)
15/08/02
"We know that evolution happened, and we know how much time it took, but we have little idea of how it
worked. Were primitive forms of life made of primitive molecules, which evolution then perfected to build
more complex forms? Molecular biologists have discovered that, on the contrary, the same kinds of protein
molecule are used for similar chemical functions by all organisms alive today. "What holds for a coli
bacterium is true for an elephant" was one of Monod's slogans. The protein molecules of even the most
primitive organisms are unbelievably complex; they are made up of thousands of atoms woven into precisely
ordered three-dimensional fabrics. I cannot describe them by analogy to any familiar image because nothing
like them exists in the macroscopic world. How did they arise? Jacob compares today's molecular biologists
to the Renaissance anatomists who first dissected the human body and described its intricate organs: "To
rationalize the structures revealed by the scalpel, sixteenth-century anatomists had to invoke God's will. To
rationalize the structures revealed by X-ray analysis of proteins, twentieth-century biologists have to invoke
natural selection." In both instances we are faced by the end products of 3 billion years of evolution and
cannot guess its beginnings." (Perutz M.F., "Is Science Necessary?: Essays on Science and Scientists,"
[1989], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 1991, reprint, p.212)
15/08/02
"According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. But since the
order of negative entropy is essential to any information flow-since information is itself negative entropy-
and entropy is always increasing according to the Second Law, it is obvious from the outset that unlike
energy, information can all too easily be destroyed. Books can be burned, as Hitler showed, and a tape
recording can be wiped clean by a magnet. The destruction of the great library of Alexandria during the
siege of 639 to 640 A.D. is one of the tragedies of history. But can information also be created? In particular:
how could information have been created from the random pro cesses of the inorganic universe? Thus the
genesis of information is clearly defined as the fundamental problem in the genesis of Life." (Black S., "The
Nature of Living Things: An Essay in Theoretical Biology," Martin Secker & Warburg: London, 1972, p.103)
16/08/02
"Come and see the world as it once was through the crystal eyes of the trilobite. We shall find out how
trilobites tell us the pattern of evolution, and how it can be read from the rocks. We shall discover how faith
in trilobites not merely moves mountains but shifts whole continents." (Fortey R.A., "Trilobite!: Eyewitness
to Evolution," [2000], Flamingo: London, 2001, reprint, p.23)
16/08/02
"The Astonishing Hypothesis is that `You,' your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions,
your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of
nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased it: `You're nothing
but a pack of neurons.' This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people alive today that it can truly be
called astonishing." (Crick F.H.C., "The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul," [1994],
Touchstone: New York NY, 1995, p.3)
16/08/02
"It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely
balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be
improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the
famous yucca moth case, and so forth). However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been
unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence." (Mayr E.,
"Systematics and the Origin of Species," [1942], Columbia University Press: New York NY, Reprinted, 1982,
p.296)
19/08/02
"Microevolution within the species proceeds by accumulation of micromutations and occupation of the
available ecological niches by the preadapted mutants. Microevolution, especially geographic variation,
adapts the species to the different conditions existing in the available range of distribution. Microevolution
does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the
geographic races, are not incipient species. There is no such category as incipient species. Species and the
higher categories originate in single macroevolutionary steps as completely new genetic systems. The
genetical process which is involved consists of a repatterning of the chromosomes, which results in a new
genetic system. The theory of the genes and of the accumulation of micromutants by selection has to be
ruled out of this picture." (Goldschmidt R.B., "The Material Basis of Evolution," [1940], Yale University
Press: New Haven CT, Reprinted, 1982, p.296)
20/08/02
"One must constantly ask oneself 'Is the present a long enough key to unlock the secrets of the past?' ...
Even within the brief life of mankind (with 99% of it in the 'Stone Age') there were great geological events
that are not recorded in our histories. ... Charles Lyell the arch-priest of uniformitarianism of course knew
something about present-day violent happenings such as eruptions and earthquakes, but was not in a
position to apply that knowledge properly to the past. To many it may seem that the arguments between
'catastrophism' and 'uniformitarianism' are long past, with the latter victorious. ... Things happen, that is to
say the unusual happenings, the rare events, which I think are far more important than is generally,
appreciated. ... In a phrase that has often been quoted since, I have summed up geological history as being
like the life of a soldier: 'Long periods of boredom and short periods of terror' (Ager 1973, 1981a, 1993)".
(Ager D.V., "The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History," Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge UK, 1993, pp.xviii-xix)
21/08/02
"I think that all theories of evolution tend to reflect the scientific trends of their time. I have lived to see the
purely morphological period of biology with its evolutionary corollary, the construction of phylogenetic
trees, invention of missing ancestors, and a philosophical outlook variously termed mechanism, materialism,
monism. The fol lowing period of experimental biology was skeptical of, if not actually hostile to, evolution,
as it could not be attacked in laboratory experimentation. Mechanism became unpopular and vitalistic and
teleological trends invaded evolutionary thought in the form of creative evolution, emergent evolution,
psycho-Lamarckism. The rise of genetics brought back a mechanistic attitude ... But, just as has been the
case in chemistry and physics, mechanistic analysis of evolution will sooner or later reach a point where an
interpretation in terms of known processes will meet with difficulties." (Goldschmidt R.B., "The Material
Basis of Evolution," [1940], Yale University Press: New Haven CT, Reprinted, 1982, p.297)
21/08/02
"I need only quote Schindewolf (1936), the most progressive investigator known to me, who showed that
the material presented by paleontology leads to exactly the same conclusions as derived in my writings, to
which he refers. He elaborates the thesis that macroevolution on a higher level takes place in an explosive
way within a short geological time, followed by a slower series of orthogenetic perfections, as exemplified in
the oft-quoted evolutionary series. He realizes that the conception of preadaptation accounts completely for
this type of evolution. He shows by examples from fossil material that the major evolutionary advances must
have taken place in single large steps, which affected early embryonic stages with the automatic
consequence of reconstruction of all the later phases of development. He shows that the many missing links
in the paleontological record are sought for in vain because they have never existed: `The first bird hatched
from a reptilian egg.' .... It is gratifying that all the disciplines which furnish material for the understanding of
evolution-taxonomy and morphology, descriptive and experimental embryology, static and dynamic
(physiological) genetics, comparative anatomy and paleontology-supply ample and parallel evidence for a
theory of evolution which is more plausible than the neo-Darwinian theory." (Goldschmidt R.B., "The
Material Basis of Evolution," [1940], Yale University Press: New Haven CT, Reprinted, 1982, p.395)
22/08/02
"Among the remains of early life on earth, the fossil record we find buried in ancient sedimentary rocks
bears evidence of an extraordinary group of marine creature, the trilobites. The position of these
invertebrates in the evolution of the animal kingdom is extraordinary because of their early ascent to a high
level of functional complexity, described in fascinating detail by their persistent and ubiquitous fossil
remains. Trilobites could see their immediate environment with amazingly sophisticated optical devices in
the form of large composite eyes, the first use of optics coupled with sensory perception in nature. As a
unique feat in the history of life, their eye lenses were shaped to correct for optical aberrations, with design
identical to that proposed (quite independently of any knowledge of trilobites) by Descartes and Huygens."
(Levi-Setti R., "Trilobites," [1975], The University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, 1993, Second Edition, p.1)
22/08/02
"Trilobites share with many other invertebrates in the drama of the `Cambrian explosion': the rapid evolution
of amazingly sophisticated and diverse life forms at the beginning of the Cambrian period, some 570 million
years ago. In a sort of chain reaction triggered by plant life through a large-scale photosynthetic release of
oxygen in the atmosphere, the pattern and rate of biological evolution was tremendously accelerated.
Energy-releasing, oxygen-burning processes became available to the evolution of animal fife. The newly
discovered powerhouse fostered experimentation with ever more demanding levels of body activity and
multiplication of forms. During a relatively short (geologic) time, perhaps a few million years, different new
schemes of bodybuilding emerged that involved the construction of internal and external skeletons or
exoskeletons. These could support increasingly complex body structures and functions. The genetic
radiation of new life forms found countless environments devoid of enemies in which to adapt and prosper."
(Levi-Setti R., "Trilobites," [1975], The University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, 1993, Second Edition, p.1)
23/08/02
"On the other hand, we must beware, even while holding to the Biblical account, of putting into the original
state of man more that the narrative warrants. The picture given us of the first man in the Bible is primitivein
every way. The Adam of the book of Genesis is not a being of advanced intellectual attainments, or
endowed with an intuitive knowledge of the various arts and sciences. If his state is far removed from that of
the savage, it is equally far removed from that of the civilised man. The earliest steps in what we call
civilization are of later date, and are duly recorded, though they belong, not to the race of Seth, but to that of
Cain. It is presumed that man had high and noble faculties, a pure and harmonious nature, rectitude of will,
capability of understanding his Creator's instructions, and power to obey them. Beyond that we need not
go. The essence of the Biblical view is summed up in the words of the Preacher: `God made man upright; but
they sought out many inventions.'" (Orr, J.*, "The Christian View of God and the World," [1887], Kregel:
Grand Rapids MI, 1989, pp.185-186)
24/08/02
"Of course, the laws of physics existed prior to their discovery by man. And we shouldn't perhaps be too
surprised that the drive to optimize biological function-one of the fundamental evolutionary forces in all
biological organisms-caused trilobites to follow physical laws to the fullest possible extent in their
development of visual systems. The real surprise should not be that they did construct eyes that work
according to the laws of physics, but that they did it with such ingenuity. The basic lens designs
recognized in the original studies by Clarkson are reproduced in figures 10b and 11b. These drawings
schematize the eyes of two dalmanitid trilobites: on the left, Crozonaspis struvei (Henry), from the Middle
Ordovician of Brittany; and on the right, Dalmanitina socialis (Barrande), a Middle Ordovician species from
Bohemia. The thick biconvex lens shape of both results from the matching of two basic parts: an upper lens
unit and an intralensar bowl. A wavy interface separates (and unites) the two components." (Levi-Setti R.,
"Trilobites," [1975], The University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, 1993, Second Edition, p.45. Emphasis in
original)
24/08/02
"Scientists often display a human failing: whenever they get hold of some new bit of truth they are inclined
to decide that it is the whole truth." (Simpson G.G., "The Meaning of Evolution: A Study of the History of
Life and of its Significance for Man," [1949], Yale University Press: New Haven CT, 1960, reprint, pp.276-277)
24/08/02
"The resulting synthetic theory ... has often been called neo-Darwinian, even by those who have helped to
develop it, because its first glimmerings arose from confrontation of the Darwinian idea of natural selection
with the facts of genetics. The term is, however, a misnomer and doubly confusing in this application. The
full-blown theory is quite different from Darwin's and has drawn its materials from a variety of sources
largely non-Darwinian and partly anti-Darwinian. Even natural selection in this theory has a sense distinctly
different, although largely developed from, the Darwinian concept of natural selection." (Simpson G.G., "The
Meaning of Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of its Significance for Man," [1949], Yale
University Press: New Haven CT, 1960, reprint, p.277)
25/08/02
"Christianity is a religion and not a science. In science the principle of inter-subjectivity or objectivity
prevails. What is true for one scientist must be true for all. But this is not true in religion, for if the pure in
heart see God, then the impure do not, and what is true for the pure is not true for the impure. God draws
near to those who draw near to Him, and He is a rewarder of them who diligently seek Him. He is not known
to those who do not draw close to Him or to those who refuse to seek Him. What is true for some is
emphatically not true for all. In the Gospels a very wealthy young man refused to make the motions of faith.
He was intrigued by Jesus Christ, but when the issue became sharply one of Christ or his possessions, the
tug of his possessions was the stronger, and sorrowfully he left Jesus Christ. He wanted religion without
the motions of faith. It is not a rash presumption to believe that many scientists and educated men wish for
peace of mind, relief from a guilty conscience, hope for the life to come, and the blessedness of faith in God.
But they find themselves caught between their science and their religious hopes, unable to move. Being
possessed of great intellectual riches which manage to come first in their sentiments, they leave Jesus
Christ. Just as Jesus refused to pursue the rich young man and make other terms, so today we cannot lessen
or cheapen or alter the terms of the gospel for our men of science. There is no other Saviour than Jesus
Christ, and there is no other means of having Him than by the motions of repentance and faith. Therefore, if
a scientist comes to God he must come in the same way as any other person comes to God. He must make
the appropriate spiritual motions. He must repent; he must confess his sin to God; he must believe in Jesus
Christ with all his heart." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster:
London, Reprinted, 1960, p.245)
25/08/02
"We might have expected that the animal phyla would have appeared at different times over the course of
the fossil record. In fact at least some representatives of almost all of the animal phyla and many of the
classes living today appeared by the end of the great Cambrian radiation (550 million years ago) at the
beginning of the Paleozoic. This is the starting point for most of the animal fossil record." (Ruppert E.E. &
Barnes R.D., "Invertebrate Zoology," [1968], Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: Orlando FL, Sixth Edition, 1994,
p.597)
26/08/02
"There is nothing in the fossil record that reveals the evolutionary origins of major animal groups. Our
speculations about those origins and the relationships of animal phyla and classes, therefore, continue to be
based largely on comparative morphology and development. However, a new source of information is
beginning to influence our investigations. This is the comparison of nucleotide, or amino acid, sequences in
nucleic acids and proteins." (Ruppert E.E. & Barnes R.D., "Invertebrate Zoology," [1968], Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich: Orlando FL, Sixth Edition, 1994, p.597)
27/08/02
"The realization that trilobites made recourse to a doublet lens structure to achieve the goal of improving
their vision left me with the uncanny feeling that, if needed, nature could have equally well developed other
multi-element optical instruments that are touted as unique creations of human ingenuity. In our case, a
doublet structure is added to the already sophisticated aspheric correcting interface. The design of the
trilobite's eye lens could well qualify for a patent disclosure. Prior art would mention the Schmidt plate of
modern telescopes, a Cartesian surface performing function similar to that of the wavy interface of the
trilobite's eye lens." (Levi-Setti R., "Trilobites," [1975], The University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, 1993,
Second Edition, p.57)
29/08/02
"Christianity and scientific atheism, however, are both rivals and enemies, and the debate between them has
been anything but honorable. Christianity is, or has been, the prevailing religion of most countries which
permit free elections and attempt to guarantee basic human rights. Scientific atheism, on the other hand, is or
has been the `religion' of those nations in which people have been `liquidated' on the basis of race or social
class `for the good of the state.' Individual guilt or innocence - important to Christians and those whose
outlook has been shaped by Christianity-is irrelevant in scientific atheism be cause `good' and `evil' are
meaningless without some concept of God. In Stalinist Russia in the 1920s through the 1950s, in Nazi
Germany in the 1930s through the 1940s, and in Pol Pot's Cambodia in the 1970s through the 1980s, to list
three of the worst examples, millions of people, including children, were murdered because their race or
social class made them `undesirables.' In Christianity, murder is an aberration. In political atheism, it is the
norm." (Koster, J.P. Jr., `The Atheist Syndrome,' Wolgemuth & Hyatt: Brentwood TN, 1989, p.4)
29/08/02
"Scientific atheism sustains itself as a `religion' by claiming to be based on factual evidence. Unlike most
religions, which require the believer to accept some matters on faith, scientific atheism states flatly that faith
is irrelevant and only facts matter. Atheism tolerates no rivals. You either believe in the `facts' of scientific
atheism, or you are `wrong.' Even so, in countries where atheism is the official creed, a significant number of
people - and in some cases a majority - continue to believe in God and to practice their faith despite
economic and political discrimination against believers. Where fear and force are available, atheists have
never been reluctant to use them." (Koster, J.P. Jr., "The Atheist Syndrome," Wolgemuth & Hyatt:
Brentwood TN, 1989, p.4)
30/08/02
"The idea of an unchanging world also corresponded to a literal reading of the powerfully poetic opening of
the Book of Genesis, in which God is said to have created each species independently, simultaneously, and
relatively recently-a little over six thousand years ago by reckonings based on Scripture." (Keeton W.T.,
Gould J.L. & Gould C.G., "Biological Science," [1967], W.W. Norton & Co: New York NY, Fourth Edition,
1986, p.12)
30/08/02
"Biblical Creationists accept on faith the literal Old Testament account of creation. Their beliefs include (1) a
young earth, perhaps less than 10,000 years old; (2) catastrophes, especially a worldwide flood, as the origin
of the earth's present form, including mountains, canyons, oceans, and continents; and (3) miraculous
creation of all living things, including humans, in essentially their modern forms. If you are a Creationist, the
Bible-not nature-dictates what you believe. Creationists subordinate observational evidence to doctrine
based on their interpretation of sacred texts. The tenets of biblical Creationism are not testable, nor are they
subject to dramatic change based on new data. In other words, Creationism is a form of religion." (Hazen
R.M. & Trefil J., "Science Matters: Achieving Scientific Literacy," [1991], Anchor Books: New York NY,
1992, reprint, p.243)
30/08/02
"There are a number of theories on the origin of life: 1. Steady state theory - This suggests that the earth
and the species on it have always existed. Life therefore had no origin. 2. Creation theory - This is the belief
that the earth and the species upon it were created by a single event initiated by a 'super-being' or 'God'. 3.
Cosmozoan (Panspermian) theory - This theory states that life arose elsewhere in the universe and arrived
on earth by some means, e.g. UFOs. 4. Spontaneous generation theory - This theory contends that life arose
from non-living material on a number of separate occasions. 5. Biochemical evolution theory - This theory
suggests that life arose from the combination of simple molecules into complex ones and their evolution, via
coacervates, into cells. Of these theories, that of biochemical evolution is the most widely accepted by
present-day scientists." (Toole G. & Toole S., "Understanding Biology for Advanced Level," Hutchinson:
London, 1987, p.203)
30/08/02
"For biologists, then, creationism connotes the teaching that the Lord created every single species of animal
and plant found in the world today, whereas biological orthodoxy has it that existing species arose over
hundreds of millions of years as a result of the differentiation and divergence of their several biogenetic
lineages-a hypothesis compatible with all the empirical evidence." (Medawar P.B. & Medawar J.S., "Aristotle
to Zoos: A Philosophical Dictionary of Biology," Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1983, p.62)
30/08/02
"This hypothesis of evolution, of course, cannot be reconciled with a literal reading of the book of Genesis.
... Anyone who believes in Genesis as a literal description of history must hold a world view that is entirely
incompatible with the idea of evolution, not to speak of science itself. The literalist must believe that
different forms of life were individually created and did not develop from common ancestors. Not only
species but everything in the physical universe originated not by material, natural processes but by
supernatural acts-miracles." (Futuyma D.J., "Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution," Pantheon: New York
NY, 1982, pp.10,12)
30/08/02
"Evolution The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the
earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for at least the past 3000
million years. Until the middle of the 18th century it was generally believed that each species was divinely
created and fixed in its form throughout its existence (see special creation). ... Special Creation. The belief, in
accordance with the Book of Genesis, that every species was individually created by God in the form in
which it exists today and is not capable of undergoing any change. It was the generally accepted
explanation of the origin of life until the advent of Darwinism. The idea has recently enjoyed a revival,
especially among members of the fundamentalist movement in the USA, partly because there still remain
problems that cannot be explained entirely by Darwinian theory. However, special creation is contradicted
by fossil evidence and genetic studies, and the pseudoscientific arguments of creation science cannot stand
up to logical examination." (Isaacs A., Daintith J. & Martin E., eds., "Concise Science Dictionary," [1984],
Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, Second Edition, 1991, pp.251, 646-647)
30/08/02
"EVOLUTION (1) Microevolution: changes in appearance of populations and species over generations. (2)
Macroevolution or phyletic evolution; origins and EXTINCTIONS of species and grades (see
SPECIATION). ... It is usually accepted that causes off evolutionary change include NATURAL
SELECTION and GENETIC DRIFT, and that macroevolutionary change can be explained by the same factors
that bring about microevolution. ... Opposed to evolutionary explanations of the composition of the Earth's
fauna and flora is the group of views termed 'special creationism', which holds that there are no bonds of
genetic relationship between species, past or present." (Abercrombie M., Hickman M., Johnson M.L. &
Thain M., "The New Penguin Dictionary of Biology," [1951], Penguin Books: London, Eighth Edition, 1990,
pp.194-195)
30/08/02
"evolution Change, with continuity in successive generations of organisms (i.e. 'descent with modification'
as Darwin called it). The phenomenon is amply demonstrated by the fossil record, for the changes over
geological time are sufficient to recognize distinct eras, for the most part with very different plants and
animals." (Allaby M., ed., "A Dictionary of Zoology," [1991], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, Second
Edition, 1999, p.198)
30/08/02
"creationism A modern variant of special creation, in which it is maintained that all 'kinds' of organisms were
created during one week, 6000-10000 years ago, exactly as is stated in the book of Genesis. Creationism
involves a rejection not only of the concept of evolution but also of the whole of geology and radiometric
dating. ... special creation The belief that the origin of life and the diversity of life result from acts of God
whereby each species was created separately. Evolution is implicitly rejected as the explanation of these
phenomena. See CREATIONISM; CREATION `SCIENCE'." (Allaby M., ed., "A Dictionary of Zoology,"
[1991], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, Second Edition, 1999, pp.139-140, 501)
30/08/02
"Public misunderstanding of scientific principles as applied to the study of animal diversity was evident on
March 19, 1981, when the governor of Arkansas signed into law the Balanced Treatment for Creation-
Science and Evolution-Science Act (Act 590) of 1981). .... Enactment of this law led to a historic lawsuit tried
in December 1981 in the court of Judge William. R. Overton, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas.
.... On January 5, 1982, Judge Overton permanently prohibited the state of Arkansas from enforcing Act 590.
Considerable testimony during the trial addressed the nature of science. On the basis of testimony by
scientists, Judge Overton stated explicitly these essential characteristics of science: 1. It is guided by natural
law. 2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law. 3. It is testable against the empirical world. 4. Its
conclusions are tentative, that is, are not necessarily the final word. 5. It is falsifiable. The pursuit of
scientific knowledge must be guided by the physical and chemical laws that govern the state of existence.
Scientific knowledge must explain what is observed by reference to natural law without requiring the
intervention of any supernatural being or force." (Hickman C.P., Jr., Roberts L.S. & Larson A., "Animal
Diversity," [1995], McGraw-Hill: Boston MA, Second Edition, 2000, p.2)
30/08/02
"... laws and forces of nature of themselves explain nothing-apart, that is, from the way in which these laws
and forces are combined, and co-operate to the production of special results. .... To borrow a phrase for
which J.S. Mill acknowledges his indebtedness to Dr. Thomas Chalmers-in order to explain nature as we find
it, we need to take account, not only of "laws," but of the "collocation" of laws. A machine-e.g., a printing-
press-produces its results through the operation of laws. Yet the laws would accomplish nothing were it not
that the machine is put together in a certain way, and that the forces at work in it are regulated and directed
to a certain end. Laws alone, therefore, do not explain the universe; there is needed plan, direction,
guidance; there is needed the mind and the hand behind the machine the combination of laws and forces-
guiding it in the work it has to do." (Orr, J.*, "The Bible Under Trial: Apologetic Papers in View of Present-
Day Assaults on Holy Scripture," 1907, p.151)
31/08/02
"Perhaps most importantly, if the world and its creatures developed purely by material, physical forces, it
could not have been designed and has no purpose or goal. The fundamentalist, in contrast, believes that
everything in the world, every species and every characteristic of every species, was designed by an
intelligent, purposeful artificer, and that it was made for a purpose. Nowhere does this contrast apply with
more force than to the human species. Some shrink from the conclusion that the human species was not
designed, has no purpose, and is the product of mere material mechanisms-but this seems to be the message
of evolution." (Futuyma D.J., "Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution," Pantheon: New York, 1982, pp.12-
13)
31/08/02
"Further analysis of the possible effects of the birefringence of calcite suggests that they were probably
unimportant (Clarkson and Levi-Setti 1975). As to lens defects due to chromatic aberration, these also were
considered unimportant, since even at moderate depths in sea water, the environment is essentially
monochromatic. ... Why did the phacopid trilobite develop such a sophisticated optical system? Were the
perfected images produced by the corrected lenses exploited in any way? Were there other advantages that
favored the evolution and retention of these optimal lens structures? What we would like to hear, to
appease our Darwinian upbringing, is that new visual structures were evolved in response to new
environmental pressures as a means of survival." (Levi-Setti R., "Trilobites," [1975], The University of
Chicago Press: Chicago IL, 1993, Second Edition, p.59)
31/08/02
"Of course there were scientists who thought the evidence favouring DNA was inconclusive and preferred
to believe that genes were protein molecules. Francis, however, did not worry about these sceptics. Many
were cantankerous fools who unfailingly backed the wrong horses. One could not be a successful scientist
without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by news papers and mothers of
scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid."
(Watson J.D., "The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA," [1968],
Penguin: Harmondsworth, Middlesex UK, 1978, reprint, p.24) [top]
September
1/09/02
"(yom) day, time, year. ... It can denote 1. the period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness), 2.
the period of twenty-four hours, 3. a general vague "time," 4. a point of time. 5 a year (in the plural; 1 Sam
27:7; Ex 13: 10. etc.)" (Coppes L.J., "yom. day, time, year," in Harris R.L., Archer G.L. & Waltke B.K., eds,
"Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament," [1980], Moody Press: Chicago IL, 1992, Twelfth Printing,
Vol. I, p.370)
1/09/02
"The optical arrangement is clearly a very sophisticated structure which quite belies the antiquity of the
animal. This may come as something of a surprise: we might expect an eye from half-way along optical
history to have a slightly slung-together look, or at least broadly to resemble the eyes of many other lowly
animals, as does the run-of-the-mill trilobite eye. But the eye of Phacops is something unexpected, a sports
coupe in the age of the boneshaker." (Fortey R.A., "Trilobite!: Eyewitness to Evolution," [2000], Flamingo:
London, 2001, reprint, pp.98,100)
1/09/02
"Euan noticed something else about the construction of the trilobite's eyes: the smaller lenses were
concentrated at the top of many eyes. The eye surface - known as the corneal surface had to be moulted
along with the rest of the animal's hard exoskeleton as it grew. The eye itself grew in size in harmony with
the rest of the animal: more lenses were added after each moult as the new skeleton hardened. New crystals
were added in from the top of the eye in a zone of generation. With successive moults these lenses were
incorporated into the main body of the eye, passed downwards in a graded chain. These differences in lens
size also helped to maintain the regularity of the design across the curved surface of the eye. It is fiendishly
clever (as Hercule Poirot would to say) that these 'primitive' animals could play such games with the mineral
world in the service of eye geometry." (Fortey R.A., "Trilobite!: Eyewitness to Evolution," [2000], Flamingo:
London, 2001, reprint, p.97)
7/09/02
"Comparative studies of the reception of Darwinism in different European cultures indicate that the
popularization of evolutionary science was rarely, if ever, a straightforward process in which the science of
an elite simply diffused down ward to a mass audience. Darwin's science was actively seized. It was
vulgarized in the promotion of particular political goals and these, in turn, often reflected local
circumstances. ... Despite the variability of context, one message was put out loud and clear by leaders of
secular movements in every European country. Taken to its logical conclusion, Darwin's theory was the
apotheosis of a scientific naturalism that simply could not be squared with a historic Christianity. In
Germany, Haeckel was adamant that there was no middle ground. It was either Darwinian evolution or
miracles." (Brooke J.H., "Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives," [1991], Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1995, Reprinted, pp.302-303)
7/09/02
"The proposition that Darwin's description of natural selection and Christian images of divine activity were
fundamentally incompatible was not the invention of secularists alone. In his book What is Darwinism?
(1874), the Princeton theologian Charles Hodge reached the same conclusion. His was no diatribe against
Darwin. He saw no reason in Scripture to reject evolution out of hand. Nor was there any intrinsic objection
to the idea of theistic evolution, in which the development of new species was under divine control. In
fairness to Darwin, he also acknowledged that neither the theory nor its author were atheistic in the sense
that an original Creator was denied. In the last analysis, however, he could not see how a process in which
natural selection worked on random variations could be said to be anything other than effectively
atheistic, since the doctrine of an active providence working to specific designs was evacuated. ... It should
not be difficult to see why intelligent people have often taken the view that Darwin's theory, properly
understood, and Christian conceptions of an active providence are not merely incompatible but belong to
two mutually exclusive worlds of thought. " (Brooke J.H., "Science and Religion: Some Historical
Perspectives," [1991], Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1995, Reprinted, pp.303-305. Emphasis
in original)
7/09/02
"Christians who agreed with Hodge [that Darwinism was effectively atheistic] could only have their
suspicions confirmed by the eagerness with which Darwin's science was welded into a scientistic world-
view. Back in 1838 Darwin had recognized that, in one vital respect at least, his theorizing coalesced with the
positivist doctrines of Auguste Comte (1798-1857). In his schematic history, Comte had argued that human
societies had passed through three stages, the theological, the metaphysical, and, finally, the positive
scientific stage when what passed for knowledge had to be expressed in terms of natural laws. Final causes
had no place in that final stage. In his metaphysical notebook, Darwin had written: "M. Le Comte argues
against all contrivance ... it is what my views tend to." (Brooke J.H., "Science and Religion: Some Historical
Perspectives," [1991], Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1995, Reprinted, p.304. Emphasis in
original)
7/09/02
"In losing his beautiful daughter [Annie, in 1851] - the little girl who had meant so much to him with her
perfect character, so charming and gentle, a child who had never knowingly upset anyone and who was
bright and intelligent, funny and affectionate - he had also lost any remaining vestige of religious faith he
may have had. From that moment on, Darwin was a total, uncompromising atheist: his only god was
rationality, his only saviour, logic and science; to that end he would continue to dedicate his life. There was
no meaning to existence other than a culmination of biological events. life was selfish and cruel, headless
and heartless. Beyond biology there was nothing." (White M. & Gribbin J., "Darwin: A Life in Science",
[1995], Simon & Schuster London, 1996, p.156)
7/09/02
"Clearly Darwin had outgrown what he must have perceived as the notions of religious idealists who were
guided solely by emotion and a fatal cocktail of fear and faith. From somewhat unorthodox Christian he had
swung through agnosticism (actually a term coined by Huxley to describe his own position some ten years
later), atheism and on almost to a precursor of existentialism. In both the microcosm seen through the lens of
his microscope and the macro-scale universe beginning to be revealed by the astronomers of the day, he
could see only struggle, temporary victory and defeat; lying beneath it all, black and unmoving, there was a
complete absence of meaning." (White M. & Gribbin J., "Darwin: A Life in Science", [1995], Simon &
Schuster London, 1996, p.224)
9/09/02
"Not many years ago when I was an atheist, if anyone had asked me, `Why do you not believe in God?' my
reply would have run something like this: ... If you ask me to believe that this is, the work of a benevolent
and omnipotent spirit, I reply that all the evidence points in the opposite direction. Either there is no spirit
behind the universe, or else a spirit indifferent to good and evil, or else an evil spirit.' There was one
question which I never dreamed of raising. I never noticed that the very strength and facility of the
pessimists' case at once poses us a problem. If the universe is so bad, or even half so bad, how on earth did
human beings ever come to attribute it to the activity of a wise and good Creator? Men are fools, perhaps;
but hardly so foolish as that. The direct inference from black to white, from evil flower to virtuous root, from
senseless work to a workman infinitely wise, staggers belief. The spectacle of the universe as revealed by
experience can never have been the ground of religion: it must always have been something in spite of
which religion, acquired from a different source, was held." (Lewis C.S.*, "The Problem of Pain," [1940],
Fount: London, 1977, reprint, pp.11-13)
9/09/02
"Like E.O. Wilson, I was brought up a Southern Baptist. Like him, I encountered the theory of evolution as a
teenager. Like him, I was bowled over by its power and beauty. Like his religious faith, mine did not survive
this encounter with science in good shape. But there is one difference between Wilson and me. He seems to
have had no trouble filling the void. I, in contrast, regularly get wistful about the days when the question of
purpose was settled once and for all, when I knew for certain why I was here and how I was supposed to
behave. And somehow I find it hard to believe that he never does. So I ask him: Doesn't he long for the days
when he believed there was a God up there watching over him? Doesn't he lose any sleep over life after
death? He shakes his head firmly. "None," he says finally and proudly. I don't worry about my own
immortality." Still, a funny thing happened a couple of years ago. Harvard was honoring Martin Luther King,
Sr., and Reverend King, as part of the festivities, was preaching at the Harvard Memorial Chapel. Wilson,
being a southerner, was invited to the service. There was a large turnout. The reverend preached fervently,
and the congregation sang richly, and one of the hymns hit home with Wilson-"one of the good, old-timey
ones that I hadn't heard since I was a kid." Partway through it, E.O. Wilson-scientific materialist, detached
empiricist, confirmed Darwinian-started crying. As if in atonement, he has a perfectly rational explanation. It
was tribal," he says. It was the feeling that I had been a long way away from the tribe." (Wright R., "Three
Scientists and Their Gods: Looking for Meaning in an Age of Information," Times Books: New York NY,
1988, pp.191-192)
9/09/02
"Our creationist detractors charge that evolution is an unproved and unprovable charade-a secular religion
rnasquerading as science. They claim, above all, that evolution generates no predictions, never exposes
itself to test, and therefore stands as dogma rather than disprovable science. This claim is nonsense. We
make and test risky predictions all the time; our success is not dogma, but a highly probable indication of
evolution's basic truth. As in any historical science, most predictions refer to an unknown past (technically
called `postdictions' in the jargon). For example, every time I collect fossils in Paleozoic rocks (550 to 225
million years old), I predict that I will not find fossil mammals-for mammals evolved in the subsequent
Triassic period (while young-earth creationists, claiming that God made life in six days of twenty-four hours,
should expect to encounter mammals in all strata). If I find fossil mammals, particularly such late-evolving
creatures as cows, cats, elephants, and humans, in Paleozoic strata, our evolutionary goose is cooked."
(Gould, S.J., "Magnolias from Moscow," in "Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History,"
Harmony Books: New York NY, 1995, p.409)
10/09/02
"It is, as I call now see, probable that all organic beings, including man, possess peculiarities of structure,
which neither are now, nor were formerly of any service to them, and which, therefore, are of no
physiological importance. We know not what produces the numberless slight differences between the
individuals of each species, for reversion only carries the problem a few stops backwards, but each
peculiarity must have had its efficient cause. If these causes, whatever they may be, were to act more
uniformly and energetically during a lengthened period (and against this no reason can be assigned), the
result would probably be not a mere slight individual difference, but a well marked and constant
modification, though one of no physiological importance. Changed structures, which are in no way
beneficial, cannot be kept uniform through natural selection, though the injurious will be thus eliminated.
Uniformity of character would, how ever, naturally follow from the assumed uniformity of the exciting
causes, and likewise from the free intercrossing of many individuals. During successive periods, the same
organism might in this manner acquire successive modifications, which would be transmitted in a nearly
uniform state as long as the exciting causes remained the same and there was free inter crossing. With
respect to the exciting causes we can only say, as when speaking of so-called spontaneous variations, that
they relate much more closely to the constitution of the varying organism, than to the nature of the
conditions to which it has been subjected." (Darwin, C.R., "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to
Sex," [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.92-93)
13/09/02
"First, it may be thought that, successful though naturalistic science is, it is spectacularly insufficient in
explaining the origin of mind which is best accounted for by divine creative interventions. Second, one may
be puzzled by the finely adjusted details of physical existence which seem just right for the evolution of
conscious life - at least, in so far as they look like necessary conditions for that evolution - and a version of
the design argument for a god's existence may be suggested. It is here that appeals to the so-called
`anthropic principle' may be made. But, third, it can be argued that the facts of mental life support mind-body
dualism, which holds that the mind is a substance distinct from the body; and inasmuch as this is a plausible
view so the dualist theory of a god distinct from the world gains in plausibility." (Olding A., "Modern
Biology and Natural Theology," Routledge: London, 1991, pp.xx-xxi)
13/09/02
"It seems to me also that the line of your pursuits may have led you to view chiefly the difficulties on one
side, and that you have not had time to consider and study the chain of difficulties on the other, but I
believe you do not consider your opinion as formed. May not the habit in scientific pursuits of believing
nothing till it is proved, influence your mind too much in other things which cannot be proved in the same
way, and which if true are likely to be above our comprehension. I should say also there is a danger in
giving up revelation which does not exist on the other side, that is the fear of ingratitude in casting off what
has been done for your benefit as well as for that of all the world and which ought to make you still more
careful, perhaps even fearful lest you should not have taken all the pains you could to judge truly." (Darwin,
Emma, personal letter 1839 to her husband Charles, in Barlow N., ed., "The Autobiography of Charles
Darwin, 1809-1882: With Original Omissions Restored," [1958], W.W. Norton & Co: New York NY, 1969,
reprint, p.236)
13/09/02
"But even the simplest of these substances represent extremely complex compounds, containing many
thousands of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen arranged in absolutely definite patterns,
which are specific for each separate substance. To the student of protein structure the spontaneous
formation of such an atomic arrangement in the protein molecule would seem as improbable as would the
accidental origin of the text of Virgil's `Aeneid' from scattered letter type." (Oparin A.I., "The Origin of Life,"
[1938], Morgulis S., transl., Second Edition, 1965, pp.132-133).
14/09/02
"Researchers have considered the 97% of the DNA in the human genome that does not encode protein as
'junk DNA.' ... Most of this enormous, silent genetic majority has long been thought to have no real
function--hence it's name: `junk DNA.' But one researcher's trash is another researcher's treasure, and a
growing number of scientists believe that hidden in the junk DNA are intellectual riches .... Rather than
being considered a catalogue of useful genes interspersed with useless junk, each chromosome is beginning
to be viewed as a complex `information organelle,' replete with sophisticated maintenance and control
systems--some embedded in what was thought to be mere waste. ... when geneticists started studying
complex, multicellular organisms, it was easy to dismiss the vast reaches of non-protein-coding DNA as a
wasteland. Now, however, that notion is being overturned as researchers find that junk DNA is not a single
midden heap ... but a complex mix of different types of DNA, many of which are vital to the life of the cell. ...
now it seems that patches of really important regulatory elements can be buried among the junk DNA. ...
These key regulatory elements can even occur in what many geneticists have considered the ultimate in
genetic detritus: the repetitive sequences scattered throughout the genomes of higher organisms. These
genetic stutters have come to epitomize junk because their structures are simple to the point of absurdity,
sometimes including only two or three nucleotides repeated thousands of times. In addition, the lengths and
compositions of these repetitions often vary wildly between species, between organisms of the same
species, even between cells of the same organism. ... Now, however, it appears some repetitive sequences
may contain stretches of DNA needed for gene regulation. ... in a dramatic reversal, the repetitive
sequences, once thought to be the epitome of genetic debris, now seem to be needed to maintain the
integrity of the chromosomes. ... the status of junk DNA ... is likely to keep on rising over the next couple of
years. Enough gems have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once
thought to be waste is definitely being transmuted into scientific gold." (Nowak R., "Mining treasures from
'junk DNA'," Science, Vol. 263, No. 5147, p.608)
14/09/02
"The greatest single achievement of nature to date was surely the invention of the molecule of DNA. We
have had it from the very beginning, built into the first cell to emerge, membranes and all, somewhere in the
soupy water of the cooling planet three thousand million years or so ago. All of today's DNA, strung
through all the cells of the earth, is simply an extension and elaboration of that first molecule. In a
fundamental sense we cannot claim to have made progress, since the method used for growth and
replication is essentially unchanged. ... We have come a long way on that old molecule. We could never
have done it with human intelligence, even if molecular biologists had been flown in by satellite at the
beginning, laboratories and all, from some other solar system. We have evolved scientists, to be sure, and
so we know a lot about DNA, but if our kind of mind had been confronted with the problem of designing a
similar replicating molecule, starting from scratch, we'd never have succeeded. We would have made one
fatal mistake: our molecule would have been perfect. Given enough time, we would have figured out how to
do this, nucleotides, enzymes, and all, to make flawless, exact copies, but it would never have occurred to
us, thinking as we do, that the thing had to be able to make errors." (Thomas L., "The Medusa and the Snail:
More Notes of a Biology Watcher," [1979]. Bantam: New York NY, Reprinted, 1986, pp.22-23).
15/09/02
"It is interesting to notice that a large part of the world has now adopted a negative creed, as little supported
by the findings of science as is the positive creed of the religious. The attitude of science to spiritual matters
has evidently been widely and profoundly misunderstood. The public seems to believe that a materialistic
philosophy has been established by the findings of science. Science is materialistic inasmuch as all its data
are material events and can therefore give no information about anything but matter. For Science to affirm or
deny the existence of the soul would be as absurd, as for Religion to affirm or deny the Law of Conservation
of Energy. If a man allows his whole existence to be guided by science, he will be a materialist, but if he
chooses to be so guided, it is not the fault of Science. It would seem that the fallacy that materialism is a
proven truth has infected a great part of the civilised world, and has probably gone far to contribute to the
disintegration of moral values which is causing the present world-convulsion." (Sherwood Taylor F., "The
Century of Science," Readers Union: London, Second Edition, 1942, p.256)
15/09/02
"I suggest that all these paleoanthropological narratives approximate the structure of a hero tale, along the
lines proposed by Vladimir Propp in his classic Morphology of the Folktale (1928). They feature a humble
hero who departs on a journey, receives essential equipment from a helper or donor figure, goes through
tests and transformations, and finally arrives at a higher state. But it is part of my argument that, as in
Propp's tales, this narrative schema can accommodate widely varying sequences of events, heroes and
donors corresponding to the underlying evolutionary beliefs of their authors. A main goal of this book is to
show how widely the followers of Charles Darwin depart from Darwinian natural selection as the guiding
force that helps the hero forward, and how their interpretations of the fossil record vary according to their
convictions about this primary causal agent." (Landau M., "Narratives of Human Evolution," Yale
University Press: New Haven CT, 1991, p.xi)
16/09/02
"The course of evolution since his emergence is seen to be determined by new factors of a nonbiological
kind: man himself began to produce a new set of causal factors and thereby initiated a new kind of
evolution. Finally, it is believed that an understanding of these factors will enable modern man to direct his
own evolution. Though these may be verifiable contentions, they far exceed what can be inferred from the
study of fossils alone and in fact place a heavy burden of interpretation on the fossil record - a burden
which is relieved by placing fossils into preexisting narrative structures. The fossil record itself may gain
much of its aura of self-evidence from the incantatory authority of the ancient narrative structures it
follows." (Landau M., "Narratives of Human Evolution," Yale University Press: New Haven CT, 1991, p.148)
17/09/02
"Nevertheless, nagging thoughts remain. Can it really be true that Darwinism, which overturns all our former
ideas about man and nature, has no unsettling consequences? Traditional morality is based, in part, on the
idea that human life has a special value and worth. If we must give up our inflated conception of ourselves,
and our picture of the world as made exclusively for our habitation, will we not have to give up, at the same
time, those elements of our morality which depend on such conceptions? The feeling that Darwin's
discovery undermines traditional religion, as well as some parts of traditional morality, will not go away,
despite the nice logical points about what follows from what, and despite the fact that one might not want to
side with evolution's enemies. I believe this feeling is justified. There is a connection between Darwin's
theory and these larger matters, although the connection is more complicated than simple logical entailment.
I shall argue that Darwin's theory does undermine traditional values. In particular, it undermines the
traditional idea that human life has a special, unique worth." (Rachels J., "Created from Animals: The Moral
Implications of Darwinism," [1990], Oxford University Press: New York NY, 1999, reprint, pp.3-4)
19/09/02
"The application of what I have been saying to the creationist controversy is straightforward. It seems to me
that the attempts by creationists to foist their particular brand of dreadful science on public school curricula
are pernicious. We should resist such attempts and resist them effectively in the political realm. But some of
the creationists who are making such attempts are, to put it not too harshly, shysters. So there may well be
circumstances in which only the bad effective argument will work against them in the political or legal
arenas. If there are, then I think, though I come to this conclusion reluctantly, it is morally permissible for us
to use the bad effective argument, provided we continue to have qualms of conscience about getting our
hands soiled. But I also believe we must be very careful not to allow ourselves to slide all the way down the
slippery slope to intellectual corruption. Perhaps, if we divide up the labor so that no one among us has to
resort to the bad effective argument too frequently, we can succeed in resisting effectively without paying
too high a price in terms of moral corruption." (Quinn P.L., "Creationism, Methodology, and Politics," in
Ruse M., ed., "But is it Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy,"
Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1996, pp.398-399)
18/09/02
"Traditional morality depends on the idea that human beings are in a special moral category: from a moral
point of view, human life has a special, unique value, while non-human life has relatively little value. Thus
the purpose of morality is conceived to be, primarily, the protection of human beings and their rights and
interests. This is commonly referred to as the idea of human dignity. But this idea does not exist in a logical
vacuum. Traditionally it has been supported in two ways: first, by the notion that man is made in the image
of God, and secondly, by the notion that man is a uniquely rational being. ... Darwin's theory does not entail
that the idea of human dignity is false-to say that it does would violate the logical stricture against deriving
'ought' from 'is'. Darwinism does, however, undermine the traditional doctrine, in a sense that I will explain,
by taking away its support. Darwinism undermines both the idea that man is made in the image of God and
the idea that man is a uniquely rational being. Furthermore, if Darwinism is correct, it is unlikely that any
other support for the idea of human dignity will be found. The idea of human dignity turns out, therefore, to
be the moral effluvium of a discredited metaphysics." (Rachels J., "Created from Animals: The Moral
Implications of Darwinism," [1990], Oxford University Press: New York NY, 1999, reprint, pp.4-5)
19/09/02
"If there is no God and no after-life, it is important that we should believe this because it will prevent us
wasting our time in prayer and worship and vain pursuit of everlasting life; it will also prevent us
disseminating false information on important matters. Nevertheless, it is, I think, difficult to avoid the view
that it is more important to believe that there is a God, if in fact there is a God, than to believe that there is no
God, if in fact there is no God. Thus failure to hold a true belief that there is a God could lead to us failing to
worship a God to whom worship is due; whereas, if through a false belief that there is a God, we worship a
God who does not exist, no-one is thereby wronged. Further, failure to hold a true belief that there is a God
could lead to the loss of everlasting life, for if this belief is conjoined with a true belief that, if there is a God,
he will give everlasting life after death to those who live a certain kind of life on Earth, a man who has these
beliefs is in a position to gain that life. And even if the other religious belief is that if there is a God he will
give everlasting life after death to any who try to live a good life on Earth, those beliefs together could
encourage a man to persevere with a worthwhile life on Earth and so gain that everlasting life ..., whereas
failure to hold a true atheistic belief could involve at most the waste of a short finite life. This seems to be
one correct point in the argumentation of Pascal's Wager, in which there are a number of incorrect points ..."
(Swinburne, R.G., "Faith and Reason," Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1981, p.81)
19/09/02
"The `theory of evolution' is an overworked term, in its popular usage, and unfortunate besides, because it
implies that, after all, there may be something dubious about it. Evolution is a fact, like digestion. I have
never seen my own digestive processes, but I would not be so fatuous as to cast doubt on their existence
by talking-about the `theory of digestion.' The phrase is doubtless the expression of a die-hard prejudice."
(Howells, W.W., "Mankind So Far," Doubleday, Doran & Co: Garden City NY, 1946, p.5)
20/09/02
"No one disputes the fact that modern humans and the living great apes had a common ancestor. We have
enough characteristics in common for it to be clear that our lives diverged comparatively recently. We still
share something like 98 percent of our genetic material with chimpanzees. The similarities between us and
the apes are evident and easily understood. It is the differences that are perplexing. Why should our backs
be straight, our skins bare, and our lives laced together with webs of words? Somewhere in the genetic 2
percent that makes us uniquely human lie reasons to account for the fact that our posture, our locomotion,
and our intellect should be so different from theirs. We seem to have spent a large part of the last 10 million
years rushing through a series of evolutionary adaptations while the apes changed relatively little. Why?
What was it that made such changes necessary? Something must have happened to us that didn't happen
to the chimps and gorillas. But what? Theories abound and range, according to your taste, from
environmental factors that drove our ancestors out of the forest, to banishment from the Garden of Eden by
divine decree. In other words, we became erect, naked, and intelligent either because of a change of climate
or due to an act of God. Both theories are tenable. Scientists, of course, tend to favor the former, but it is
important to understand that, in the absence of appropriate fossil evidence, it is actually no more
susceptible to proof than any of the more traditional accounts of creation." (Watson L., "The Dreams of
Dragons: Riddles of Natural History," William Morrow & Co: New York NY, 1987, p.127)
20/09/02
"Thus a biologist of repute at Oxford, having been challenged for an actual case of Natural Selection in the
second sense, gave the instance of black moths in a certain wood. The trees of the woods were dark pines;
with the result that white moths had a bad time, being easily picked off, while the black moths flourished.
But when the trees of the wood were gradually replaced by light coloured birch trees, it was the other way
about; the white moths flourished and the black moths diminished. Surely it hardly needed great learning to
expect such a result! But the scientist mixed up that obvious result with a totally different thing, to wit, the
turning of the black moths into white moths through the new birch plantation." (Belloc H. "Essays of a
Catholic Layman in England," Sheed & Ward: London, 1931, p.206)
20/09/02
"Darwin's Missing Evidence. In his time certain species of moths were light in color. Today in many areas
these species are largely dark. If he had noticed the change occurring, he would have observed evolution in
action ... Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, the centenary of which we celebrate in 1959, was the fruit of 26
years of laborious accumulation of facts from nature. Others before Darwin had believed in evolution, but he
alone produced a cataclysm of data in support of it. Yet there were two fundamental gaps in his chain of
evidence. First, Darwin had no knowledge of the mechanism of heredity. Second, he had no visible example
of evolution at work in nature. It is a curious fact that both of these gaps could have been filled during
Darwin's lifetime. Although Gregor Mendel's laws of inheritance were not discovered by the community of
biologists until 1900, they had first been published in 1866. And before Darwin died in 1882, the most
striking evolutionary change ever witnessed by man was taking place around him in his own country. The
change was simply this.- Less than a century ago moths of certain species were characterized by their light
coloration, which matched such backgrounds as light tree trunks and lichen-covered rocks, on which the
moths passed the daylight hours sitting motionless. Today in many areas the same species are
predominantly dark! We now call this reversal `industrial melanism.'" (Kettlewell, H.B.D., "Darwin's Missing
Evidence," Scientific American, Vol. 201, No. 3, March 1959, pp.48-53, p.48)
20/09/02
"Obviously, I love and cherish Darwinian evolutionary theory, as one of the great intellectual achievements
of all time. But my pleading is not just for Darwinism, or any kind of evolutionism. It is for all human inquiry,
particularly all scientific inquiry. If Darwinism is beaten down by the Creationists, who falls next? ... In a
sense, these are dark days. The threat will not vanish, unless we fight. But, the battle can be won. Darwinism
has a great past. Let us work to see that it has an even greater future." (Ruse M., "Darwinism Defended: A
Guide to the Evolution Controversies," [1982], Addison-Wesley: Reading MA, 1983, Third Printing, p.329)
21/09/02
What about observations of selection actually changing one form to another? Again we turn to Darwin's
homeland, for the best-known sets of studies on natural selection in action are those by English
evolutionists on the evolving melanic forms in moths. To take the most fully documented case, the moth
Biston betularia, it has been recorded beyond doubt that in the past century the moth has evolved, from a
uniformly mottled, light gray color to a dark "melanic" form. And, the reason is unequivocally a function of
natural selection. The chief danger to the moths is predators, specifically birds that eat them. Against a
clean, lichen-colored tree, the light mottled moths are well camouflaged, whereas the melanic moths are at a
selective disadvantage. However, in the past 100 years, thanks to the rise of industry, the consequent air
pollution and the soot-blackening of tree barks, the tables have turned. Now, it is the melanic forms that are
camouflaged and at an adaptive advantage, and it is the gray forms that stand out and are picked off by
predators. ... Not only has this process been actually seen to happen, but the conclusions been backed up
by experiment. The late H.B.D. Kettlewell of Oxford University released hundreds of light and dark moths in
polluted and unpolluted areas of England (Birmingham and Dorset, respectively). Expectedly, it was found
that birds in Birmingham could spot gray forms more easily, and that birds in Dorset could spot melanic
forms more easily. These differences were also dramatically underlined when moths were recaptured.
Proportionately, far more melanic forms could be taken in Birmingham, and proportionately far more gray
forms in Dorset. ... In short, everything points to the effectiveness of selection." (Ruse M., "Darwinism
Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies," [1982], Addison-Wesley: Reading MA, 1983, Third
Printing, pp.101,103)
21/09/02
"Darwin realized that the vast majority of offspring produced by most organisms failed to survive to
reproduce. What, then, he asked, determines who succeeds in reproducing and who does not? In an analog
to the practices of animal breeders and plant propagators, he surmised that nature selects the offspring that
are going to be the parents of the next generation. And which ones does nature select? Those that are best
able to survive and reproduce. This somewhat tautological concept of natural selection-that the fittest
survive and those that survive are the fittest-is, even today, the centerpiece of evolutionary theory."
(Ehrlich P.R., "The Machinery of Nature," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1986, p.62)
21/09/02
"Just as we see no reason to suppose that unusual processes were going on in the early universe, there is
no reason to postulate special starting conditions for the Big Bang. For example, we saw that during the
particle era electrons and positrons annihilated each other until only electrons were left. One to explain this
would be to assume that there were more electrons than positrons at the moment of creation. But this is no
explanation at all-it merely assumes what we want to prove. Therefore, rather than make such arbitrary
assumptions, we will assume that equal numbers of positrons and electrons were present at creation and
look to the laws of physics to tell us how there came to be more of one than the other at a later time. Thus
we come to our second rule. Rule II: No special conditions may be postulated at the creation. ... One of the
striking facts about the earthly environment is the noticeable scarcity of antimatter. Small amounts can be
created in specialized laboratories, but all of the antimatter created in the history of science would not fill a
thimble. Our satellites and planetary probes have landed on, or passed near, most other important bodies in
our solar system and brought back the same verdict: no antimatter anywhere. ... The question of how to
explain this apparent imbalance in nature is known as the antimatter problem. The antimatter problem can be
resolved in only two ways: either there was a preponderance of matter over antimatter when the Big Bang
entered the particle era, or the antimatter in the galaxy has somehow segregated itself from the matter, and
some of the more distant galaxies are, in fact, antigalaxies. If indeed there was an imbalance at the one-
millisecond point, then there are two ways in which it could have arisen: either the universe started out with
more matter than antimatter, or there is some process in the period before the start of the particle era that
produced more matter than antimatter. ... While we cannot prove that there are no regions of antimatter
anywhere in the universe, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that there are. In the face of this
result, interest in this particular solution to the antimatter problem has waned considerably in recent years.
THE BIG BANG STARTED WITH MORE MATTER THAN ANTIMATTER This solution cannot be ruled
out either, since it is impossible to go backward in time and see the Big Bang. Perhaps, if no other solution
can be found, we would be forced to fall back on this one, but it does constitute a violation of Rule 2.
Besides, there is an inherent ugliness in assuming what should be proved, for it simply leads us to the
obvious next question: Why should the universe have started this way? To a physicist, the only net particle
number that does not need to be explained is zero." (Trefil J.S., "The Moment of Creation: Big Bang Physics
From Before the First Millisecond to the Present Universe," Charles Scribner's Sons: New York NY, 1983,
pp.32,38-40. Capitals in original)
22/09/02
"Despite the fact that we have to push into regions of energy and temperature that we have not, and
probably cannot, explore experimentally, we can still do so in a way that is in harmony with the traditional
way science is done and that does not simply introduce special ad hoc assumptions to explain what we find.
So important is this aspect of modern cosmology in this age of creation "science" that we will state it as a
basic rule (Rule I). Rule I: The laws of nature that have operated at any time since the Big Bang still operate
today and can be understood by theories which can be tested experimentally. The philosophically inclined
reader will recognize this rule as a statement of the doctrine of uniformitarianism, which first arose during the
debates on geological evolution during the nineteenth century. It is not a statement that can be proved in
the way that a theorem in geometry can be proved, but it reflects an important frame of mind among
scientists. It is always possible to "explain" any known fact by tailoring a theory to fit it. Such explanations
abound among believers in UFOs and other paranormal phenomena. They have the same validity in physics
as Kipling's Just So Stories do in biology. If conventional theories simply cannot explain a given
phenomenon, of course, unconventional ideas may become necessary. Until that time we will abide by Rule
I." (Trefil J.S., "The Moment of Creation: Big Bang Physics From Before the First Millisecond to the Present
Universe," Charles Scribner's Sons: New York NY, 1983, pp.32-33)
22/09/02
"Finally, we may whimsically observe that the virgin birth of Christ was even more miraculous than it has
been presented, for it is very difficult to see how an all-female gamete could have developed into a viable
fetus. This is a frivolous point, however. After all, many theologians argue that the virgin birth is not meant
to be taken literally, while others might reasonably suggest that miracles occur when God chooses to
suspend the natural laws; and if once the laws are suspended, then anything can happen." (Tudge C., "The
Engineer in the Garden: Genetics: From the Idea of Heredity to the Creation of Life." [1993], Pimlico: London,
1995, reprint, p.154)
22/09/02
"Consider what is known about selection pressures in natural populations. In only a relative handful of
cases has this been studied directly, the most famous example being that of the peppered moth, Biston
betularia, in England. ... The question remains: How typical are the strong selection pressures uncovered in
these and the handful of other studies? From the studies that have been done, one might conclude that
evolution has been zig-zagging along under the influence of strong selection tracking an everchanging
environment. In other words, strong selection operating in different directions at different times could, over
long periods, produce products of evolution that (especially in groups without fossil records) are
indistinguishable from those produced by constant weak selection operating in one direction. But the
question cannot yet be answered because the sample of studies of selection in nature is clearly biased
toward those in which the operation of strong selection has attracted the attention of investigators. To
understand nature as a whole, we need to avoid such bias." (Ehrlich P.R., "The Machinery of Nature,"
Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1986, pp.72-74)
23/09/02
"Textbooks thus begin by truncating the scientist's sense of his discipline's history and then proceed to
supply a substitute for what they have eliminated. Characteristically, textbooks of science contain just a bit
of history, either in an introductory chapter or, more often in scattered references to the great heroes of an
earlier age. From such references both students and professionals come to feel like participants in a long-
standing historical tradition. Yet the textbook-derived tradition in which scientists come to sense their
participation is one that, in fact, never existed. For reasons that are both obvious and highly functional,
science textbooks (and too many of the older histories of science) refer only to that part of the work of past
scientists that can easily be viewed as contributions to the state merit and solution of the texts' paradigm
problems. Partly by selection and partly by distortion, the scientists of earlier ages are implicitly represented
as having worked upon the same set of fixed problems and in accordance with the same set of fixed canons
that the most recent revolution in scientific theory and method has made seem scientific. No wonder that
textbooks and the historical tradition they imply have to be rewritten after each scientific revolution. And no
wonder that, as they are rewritten, science once again comes to seem largely cumulative." (Kuhn T.S., "The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions," [1962], University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Third edition, 1996,
pp.137-138)
23/09/02
"Scientists are not, of course the only group that tends to see its discipline's past developing linearly
toward its present vantage. The temptation to write history backward is both omnipresent and perennial. But
scientists are more affected by the temptation to rewrite history, partly because the results of scientific
research show no obvious dependence upon the historical context of the inquiry, and partly because, except
during crisis and revolution, the scientist's contemporary position seems so secure. More historical detail
whether of science's present or of its past, or more responsibility to the historical details that are presented,
could only give artificial status to human idiosyncrasy, error, and confusion. Why dignify what science's
best and most persistent efforts have made it possible to discard? The depreciation of historical fact is
deeply, and probably functionally, ingrained in the ideology of the scientific profession, the same
profession that places the highest of all values upon factual details of other sorts." (Kuhn T.S., "The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions," [1962], University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Third edition, 1996,
p.138)
23/09/02
"And so the two greatest scientists that England has produced came to lie side by side in the Abbey-
Newton, who banished miracles from the physical world and reduced God to the role of a cosmic designer
who on the day of creation had brought the clockwork mechanism of the universe into being to tick away
according to the inevitable laws of its nature; and Darwin, who banished not only miracles but also creation
and design from the world of life, robbed God of his role of creator of man, and man of his divine origin."
(Huxley, J.S. & Kettlewell, H.B.D., "Charles Darwin and His World," [1965], Book Club Associates: London,
1975, reprint, p.126)
23/09/02
"There is an additional factor that needs to be taken into account here. The recent growth in the creationist
movement has been matched by an increase in the number of popular science books on evolution, often
written by authors who are openly hostile to religion. Some indeed have used their account of evolution to
build an atheistic worldview at odds with any concept of creation or providence. Stephen Jay Gould, for
example, has done this in his well-known books and essays (e.g. Wonderful Life, Dinosaur in a Haystack).
He makes it clear that he believes humans are merely an accidental outcome of evolutionary history, the
product of an uncaring Universe and not in any way created in God's image. This view is not put forward as
a personal opinion but is presented as a definite conclusion that science compels us to accept. It may seem
like a small point but Gould, in the name of science, is dismissing a concept that is central to the Jewish and
Christian religions. Small wonder, then, that the creationists rise up in protest. For the growth of the
creationist movement has been fuelled by a sense of outrage at the way atheist beliefs and secular values
are often presented as if they were part of biological science. To put it in the vernacular: if someone says
`my science shows that your religion is bunk', the natural reaction is `well then there must be something
wrong with your science.'" (Young D., "The Evolution of Creationism," Australasian Science, Vol. 23, No. 3,
April 2002, pp.20-21. http://www.control.com.au/233religion2.htm)
23/09/02
"Natural Selection in Action. Natural Selection can be seen to be at work here and now in directing
evolution. ... An example of this type of research is that of H.B.D. Kettlewell on 'industrial melanism' in
moths.... Up to 1848 the British Peppered Moth existed in its typical grey form known as Biston betularia,
which is remarkably well adapted to resemble the lichens on the bark of trees. From that date, a dark melanic
variety appeared, known as carbonaria, which is extremely conspicuous against the natural bark of trees. It
is controlled by a single dominant Mendelian gene and is slightly more vigorous than the normal grey type.
Nevertheless, because of its conspicuous colour the carbonaria variety was constantly eliminated, and this
variety only persisted in the populations of the Peppered Moth because the same mutation kept on
occurring again and again. The Industrial Revolution brought about a marked change in the environment,
since the pollution of the air by increasing quantities of carbon dust killed the lichens on the trees and
rendered their trunks and branches black. Under these conditions it is the carbonaria variety which is
favoured and the betularia penalized. This has been proved by direct observation of the feeding of birds,
and by measurement of the survival rates of the different forms in the different environments. The dark
carbonaria form survives 17% less well in an unpolluted area and 10% better in a polluted area. One hundred
years ago the dark variety of the Peppered Moth formed less than 1% of the population; today in industrial
areas it forms 99%, and selection has made it more intensively black than when it first appeared." (de Beer
G., "A Handbook on Evolution", Trustees of the British Museum of Natural History: London, Fourth
Edition, 1970, pp.21-22)
23/09/02
"Equivocation is when the meaning of words is shifted. Many false arguments use equivocation to
convince an audience. Equivocation makes natural selection slippery and provides its apparent scientific
power. If natural selection were consistently either tautology [T], or special definition [SD], or metaphysics
[M] or lame [L], then it would not have lasted so long in the scientific arena. ... The illusion is achieved by
shifting between T, SD, M, and L. In this way natural selection can appear to have all the good qualities one
could want in science: empirical, measurable, explanatory, general, testable, non-tautologous, and true. This
shift can happen rapidly during a book or lecture. Once we understand the principle, watching natural
selection in action is like watching the three-shell game at the carnival. One never knows which of the
walnut shells the pea will be under next. Proponents of natural selection have many options during a debate.
These options depend on which version (T,SD,M,L) they are using when challenged. ... In summary, the
scientific stature of natural selection is an illusion. The illusion is created by shifting back and forth between
various formulations tautology (T), special definitions (SD), metaphysics (M), and lame formulations (L)."
(ReMine W.J.*, "The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message Theory," St. Paul Science: Saint Paul MN,
1993, pp.107-108)
24/09/02
"For we shall find that since the time of Hume, the fashionable scientific philosophy has been such as to
deny the rationality of science. ... Some variant of Hume's philosophy has generally prevailed among men of
science. But scientific faith has risen to the occasion, and has tacitly removed the philosophic mountain. In
view of this strange contradiction in scientific thought, it is of the first importance to consider the
antecedents of a faith which is impervious to the demand for a consistent rationality. We have therefore to
trace the rise of the instinctive faith that there is an Order of Nature which can be traced in every detailed
occurrence. Of course we all share in this faith, and we therefore believe that the reason for the faith is our
apprehension of its truth. .... How has this conviction been so vividly implanted in the European mind?
When we compare this tone of thought in Europe with the attitude of other civilisations when left to
themselves, there seems but one source for its origin. It must come from the medieval insistence on the
rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek
philosopher." (Whitehead A.N., "Science and the Modern World," [1926], Penguin Books: Harmondsworth,
Middlesex UK, 1938, reprint, pp.14-15, 24)
24/09/02
"The melanism of moths occurs in many parts of the world that are not industrialized, and in environments
that are quite different. ... In each case recurrent mutation has provided the source of the change, and
natural selection, as postulated by Darwin, has decided its destiny. ... Had Darwin observed industrial
melanism he would have seen evolution occurring not in thousands of years but in thousands of days-well
within his lifetime. He would have witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his life's work."
(Kettlewell, H.B.D., "Darwin's Missing Evidence," Scientific American, Vol. 201, No. 3, March 1959, pp.48-53,
p.53)
25/09/02
"Equally, it is why, before they can hope to communicate fully, one group or the other must experience the
conversion that we have been calling a paradigm shift. Just because it is a transition between
incommensurables, the transition between competing paradigms cannot be made a step at a time, forced by
logic and neutral experience. Like the gestalt switch, it must occur all at once (though not necessarily in an
instant) or not at all. How, then, are scientists brought to make this transposition? Part of the answer is that
they are very often not. Copernicanism made few converts for almost a century after Copernicus' death.
Newton's work was not generally accepted. particularly on the Continent, for more than half a century after
the Principia appeared. Priestley never accepted the oxygen theory, nor Lord Kelvin the electromagnetic
theory, and so on. The difficulties of conversion have often been noted by scientists themselves. Darwin, in
a particularly perceptive passage at the end of his Origin of Species, wrote.. `Although I am fully convinced
of the truth of the views given in this volume .... I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists
whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of
view directly opposite to mine. ... [B]ut I look with confidence to the future,-to young and rising naturalists,
who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality.' And Max Planck, surveying his own
career in his Scientific Autobiography, sadly remarked that `a new scientific truth does not triumph by
convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die,
and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.'" (Kuhn T.S., "The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions," [1962], University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Third edition, 1996, pp.150-151)
25/09/02
"'That is all very well,' you may say. 'It seems to be true that natural selection can turn moths black in
industrial areas, can keep protective coloration up to the mark, can produce resistant strains of bacteria and
insect pests But what about really elaborate improvements? Can it transform a reptile's leg into a bird's wing,
or turn a monkey into a man? How can a blind and automatic sifting process like selection, operating on a
blind and undirected process like mutation, produce organs like the eye or the brain, with their almost
incredible complexity and delicacy of adjustment? How can chance produce elaborate design? In a word, are
you not asking us to believe too much?' The answer is no: all this is not to much to believe, once one has
grasped the way the process operates. .... The clue ... is time. The longer selection operates, the more
improbable (in this sense) are its results; and in point of fact it has been operating for a very long time
indeed. ... some 2,000 million years. With that length of time available, little adjustments can easily be made
to add up to miraculous adaptations; and the slight shifts of gene-frequency between one generation and
the next can be multiplied to produce radical improvements and totally new kinds of creatures." (Huxley, J.S.,
"Evolution in Action," [1953], Penguin: Harmondsworth, Middlesex UK, 1963, reprint, pp.48-49)
26/09/02
"THE FALLACY OF FALSE ANALOGY. Few techniques of reasoning are so potentially useful-or so
potentially dangerous-as analogy. When we reason by analogy we attempt to advance our position by
likening an obscure or difficult set of facts to one that is already known and understood and to which it
bears a significant resemblance. The fallacy of false analogy arises when the comparison is an erroneous
one that distorts the facts in the case being argued. Drawing attention to likenesses can be extremely useful
so long as the two things being compared resemble each other in important respects and differ only in
trifling ways. If, on the contrary, they are alike in unimportant ways and different in important ways, then
there is no valid analogy between them and a fallacy of false analogy results. Merely to seize upon some
slight similarity as a basis for concluding that what is true of one is also true of the other will usually lead
one astray. ... To expose a false analogy-or an imperfect analogy, as it is sometimes called-it is necessary to
establish that the two things being compared resemble each other in insignificant ways, while they differ in
significant ways." (Engel S.M., "With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies," St. Martin's
Press: New York NY, Fourth Edition, 1990, Pp.150-151)
26/09/02
"One with three million noughts after it is the measure of the unlikeliness of a horse the odds against it
happening at all. No one would bet on anything so improbable happening; and yet it has happened. It has
happened, thanks to the workings of natural selection and the properties of living substance which make
natural selection inevitable." (Huxley, J.S., "Evolution in Action," [1953], Penguin: Harmondsworth,
Middlesex UK, 1963, reprint, pp.50-51)
26/09/02
"Kettlewell's work is a classic of modern biology, and his experiments and observations have become a
standard reference in texts on evolution and population genetics. Such brief accounts, however, often leave
the reader unaware of the numerous qualifications Kettlewell expressed in his original papers. The fact is
that many aspects of industrial melanism are still far from understood. For example, the process of change in
gene frequencies has usually not reached the point where moth populations in polluted areas are made up
entirely of melanics even though the forces of natural selection have now been at work for at least a century.
Instead the darker and lighter forms coexist in the state known to geneticists as polymorphism." (Bishop
J.A. & Cook L.M., "Moths, Melanism and Clean Air," Scientific American, Vol. 232, No. 1, January
1975, pp.90-99, in Eisner T. & Wilson E.O., "The Insects: Readings from Scientific American," W.H. Freeman
& Co: San Francisco CA, 1977, p.164)
26/09/02
"Fraud in scientific research was the problem of concern to Congressman Albert Gore, Jr. As a member of
the House Committee on Science and Technology, Gore was troubled by the rash of serious; cases that had
recently come to light. As chairman of its investigations subcommittee, he was determined to do something
about the problem. .... Gore and his fellow Congressmen were moved to visible amazement and then anger at
the attitudes of the senior scientists they had called as witnesses. The first was Philip Handler, then
president of the National Academy of Sciences and leading spokesman for the scientific community. ...
Handler at once announced that it gave him `little pleasure and satisfaction' to testify on the subject of
scientific fraud. The problem had been `grossly exaggerated' by the press, he said-as plain a way as any of
telling the committee it was wasting its time. Scientific fraud happens rarely, and when it does, Handler
declared, `it occurs in a system that operates in an effective, democratic and self-correcting mode' that makes
detection inevitable. His underlying message came over loud and clear: fraud is a nonproblem, the existing
mechanisms of science deal with it perfectly adequately, and Congress should mind its own business. ....
As witness after witness followed Handler's lead in saying that existing scientific mechanisms were coping
with the problem, the Congressmen became increasingly exasperated. ... but at every turn the scientists
stonewalled them. Evident in the impasse was some fundamental disjunction of vision: the two sides were
seeing the same situation in totally different ways. The Congressmen saw a fellow group of professionals
who apparently preferred to deny a problem existed rather than face up to it. The scientists, confident that
their existing self-correction mechanisms made fraud a no-win venture, could not acknowledge it as a
problem that might go beyond the mental imbalance of a few individuals." (Broad W. & Wade N., "Betrayers
of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science," Simon and Schuster: New York NY, 1982, pp.11-13)
27/09/02
"But College of William and Mary biologist Bruce Grant rushed to the defense of the classical story. While
acknowledging that things are more complicated than they appear in text books, Grant insists that "the
evidence in support of the basic story is overwhelming." The evidence Grant cites, however, is surprisingly
thin. He admits that "we still don't know the natural hiding places of peppered moths," he agrees that 91 the
greatest weakness of Kettlewell's mark-release-recapture experiments is that he released the moths during
daylight hours," and he repeats his own finding that most accounts of peppered moths "place too much
attention on the importance of lichens." Yet Grant claims that Kettlewell's results are valid anyway. There is
indisputable evidence for natural selection," he argues, because "even if all of the experiments relating to
melanism in peppered moths were jettisoned, we would still possess the most massive data set on record"
for a conspicuous evolutionary change. Grant concludes that "no other evolutionary force can explain the
direction, velocity, and the magnitude of the changes except natural selection." (Grant B.S., "Fine Tuning
the Peppered Moth Paradigm," Evolution 53 (3), 1999, pp. 980984. http://www.wm.edu/biology/melanism.pdf)
Evidence for industrial melanism, however, is not necessarily evidence for natural selection, and it is
certainly not evidence that the selective agents were predatory birds." (Wells J.*, "Icons of Evolution:
Science or Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong," Regnery: Washington DC,
2000, p.154)
27/09/02
"One of the most straightforward and widely known cases of a change in gene frequencies by natural
selection is that in the peppered moth, Biston betularia, in Britain. ... In 1849 a dark-coloured melanic variety
called `carbonaria' was reported for the first time in Manchester. ... During the second part of the 19th
century the dominant allele increased rapidly in frequency and by 1895 the 'carbonaria' variety comprised
over 95% of the population in the Manchester area. The causes of this rapid alteration in gene frequency
which Sheppard once referred to as 'the most spectacular evolutionary change ever witnessed and recorded
by man', were extensively studied by Bernard Kettlewell in the 1950s. Kettlewell's work showed that the
spread of the 'carbonaria' form was associated with the Industrial Revolution and the parallel spread of
pollution caused by the fall-out from factory chimneys. The carbon particles and the SO2 from atmospheric
pollution killed the lichen on tree trunks and rocks and gradually changed the habitat of the moth (in the
affected regions) from light-coloured lichen-covered surfaces to areas which were bare and blackened with
soot. He showed a definite link between the pattern of spread of the 'carbonaria' and the presence of urban
industrial pollution. .... This phenomenon ... became known as industrial melanism. Kettlewell also
demonstrated that the change in gene frequencies was due to natural selection and that the mechanism of
selection involved differential predation by birds. These field studies provided dramatic and convincing
evidence of the 'force' of natural selection, in action .... Kettlewell has referred to this work on the peppered
moth as "Darwin's Missing Evidence". (Jones R.N. & Karp A., "Introducing Genetics," John Murray:
London, 1986, p.271-273. Emphasis in original)
27/09/02
"The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data
and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science.
Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum
should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may
generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society." ("Santorum
Amendment," (SA 799). SenateConference Report on H.R. 1, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 - (House of
Representatives - December 12, 2001). Uniited States Senate, Congressional Record.
http://santorum.senate.gov/conferencereport.html)
28/09/02
"God is free to create through natural or supernatural means, and by rapid processes or over long periods of
time; no single type of process can, in an a priori fashion, be identified as uniquely suited to the divine
purpose. ... Rather than a two-fold distinction between `natural' and `supernatural' means, it is more biblically
accurate to recognize a three-fold distinction among God's works of ordinary providence, special
providence, and miracle. In ordinary providence, God works immanently through the regular laws of nature
(e.g., causing the grass to grow through the processes of photosynthesis [Ps. 104:14]; creating animals
through the normal processes of gestation [Ps. 104:24, 30]); in extraordinary providence, God redirects the
forces and laws of nature (e.g., causing a wind to blow quail from the sea to feed the Israelites during the
wilderness wanderings [Num. 11:31]); in miracles God transcends the laws of nature for a redemptive
purpose (e.g., the floating axhead, [I Kings 6:6]; the feeding of the 5000; and the bodily resurrection of
Jesus)." (Davis J.J.*, "Is `Progressive Creation' Still a Helpful Concept?: Reflections on Creation, Evolution,
and Bernard Ramm's Christian View of Science and Scripture A Generation Later," American Scientific
Affiliation, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Vol. 50, December 1998, p.250.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF12-98Davis.html)
28/09/02
"Darwin was led to his theory of the origin of species largely by consideration of analogies between the
activities of the breeder and the conditions under which animals and plants survive in the wild state, and
this analogy is embodied in the term 'natural selection'. ... Even the most successful analogies in the history
of science break down at some point. Analogies are a valuable guide as to what facts we may expect, but are
never final evidence as to what we shall discover. A guide whose reliability is certain to give out at some
point must obviously be accepted with caution. We can never feel certain of a conclusion which rests only
on analogy, and we must always look for more direct proof." (Thouless R.H., "Straight and Crooked
Thinking," [1930], Pan: London, Revised Edition, 1953, 15th Printing, 1973, pp.142-143)
29/09/02
"Charles Darwin was a decent man who hated slavery-and said so at the risk of controversy. He was a
devoted husband and father. He was also a keen observer of animal life-when he limited his perspective to
the lower animals. His defects lay in a strong and subjective antireligious bias which seems to have been
rooted in his childhood but became increasingly powerful as he grew older. This bias destroyed his
objectivity, his ability to make fair judgments based on facts. Prejudice injected an overwhelming negative
inclination against religion into his scientific work, causing him to make serious mistakes later discovered by
improved technology. Darwin was, in short, perhaps the single most important victim of the atheist
syndrome. The atheist syndrome colored his legitimate observations with a subconscious bias against God.
The syndrome ruined his health through an agonizing and otherwise unexplained collection of
psychosomatic illnesses that turned him into an invalid for the second half of his life. Ultimately, the atheist
syndrome destroyed not God, but Darwin." (Koster, J.P.*, Jr., "The Atheist Syndrome," Wolgemuth &
Hyatt: Brentwood TN, 1989, p.25)
29/09/02
"It is not merely that living with out God creates an enormous tension for morality, hope, and meaning;
living without God is also making an absolute commitment to a philosophy of life's essence and destiny
which, if wrong, affords absolutely no recourse should it be proven false. That is the degree of faith required
of one who espouses an antitheistic lifestyle. Bertrand Russell and others, in their own maverick ways,
bragged about what they would say to God should they happen to be surprised and meet Him after death.
But those grandstanding words impress us more than I believe they will God, and they sound better
before the final crossover than they will after. Can man live without God? Of course he can, in a physical
sense. Can he live without God in a reasonable way? The answer to that is No! because such a person is
compelled to deny a moral law, to abandon hope, to forfeit meaning, and to risk no recovery if he is wrong.
Life just offers too much evidence to the contrary. Outside of Christ there is no law, no hope, and no
meaning. You, and you alone, are the determiner and definer of these essentials of life; you, and you alone,
are the architect of your own moral law; you, and you alone, craft meaning for your own life; you, and you
alone, risk everything you have on the basis of hope you envisage. ... You have made life's greatest
decision, taken the greatest gamble, and answered the greatest question of our time-if you choose to live
without God." (Zacharias R.K.*, "Can Man Live Without God?," Word Publishing: Dallas TX, 1994, pp.60-
61. Emphasis in original)
30/09/02
"When Darwin first published his theory of evolution by natural selection in 1859, what most bothered
many professionals was neither the notion of species change nor the possible descent of man from apes.
The evidence pointing to evolution, including the evolution of man, had been accumulating for decades,
and the idea of evolution had been suggested and widely disseminated before. Though evolution, as such,
did encounter resistance, particularly from some religious groups, it was by no means the greatest of the
difficulties the Darwinians faced. That difficulty stemmed from an idea that was more nearly Darwin's own.
All the well-known preDarwinian evolutionary theories-those of Lamarck, Chambers, Spencer, and the
German Naturphilosophen-had taken evolution to be a goaldirected process. The `idea' of man and of the
contemporary flora and fauna was thought to have been present from the first creation of life, perhaps in the
mind of God. That idea or plan had provided the direction and the guiding force to the entire evolutionary
process. Each new stage of evolutionary, development was a more perfect realization of a plan that had been
present from the start. For many men the abolition of that teleological kind of evolution was the most
significant and least palatable of Darwin's suggestions." (Kuhn T.S., "The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions," [1962], University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Third edition, 1996, pp.171-172) [top]
October
1/10/02
"'Well, now, if you really understand an argument you will be able to indicate to me not only the points in
favour of the argument but also the most telling points against it.' 'I suppose so, sir.' 'Good. Please tell me,
then, some of the evidence against the theory of Evolution.' 'Against what, sir?' `The theory of Evolution.'
'But there isn't any sir.' - Master-pupil dialogue quoted by Professor G.A. Kerkut, of the University of
Southampton, in The Implications of Evolution" (Hitching F., "The Neck of the Giraffe: or Where Darwin
Went Wrong," Pan: London, 1982, p.9)
1/10/02
"Chomsky has opposed the orthodox view concerning the origin of language for many years. In 1972, for
instance, he argued against Karl Popper's paraphrase of Darwin's idea that `the evolution of language
passed through several stages, in particular a `lower stage' in which vocal gestures are used for expression
of emotional - states, for example, and a `higher stage' in which articulated sound is used for expression of
thought-in Popper's terms, for description and critical argument...but in fact he establishes no relation
between the lower and higher stages and does not suggest a mechanism whereby transition can take place
from one stage to the next.... There is no reason to suppose that the gaps are bridgeable. There is no more of
a basis for assuming an evolutionary development of `higher' from `lower' stages, in this case, than there is
from breathing to walking; the stages have no significant analogy." (Chomsky N.A., "Language and Mind,"
Harcourt: New York, 1972, p.68, in Oller J.W. & Omdahl J.L., "Origin of the Human Language Capacity: In
Whose Image?," in Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent
Designer", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1994, p.256)
1/10/02
"As Dawkins sees it ... any appeal, whether direct or indirect to divine activity logically short-circuits the
entire process. The argument goes as follows. The object is to explain the existence of organized
complexity-life, the eye, echolocation and so forth. But `a deity capable of engineering all the organized
complexity of the world...must already have been vastly complex in the first place.' (Dawkins R., `The Blind
Watchmaker,' Norton: New York, 1987, p.316). Thus to appeal in any way to any deity presuppose the very
thing-complexity-whose explanation is at issue. This, Dawkins thinks, gets us nowhere at all. As Dawkins
sees it, `explanations' of complexity that appeal to a deity already possessing complexity will be completely
vacuous unless we can take the next step and provide an explanation for the deity's complexity. ... Dawkins
seems to be presupposing that if explanations are not ultimate they are vacuous. .... He seems to be
assuming that no origin has been explained unless the ultimate origin of anything appealed to in the
explanation has also been explained. In addition to being mistaken, that principle is surely as dangerous for
the naturalist as for the theist. To take the parallel case, one could claim that to explain the origin of species
by invoking natural processes is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of natural
processes. And, of course, attempts to explain natural processes by invoking the big bang or anything else-
will generate an exactly similar problem with anything appealed to in that explanation. Any
explanation has to begin somewhere, and the principle that no explanation is legitimate unless anything
referred to in the explanation is itself explained immediately generates a regress that would effectively
destroy any possibility of any explanation for anything." (Ratzsch D.L.*, "The Battle of Beginnings: Why
Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL, 1996,
pp.191-192. Emphasis in original)
2/10/02
"We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and
knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose ..." (Dawkins R.,
"The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.21)
2/10/02
"What could cause rectangular ridges on Mars? As data flows in from the two spacecraft currently orbiting
Mars, surface structures are seen that are not immediately understood. These structures pose puzzles that
planetary geologists are eager to solve, as they might provide clues to past processes that have shaped
Mars over billions of years. On the right of the above image is an unusual array of ridges first spotted in
Mariner 9 data in 1972. A ridge wall runs for about 5 kilometers. Two competing progenitor theories include
hardened sand dunes and once-molten rock that seeped through surface cracks and cooled. Dubbed "Inca
City" for their resemblance to stone walls of an ancient Earth civilization, the new Mars Global Surveyor
images now show them to be part of a larger circular pattern, indicating an origin possibly related to the
impact crater. (Non-natural origin hypotheses are not invoked by conservative scientists unless clear
indications exist that natural processes could not work.)" (Nemiroff R. & Bonnell J., eds., "Rectangular
Ridges on Mars," Astronomy Picture of the Day, October 1, 2002.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap021001.html)
2/10/02
"When we infer any particular cause from an effect, we must proportion the one to the other, and can never
be allowed to ascribe to the cause any qualities, but what are exactly sufficient to produce the effect. A
body of ten ounces raised in any scale may serve as a proof, that the counterbalancing weight exceeds ten
ounces; but can never afford a reason that it exceeds a hundred. If the cause, assigned for any effect, be not
sufficient to produce it, we must either reject that cause, or add to it such qualities as will give it a just
proportion to the effect. But if we ascribe to it farther qualities, or affirm it capable of producing other
effects, we can only indulge the licence of conjecture, and arbitrarily suppose the existence of qualities and
energies, without reason or authority. The same rule holds, whether the cause assigned be brute
unconscious matter, or a rational intelligent being. If the cause be known only by the effect, we never ought
to ascribe to it any qualities, beyond what are precisely requisite to produce the effect: Nor can we, by any
rules of just reasoning, return back from the cause, and infer other effects from it, beyond those by which
alone it is known to us." (Hume D., "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding," [1777], Hackett
Publishing Co: Indianapolis IN, 1977, Third Printing, 1980, pp.93-94)
3/10/02
"For many men the abolition of that teleological kind of evolution was the most significant and least
palatable of Darwin's suggestions. The Origin of Species recognized no goal set either by God or nature.
Instead, natural selection, operating in the given environment and with the actual organisms presently at
hand, was responsible for the gradual but steady emergence of more elaborate, further articulated, and
vastly more specialized organisms. Even such marvelously adapted organs as the eye and hand of man-
organs whose design had previously provided powerful arguments for the existence of a supreme artificer
and an advance plan-were products of a process that moved steadily from primitive beginnings but
toward no goal. The belief that natural selection, resulting from mere competition between organisms
for survival, could have produced man together with the higher animals and plants was the most difficult
and disturbing aspect of Darwin's theory. What could `evolution,' `development,' and 'progress' mean in the
absence of a specified goal? To many people, such terms suddenly seemed self-contradictory." (Kuhn T.S.,
"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," [1962], University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Third edition,
1996, p.172. Emphasis in original)
3/10/02
"A more obvious instance of polymorphism occurs in the peppered moth, Biston betularia, found in the
British Isles. In the industrial regions of England there has been an increase in the frequency of a black, or
melanic, mutant form of this moth. The black mutant was very rare when it was first observed in 1849, but by
the end of the nineteenth century it had become the most common form in the heavily industrialized area
around Manchester and Liverpool. The ordinary form is silvery-white, mottled with black, and had formerly
been well camouflaged from its bird predators on the lichen-encrusted tree trunks where it rested during the
day. With industrial pollution of the air the lichen was killed and the tree trunks blackened by soot, with the
result that the melanic form was better camouflaged than the pale form. Heavier predation of the pale form
than of the melanic resulted in a gradual increase in the mutant and a decrease in the original type. .... In
Britain, with the introduction of anti-pollution laws, the melanic forms have become rather less common than
they were, and the light forms have begun to make a comeback in some areas. The rise of the melanic form of
the peppered moth is one of the best examples we have of evolution occurring by variation combined with
natural selection in a changed environment. Ironically this instance of natural selection in action -just the
evidence which Darwin needed - was going on while The Origin of Species went through its several
editions, but no one was aware of it at the time." (Leakey R.E., "The Illustrated Origin of Species By Charles
Darwin," Faber & Faber: London, 1979, pp.30,32)
3/10/02
"The assumption that human language evolved from more primitive systems is developed in an interesting
way by Karl Popper in his recently published Arthur Compton Lecture, `Clouds and Clocks.' He tries to
show how problems of freedom of will and Cartesian dualism can be solved by the analysis of this
`evolution.' I am not concerned now with the philosophical conclusions that he draws from this analysis, but
with the basic assumption that there is an evolutionary development of language from simpler systems of
the sort that one discovers in other organisms. Popper argues that the evolution of language passed
through several stages, in particular a `lower stage' in which vocal gestures are used for expression of
emotional state, for example, and a `higher stage' in which articulated sound is used for expression of
thought-in Popper's terms, for description and critical argument. His discussion of stages of evolution of
language suggests a kind of continuity, but in fact he establishes no relation between the lower and higher
stages and does not suggest a mechanism whereby transition can take place from one stage to the next. In
short, he gives no argument to show that the stages belong to a single evolutionary process. In fact, it is
difficult to see what links these stages at all (except for the metaphorical use of the term `language"). There
is no reason to suppose that the `gaps' are bridgeable. There is no more of a basis for assuming an
evolutionary development of `higher' from `lower' stages, in this case, than there is for assuming an
evolutionary development from breathing to walking; the stages have no significant analogy, it appears, and
seem to involve entirely different processes and principles." (Chomsky N., "Language and Mind," [1968],
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: New York, 1972, Enlarged Edition, pp.67-68)
3/10/02
"It is quite natural to expect that a concern for language will remain central to the study of human nature, as
it has been in the past. Anyone concerned with the study of human nature and human capacities must
somehow come to grips with the fact that all normal humans acquire language, whereas acquisition of even
its barest rudiments is quite beyond the capacities of an otherwise intelligent ape-a fact that was
emphasized, quite correctly, in Cartesian philosophy. It is widely thought that the extensive modern studies
of animal communication challenge this classical view; and it is almost universally taken for granted that
there exists a problem of explaining the "evolution" of human language from systems of animal
communication. However, a careful look at recent studies of animal communication seems to me to provide
little support for these assumptions. Rather, these studies simply bring out even more clearly the extent to
which human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal
world." (Chomsky N., "Language and Mind," [1968], Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: New York, 1972, Enlarged
Edition, pp.66-67)
3/10/02
"In the midst of social triumph, however, a note of discord appeared under the surface. For the year 1868
marked the end of Gray's long effort to prevent the complete demise of the doctrine of design in its new
Darwinian setting. In 1860 a strong possibility had existed that Gray's adaptation of design to Darwinism, or
at least the neutrality of Darwinism in its bearing on ultimate questions, might be the major answer put forth
to counteract the onslaughts of Bishop Wilberforce. Darwin had, however, rejected Gray's argument
privately. In 1868, Darwin took the final step not only of rejecting the design argument in a very
conspicuous place but specifically of linking the rejection to Gray. On the last page of Variation of Plants
and Animals under Domestication, he concluded, `However much we may wish it, we can hardly follow
Professor Asa Gray in his belief' in lines of beneficent variation." (Darwin, C.R., "Animals and Plants under
Domestication," New York, 1868, Vol. II, p.516, in Dupree A.H., "Asa Gray: American Botanist, Friend of
Darwin," [1959], The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore MD, Reprinted, 1988, p.339)
5/10/02
"If we eschew the currently fashionable relativism or scepticism about science then we must hold that
science is about what is the case. And if we think the same of religion then we have no logical guarantee
that propositions from these two areas cannot be brought into relation. In a backhanded sort of a way we
can praise the creationists for having made this clear. Indeed, when it comes to the matter of education they
have sometimes been more clear-headed than their opponents. Thus, in 1972 the National Academy of
Sciences in America passed a resolution stating that 'Religion and science are ... separate and mutually
exclusive realms of human thought' (Wade 1972:728) as if these matters are to be decided by vote. It is
arguable that the separatist view of science and religion expressed in the above responses reflects, just as
much as do the creationist's manoeuvres, the sharp distinction between church and state made by the
American constitution. But admirable as that dogma is in lessening dissension among potentially warring
factions, its value is purely pragmatic and, as with the sentiments expressed above, provides no argument
for the logical or metaphysical doctrine of the complete separateness of science and religion. ... Compare
'Life began a few thousand years ago' with 'Life began over three thousand million years ago'. If the first
proposition is true the second is false and vice versa. But the first proposition is religious and the second is
scientific so here we do have a clash between science and religion." (Olding A., "Modern Biology and
Natural Theology," Routledge: London, 1991, p.32)
5/10/02
"The critical question is why, on Earth, the volume of water was sufficiently large to buffer global
temperatures, but small enough so that shallow seas could be formed by the uplifting of continents. If
Earth's ocean volume had been greater, even the formation of continents would not have produced shallow
seas. To show that there can be great relative volumes of oceans planet, we need only look at Jupiter's moon
Europa, where the planetcovering ocean (now frozen) is 100 kilometers thick. No Mt. Everest rising from the
sea floor would ever poke through an ocean even half that deep. There would be none of the shallows
necessary for limestone formation and no continental weathering. What about the situation where the
oceans are lower in volume than they were on Earth? If the continents covered two-thirds of Earth's
surface (rather than their present day one-third), would we have animal life? The great mass extinction of the
late Permian almost ended animal life because of high temperatures. With greater continental area, we might
expect temperature swings to have been even greater, and the prospects for continued existence of at land
animals far lower, because large land areas create very high and very low seasonal temperatures. Large land
areas also reduce CO2 drawdown, because carbonate formation takes place almost exclusively in oceans. On
land dominated worlds, opportunities for life to thrive would thus be reduced. It appears that Earth got it
just right." (Ward P.D. & Brownlee D., "Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe,"
Copernicus: New York NY, 2000, pp.264-265. Emphasis in original)
6/10/02
"Myers was the guy who put together Celera's genome map. Celera's sequencing machines had broken the 3
billion chemical letters in a strand of DNA into millions of fragments, each a few hundred letters each. His
software put the fragments back in order just days before Celera and the leaders of the Human Genome
Project shared a stage with former President Clinton, last June, to say that they knew the sequence of the
genome from end to end. Talk about deadline pressure! Now, with the pressure off, this former University of
Arizona professor waxed philosophical on the code his team had cracked. `What really astounds me is the
architecture of life,' he said. `The system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed.' My ears perked up.
Designed? Doesn't that imply a designer, an intelligence, something more than the fortuitous bumping
together of chemicals in the primordial slime? Myers thought before he replied. `There's a huge intelligence
there. I don't see that as being unscientific. Others may, but not me.'" (Abate T., "Human Genome Map Has
Scientists Talking About the Divine: Surprisingly low number of genes raises big questions," San Francisco
Chronicle, February 19, 2001. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/02/19/BU141026.DTL)
9/10/02
"Having offended both the fundamentalists and the postmodernists, I am going to annoy my scientific
colleagues by admitting that the antievolutionists of left and right have a point nestled deep in their rhetoric.
Science has nothing to tell us about moral values or the purpose of existence or the realm of the
supernatural. That doesn't mean there is nothing to be said about these things. It just means that scientists
don't have any expert opinions. Science looks exclusively at the finite facts of nature, and unfortunately,
logical reasoning can't carry you from facts to values, or from the finite to the infinite. As the philosopher
David Hume pointed out 250 years ago, you can't infer an infinite cause from a finite effect. But science's
necessary silence on these questions doesn't prove that there isn't any infinite cause or that right and
wrong are arbitrary conventions, or that there is no plan or purpose behind the world." (Cartmill M.,
"Oppressed by Evolution," Discover, Vol. 19, No. 3, March 1998.
http://www.godlesshouston.com/library/darwin.htm)
9/10/02
"And I'm afraid that a lot of scientists go around saying that science proves these things. Many scientists
are atheists or agnostics who want to believe that the natural world they study is all there is, and being only
human, they try to persuade themselves that science gives them grounds for that belief. It's an honorable
belief, but it isn't a research finding. Evolutionists seem to be especially prone to this mistake. The claim that
evolution is purposeless and undirected has become almost an article of faith among evolutionary
biologists. For example, the official `Statement on Teaching Evolution' from the National Association of
Biology Teachers describes evolution as `an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process.'
That pretty much rules God out of the picture." (Cartmill M., "Oppressed by Evolution," Discover, Vol. 19,
No. 3, March 1998. http://www.godlesshouston.com/library/darwin.htm)
9/10/02
"Even so, the long dispute over whether people lived in the Americas in pre-Clovis times is littered with
sites that testify to nature's uncanny ability to flake and fracture stone (bone too, for that matter) in ways
that mimic primitive human artefacts. These mimics are known as geofacts, and they don't just trap the
unwary: in the 1960s, Louis Leakey was snared at the now infamous Calico site in California, a hillside of
water-laid boulders and chert blocks thought to contain artefacts dating back to between 50 000 and 80 000
years ago. It didn't. ... In deciding whether humans rather than nature could have made them, Parenti used
several criteria including the removal of more than three flakes, edge angles of less than 90 , a "logic" to the
flake removal pattern and where they had been found - the theory being any specimen found in the rear of
the shelter had to have been carried there by people. We lost faith in the final criterion when we saw the
rearward slope of the natural strata: rocks in the back of the shelter would have tumbled there naturally. All
the same, we were readily convinced that the specimens carefully laid out on tables at the conference could
be stone tools made by humans. So much so we were scolded by members of the French contingent for
paying too little attention to the specimens. And yet, we also saw that many of these pieces bore a
disturbing resemblance to the naturally flaked quartzite cobbles that today litter the surface beneath the
chutes at the site. There's the rub: it isn't enough to prove a specimen could be an artefact; one must also
prove that it could not be a geofact. But this is easier said than done particularly with specimens as crude as
these, and where nature has had such splendid opportunities for mischief." (Meltzer D., "Stones of
contention," New Scientist, Vol. 146, 24 June 1995, pp.31-35.
http://archive.newscientist.com/archive.jsp?id=19834000)
10/10/02
"Not so for William Provine. His answer is clear: there is nothing out there, we die in the most definitive
sense of the word, and there is no point in even asking the question of the ultimate meaning of life. Where
does he get this conclusion? From the Darwinian theory of evolution by descent with modification, or so he
maintains. According to Provine, not only there is no evidence for anything beyond matter, but the whole
essence of evolutionary change should tell us that it is irrational to even look for it. After all, there is an
uninterrupted, historical continuity between humans and the rest of the living world. ... Provine goes even
further, by accusing scientists who cling to a dualistic view either of intellectual dishonesty or of intellectual
schizophrenia. .... Where does the dishonesty come into play? The answer, according to Provine, lies at
least in part in the federal funding of biological research. His thesis is that one of the fundamental reasons
that compel most biologists to look the other way and not engage in disputes with religious overtones is
simply the fact that the evolution = atheism equation is potentially very dangerous for their pockets (as well
as their peace of mind). After all, most evolutionary biology research is funded through federal agencies
such as the National Science Foundation (NSF). This is taxpayers' money. What would happen if the
taxpayers found out that their money is going to foster atheistic beliefs? ... Regardless of repeated
statements to the contrary, this is both a scientific and a political war, and the stakes are as high as the
future of education in the most powerful country in the world, make no mistake about it. On the other hand,
Provine's views are an example of philosophical, not methodological, materialism. Scott is correct when she
says that you can infer, but not demonstrate, that there is no God, no afterlife, and no cosmic meaning to our
existence. Therefore, the real question seems to me to be: what is the limit of science? Does science truly
confine itself to methodological materialism, and it is therefore silent on everything else? Or, can we use
scientific results to make inferences that go beyond a pragmatic approach and allow us to probe into
ultimate questions? You can't have it both ways: methodological naturalism implies philosophical
naturalism" (Pigliucci M., "Methodological vs. philosophical naturalism, or why we should be skeptical of
religion," Free Inquiry (in press), 2002. http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/Essays/methodological_naturalism.htm)
11/10/02
"As we have seen, Darwin's first work on evolution, going usually under the name of On the Origin of
Species or The Origin, has repeatedly been compared to Newton's Principia Mathematica. In the
present context it is unavoidable to subject this work to a very careful scrutiny in order to establish whether
this claim can be substantiated. Several objections may be raised against this project. The most obvious is
perhaps that Darwin is indeed the 'Newton of Biology' and hence his work is raised beyond the evaluation
of self-appointed critics. Others may say: we know that Darwin was a muddled thinker, and that his main
work is crammed with misunderstandings, contradictions, wild speculations and transparent ad hoc
hypotheses, but his basic idea is correct, and therein lies his greatness. To this assertion two questions may
be asked. First: would Newton be held in the same esteem if, although fundamentally correct, Principia
Mathematica was known to be crammed with misunderstandings, contradictions, etc.? Second: is Darwin's
basic idea correct, has his particular notion on the mechanism of evolution survived to the present day? If
not, the above objection is invalid." (Lovtrup S., "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth," Croom Helm:
London, 1987, pp.102-103)
11/10/02
"Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either
falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a
great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has
happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar 'Darwinian'
vocabulary - 'adaptation', 'selection pressure', 'natural selection', etc. - thereby believing that they contribute
to the explanation of natural events. They do not, and the sooner this is discovered, the sooner we shall be
able to make real progress in our understanding of evolution. I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will
be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the
question: How did this ever happen?" (Lovtrup S., "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth," Croom Helm:
London, 1987, p.422)
11/10/02
"The noted atheistic philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked, `If you meet God after you die, what will
you say to Him to justify your unbelief?' `I will tell Him that He did not give me enough evidence,' Russell
snapped. ... Interestingly enough, to those like Bertrand Russell who contend that there is a paucity of
evidence, the Bible makes a staggering counterpoint. The Scriptures categorically state that the problem
with such people is not the absence of evidence; it is, rather, the suppression of it. The message of
Jesus Christ shifts the charge of insufficiency from the volume of evidence to the intent of one's will. Was
Jesus implying that belief is nothing more than a blind commitment of the will? I think not. But He did say, in
effect, that if you test His claims by the same measure that you legitimately substantiate other facts, you will
find Him and His teaching thoroughly trustworthy. The evidence is already there. The denial of Christ has
less to do with facts and more to do with the bent of what a person is prejudiced to conclude. After years of
wrestling with such issues in academia, I have seen this proven time and again. Notice, for example, the
words of Thomas Nagel, professor of philosophy at New York University. This is how he explains his deep-
seated antipathy toward religion: `In speaking of the fear of religion, I don't mean to refer to the entirely
reasonable hostility toward certain established religions...in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines,
social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with
superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper-
namely the fear of religion itself... I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the
most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in
God and naturally, hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to he like
that.' That is unabashed, committed unbelief ... While Bertrand Russell's skepticism may be represented as
the honest search of reason, we had better be sure that it is not actually the wanton unbelief of Thomas
Nagel that lurks beneath that intellectual quest. That kind of skepticism is the distortion of reason,
masquerading as candor. To such a disposition, nothing would serve as sufficient evidence." (Zacharias,
R.K.*, "Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message," Word Publishing:
Nashville TN, 2000, pp.47,50. Emphasis in original)
12/10/02
"But that is not all that is lost for the atheist. One other aspect must be stated: if the atheist is wrong, there
is no recovery of that which he has lost. This was precisely Pascal's wager: `Should a man be in error in
supposing the Christian religion to be true, he could not be a loser by mistake. But how irreparable is his
loss, and how inescapable is his danger should he err in supposing it to be false.' ... Pascal ... had everything
the Christian faith promised to him, including the climactic hope beyond the grave. Should, however, death
be the end, he did not sense any loss, for contentment in life was still his. .... The atheist, on the other hand,
having rejected God ... If, after death, he should find out that there is a God, his loss has been irreparable; for
not only did contentment and peace elude him in this life, but death has opened the door to an ultimate and
eternal lostness. All judgments bring with them a margin of error. But no judgment ought to carry with it the
potential for so irretrievable a loss that every possible gain is unworthy of merit. The atheist makes precisely
such a hazardous judgment. It is an all-or-nothing gamble of himself, thrust into the slot machine of life. It is
a faith beyond the scope of reason. The atheist risks everything for the present and the future, on the basis
of a belief that he is uncaused by any intelligent being. Man just happens to be here. He is willing to live
and die in that belief-a very high price to pay for conjecture." (Zacharias, R.K.*, "A Shattered Visage: The
Real Face of Atheism," [1990], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1994, Third Printing, pp.165-166)
13/10/02
"I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are
locked on the inside. .... They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are
therefore self-enslaved: just as the blessed, forever submitting to obedience, become through all eternity
more and more free. In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell, is itself a
question: `what are you asking God to do?' To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh
start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To
forgive them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what He does."
(Lewis C.S.*, "The Problem of Pain," [1940], Fount: London, 1977, reprint, pp.101-102. Emphasis in original)
13/10/02
"Of course there are some ... who like to hide behind a softer version of atheism ... because they know the
philosophical decimation they would experience in trying to defend the absolute negative - There is no God.
Their soft position that there is not sufficient evidence for theism commits ... logical blunders. ... it is purely
an admission that atheism cannot be defended, even though they have tried, hence the softer version of
agnosticism. Let us look at the words themselves. The word atheism comes from the Greek, which has two
words conjoined. The alpha is the negative, and theos means "God." The atheistic position, whether you
like it or not, posits the negation of God. Having quickly recognized the inherent contradiction of affirming
God's non-existence, which absolutely would at the same time presuppose infinite knowledge on the part of
the one doing the denying, a philosophically convenient switch was made to agnosticism. But agnostic has
an even more embarrassing connotation. The alpha means the negative, and ginosko is from the Greek 'to
know." An agnostic is one who doesn't know. It sounds quite congenial and sophisticated at the same time,
but the Latin uncomplimentary equivalent is "ignoramus." That is why the agnostic does not feel lauded in
this category either but dresses up the concept, manufacturing a certain aura not inherent in the word while
smuggling in atheism for all functional purposes. So I say to you, the charge is not against the apologists;
that is to dislocate the problem. The hat pin is in the heart of the atheistic position, which could not live with
itself. Let me add that an honest agnostic should be open to the evidence." (Zacharias, R.K.*, "Can Man
Live Without God," Word Publishing: Dallas TX, 1994, p.187)
13/10/02
"... Blaise Pascal, the French mathematician and philosopher (1623-62) ... made a distinction between 'the
heart' which he describes as 'the intuitive spirit' and 'the reason' or 'mind' which he describes as 'the
geometric spirit': `The heart has its reasons which are unknown to reason ... It is the heart which is aware of
God and not reason. This is what faith is: God perceived intuitively by the heart, not by reason. What he did
was to erect a dualism of his own in which two realms existed: one of the heart and one of the mind. In
religion, unlike Descartes, he applied the logic of the heart. In mathematics and physics, however, Pascal
used the same geometry as did Descartes.' ... He put forward the idea of 'The Wager': Christianity cannot be
proved conclusively by the reason, but neither can it be disproved. If it turns out that Christianity is true, we
have everything to gain; but if it turns out to be false, we have nothing to lose. We should accept the
inevitable risk of faith, and gamble on the truth of Christianity." (Chapman C., "Christianity on Trial," Lion:
Tring, Hertfordshire UK, 1981, pp.162-163)
14/10/02
"In my previous books, Epigenetics and The Phylogeny of Vertebrata, I tried to show that the currently
accepted theory of evolution called 'neoDarwinism' or 'the modern synthesis' - is false. Taking an interest in
the history of evolutionary thought in the course of subsequent work, I made a very remarkable and
unsuspected discovery: nobody, not even Darwin and his closest friends, ever believed in Darwin's theory
of natural selection: Darwinism was refuted from the moment it was conceived. Considering that it is
difficult to open a biological treatise without finding a tribute to Darwin or natural selection we are indeed
facing a very peculiar situation in the history of biology, of science in fact, a situation which demands an
explanation." (Lovtrup S., "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth," Croom Helm: London, 1987, p.ix.
Emphasis in original)
14/10/02
"What if you could travel in time and visit with Darwin? What would you ask him? First, I'd be so overawed
that I wouldn't know quite what to say. But I think maybe if I were really forced to ask him one question it
would be, "Why did you wait so long after you had this brilliantly simple yet powerful idea? Didn't it seem
to you so fantastically simple yet so fantastically powerful that if you didn't write it down quickly,
somebody else would?" I'm genuinely baffled about that because it's as though Darwin thought he had all
the time in the world, and pretty nearly he did. I mean Wallace did get there, but still Darwin had about 20
years before that. What I find remarkable is that Aristotle didn't get it and Plato didn't get it, nor did
Pythagoras, Archimedes, Newton, even though you don't need any technical know-how to get the idea.
Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of
life, the complexity of life, the apparent design of life. It all flows from this one remarkably simple idea."
(Dawkins R., "Mechanisms of Evolution," in Campbell N.A., Reece J.B. & Mitchell L.G., "Biology," [1987],
Benjamin/Cummings: Menlo Park CA, Fifth Edition, 1999, p.413)
14/10/02
"We have dealt with all the alleged alternatives to the theory of natural selection except the oldest one. This
is the theory that life was created, or its evolution master-minded, by a conscious designer. ... At first sight
there is an important distinction to be made between what might be called 'instantaneous creation' and
'guided evolution'. Modern theologians of any sophistication have given up believing in instantaneous
creation. ... But many theologians ... smuggle God in by the back door: they allow him some sort of
supervisory role over the course that evolution has taken, either influencing key moments in evolutionary
history (especially, of course, human evolutionary history), or even meddling more comprehensively in the
day-to-day events that add up to evolutionary change. We cannot disprove beliefs like these ... " (Dawkins
R., "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.316)
14/10/02
"It is evident that a creationist interpretation was, to those who believed in a personal god, as legitimate (in
fact even more so) as a so-called scientific explanation. The battle about evolution (and particularly natural
selection) was not a purely scientific controversy; rather it was a struggle between two ideologies, natural
theology and objective science. ... However, since creationism, at least in England, was a dominant
"scientific" school in the 1850s, Darwin had to adopt the bold strategy of showing for one natural
phenomenon after another that it could be explained quite reasonably as the product of evolution but that it
did not fit at all what one would expect from the action of a wise, benevolent, and all powerful creator ... Here
and in about thirty other places in the Origin Darwin argues that a given phenomenon is consistent with
evolution or with common descent but makes no sense when ascribed to `a special act of creation'" (Mayr
E., "The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance," Belknap Press: Cambridge
MA, 1982, p.504)
14/10/02
"The source of Darwin's strong belief in gradualism is not entirely clear. In part it was evidently the result of
observation, such as the gradual differences among Galapagos mockingbirds and finches or the historically
documented continuity among the most aberrant races of dogs, pigeons, and other domestic animals. But as
Gruber (1974) points out, there may have been a metaphysical component in Darwin's belief. As a result of
studying the writings of the theologian Sumner (1824:20), Darwin had come to the conclusion that all natural
things evolve gradually from their precursors, while discontinuities, such as sudden saltations, are
indicative of a supernatural origin, that is, indicative of intervention by the creator. All of his life Darwin
took great pains to reconstruct a gradual evolution of phenomena that at first sight seemed clearly the result
of sudden origins." (Mayr E., "The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance,"
Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1982, p.509)
14/10/02
"By explaining `design' in nature as the result of a purely nonteleological, materialistic process, the theory of
natural selection eliminated the need for any global teleology. Darwin's theory provided a causal explanation
of the seemingly perfect order in living nature, that is, of the adaptation of organisms to each other and to
their environment. Clearly the theory of natural selection was the most revolutionary concept advanced by
Darwin. By providing a purely materialistic explanation for all phenomena of living nature, it was said it
"dethroned God." Rightly the theory of natural selection can be designated a second Darwinian revolution."
(Mayr E., "The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance," Belknap Press:
Cambridge MA, 1982, pp.509-510)
15/10/02
"One popular book on evolution, Richard Dawkins's Blind Watchmaker, is subtitled Why the Evidence of
Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. In his book Wonderful Life, Stephen Jay Gould argues that
the evolution of human beings was fantastically improbable and that a host of unlikely events had to fall out
in just the right way for intelligent life to emerge on this planet. One might well take this as a sign of God's
hand at work in the evolutionary process. Gould, however, bends his argument to the opposite conclusion
that the universe is indifferent to our existence and that humans would never evolve a second time if we
rewound time's videotape and started over. But to reach this conclusion, you have to assume the very thing
that you are trying to prove: namely, that history isn't directed by God. If there is a God, whatever he wills
happens by necessity. Because we can't really replay the same stretch of time to see if it always comes out
the same way, science has no tests for the presence of God's will in history. Gould's conclusion is a
profession of his religious beliefs, not a finding of science." (Cartmill M., "Oppressed by Evolution,"
Discover, Vol. 19, No. 3, March 1998. http://www.godlesshouston.com/library/darwin.htm)
15/10/02
"The broad outlines of the story of human evolution are known beyond a reasonable doubt. However,
science hasn't yet found satisfying, law-based natural explanations for most of the details of that story. All
that we scientists can do is admit to our ignorance and keep looking. Our ignorance doesn't prove anything
one way or the other about divine plans or purposes behind the flow of history. Anybody who says it does
is pushing a religious doctrine. Both the religious creationists of the right and the secular creationists of the
left object and say that a lot of evolutionists are doing just that in the name of science and to this extent
they are unfortunately right. Fortunately, evolutionary biologists are starting to realize this. Last October,
after considering several such objections, the National Association of Biology Teachers deleted the words
unsupervised and impersonal from its description of the evolutionary process. To me, this seems like a step
in the right direction. If biologists don't want to see the theory of evolution evicted from public schools
because of its religious content, they need to accept the limitations of science and stop trying to draw vast,
cosmic conclusions from the plain facts of evolution. Humility isn't just a cardinal virtue in Christian
doctrine; it's also a virtue in the practice of science." (Cartmill M., "Oppressed by Evolution," Discover, Vol.
19, No. 3, March 1998. http://www.godlesshouston.com/library/darwin.htm)
17/10/02
"IN ONE of his essays,' Sir Julian Huxley made a list of the characteristics which are unique to the species
man: language and conceptual thought; the transmission of knowledge by written records; tools and
machinery; biological dominance over all other species; individual variability; the use of the forelimb for
manipulating purposes only; all-year-round fertility; art, humour, science, religion, and so on. But the most
striking feature of man from the evolutionist's point of view is not included in the list ... It could be called 'the
paradox of the unsolicited gift' ... the unsolicited gift is of course the human brain. .... Evolution, whatever
the driving force behind it, caters for the species' immediate adaptive needs; and the emergence of novelties
in anatomical structure and function is by and large guided by these needs. It is entirely unprecedented that
evolution should provide a species with an organ which it does not know how to use; a luxury organ ... far
exceeding its owner's immediate, primitive needs; an organ which will take the species millennia to learn to
put to proper use-if it ever does. All the evidence indicates that the earliest representative of homo sapiens-
Cro-Magnon man, who emerges on the scene fifty to a hundred thousand years ago-was already endowed
with a brain which in size and shape was the same as ours. But he made hardly any use of it; he remained a
cave-dweller, and never grew out of the Stone Age. From the point of view of his immediate needs, the
explosive growth of the neocortex overshot the mark by a time factor of astronomic magnitude. For several
tens of thousands of years, our ancestors went on manufacturing bows and arrows and spears, while the
organ which tomorrow will take us to the moon was already there, ready for use inside their skulls."
(Koestler A., "The Ghost in the Machine," [1967], Arkana: London, Reprinted, 1989, pp.297-298)
17/10/02
"That reminded me that the author of Genesis had said very specifically and in detail in Genesis 5 that the
early patriarchs lived phenomenally long lives by our standards, and even fathered sons after having lived
for centuries. Yet Moses knew very well that the lifespan in his own time was much shorter. ... Ancient
peoples did not have to wait for modern science to determine the normal human lifespan; they knew it very
well from observation, and yet they were confident that some people had once lived much longer.
Interpreting the lifespans in Genesis 5 is not a problem for modernists, who readily assume that they know
more about ancient times than the ancients did, and who can always apply modernist tools of biblical
criticism-essentially, evolutionary naturalism applied to the Bible-to explain away any mysteries. .... The
world has been taught to assume that the long lifespans specified in Genesis 5 are absurd, and if we agree
with the world, we will hardly save the credibility of the author of Genesis by reinterpreting a few words. But
suppose we are willing to brave the world's ridicule to insist that we be allowed to take seriously the
possibility that the named early patriarchs really did live as long as Genesis 5 says they did. ... I would have
hesitated to propose such daring questions for investigation until very recently, but I am encouraged to do
so now by what I have learned about the blindness of modernist prejudices through my study of Darwinism
and of the consistent unwillingness of Darwinists to consider evidence or reasoning that supports
conclusions that they do not welcome. ... Viewed scientifically and without prejudice, the claims of
Darwinism are more fantastic than anything stated in Genesis 5." (Johnson P.E., "The Right Questions:
Truth, Meaning & Public Debate, InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2002, pp.144-146)
17/10/02
"Much of the behavior of insects, however, is not a simple matter of orientation but involves a complex
series of responses. A pair of tumble bugs, or dung beetles, chew off a bit of dung, roll it into a ball, and roll
the ball laboriously to where they intend to bury it, after laying their eggs in it. ... A female potter wasp
Eumenes scoops up clay into pellets, carries them one by one to her building site, and fashions them into
dainty little narrow-necked clay pots, into each of which she lays an egg. Then she hunts and paralyzes a
number of caterpillars, pokes them into the opening of a pot, and closes up the opening with clay. Each egg,
in its own protective pot, hatches to find a well-stocked larder of food awaiting it. Some insects can
memorize and perform in sequence tasks involving multiple signals in various sensory areas. Worker
honeybees have been trained to walk through mazes that involved five turns in sequence, using such clues
as the color of a marker, the distance between two spots, or the angle of a turn. The same is true of ants.
Workers of one species of Formica learned a six-point maze at a rate only two or three times slower than that
of laboratory rats. The foraging trips of ants and bees often wind and loop about in a circuitous route, but
once the forager has found food, the return trip is relatively direct. One investigator suggested that the
continuous series of calculations necessary to figure the angles, directions, distance, and speed of the trip
and to convert it into a direct return could involve a stopwatch, a compass, and integral vector calculus.
How the insect does it is unknown." (Hickman C.P., Jr., Roberts L.S. & Larson A., "Animal Diversity,"
[1995], McGraw-Hill: Boston MA, Second Edition, 2000, p.224)
17/10/02
"However, the most interesting discoveries were made when I began to delve into the history of
evolutionary thought. ... I discovered that the history of evolutionary thought, as it is told today, contains a
large number of mistakes and misrepresentations - to express it fairly mildly - all of them aimed at adulating
Darwin and debunking his opponents. Today it is still commonly claimed that Darwin's natural selection is
the evolutionary mechanism par excellence. However, this assertion is not based on any factual evidence,
for nobody has ever demonstrated that natural selection can bring about anything but events that are trivial
from an evolutionary perspective." (Lovtrup S., "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth," Croom Helm:
London, 1987, pp.3-4)
18/10/02
"The general fact that the genealogies of Scripture were not constructed for a chronological purpose and
lend themselves ill to employment as a basis for chronological calculations has been repeatedly shown very
fully; but perhaps by no one more thoroughly than by Dr. William Henry Green in an illuminating article
published in the Bibliotheca Sacra for April, 1890. These genealogies must be esteemed trustworthy for the
purposes for which they are recorded; but they cannot safely be pressed into use for other purposes for
which they were not intended, and for which they are not adapted. In particular, it is clear that the
genealogical purposes for which the genealogies were given, did not require a complete record of all the
generations through which the descent of the persons to whom they are assigned runs; but only an
adequate indication of the particular line through which the descent in question comes. Accordingly it is
found on examination that the genealogies of Scripture are freely compressed for all sorts of purposes; and
that it can seldom be confidently affirmed that they contain a complete record of the whole series of
generations, while it is often obvious that a very large number are omitted. There is no reason inherent in the
nature of the Scriptural genealogies why a genealogy of ten recorded links, as each of those in Genesis v.
and xi. is, may not represent an actual descent of a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand links. The point
established by the table is not that these are all the links which intervened between the beginning and the
closing names, but that this is the line of descent through which one traces back to or down to the other."
(Warfield B.B., "On the Antiquity and the Unity of The Human Race," in "Studies in Theology," [1932],
Banner of Truth: Edinburgh, 1988, reprint, pp.237-238)
18/10/02
"There is, in a word, much more information furnished with respect to each link in the chain than merely the
age to which each father had attained when his son was begotten; and all this information is of the same
order and obviously belongs together. It is clear that a single motive has determined the insertion of all of it;
and we must seek a reason for its insertion which will account for all of it. This reason cannot have been a
chronological one: for all the items of information furnished do not serve a chronological purpose. Only the
first item in each case can be made to yield a chronological result; and therefore not even it was intended to
yield a chronological result, since all these items of information are too closely bound together in their
common character to be separated in their intention. They too readily explain themselves, moreover, as
serving an obvious common end which was clearly in the mind of the writer, to justify the ascription of a
different end to any one of them. When we are told of any man that he was a hundred and thirty years old
when he begat his heir, and lived after that eight hundred years begetting sons and daughters, dying only at
the age of nine hundred and thirty years, all these items cooperate to make a vivid impression upon us of the
vigor and grandeur of humanity in those old days of the world's prime. In a sense different indeed from that
which the words bear in Genesis vi., but full of meaning to us, we exclaim, "Surely there were giants in those
days!" This is the impression which the items of information inevitably make on us; and it is the impression
they were intended to make on us, as is proved by the simple fact that they are adapted in all their items to
make this impression, while only a small portion of them can be utilized for the purpose of chronological
calculation." (Warfield B.B., "On the Antiquity and the Unity of The Human Race," in "Studies in
Theology," [1932], Banner of Truth: Edinburgh, Reprinted, 1988, pp.240-241)
18/10/02
"This extensive, fundamental research in physics is the subject of this book. What are the goals of such
research? They can be stated in a myriad of ways. We will say that we must study the discrete and the
continuous, and we must consider variance and invariance, or change and conservation. The consideration
of these sets of antonyms leads us to the study of the character of elementary particles and fundamental
fields or forces, and to the analysis of space and time, the structure of our universe, and the evolution and
origin of that universe: indeed, to an understanding of the Grand Plan of the Master Architect." (Adair R.K.,
"The Great Design: Particles, Fields, and Creation," Oxford University Press: New York, 1987, p.12)
19/10/02
"If we separate the concerns of man into that which has to do with man and the welfare of men and that
which has to do with God, or Nature, or things of the spirit, and if we call the first set the province of
humanism and the second, that of religion, then the inquiry into the character of nature described here is
religious; and those who pursue that inquiry follow a religious vocation though they be clothed in secular
garb. Einstein's references to God (`Der Alte') was, if sometimes light-hearted, not jocular. If his pantheistic
`God of Spinoza' was not the God of the Jews or Christians or Moslems, his confidence in the rationality of
nature was religious in kind. Then what lessons on the nature of God can we draw from the results of our
`religious' studies of physical reality? I respond to my personal question with a personal answer. Excepting
those who base their religious convictions upon literal interpretations of ancient metaphors, I find no
compelling reason for anyone to emerge from the study of nature with a faith different from that he or she
may have possessed upon entrance. Although the world is not flat and was not constructed 6000 years ago,
physicists know nothing that contradicts the cores of various religious beliefs held by most people today,
and some have found a deeper faith as a result of their inquiry. (The eminent English theoretical physicist
J.C. Polkinghorne said in the epilogue of his fine book on elementary particles, The Particle Play, `The
pursuit of science is an aspect of the imago dei. Therefore it does not seem strange that these words written
while Professor of Mathematical Physics in the University of Cambridge will be published while I am an
ordinand studying for the Anglican priesthood at Wescott House.')" (Adair R.K., "The Great Design:
Particles, Fields, and Creation," Oxford University Press: New York, 1987, p.365)
19/10/02
"But what is man's place in this universe of galaxy and flower? Do we hold a special position? Was the
universe created for us? The long-held view of an anthropocentric universe was shaken by Copernicus
and largely dispelled in the nineteenth century. `Melancholy, long, withdrawing roar of the sea of faith,'
Matthew Arnold mourns in his poem `Dover Beach.' Curiously, it is now not unthinkable scientifically to
muse over the possibility that an Anthropic Principle acts, and the universe might really be especially
designed for man. It appears that the universe must be exquisitely fine-tuned to accommodate us-and we are
here. If the universe were only a little different, life and the contemplation of that universe by intelligent
beings-might not be possible. Starting with the small, it seems probable that only the chemistry of carbon
compounds can support the complexity required for the astonishing organization of life, and no other kind
of life is possible. Moreover, that unique complexity can develop only within a very small range of physical
conditions, especially within a very small temperature range. The argument that with so many stars in our
galaxy, and so many planets, intelligent life must abound, is interesting and appealing. But upon analysis, it
seems that few planets can be expected to be fit for life. And if conditions obtain that are adequate for the
formation of life, that formulation may be intrinsically highly improbable. Hence, the argument, also plausible
within the bounds of our ignorance, that we may be alone is, to some, even more striking." (Adair R.K., "The
Great Design: Particles, Fields, and Creation," Oxford University Press: New York, 1987, p.366. Emphasis in
original)
19/10/02
"If this universe as we know it is so constructed that life may be found only under rare and especially
fortuitous circumstances, how precarious is the dependence of these circumstances on the precise form of
the laws governing the universe? Considering for the moment only the strengths of the fundamental forces,
how much could the value of the electric charge vary without changing chemistry so as to limit the
complexity of organic compounds and change the improbability of life to an impossibility? The nuclei of
carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and other elements necessary for life were formed in supernovae
explosions that took place billions of years ago. If the weak interaction force important in the generation of
these explosions were a little different, would this seeding of space with the heavy nuclei necessary for life
have occurred? If that weak force were different, if the strong color force were a little stronger or weaker,
would the intricate set of nuclear reactions sensitively dependent on these forces still produce the energy of
the sun and stars? Would the stars shine in a universe only slightly different from ours? Would the heat of
the sun warm planets to the precise temperature required for the generation of life? It seems likely that the
span of values of the strengths of forces that lead to this universe, hospitable to life as we know it, is small
indeed." (Adair R.K., "The Great Design: Particles, Fields, and Creation," Oxford University Press: New York,
1987, pp.366-367)
19/10/02
"If life may depend singularly on the detailed properties of the universe, how much more sensitive it must be
to structural differences. We have discussed the attractive view that the original universe held ten
dimensions, and six of these space dimensions "rolled" up, leaving the three space and one time dimension
we know. If there were only two space dimensions the net of connections of neurons could not be
sufficiently complex to power a brain able to contemplate the universe about it. If the universe were to hold
more than three space dimensions, the gravitational force would not be such as to allow stable orbits of
planets about a sun and the constant temperature required for life. Hence, aside from more subtle arguments
(of which there are many) such structurally different universes could not support those who might dare
inquire into the origin of their universe. If intelligent life can be expected to inhabit only a universe almost
exactly like ours-and no truly firm answer to so complex a question has been established-does this indicate a
motivation of nature? Or merely chance? Are we here as a consequence of a lucky cut of the cards? Or is
there another, more singular explanation?" (Adair R.K., "The Great Design: Particles, Fields, and Creation,"
Oxford University Press: New York, 1987, pp.366-367)
19/10/02
"If the expansion velocity is less than the escape velocity, the universe is closed in time as it collapses (time
ends at the collapse), and it is also closed in space (and finite) with a positive curvature. If the expansion
velocity is greater than the escape velocity and the universe expands forever without limit, the universe
must be open and infinite, and the curvature must be negative. If the expansion is exactly at the escape
velocity, the curvature must then be neither positive or negative, but zero; the universe must be flat. ... At
the present time we can say only that space is very nearly flat and that the expansion velocity is very nearly
the escape velocity. This is a most remarkable result; after 15 billion years of expansion, the rate is almost
the escape velocity. ... For the flatness at that time to persist until now, the expansion velocity at that early
time must have been equal to the escape velocity to an accuracy of better than one part in a billion billion
(1012). If we believe, as some do, that we can sensibly consider times as short as 10-
35 seconds, the original velocity must have been accurate to about one part in 10-50!
At any rate, it can hardly be an accident that the universe is almost flat. ... We have mentioned the
remarkable flatness of the universe. Who ordered that?" (Adair R.K., "The Great Design: Particles, Fields,
and Creation," Oxford University Press: New York, 1987, pp.317-318,321)
19/10/02
"What is the most important event in recorded history? ... Christians should be able to give a confident
answer to the ultimate question on the premise that the Gospels, summarized in the introductory verses of
the Gospel of John, tell the truth. The incarnation and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Word that became
flesh and dwelt among us, is undoubtedly the most important event in the history of mankind if it actually
happened as the Bible says. One may not know all sorts of things and be none the worse for it, but if God
really lived on earth as a man and said and did the things that the Gospels report, then not to know these
sayings and deeds, or to disregard them, is to be missing the one key that is capable of unlocking
everything else. That is why it is of supreme importance that the good news must be made available to
everyone, whether or not they choose to believe it. The most devastatingly negative judgment must be
made of any educational system which insists, as the schools of most nations do now, that students should
not be taught the information they need to give an informed answer to the question posed by Jesus: 'Who
do you say that I am?'" (Johnson P.E., "The Right Questions: Truth, Meaning & Public Debate, InterVarsity
Press: Downers Grove IL, 2002, pp.172-173)
19/10/02
"The warning was not heeded: men seemed to imagine that, if only time enough were given for it, effects, for
which no adequate cause could be assigned, might be supposed to come gradually of themselves. Aimless
movement was supposed, if time enough were allowed for it, to produce an ordered world. It might as well be
supposed that if a box full of printers' types were stirred up long enough with a stick, they could be counted
on to arrange themselves in time in the order in which they stand, say, in Kant's `Critique of Pure Reason.'
They will never do so, though they be stirred to eternity. ... Nothing could be more certain than that what
chance cannot begin the production of in a moment, chance cannot complete the production of in an
eternity. The analysis of the complete effect into an infinite series of parts, and the distribution of these
parts over an infinite series of years, leaves the effect as unaccounted for as ever. What is needed to
account for it is not time in any extension, but an adequate cause. A mass of iron is made no more self-
supporting by being forged into an illimitable chain formed of innumerable infinitesimal links. We may cast
our dice to all eternity with no more likelihood than at the first throw of ever turning up double sevens."
(Warfield B.B., "On the Antiquity and the Unity of The Human Race," in "Studies in Theology," [1932],
Banner of Truth: Edinburgh, Reprinted, 1988, pp.247-248)
20/10/02
"The information that dictates error-checked homeostatic/homeorhytic phenomena must itself be error-
checked and cybernetic. ... New "type" forms usually appear suddenly, with the characteristic morphological
systems already "individuated"-as defined and error-checked entities ... where do the new control system
norms come from? The appearance of new taxa seems to imply the sudden appearance of packages of
individuated structural information, but how does closed, error-checked cybernetic feedback start? ...
Genomes that contain a high level of encoded morphological diversity in the form of error-checked coherent
entities seem to appear with regularity. Neo-Darwinism can explain the exploration of such packages, but it
has not proved that it can explain their origin. Based on uniform human experience, the simplest explanation
for the appearance of a novel, dense pattern of information is an information-dense source. If available DNA
templates seem inadequate, the alternative is a source of order exterior to the genome." (Wilcox D.L. "A
Blindfolded Watchmaker: The Arrival of the Fittest," in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or
Philosophy?," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, 1994, pp.197,202,204.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter13.html)
20/10/02
"In 1961, astronomers acknowledged just two characteristics of the universe as `fine-tuned' to make physical
life possible. The more obvious one was the ratio of the gravitational force constant to the electromagnetic
force constant. It cannot differ from its value by any more than one part in 1040 (one part in
ten thousand trillion trillion trillion) without eliminating the possibility for life. Today, the number of known
cosmic characteristics recognized as fine-tuned for life-any conceivable kind of physical life-stands at thirty-
eight. Of these, the most sensitive is the space energy density (the self-stretching property of the universe).
Its value cannot vary by more than one part in 10120 and still allow for the kinds of stars and
planets physical life requires. Evidence of specific preparation for human existence shows up in the
characteristics of the solar system, as well. In the early 1960s astronomers could identify just a few solar
system characteristics that required fine-tuning for human life to be possible. By the end of 2001,
astronomers had identified more than 150 finely-tuned characteristics. In the 1960s the odds that any given
planet in the universe would possess the necessary conditions to support intelligent physical life were
shown to be less than one in ten thousand. In 2001 those odds shrank to less than one in a number so large
it might as well be infinity (10173). An account of scientific evidence in support of the
anthropic principle fills several books. The authors' religious beliefs run the gamut from agnosticism to
deism to theism, but virtually every research astronomer alive today agrees that the universe manifests
exquisite fine-tuning for life." (Ross H.N., "A Precise Plan for Humanity," Facts for Faith, Issue 8, 2002.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2002issue8/index.shtml#a_precise_plan)
20/10/02
"A group of scientists decided that mankind had advanced far enough that they no longer needed God. So
they drew straws, and the loser went to find God. When he found Him, he dithered a bit, made some small
talk about the weather, and finally came out with it. `OK, look God,' he said, `We've mastered space
exploration, we can cure any disease, we can talk instantaneously with people around the world, we can
clone human beings; basically, we don't need you any more.' God listened patiently. Finally He spoke. `Tell
you what,' He said. `We'll settle this with a man-making contest. Each of us will make a man, and the first one
to finish wins.' `Sure,' said the man, who headed off to consult with his colleagues. `Wait a minute,' called
God. The man turned. `We're going to do this the real way; the way I did it in the beginning.' `No problem,'
responds the man, bending down to grab a handful of clay. `No, no, no,' says God. `You make your own
dirt.'" ("Science v God," Carey Memorial Baptist Church, Kettering UK.
http://www.careybaptist.btinternet.co.uk/Jokes.htm)
21/10/02
"The Cambrian then began with an assemblage of bits and pieces, frustratingly difficult to interpret, called
the `small shelly fauna.' The subsequent main pulse, starting about 530 million years ago, constitutes the
famous Cambrian explosion, during which all but one modern phylum of animal life made a first appearance
in the fossil record. (Geologists had previously allowed up to 40 million years for this event, but an elegant
study, published in 1993, clearly restricts this period of phyletic flowering to a mere five million years.) The
Bryozoa, a group of sessile and colonial marine organisms, do not arise until the beginning of the
subsequent, Ordovician period, but this apparent delay may be an artifact of failure to discover Cambrian
representatives. Although interesting and portentous events have occurred since, from the flowering of
dinosaurs to the origin of human consciousness, we do not exaggerate greatly in stating that the
subsequent history of animal life amounts to little more than variations on anatomical themes established
during the Cambrian explosion within five million years." (Gould, S.J., "The Evolution of Life on the Earth,"
Scientific American, Vol. 271, No. 4, October 1994, pp.63-69, p.67)
21/10/02
"But what about evils that Christianity has produced, such as its persecution of unbelievers during the
Crusades? .... On the one hand, the evils of atheism are a direct outgrowth of the teachings of atheism. This
is a most awkward and painful reality for atheists to admit. ... I am not saying that all atheists are "evil." ... I
am saying that violence is a logically deducible path from atheism... Where antitheism has been the reigning
ideology, blood has flowed without restraint-China, Russia, and Nazi Germany provide the gruesome tale of
the tape. On the other hand, it is plain to see that where Christianity has wielded the sword and ground out
pain upon people or ridden the political horse in triumph, it has only steered abysmally away from the path
that Christ laid before His followers. .... Jesus said, `My kingdom is not of this world else would my servants
fight.' Jesus never commended the exploitation of people or the philosophy of violence. The use or abuse of
Christianity in contradiction to the very message of the gospel reveals not the gospel for what it is, but the
heart of man." (Zacharias, R.K.*, "Can Man Live Without God," Word Publishing: Dallas TX, 1994, pp.188-
189)
23/10/02
"Science does contain enormously reliable knowledge, but it is not of the sort `The thing A exists' (a fact) or
of the sort `B causes C to happen' (a theory); rather, scientific knowledge is of the sort `When one (anyone)
does P, then Q happens' (almost all the time, under certain circumstances). Point a telescope at Jupiter and
you see a large bright spot together with a variable number of smaller and less bright ones whose relative
positions change (if the telescope is true enough, and if atmospheric conditions permit). That is the
fact of the matter. ... Scientific knowledge is like the knowledge embodied in a map: `Follow this route, and
you will pass a valley and then a river.' That maps work convinces us that the landscape exists outside our
mind or imagination; that science works convinces scientists (even if not all philosophers, let alone social
scientists) that there exists a real world that is not the creature of human imagination. But scientific
knowledge is no more than a guide to reality; it is not the real thing itself." (Bauer H.H., "Scientific Literacy
and the Myth of the Scientific Method," [1992], University of Illinois Press: Urbana & Chicago IL, 1994,
reprint, p.68. Emphasis in original)
23/10/02
"Society as a whole does prize science because of the truth that it is thought to bring, and with it the power
to control human environment and circumstances. It is tempting to use that popular view as a basis for
getting support for scientific activity, and as a basis for convincing people that one is right about any
number of things; but that is essentially dishonest, and I do believe that in the long run honesty is actually
the best policy. The honest truth is that science does not deal in absolute facts. It is very reliable-but with
exceptions, and we cannot always be sure where or when we shall encounter the exceptional. Science is,
sure enough, a better guide than folklore or mysticism-in most circumstances, that is to say, and assuming
that what one wants to know has to do in some way with material things. It is undoubtedly perverse to
express doubts indiscriminately or fundamentally about the corpus of contemporary scientific knowledge.
But it is also unjustified to claim that any given scientific notion is unquestionably right, in all its current
connotations, or even that it is necessarily right when it contradicts some popular piece of folklore. Each
issue needs to be looked at in its own right; and a human right to believe improbable things ought to be
respected." (Bauer H.H., "Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method," [1992], University of
Illinois Press: Urbana & Chicago IL, 1994, reprint, p.67)
24/10/02
"Moreover, it was in a minority, even within the comparatively obscure people of Israel, that the stream
which issued in Christianity had its rise and its early course. The prophetic monotheism which was the
source of Christianity long commanded the undivided support of only a small proportion of Israel. The loyal
minority were sufficiently numerous to cherish and hand down the writings of the prophets. Through them
came the main contributions of Israel to the world. Within this minority we find the direct antecedents of
Christianity. Yet the majority of Israel either rejected the prophets outright or devitalized their message by
compromise. Even among the relatively insignificant people within which Christianity arose, only the
numerically lesser part could be counted in the spiritual ancestry of the faith. Fully as significantly, it was
largely those who believed themselves to be in the succession of that minority who so opposed Jesus that
they brought him to the cross." (Latourette K.S., "A History of Christianity: Volume 1: to A.D. 1500," [1953],
Harper & Row: New York NY, 1975, reprint, pp.7-8)
25/10/02
"... the invasion of land required modification in almost every system in the vertebrate body ... Vertebrate
limbs also arose during the Devonian period. Although fish fins at first appear very different from the
jointed limbs of tetrapods, an examination of the bony elements of the paired tins of the lobe-finned fishes
shows that they broadly resemble the equivalent limbs of amphibians. In Eusthenopteron, a Devonian lobe-
tin, we can recognize an upper arm bone (humerus) and two forearm bones (radius and ulna) as well as other
elements that we can homologize with the wrist bones of tetrapods ... Eusthenopteron could walk more
accurately flop-along the bottom mud of pools with its fins, since backward and forward movement of the
fins was limited to about 20-25 degrees. Acanthostega, one of the earliest known Devonian tetrapods, had
well-formed tetrapod legs with clearly formed digits on both fore- and hindlimbs, but the limbs were too
weakly constructed to enable the animal to hoist its body off the surface for proper walking on land.
Ichthyostega, however, with its fully developed shoulder girdle, bulky limb bones, well-developed muscles,
and other adaptations for terrestrial life, must have been able to pull itself onto land, although it probably
did not walk very well. Thus, the tetrapods evolved their legs underwater and only then, for reasons
unknown, began to pull themselves onto land." (Hickman C.P., Jr., Roberts L.S. & Larson A., "Animal
Diversity," [1995], McGraw-Hill: Boston MA, Second Edition, 2000, p.311)
25/10/02
"This is a time-like constraint, a rule against deferred success. It is a rule that appears often to be tacitly
violated in evolutionary explanations. The historical development of a complex organ such as the mammalian
ear involved obviously a very long sequence of precise changes. Comparative anatomy suggests that the
reptilian jaw actually migrated earward over the course of evolution. It is very difficult to understand why
each of a series of changes in the anatomy of the reptilian jaw should have resulted in a net increase in
fitness. The rule against deferred success is violated when somehow the biologist points to the completed
mammalian ear to provide a backward-looking explanation for changes in the reptilian jaw. This example may
seem crude to the point of parody, but the rule against deferred success is often violated wholesale in
theoretical biology when the examples become more sophisticated." (Berlinski D., "Black Mischief:
Language, Life, Logic, Luck," Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: Boston MA, Second Edition, 1988, p.346)
26/10/02
"Darwin's abysmal ignorance of what Genesis teaches is seen in that it was not until he was fifty-two years
old, two years after he published the Origin, that he realized that the much ridiculed date of 4,004 B.C. for
creation was not a part of the text of Genesis but was instead the work of Archbishop James Ussher, who
lived from 1581 to 1656-3 (Creationists no longer accept Ussher's date for creation.)" (Lubenow M.L.,
"Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils," [1992], Baker Books: Grand Rapids
MI, 1994, Fourth Printing, p.95)
26/10/02
"It has always been apparent that Matthew arranged his genealogy of Christ deliberately so as to create
three groups of fourteen names, even though it meant dropping out some of the links given in the Old
Testament. Obviously, he is following the literary conventions of Jewish historians of his day and makes
good use of the possibilities they afford. Examples such as these create no real difficulty for readers of the
Bible, because they do not grate upon their own literary presuppositions too harshly. We have become
familiar with such things from our long use of the Bible and are happily resigned to them. However, it is not
always clear sailing. Let me list some examples, and then reflect upon the problem. Conservatives are very
`touchy' about the historicity of the fall of Adam, because of its importance to their soteriology and
theodicy, and, therefore, about the status of the Genesis narratives on that event (Genesis 2-3). They are
reluctant to admit that the literary genre in that case is figurative rather than strictly literal even though the
hints are very strong that it is symbolic: Adam (which means `Mankind' ) marries Eve (which means `Life),
and their son Cain (which means `Forger' ) becomes a wanderer in the land ofNod (which means `Wandering'
)!" (Pinnock C.H., "The Scripture Principle," Hodder & Staughton: London, 1985, pp.116-117)
26/10/02
"Most people would admit that in the sorts of cases cited, human or even alien intelligent design could
function as a properly scientific explanatory concept. But theories of intelligent supernatural design are
widely considered to be a can of worms of an entirely different color. Thus, for instance, Eugenic Scott: `To
be dealt with scientifically, "intelligence" must also be natural, because all science is natural. [A]ppeal to ...
SETI is fallacious. SETI is indeed a scientific project; it seeks natural intelligence. Any theory with a
supernatural foundation is not scientific.' (Scott E., "Of Pandas and people." NCSE Reports 10, 1:2) So the
theory that aliens did it (initiated life on this planet, say), even if wrong, is still in principle scientific. But on
the view just quoted, the theory that God did exactly the same thing (initiated life on this planet), based on
exactly the same evidence is, even if true, inherently not science (not merely bad science, but not science at
all)." (Ratzsch D.L., "Nature, Design and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science," State University
of New York Press: Albany NY, 2001, p.24. Emphasis in original)
26/10/02
"Nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible, and we interpret the Word of God by the Word of God
when we interpret the Bible by science. As this principle is undeniably true, it is admitted and acted on by
those who, through inattention to the meaning of terms, in words deny it. When the Bible speaks of the
foundations, or of the pillars of the earth, or of the solid heavens, or of the motion of the sun, do not you
and every other sane man, interpret this language by the facts of science? For five thousand years the
Church understood the Bible to teach that the earth stood still in space, and that the sun and stars revolved
around it. Science has demonstrated that this is not true. Shall we go on to interpret the Bible so as to make
it teach the falsehood that the sun moves around the earth, or shall we interpret it by science, and make the
two harmonize? Of course, this rule works both ways. If the Bible cannot contradict science, neither can
science contradict the Bible. ... There is a two-fold evil on this subject against which it would be well for
Christians to guard. There are some good men who are much too ready to adopt the opinions and theories
of scientific men, and to adopt forced and unnatural interpretations of the Bible, to bring it to accord with
those opinions. There are others, who not only refuse to admit the opinions of men, but science itself, to
have any voice in the interpretation of Scripture. Both of these errors should be avoided." (Hodge, C., "The
Bible in Science," New York Observer, Mar, 26, 1863 pp.98-99; in Noll, M.A., "The Scandal of the Evangelical
Mind," [1994], Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1995, reprint, pp.183-184. Ellipses Noll's)
26/10/02
"There are two ways, fundamentally antithetic, to account for the occurrence of life on our planet. It may be
the creation of God or some other supernatural power, or it may have arisen spontaneously in some
relatively simple form of matter, being subsequently perfected in a process of organic evolution." (Lovtrup,
S., "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth," Croom Helm: London, 1987, p.5)
26/10/02
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=materialism Main Entry: materialism ...
Function: noun Date: 1748 1 a : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all
being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter b : a doctrine
that the only or the highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the furtherance of material
progress c : a doctrine that economic or social change is materially caused -- compare HISTORICAL
MATERIALISM 2 : a preoccupation with or stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual things
27/10/02
"It is argued that the picture of God working like a potter with wet earth, anthropomorphically breathing life
into man, constructing woman from a rib, with an idyllic garden, trees with theological significance, and a
talking serpent, is the language of theological symbolism and not of literal prose. The theological truth is
there, and this symbolism is the instrument of inspiration. We are not to think in terms of scientific and anti-
scientific, but in terms of scientific and pre-scientific. The account is then pre-scientific and in theological
symbolism which is the garment divine inspiration chose to reveal these truths for their more ready
comprehension by the masses of untutored Christians. This is the view of James Orr who wrote: `I do not
enter into the question of how we are to interpret the third chapter of Genesis-whether as history or allegory
or myth, or most probably of all, as old tradition clothed in oriental allegorical dress-but the truth embodied
in that narrative, viz. the fall of man from an original state of purity, I take to be vital to the Christian view.'
[Orr, J.*, "The Christian View of God and the World," 1897, p.185]" (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View
of Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, pp.223-224)
29/10/02
"Although there had been other experiments demonstrating natural selection, most of these were flawed or
missing something vital. 'Getting an experiment that showed natural selection in action, and one that was a
very good example, was very hard to do,' explains Cornell biologist William. Provine, the pre-eminent
chronicler of twentieth-century evolutionary biology. `If you think of all the other examples of natural
selection between, say, 1890 and the 1960s, the truth is that there isn't much. You have Bumpus's
experiments on sparrows. He doesn't know dingle about the genetics of sparrows, so that doesn't have any
great persuasive power. You've got Weldon and his crabs - Gosh, I have a letter from Arthur Cain agreeing
that it was a very flawed example. In the Forties we got Fisher and Ford's work on Panaxia. That was a
wonderful experiment and Sewall Wright said it showed absolutely nothing. When Cain and Sheppard did
their work on Cepaea, it was considered to be one of the best examples of natural selection. Then Camille
Lamotte did the same stuff in France and didn't get their results at all. Cain and all these people came up with
what they called 'area effects', which took away from what they did earlier. it wasn't clear at all. Allison's
work on sickle cell anemia seemed so clear and obvious, but it turned out to be so much more complicated
than it looked on the surface. it was a hornet's nest; it was awful. So Kettlewell's experiments had the
makings of what everyone had been hoping for - the example of natural selection in action. And it
completely captured all the textbooks. it's fun to look through all the textbooks and always this example -
and I mean always - is hauled out.'" (Hooper J., "Of Moths and Men: An Evolutionary Tale," W.W
Norton & Co: New York NY, 2002, pp.148-149. Emphasis in original)
30/10/02
"Anyone who has taught genetics for a number of years is tired of sickle-cell anemia and embarrassed by
the fact that it is the only authenticated case of overdominance available. `If balancing selection is so
common,' the neoclassicists say, `why do you always end up talking about sickle-cell anemia?;" (Lewontin
R.C., "The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change," Columbia University Press: New York NY, 1974, p.199)
30/10/02
"It is not hard to find writings in which the myth is stated that the Darwinian theory of evolution is well
proven by the fossil record. But one finds that the higher the technical quality of the writing the weaker the
claims that are made. The imperfections ... are blamed in even the best texts, however, on the incompleteness
of the fossil record. Yet if one persists by consulting the geological literature the truth eventually emerges.
The fossil record is highly imperfect from a Darwinian point of view, not because of the inadequacies of
geologists, but because the slow evolutionary connections required by the theory did not happen.
Although paleontologists have recognized this truth for a century or more, they have not been able, in spite
of their status as the acknowledged experts in the field, to make much of an impression on consensus
opinion." (Hoyle F. & Wickramasinghe C., "Evolution from Space," [1981], Paladin: London, 1983, reprint,
pp.163-164)
31/10/02
"The `why' of tetrapod origin has been often debated. Many of the earliest amphibians appear to have been
fairly large forms of carnivorous habits, still spending a large portion of their time in fresh-water pools.
Alongside them lived their close relatives, the crossopterygians, similar in food habits and in many
structural features and differing markedly only in the lesser development of the paired limbs. Why did the
amphibians leave the water? Not to breathe air, for that could be done by merely coming to the surface of
the pool. Not because they were driven out in search of food-they were carnivores for whom there was little
food on land. Not to escape enemies, for they were among the largest of vertebrates found in the fresh
waters from which they came." (Romer A.S., "Vertebrate Paleontology," [1933], University of Chicago Press:
Chicago IL, Second Edition, 1945, Fifth Impression, 1953, pp.140-141)
31/10/02
"Darwin did two very separate things: he convinced the scientific world that evolution had occurred and he
proposed the theory of natural selection as its mechanism I am quite willing to admit that the common
equation of evolution with progress made Darwin's first claim more palatable to his contemporaries. But
Darwin failed in his second quest during his own lifetime. The theory of natural selection did not triumph
until the 1940s. Its Victorian unpopularity, in my view, lay primarily in its denial of general progress as
inherent in the workings of evolution. Natural selection is a theory of local adaptation to changing
environments. It proposes no perfecting principles, no guarantee of general improvement; in short, no
reason for general approbation in a political climate favoring innate progress in nature. Darwin's
independent criterion of fitness is, indeed, `improved design,' but not `improved' in the cosmic sense that
contemporary Britain favored. To Darwin, improved meant only `better designed for an immediate, local
environment.'" (Gould, S.J., "Darwin's Untimely Burial," in "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural
History," [1978], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, pp.44-45. Emphasis in original)
31/10/02
"No logical necessity can extract an implication of progress from the fact of evolution. Darwin himself had
maintained a very ambiguous attitude toward the idea of progress, accepting it provisionally as a feature of
parts of the fossil record, but denying that the theory of natural selection-a statement about adaptation to
shifting local environments-required organic advance. Nonetheless, many evolutionists have always viewed
the concepts of progress and transmutation as necessarily connected, and Lyell, for whatever reason,
certainly adopted this view." (Gould, S.J., "Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle: Myth and Metaphor in the
Discovery of Geological Time," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1987, p.170) [top]
November
3/11/02
"One may not know all sorts of things and be none the worse for it, but if God really lived on earth as a man
and said and did the things that the Gospels report, then not to know these sayings and deeds, or to
disregard them, is to be missing the one key that is capable of unlocking everything else. That is why it is of
supreme importance that the good news must be made available to everyone, whether or not they choose to
believe it. The most devastatingly negative judgment must be made of any educational system which
insists, as the schools of most nations do now, that students should not be taught the information they
need to give an informed answer to the question posed by Jesus: 'Who do you say that I am?' I am not
saying that the schools must provide an answer to that question, much less endeavor to indoctrinate
students in any `religious beliefs.' What I am saying is that educators have a duty to ensure that
students know what the Christian answer to the ultimate question is, and that they know what they need to
know to understand why the question is important and to evaluate the answer. Specifically everyone should
know the words and deeds of Jesus as recorded in the four Gospels. ... We need not assume for this
purpose that the Gospels are true, but it is grossly irresponsible to assume that they are so obviously false
that they do not need to be mentioned." (Johnson P.E., "The Right Questions: Truth, Meaning & Public
Debate, InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2002, p.173. Emphasis in original)
3/11/02
"The theory of neo-Darwinism is a theory of the evolution of the changing of the population in respect to
leaving offspring and not in respect to anything else. Nothing else is mentioned in the mathematical theory
of neo-Darwinism. It is smuggled in and everybody has in the back of his mind that the animals that leave
the largest number of offspring are going to be those best adapted also for eating peculiar vegetation, or
something of this sort; but this is not explicit in the theory. All that is explicit in the theory is that they will
leave more offspring. There, you do come to what is, in effect, a vacuous statement: Natural selection is that
some things leave more offspring than others; and you ask, which leave more offspring than others; and it is
those that leave more offspring; and there is nothing more to it than that. The whole guts of evolution -
which is, how do you come to have horses and tigers and things - is outside the mathematical theory."
(Waddington C.H., in Moorhead P.S. & Kaplan M.M., eds, "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian
Interpretation of Evolution," Monograph No. 5, Wistar University Press: Philadelphia PA, 1967, p.14, in
Hitching F., "The Neck of the Giraffe: Or Where Darwin Went Wrong," Pan: London, 1982, p.107)
4/11/02
"Changes in the structure of the fins of fish and the limbs of tetrapods are among the most striking aspects
of vertebrate evolution. They directly reflect changes in habitat and ways of life both within and between
each major group. They are also among the most difficult evolutionary phenomena to explain. Darwinian
selection theory can account for the modification of particular structures so that they are better suited for a
given environment, but it is much more difficult to understand how the limbs of early tetrapods could have
evolved from the fins of a fish or how the wings of birds could have evolved from the forelimbs of
dinosaurs, since these changes involve radical shifts in function between completely different selective
regimes. Paradoxically, an equally serious problem is to explain the stability of limb structure within
individual groups or lineages, which may retain an extremely stereotyped pattern for hundreds of millions of
years." (Carroll, R.L., "Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution," Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge UK, 1997, pp.227-228)
4/11/02
"Neither the fossil record nor study of development in modern genera yet provides a complete picture of
how the paired limbs in tetrapods evolved ... The closest comparison between the paired fins of obligatorily
aquatic fish and animals that were at least facultatively terrestrial is provided by the osteolepiform
sarcopterygians Eusthenopteron and Panderichthys and the stem tetrapods Acanthostega and
Ichthyostega. ... Superficially, the paired fins of the fish appear typical of strictly aquatic vertebrates. They
are small relative to the body; they narrow at the base that articulated with the pectoral and pelvic girdles,
but broaden distally to form an effective surface for locomotion or directional control in the water. ... In
contrast, the internal, endochondral bones of the fin are closely comparable to those of terrestrial
vertebrates. There is a single proximal humerus and more distal ulna and radius in the forelimb, and the
femur, tibia and fibula in the hind limb. They are succeeded distally by bones that are homologous with
proximal elements of the wrist (intermedium, ulnare, and centralia) and ankle (fibulare, intermedium, and
possibly distal tarsals) of land vertebrates, but they could not have functioned in the manner of these joints
in terrestrial vertebrates because they are extensively overlapped by the radius and the tibia. The entire
endochondral skeleton is within a functionally continuous fin structure, as seen from its scaly covering.
There is no trace of endochondral skeletal elements comparable with the distal carpals or digits of terrestrial
vertebrates. ... In contrast with the clear homology of the more proximal limb bones in osteolepiform fish and
early tetrapods, no obvious homologues of the digits is evident in any sarcopterygian. These bones appear
de novo in the Upper Devonian tetrapods. How can this be explained?" (Carroll, R.L., "Patterns and
Processes of Vertebrate Evolution," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1997, pp.230-232)
5/11/02
"For the real amazement, if you want to be amazed, is the process. You start out as a single cell derived from
the coupling of a sperm and an egg, this divides into two, then four, then eight, and so on, and at a certain
stage there emerges a single cell which will have as all its progeny the human brain. The mere existence of
that cell should be one of the great astonishments of the earth. People ought to be walking around all day,
all through their waking hours, calling to each other in endless wonderment, talking of nothing except that
cell. It is an unbelievable thing, and yet there it is, popping neatly into its place amid the jumbled cells of
every one of the several billion human embryos around the planet just as if it were the easiest thing in the
world to do. If you like being surprised, there's the source. One cell is switched on to become the whole
trillion-cell, massive apparatus for thinking and imagining and, for that matter, being surprised. All the
information needed for learning to read and write, playing the piano, arguing before senatorial
subcommittees, walking across a street through traffic, or the marvelous human act of putting out one hand
and leaning against a tree, is contained in that first cell. All of grammar, all syntax, all arithmetic, all music. It
is not known how the switching on occurs. At the very beginning of an embryo, when it is still nothing more
than a cluster of cells, all of this information and much more is latent inside every cell in the cluster. When
the stem cell for the brain emerges, it could be that the special quality of brainness is simply switched on.
But it could as well be that everything else, every other potential property, is switched off, so that this most
specialized of all cells no longer has its precursors' option of being a thyroid or a liver or whatever, only a
brain. No one has the ghost of an idea how this works, and nothing else in life can ever be so puzzling. If
anyone does succeed in explaining it, within my lifetime, I will charter a skywriting airplane, maybe a whole
fleet of them, and send them aloft to write one great exclamation point after another, around the whole sky,
until all my money runs out." (Thomas L., "The Medusa and the Snail: More Notes of a Biology Watcher,"
[1979]. Bantam: New York NY, 1986, reprint, pp.130-131)
6/11/02
"For the study of these problems it is the great defect of paleontology that it cannot directly determine any
of the cryptogenetic factors that must, after all, be instrumental in the evolution of populations. Fossil
animals cannot be brought into the laboratory for the experimental determination of their genetic
constitutions. The experiments have been done by nature without controls and under conditions too
complex and variable for sure and simple analysis. ... On the other hand, experimental biology in general and
genetics in particular have the grave defect that they cannot reproduce the vast and complex horizontal
extent of the natural environment and, particularly, the immense span of time in which population changes
really occur. They may reveal what happens to a hundred rats in the course of ten years under fixed and
simple conditions, but not what happened to a billion rats in the course of ten million years under the
fluctuating conditions of earth history. Obviously, the latter problem is much more important. The work of
geneticists on phenogenetics and still more on population genetics is almost meaningless unless it does
have a bearing in this broader scene. Some students, not particularly paleontologists, conclude that it does
not, that the phenomena revealed by experimental studies are relatively insignificant in evolution as a whole,
that major problems cannot now be studied at all in the laboratory, and that macro-evolution differs
qualitatively as well as quantitatively from the micro-evolution of the experimentalist." (Simpson G.G.,
"Tempo and Mode in Evolution," [1944], Columbia University Press: New York NY, Third Printing, 1949,
pp.xvi-xvii)
7/11/02
"As our ideas developed, a monstrous spectre kept beckoning. Just as the brain of Shakespeare was
necessary to produce the famous plays, so prior information was necessary to produce a living cell. But
information from where? From some pre-existing life-form, one is tempted to answer, but this would be to
incur the ire of Tommy Gold, who tells the following story. A male lecturer had spoken about the nature of
the Earth and planets. Afterwards, an old lady came up to him from the audience, claiming she had a theory
superior to the one he had described. 'We don't live on a ball revolving around the Sun,' she said, 'we live on
a crust of earth on the back of a giant turtle.' Wishing to humour the old lady the lecturer asked, 'And what
does this turtle stand on?' 'On the back of a second, still larger turtle,' was the confident answer. 'But what
holds up the second turtle?' the lecturer persisted, now in a slightly exasperated tone. 'It's no use, mister,' the
old woman replied, 'it's turtles all the way down.' Which epitomizes the conundrum of life. So long as living
cells come from pre-existing cells we are calling on support from another turtle. The issue is where do the
turtles stop? The conventional answer is that the turtle pile floats on a sea of organic soup, an answer as
scientifically improbable as Tommy Gold's story makes it sound." (Hoyle F. & Wickramasinghe C.,
"Evolution from Space," [1981], Paladin: London, Reprinted, 1983, pp.164-165)
12/11/02
"Like any classification scheme, the five-kingdom system is not a natural fact, but a human construct. It is
one attempt to order the diversity of life into a scheme that is useful and, hopefully, phylogenetically
reasonable. During the past two decades, systematists using comparisons of nucleic acids and proteins to
probe the relationships between different groups of organisms have been pointing out problems with the
traditional five-kingdom scheme." (Campbell N.A., Reece J.B. & Mitchell L.G., "Biology," [1987],
Benjamin/Cummings: Menlo Park CA, Fifth Edition, 1999, p.500)
12/11/02
"Craig Holdrege, a young American biology teacher, had been teaching the peppered moth story for several
years. in 1986 he was reading a paper by Sir Cyril Clarke, a respected British peppered-moth researcher,
when an offhand comment hit him like a spray of arctic water. Casually, Sir Cyril, who had been a bosom
friend of Kettlewell, stated: 'All we have observed is where the moths do not spend the day. In 25 years we
have only found two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps ...' 'What is going on here?'
Holdrege asked himself. He had been displaying photographs of moths on tree trunks, telling his students
about birds selectively picking off the conspicuous ones ...'And now someone who has researched the moth
for 25 years reports having seen only two moths sitting on tree trunks. What about the lichens, the soot, the
camouflage, the birds? What about the grand story of industrial melanism? Didn't it depend on moths
habitually resting on tree trunks? Unnerved by Clarke's remark, Holdrege dug up H.B.D. Kettlewell's original
journal articles, which very few biology teachers had actually read. He was appalled. As his private quest
took him to other papers and other scientists, he began to realize that the standard theory of industrial
melanism, treated as gospel in the textbooks, was full of holes." (Hooper J., "Of Moths and Men: An
Evolutionary Tale," W.W Norton & Co: New York NY, 2002, p.xviii. Ellipses in original)
14/11/02
"We can summarize our findings to this point: (1) Chance generates contingency, but not complex specified
information. (2) Laws ... generate neither contingency nor information, much less complex specified
information. (3) Laws at best transmit already present information or else lose it. Given these findings, it
seems intuitively obvious that no chance-law combination is going to generate information either. After all,
laws can transmit only the CSI [Complex Specified Information] they are given, and whatever chance gives
to a law is not CSI. Ergo, chance and laws working in tandem cannot generate information. ... This argument
holds for Darwin's mutation-selection mechanism, for genetic algorithms and indeed for any other chance-
law combination. Just as chance or law left to themselves individually cannot purchase CSI, so their joint
action cannot purchase CSI either. ... Since natural causes are precisely those characterized by chance, law
or a combination of the two, the broad conclusion of the last section may be restated as follows: Natural
causes are incapable of generating CSI. I call this result the Law of Conservation of Information, or LCI
for short." (Dembski, W.A.*, "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology", InterVarsity
Press: Downers Grove IL, 1999, pp.167-170. Emphasis in original)
15/11/02
"Coon has suggested, mostly on the basis of dentition, that the development of human races was a very
long process, taking place over the last million years, and that, in fact, Homo erectus evolved into
Homo sapiens, independently though similarly, in each of his five human `subspecies': Mongoloid,
Australoid, Negroid, Capoid, and Caucasoid. The evidence adduced is, however, very scanty. .... It is,
moreover, unlikely that two species would evolve in entirely parallel ways, both because selective
conditions are likely to be different in different areas and because drift, which must always accompany
differentiation, is more likely to cause divergence than parallelism. It is even more unlikely that evolution of a
new species could have happened five times with parallel results. A `polyphyletic' origin, is therefore,
always less likely than a `monophyletic' one." (Cavalli-Sforza L.L. & Bodmer W.F., "The Genetics of human
Populations," [1971], Dover: Mineola NY, 1999, reprint, pp.699-700)
16/11/02
"One objection to the theory of evolution made by Darwin's early opponents was that though he may have
explained the derivation of organisms from other organisms, he had not explained the origin of life itself from
inanimate matter. The researches of Louis Pasteur and others demonstrating the impossibility of
spontaneous generation in an oxygen-rich atmosphere seemed to strongly support the idea that life cannot
arise from natural causes but requires some supernatural origin, a Creator. It has since been discovered that,
unlike today, there was no oxygen (or only traces of it) in the early atmosphere of the earth, when life
originated. Experiments carried out by Stanley Miller (1953) showed that electrical discharges sent through a
gaseous mixture of methane, ammonium, hydrogen, and water vapor in a flask would result in the production
of amino acids, urea, and other organic molecules. Such organic molecules could have accumulated when
our atmosphere was devoid of oxygen, and, indeed, similar molecules have since been found in meteorites
and in interstellar space. There are now numerous hypotheses to explain how life, particularly proteins and
RNA, might have emerged from a combination of these organic molecules. Several of these prebiotic
scenarios are quite convincing, but in the absence of any chemical fossils of the intermediate stages we may
never be able to prove which of the scenarios is the right one. It would seem that the first organisms were
heterotrophic, that is, they utilized prebiotically produced organic compounds available in the environment.
The organisms had to build the larger macromolecules such as proteins and nucleic acids, but they did not
have to synthesize de novo the amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars. The simplest naturally formed
organic compounds reacted to form polymers and eventually compounds of greater and greater complexity.
The subject of life's origin is highly complex, but it is no longer the mystery it once was, in the early post-
Darwinian period. In fact, there is no longer any fundamental difficulty in explaining, on the basis of physical
and chemical laws, the origin of life from inanimate matter." (Mayr E., "This is Biology: The Science of the
Living World," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1997, Sixth printing, 1998, pp.178-179)
17/11/02
"To say that a work is not a textbook on science is different from declaring that a book is scientifically
inaccurate, yet that is often implied by similar statements. A person could write a book on a nonscientific
subject and yet give evidence of a background knowledge of science. For instance, there are on sale two
children's books of animals; both are attractively produced. One appears to present the animals at random
without scheme or order. The other indicated a knowledge of zoological taxonomy and the order of
appearance of life on earth. The order in which the animals are presented in the latter would not convey this
to the child enjoying her animals, but if she grew up to read zoology and happened to come across her
childhood book she would recognize that the author had a greater depth of knowledge than was overtly
apparent. He had been able to meet the simple pleasure of childhood and yet satisfy the sophistication of
maturity. Likewise, the Bible story of creation is presented for man's childhood in picturesque portrayal of
the goodness of God in His Creation and purpose in man. But now that mankind has reached maturity in
knowledge and science, an informed person can detect that in the story of Creation, the Creator's knowledge
is endemic; the order of geophysics and biology is correct, though expressed in general and picturesque
terms. ... The Bible may not have been written with the object of teaching science, nevertheless, the Bible is
not unscientific, for hidden within its story is a Creator's knowledge." (Pearce E.K.V., "Who Was Adam?,"
Paternoster: Exeter UK, 1969, pp.17-18)
17/11/02
"The literary structure of Genesis is based upon eleven sections, each of which commences with the phrase
`These are the generations of.' The word "generations" is `toledoth' in the Hebrew, and refers to the origins
of nations and races. ... The first two toledoths embodied in Genesis used to be taken as two separate
stories of creation, the second starting in Genesis 2:4. Now that one can be regarded as a sequel to the
other, many of our difficulties concerning the Biblical origin of man can be solved. This would mean that in
Genesis 1, Old Stone Age man is described, the Hebrew collective noun `adam' meaning mankind as
a whole; but in Gen. 2:4, the second toledoth commences. This second toledoth makes the characteristic
brief summary of the preceding toledoth, and then speaks mainly about Eden. Here the noun becomes `The
Adam' or `the Man', with the article referring to an individual, and then becomes a proper name 'Adam' . This
man named Adam is the individual from whom our Lord's descent is eventually traced. ... We shall use the
name Adam to refer to this individual, a New Stone Age farmer of about 10,000 to 12,000 years ago.
Although the Hebrew word adam is used collectively in the first chapter of Genesis, we will call him
Old Stone Age Man, to avoid confusion, and the proper name, `Adam', will be reserved for the Adam of
Eden." (Pearce E.K.V., "Who Was Adam?," Paternoster: Exeter, Devon UK, 1969, pp.18,21. Emphasis in
original)
17/11/02
"Even as far back as mid-Victorian times there have been those of fundamentalist outlook who have seen
the possibility that pre-Adamites existed. This is demonstrated by the fact that G.H. Pember wrote his
`Earth's Earliest Ages' well before fossil remains of palaeolithic man had been found or acknowledged. He
thought that Scripture indicated that there were races of men before our own. His conclusion was drawn
from remarks made by the prophet Ezekiel, and from other passages of scripture. `Why,' he wrote, `if a pre-
adamic race really existed upon earth do we not find some indications of it among the fossil remains?
Certainly no human bones have been as yet detected in primeval rocks; though if any should be hereinafter
discovered, we need find no contradiction to Scripture in the fact.'" (Pember G.H., "Earth's Earliest Ages,"
Hodder & Stoughton, 1876, p.73, in Pearce E.K.V., "Who Was Adam?," Paternoster: Exeter UK, 1969, p.36)
17/11/02
"We may assert that there is a difference between fossil man and Biblical man. Different alternatives are
possible here. We may ... resort to some theory of pre-Adamism. .... Pre-Adamism was systematically
defended by Isaac Peyrere in his Systema Theologicum ex Praeadamitarum Hypothesi (1655). It was also
defended by Winchel (Preadamites, or a Demonstration of the Existence of Man Before Adam, 1890), and by
Fabre d'Envieu (Les Origines de la Terre et de l'homme, 1878) who argued that these men before Adam had
died before Adam was created. Short thinks that these fossil men might have been prehumans, and that
Adam was a de novo creation possessing spiritual qualities these pre-Adamites lacked. Torrey accepts the
pre-Adamite theory, but believes some of them were alive at Biblical times." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View
of Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, pp.221-222)
17/11/02
"We may conclude this section therefore by saying that while the biblical evidence is consistent with the
view that the whole race has descended from a single human pair (indeed, that that is the prima facie view)
it does not positively require that view. There are other possibilities to which we must keep our
minds open. When Cain had murdered his brother and faced the sentence of banishment and wandering he
was gripped with a terrible fear: 'Whoever finds me will slay me', he said. To whom did he refer with that
'whoever'? He was the eldest son, and so far as Scripture tells us, the only others of his race were his
parents. It seems very unlikely that he was projecting his thoughts forward to the time when a new brother,
still to be born, had grown up and conceived the idea of avenging Abel, a murdered relative he had never
known. It seems far more likely that there were other beings (we will provisionally call them 'men', in inverted
commas) who had never been in Eden nor sinned 'after the likeness of Adam's transgression', and into
whose company Cain was now compelled to move. He would naturally fear them, as all men fear the
unfamiliar and unknown, especially when they have a guilty conscience. Cain acquired a wife-from where?
The traditional (and legitimate) explanation is that he married an unnamed sister. But it is equally possible
that he married a 'woman' from outside Eden. ... The prima facie impression given by the Bible is that the
entire human race has descended from the single pair, Adam and Eve. Closer inspection, however, indicates
that it makes no unequivocal statement to that effect. On the contrary, it gives us very solid reasons for
believing that Adam's headship of the race was a representative one, and that universal physical descent
from him is not involved. It is the spiritual link which is the important one; to be 'in Adam' means something
analogous to being 'in Christ.'" (Spanner D.C., "Biblical Creation and the Theory of Evolution," Paternoster:
Exeter, Devon UK, 1987, pp.78-80. Emphasis in original)
18/11/02
"IT is unknown when life first appeared on Earth. The earliest known microfossils (~3,500 Myr before
present) are structurally complex, and if it is assumed that the associated organisms required a long time to
develop this degree of complexity, then the existence of life much earlier than this can be argued. But the
known examples of crustal rocks older than ~3,500 Myr have experienced intense metamorphism, which
would have obliterated any fragile microfossils contained therein. It is therefore necessary to search for
geochemical evidence of past biotic activity that has been preserved within minerals that are resistant to
metamorphism. Here we report ion-microprobe measurements of the carbon-isotope composition of
carbonaceous inclusions within grains of apatite (basic calcium phosphate) from the oldest known sediment
sequences-a ~3,800-Myr-old banded iron formation from the Isua supracrustal belt, West Greenland, and a
similar formation from the nearby Akilia island that is possibly older than 3,850 Myr. The carbon in the
carbonaceous inclusions is isotopically light, indicative of biological activity; no known abiotic process can
explain the data. Unless some unknown abiotic process exists which is able both to create such isotopically
light carbon and then selectively incorporate it into apatite grains, our results provide evidence for the
emergence of life on Earth by at least 3,800 Myr before present." (Mojzsis S.J., Arrhenius G., McKeegan
K.D., Harrison T.M., Nutman A.P., & Friend C.R.L., "Evidence for life on Earth before 3,800 million years
ago," Nature, Vol. 384, 7 November 1996, pp.55-56. References removed)
18/11/02
"It seems, moreover, that the atmosphere's composition during this period may not have favored the
synthesis of organic compounds as much as had been thought. The traditional view was elucidated in the
early 1950s by Harold C. Urey, a Nobel laureate in chemistry at the University of Chicago. He proposed that
the atmosphere was reducing: rich in hydrogen based gases such as methane and ammonia, which are
abundant on Saturn, Jupiter and Uranus. It was Urey's work that inspired Miller, a student of Urey's, to
conduct his 1953 experiment. Yet over the past decade or so, doubts have grown about Urey and Miller's
assumptions regarding the atmosphere. Laboratory experiments and computerized reconstructions of the
atmosphere by James C.G. Walker of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and others suggest that
ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed
hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere. Free hydrogen would have escaped into space. The major
component of the atmosphere, these findings suggest, was carbon dioxide and nitrogen spewed out by
volcanoes. Such an atmosphere would not have been conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other
precursors of life. According to recent calculations by James F. Kasting of Pennsylvania State University,
the carbon dioxide might also have created a greenhouse effect so extreme that temperatures at the earth's
surface rose nearly to the boiling point of water." (Horgan J., "In The Beginning...," Scientific
American, Vol. 264, No. 2, February 1991, pp.100-109, p.105)
18/11/02
"[Stanley L.] Miller does not like vents-at least, not as the original seats of life. He notes that modern vents
seem to be short-lived, lasting only for a few decades before they are plugged up. Moreover, he and Jeffrey
L. Bada, who is also at the University of California at San Diego, have done experiments that suggest the
superheated water inside the vents-which sometimes exceeds 300 degrees Celsius (572 degrees Fahrenheit)-
would destroy rather than create complex organic compounds. If the surface of the earth is a frying pan,
Miller says, a hydrothermal vent is the fire." (Horgan J., "In The Beginning...," Scientific American,
Vol. 264, No. 2, February 1991, pp.100-109, p.105)
18/11/02
"`What about submarine vents as a source of prebiotic compounds?' `I have a very simple response to that.
Submarine vents don't make organic compounds, they decompose them. Indeed, these vents are one of the
limiting factors on what organic compounds you are going to have in the primitive oceans. At the present
time, the entire ocean goes through those vents in 10 million years. So all of the organic compounds get
zapped every ten million years. That places a constraint on how much organic material you can get.
Furthermore, it gives you a time scale for the origin of life. If all the polymers and other goodies that you
make get destroyed, it means life has to start early and rapidly. If you look at the process in detail, it seems
that long periods of time are detrimental, rather than helpful. ... Temperature seems to be a talking point
regarding prebiotic hypotheses. We know we can't have a very high temperature, because the organic
materials would simply decompose. For example, ribose degrades in 73 minutes at high temperatures, so it
doesn't seem likely. Then people talk about temperature gradients in the submarine vent. I don't know what
these gradients are supposed to do. My thinking is that a temperature between 0 and 10 degrees C would be
feasible. The minute you get above 25 degrees C there are problems of stability.'" (Henahan S., "From
Primordial Soup to the Prebiotic Beach." Interview with Dr. Stanley L. Miller, Access Excellence, October,
1996. http://www.accessexcellence.com/WN/NM/miller.html)
18/11/02
"Other experts on so-called Archaean fossils, including Donald R. Lowe of Stanford University, think Buick,
and perhaps even Des Maraes, is being too skeptical. Although individual fossils are ambiguous, Lowe
says, in their sum they suggest that life was `extensive, diverse and sophisticated' 3.5 billion years ago and
was probably well under way before the 3.8-billion-year mark. If correct, this scenario implies that life
evolved and survived under unpleasant-and periodically even hellish circumstances. By analyzing craters
on the moon, which form a Braille-like record of the rate of impacts in the young solar system, groups led by
geophysicists David J. Stevenson of the California Institute of Technology and Norman H. Sleep of Stan
ford independently concluded some two years ago that meteorites and comets smashing into the earth
could have deterred the emergence of life for hundreds of millions of years. Many of the projectiles would
have been much larger than the 10-kilometer-wide object that some scientists believe killed off the dinosaurs
at the boundary between the Cretaceous and Tertiary epochs 65 million years ago. The impacts of such
large objects, Sleep says, would have generated enough heat to boil the surface of the oceans-and perhaps
to vaporize them entirely. The collisions also would have thrown huge clouds of dust and molten rock into
the atmosphere. The implication of these calculations is dramatic: at the very least, the impacts would have
destroyed incipient life on land or anywhere near the surface of the oceans until 3.8 billion years ago. Life
dependent on photosynthesis would have been particularly vulnerable." (Horgan J., "In The Beginning...,"
Scientific American, Vol. 264, No. 2, February 1991, pp.100-109, pp.104-105).
18/11/02
"Indeed, although recent reports in the lay press have suggested that Szostak, Rebek and others are on the
verge of creating `life in a test tube' (a story about Rebek in Discover magazine was headlined: `Yikes! It's
Al-i-i-i-ve!"), that goal seems more distant than ever to some observers. `The simplest bacterium is so damn
complicated from the point of view of a chemist that it is almost impossible to imagine how it happened,'
says Harold P. Klein of Santa Clara University, chairman of a National Academy of Sciences committee that
recently reviewed origin-of-life research." (Horgan J., "In The Beginning...," Scientific American, Vol.
264, No. 2, February 1991, pp.100-109, p.104)
19/11/02
"Last summer a group led by Julius Rebek, Jr., a chemist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
created a stir by announcing that it had created a synthetic organic molecule that could replicate itself. The
molecule, called amino adenosine triacid ester (AATE), consists of two components that chemically
resemble both proteins and nucleic acids. AATE molecules, when placed in a solution of chloroform stocked
with the components, serve as templates for the formation of new AATEs. Rebek's experiments have two
drawbacks, according to Joyce: they only replicate in highly artificial, unnatural conditions, and, even more
important, they reproduce too accurately. Without mutation, the molecules cannot evolve in the Darwinian
sense. Orgel agrees. `What Rebek has done is very clever,' he says, `but I don't see its relevance to the
origin of life.'" (Horgan J., "In The Beginning...," Scientific American, Vol. 264, No. 2, February 1991,
pp.100-109, p.104)
19/11/02
"The genetic differences between humans and chimps are minor, but they include at least ten large
inversions and translocations. An inversion is, literally, the turning around of a chromosomal segment. Each
hybrid cell would have a set of chimp and a corresponding set of human chromosomes. Egg and sperm cells
are made by a process called meiosis, or reduction division. In meiosis, each chromosome must pair (lie side
by side) with its counterpart before cell division, so that corresponding genes can match up one to one: that
is, each chimp chromosome must pair with its human counterpart. But if a piece of human chromosome is
inverted relative to its counterpart in chimps, then gene-by-gene pairing cannot occur without elaborate
looping and twisting that usually precludes successful cell division." (Gould, S.J., "Ever Since Darwin:
Reflections in Natural History," [1978], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.55)
19/11/02
"Although polyploids in the animal kingdom are known (in some species of lizards, fish, invertebrates, and a
tetraploid mammal, the red viscacha rat), polyploidy as a successful evolutionary strategy is primarily a plant
phenomenon." (Tamarin R.H., "Principles of Genetics," International Edition, [1996], McGraw-Hill: New York
NY, Seventh Edition, 2002, pp.198-199)
20/11/02
"But supposing that life could originate in the laboratory already hinted in the Miller-Urey experiment?
What should our judgment if some day a scientist actually makes a living cell or something akin to an
amoeba? Men used to believe that man could change or duplicate only the inorganic, for only God could
make living creatures and their products. But since the synthesis of urea a good number of organic
compounds have been created and the entire debate ceased. Even the staunchest hyper-orthodox would
hardly reopen this debate. If man can think God's thoughts after Him, why is it incredible that man can do
some of God's works after Him? Further, because man with a vast chemical equipment and an equally vast
body of chemical data at his disposal can synthesize complex chemicals, it does not mean that Nature with
only chance as its guide and creator can make life and foster it into complex creatures over the millions of
years." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted,
1960, pp.182-183)
22/11/02
"The sorts of myths we have in mind are modern stories and attitudes about the origin and nature of our
own biological species, Homo sapiens. Stories become myths when their truth has long been taken
for granted. ... For science is storytelling, albeit of a special kind. Science is the invention of
explanations about what things are, how they work, and how they came to be. ... Science is theory,
mental constructs about the natural world. Some theories are better than others. Some have been tested
more severely than others. When theories remain unexamined for a long time, they tend to take on mythic
qualities. We are inclined to accept them as true, sometimes in the face of rather plain evidence to the
contrary. Some of the myths we pursue in this book are of this sort: long-accepted scientific notions which
do not stand up to close scrutiny. Some of the most mythic of scientific notions lie in the realm of
evolutionary biology." (Eldredge N. & Tattersall I., "The Myths of Human Evolution," Columbia University
Press: New York NY, 1982, pp.1-2. Emphasis in original)
22/11/02
"creationism (special creation) A view that opposes evolutionary theory and envisages the vast variety of
living organisms, both existing and fossilized, as having been specially designed by a Creator. The
attempted construction of phylogenetic pathways based on the idea that living forms have evolved from
ancestral forms is interpreted by creationists as evidence of a 'Great Design'. Creationism is difficult to
disprove by experiment." (Blackmore, Stephen & Tootill, Elizabeth, eds, "The Penguin Dictionary of
Botany," Penguin Books: Harmondsworth, Middlesex UK, 1984, pp.89-90)
22/11/02
"Haemophilus influenza contains about 1,700 genes; Mycoplasma genitalium contains only 470 genes, the
smallest number yet discovered for any species. Arcady Mushegian and Eugene Koonin of the National
Center for Biotechnology Information reasoned that any genes such diverse species hold in common are
likely essential for basic cell function. That number adds up to 240. To cover certain enzyme functions
critical for cell survival, they add 22 genes, for a total of 262, then they trim out 6 genes that appear
redundant or specific to each bacteria's adaptation for feeding on its specific host. Their final figure, then,
for the minimum genome to support cell function and reproduction is 256. (Mushegian A.R. & Koonin E.V.,
"A Minimal Gene Set for Cellular Life Derived by Comparison of Complete Bacterial Genomes," Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 93, No. 19, September 17, 1996, pp.10268-10273). Referring to their calculation as
preliminary, Mushegian and Koonin realize they may have overlooked some critical function(s) not covered
by the 256 genes. Clearly, the bacteria do have to find and attach to suitable hosts, and some level of
genetic redundancy appears essential for species' survival. When complete genome analysis for more
species, including humans, becomes available in a few months, a more accurate estimate of life's minimal
chemical complexity will also be available. But in the meantime, Mushegian and Koonin's work provides a
ballpark figure for determining the magnitude of the `spontaneous generation' problem. Anyone proposing a
naturalistic interpretation for life's origin must be able to explain how 256+ genes, plus all the other chemical
components and structures for survival and reproduction put themselves together via mindless,
purposeless, non-organic processes." (Ross H.N.*, "Simplest Bacterium Not So Simple," Facts & Faith,
Reasons To Believe: Pasadena CA, Vol. 10, No. 4, Fourth Quarter 1996, p.5.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/96q4faf/simple.shtml)
23/11/02
"Rube Goldberg systems always get a good laugh; the audience enjoys watching the contraption work and
appreciates the humor in applying great gobs of ingenuity to a silly purpose. But sometimes a complicated
system is used for a serious purpose. In this case the humor fades, but admiration for the delicate
interactions of the component remains. Modern biochemists have discovered a number of Rube Goldberg-
like systems as they probe the workings of life on the molecular scale. In the biochemical systems the string,
stick, ball, seesaw, rock, sandpaper, match, fuse, cannon, cannonball, funnel, saw, rope, and telephone pole
of the cartoon are replaced by proteins with eyeglazing names such as `plasma thromboplastin antecedent'
or `high-molecular-weight kininogen.' The inner balance and crisp functioning, however, are the same. ...
Like some ultimate Rube Goldberg machine, the clotting cascade is a breathtaking balancing act in which a
menagerie of biochemicals sporting various decorations and rearrangements conferred by modifying
enzymes-bounce off one another at precise angles in a meticulously ordered sequence until, at the
denouement, Foghorn Leghorn pushes off the telephone pole and gets up from the ground, the bleeding
from his wounds stopped. The audience rises to its feet in sustained applause." (Behe, M.J.*, "Darwin's
Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free Press: New York NY, 1996, pp.77,97)
23/11/02
"In 1972, two young scientists, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, ventured the proposal that perhaps
the fossil record is not so imperfect after all. Both Eldredge and Could had backgrounds in geology and in
vertebrate paleontology, and both were impressed with the fact that there was very little evidence for a
gradual phyletic change in the fossil species they studied. Typically a species would appear "abruptly" in
fossil bearing strata, last 5 million to 10 million years, and disappear, apparently not much different from
when it first appeared. Another species, related but distinctly different. would take its place, persist with
little change, and disappear "abruptly." Suppose, Eldredge and Gould argued, that these long periods of
little or no change, followed by what appear to be gaps in the fossil record, are not flaws in the record but
are the record, the evidence of what really happens." (Raven P.H., Evert R.F. & Eichhorn S.E.,
"Biology of Plants," [1971], W.H. Freeman & Co/Worth: New York NY, Sixth Edition, 1999, p.257. Emphasis
in original)
24/11/02
"On one occasion in his late years Darwin was asked to state his opinion on religion. He answered that
while the subject of God was 'beyond the scope of man's intellect', his moral obligations were nevertheless
clear: 'Man can do his duty.' On another occasion - in an addendum to his autobiography he explained that,
even without a belief in God, a man 'can have for his rule of life ... only to follow those impulses and instincts
which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones. ... By degrees it will be more intolerable to him
to obey his sensuous passions rather than his highest impulses, which when rendered habitual may be
almost called instincts. His reason may occasionally tell him to act in opposition to the opinion of others,
whose approbation he will then not receive; but he will still have the solid satisfaction of knowing that he
has followed his innermost judge or conscience.' He never realized that statements of this kind destroyed
the very foundations of any strictly materialistic and deterministic philosophy, including his own -
according to which human morality was derived from innate 'social instincts'. 'It can hardly be disputed', he
wrote in his disastrous controversy against Mill, 'that the social feelings are instinctive or innate in the lower
animals: and why should they not be so in men?' But from what source, then, would man derive the power to
follow those instincts 'which seemed to him the best ones', to obey his 'highest impulses' as opposed to his
`sensuous passions'; and even 'to act in opposition to the opinion of others'? The source of that power
must evidently be the 'innermost judge, or conscience' - concepts of a transcendental nature and quite
heretical from the point of view of a purely materialist world-view." (Koestler A., "The Act of Creation,"
[1964], Pan: London, 1970, reprint, pp.448-449. Ellipses Koestler's)
25/11/02
"The Parable of the Two Watchmakers ... There were once two Swiss watchmakers, named Bios and
Mekhos, who made very fine and expensive watches. .... Although their watches were in equal demand, Bios
prospered, while Mekhos just struggled along; in the end he had to close his shop and take a job as a
mechanic with Bios. The people in the town argued for a long time over the reasons for this development
and each had a different theory to offer, until the true explanation leaked out and proved to be both simple
and surprising. The watches they made consisted of about one thousand each, but the two rivals had used
different methods to parts put them together. Mekhos had assembled his watches bit by bit - rather like
making a mosaic floor out of small coloured stones. Thus each time when he was disturbed in his work and
had to put down a partly assembled watch, it fell to pieces and he had to start again from scratch. Bios, on
the other hand, had designed a method of making watches by constructing, for a start, sub-assemblies of
about ten components, each of which held together as an independent unit. Ten of these sub-assemblies
could then be fitted together into a sub-system of a higher order; and ten of these sub-systems constituted
the whole watch. This method proved to have two immense advantages. In the first place, each time there
was an interruption or a disturbance, and Bios had to put down, or even drop, the watch he was working on,
it did not decompose into its elementary bits; instead of starting all over again, he merely had to reassemble
that particular sub-assembly on which he was working at the time; so that at worst (if the disturbance came
when he had nearly finished the sub-assembly in hand) he had to repeat nine assembling operations, and at
best none at all. Now it is easy to show mathematically that if a watch consists of a thousand bits, and if
some disturbance occurs at an average of once in every hundred assembling operations then Mekhos will
take four thousand times longer to assemble a watch than Bios. Instead of a single day. it will take him
eleven years. And if for mechanical bits, we substitute amino acids, protein molecules, organelles, and so
on, the ratio between the time-scales becomes astronomical; some calculations indicate that the whole
lifetime of the earth would be insufficient for producing even an amoeba - unless he becomes converted to
Bios' method and proceeds hierarchically, from simple sub-assemblies to more complex ones. ... A second
advantage of Bios' method is of course that the finished product will be incomparably more resistant to
damage, and much easier to maintain, regulate and repair, than Mekhos' unstable mosaic of atomic bits. We
do not know what forms of life have evolved on other planets in the universe, but we can safely assume that
wherever there is life, it must be hierarchically organized." (Koestler A., "The Ghost in the Machine,"
[1967], Pan: London, 1970, reprint, pp.62-64. Emphasis in original)
27/11/02
"But he also faced the arduous task of reorienting the way Victorians looked at nature. He had to show them
that their generally received ideas about a benevolent, nearly perfect natural world, in which insects and
seeds were designed to feed birds and birds to feed cats, and beauty was given to things for a purpose,
were wrong-that the idea of a loving God who created all living things and brought men and women into
existence was at the very least a fable. The world that Sedgwick and Henslow cherished, the world steeped
in moral meaning which helped mankind seek out higher goals in life, was not Darwin's. Darwin's view of
nature was dark-black. At its most basic level his theory required a stunning readjustment of intellectual and
emotional focus. Where most men and women generally believed in some kind of design in nature-some kind
of plan and order-and felt a deep seated, mostly inexpressible belief that their existence had meaning, Darwin
wanted them to see all life as empty of any divine purpose. ... The pleasant outward face of nature was
precisely that-only an outward face. Underneath was perpetual struggle, species against species, individual
against individual. Life was ruled by death, as Malthus taught him. Heavy destruction was the key to
reproductive success. All the theological meaning was thus stripped out by Darwin and replaced by the
concept of competition. All the telos, the purpose, on which natural theologians based their ideas of perfect
adaptation was redirected into Malthusian-Darwinian-struggle. ... There was no ulterior purpose in it
anywhere. ... Now Darwin firmly drove the idea of God out of nature. As he was the first to recognise, his
theory bleakly signalled the death of Adam." (Browne E.J., "Charles Darwin Voyaging: A Biography,"
[1995], Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1996, reprint, pp.542-543) [top]
December
2/12/02
"When it was realized that apes had been man's ancestors, some authors went so far as to state `Man is
nothing but an animal.' However, this is not at all true. Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other
animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. ... Even though we often use
the word `language' in connection with the information transmittal systems of animals, such as the
`language of bees,' actually all of these animal species have merely systems of giving and receiving signals.
To be a language, a system of communication must contain syntax and grammar. Psychologists have at
tempted for half a century to teach language to chimpanzees, but in vain. Chimps seem to lack the neural
equipment to adopt syntax. Therefore, they cannot talk about the future or the past. Having invented
language, our ancestors were able to develop a rich oral tradition long before the invention of writing and
printing. ... Thinking and intelligence are widespread among warm-blooded vertebrates (birds and mammals).
But human intelligence seems to surpass that of even the most intelligent animals by orders of magnitude."
(Mayr E., "What Evolution Is," Basic Books: New York, 2001, pp.252-253)
2/12/02
"When we turn to the Historical Sketch itself our legitimate surprise at this self-sufficiency deepens into
amazement. Professing to sketch the progress of the idea of change of species, it is surely the most
extraordinary piece of writing bearing the word `historical' at its head. It dismisses Buffon; it misrepresents
Lamarck, and it buries Erasmus Darwin in the middle of a footnote ... The greatest injustice was of course to
Lamarck. According to Osborn, `the disdainful allusions to him by Charles Darwin ... long placed him in the
light of a purely extravagant speculative thinker.' These disdainful allusions are all the more reprehensible
that they were misrepresentations, not excusable through ignorance, and made by an unavowed part-
disciple. It is clear that Darwin would not have treated a pigeon or gasteropod in this cavalier fashion, and
that coming from any other man than an `intellectual, modest, simple-minded lover of truth' the whole
performance would have been damned as shamefully fraudulent." (Barzun J., "Darwin, Marx, Wagner:
Critique of a Heritage," [1941], Doubleday Anchor: Garden City NY, Second Edition, 1958, pp.81-82)
4/12/02
"Some general principles of reconciliation between science and Scripture. There is no contradiction between
the facts of Genesis and the facts of science. There is a difference between some interpretations of
Genesis and some theories of science. Since God is revealed in both His Word (Scripture) and His
world (science) (Ps. 19:1; Rom. 1:19), there is really no contradiction between them. When the Bible
and science appear to be in conflict, we must remember that scientific theories change, and they may
be wrong today. In addition, there is more than one way to interpret the early chapters of Genesis. Finally,
through the years science has come to support many things in the Bible which it once taught were untrue. ...
Archaeology has discovered thousands of things which prove the historical accuracy of the Bible.
Astronomy agrees with Genesis that the world had a beginning. Geology supports the order of creation
presented in Genesis 1, following its approach that the universe came first, the world was formed next, that
life began in the sea, with the lower forms of life appearing first, and that man is the highest and latest form
of life to appear. Physics (the second Law of Thermodynamics) shows the world is running out of available
energy. Hence the world cannot be eternal but must have had a beginning. ... Biology teaches that each
creature reproduces its own kind, and Anthropology shows that there is only one race of mankind (cf. Acts
17:26) with different ethnic groupings within it. This indicates a common ancestor for all men." (Geisler N.L.,
"A Popular Survey of the Old Testament," [1977], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1984, Eighth printing, p.43.
Emphasis in original)
5/12/02
"When I began to research this question a little more closely I uncovered a puzzle. Those experts I referred
to and the authoritative textbooks I consulted all told me that modern dating has been accomplished by
using radioactive methods and hence was an absolute dating method of a far higher order of accuracy than
all previous methods ... Radioactive dating, though, is used to date the rocks directly and hence was
welcomed as an absolute method. The puzzle arises because radioactive dating techniques can be applied
only to volcanic rocks which contain some radioactive mineral- the primary rocks of the Earth's crust. But
the geological column consists of sedimentary rocks - rocks formed from sediments laid down on the beds
of ancient seas and composed of particles of those primary rocks. So, of course, any age determination made
using these particles will be the same as that of the primary rocks from which they were derived. In some
common sedimentary rocks, such as chalk or limestone, there are not even particles of the primary rocks
present and so radioactive dating cannot be used at all. ... The only sediments which can be dated directly
are those in which a radioactive mineral is formed during diagenesis [laying down] of the sediment, such as
the rather uncommon illite shales and glauconitic sandstones; other sediments give only the age of the
parent rock from which the mineral grains that make them up are derived. ... It turns out that what has been
dated by radioactive decay methods is not the sedimentary rocks themselves but the isolated intrusion into
them of igneous or primary rocks, usually as volcanic material. This has been a rare and purely fortuitous
process and one that is unreliable - so rare and so unreliable that the Institute of Geological Sciences thinks
it unlikely to replace or even rival fossils as a method of dating." (Milton R., "The Facts of Life: Shattering
the Myth of Darwinism," Fourth Estate, London, 1992, pp.20-21)
6/12/02
"Direct selection of catalysts from pools of fully randomized polypeptides is a conceivable alternative to de
novo design, requiring no foreknowledge of structure or mechanism. ... However, a 100-residue protein has
20100 (1.3 × 10130) possible sequences. Even a library with the mass of the
Earth itself - 5.98 × 1027g - would comprise at most 3.3 × 1047 different
sequences, or a miniscule fraction of such diversity. Unless protein catalysts are unexpectedly abundant
and evenly distributed in sequence space, such a strategy will clearly be impractical." (Taylor S.V., Walter
K.U., Kast P. & Hilvert D., "Searching sequence space for protein catalysts," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA,
Vol. 98, No. 19, pp.10596-10601, September 11, 2001. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/19/10596)
6/12/02
"Adaptation by natural selection as a creative process and pre-adaptation in the special senses just
explained are the answers of the synthetic theory of evolution to the problem of plan and purpose in nature.
Of course much work remains to be done, many details to be filled in, and many parts of the process to be
more clearly understood, but it seems to me and to many others that here, at last, is the basis for a complete
and sound solution of this old and troublesome problem. Adaptation is real, and it is achieved by a
progressive and directed process. The process is wholly natural in its operation. This natural process
achieves the aspect of purpose without the intervention of a purposer, and it has produced a vast plan
without the concurrent action of a planner. It may be that the initiation of the process and the physical laws
under which it functions had a Purposer and that this mechanistic way of achieving a plan is the instrument
of a Planner-of this still deeper problem the scientist, as scientist, cannot speak." (Simpson G.G., "Plan and
Purpose in Nature," [Scientific Monthly, Vol. 64, June, 1947, pp.481-495] in "This View of Life: The World of
an Evolutionist," Harcourt, Brace & World: New York NY, 1964, p.212)
6/12/02
"Why does the universe look this way rather than some other way? Why does it adhere to these laws of
nature rather than to some other laws? Altering any of the universe's fundamental parameters would have
radically altered reality. For example, if the cosmos had been slightly more dense at its inception, it would
have quickly collapsed into a black hole. A smidgen less dense, and it would have flown apart so fast that
there would have been no chance for stars, galaxies, and planets to form. Cosmologists sometimes call this
the fine-tuning problem, or, more colorfully, the Goldilocks dilemma: How did the density of the universe
turn out not too high, not too low, but just right? The odds that matter would have precisely its observed
density, the physicist Lawrence Krauss has calculated, are as great as the odds of guessing precisely how
many atoms there are in the sun. Some physicists are so troubled by the arbitrariness of the cosmos that
they espouse a quasi-theological concept known as the anthropic principle. According to this notion, the
universe must have the structure we observe, because otherwise we wouldn't be here to observe it. The
anthropic principle is cosmology's version of creationism." (Horgan J., "Between Science and Spirituality,"
The Chronicle of Higher Education, November 29, 2002. http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i14/14b00701.htm)
7/12/02
"On a visit to Leningrad some years ago I consulted a map to find out where I was, but I could not make it
out. From where I stood, I could see several enormous churches, yet there was no trace of them on my map.
When finally an interpreter came to help me, he said: "We don't show churches on our maps." Contradicting
him, I pointed to one that was very clearly marked. "That is a museum," he said, "not what we call a 'living
church.' It is only the 'living churches' we don't show." It then occurred to me that this was not the first time
I had been given a map which failed to show many things I could see right in front of my eyes. All through
school and university I had been given maps of life and knowledge on which there was hardly a trace of
many of the things that I most cared about and that seemed to me to be of the greatest possible importance
to the conduct of my life. I remembered that for many years my perplexity had been complete; and no
interpreter had come along to help me. It remained complete until I ceased to suspect the sanity of my
perceptions and began, instead, to suspect the soundness of the maps." (Schumacher E.F., "On
Philosophical Maps," in "A Guide for the Perplexed," [1977], Harper & Row: New York NY, 1978, reprint, p.1)
8/12/02
"Difficult as it may be to conceive and impossible to demonstrate design in a whole of which the series of
parts appear to be contingent, the alternative may be yet more difficult and less satisfactory. If all Nature is
of a piece-as modern physical philosophy insists - then it seems clear that design must in some way, and in
some sense, pervade the system, or be wholly absent from it. Of the alternatives, the predication of design-
special, general, or universal, as the case may be-is most natural to the mind; while the exclusion of it
throughout ... runs counter to such analogies as we have to guide us, and leads to a conclusion which few
men ever rested in." (Gray A., "Darwiniana: Essays and Reviews Pertaining to Darwinism," Dupree A.H., ed.,
Belknap: Cambridge MA, 1963, pp.311-312)
10/12/02
"WHEN on board H.M.S. Beagle, as naturalist ..." (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of
Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.7).
"Most biologists would answer `Charles Darwin' when asked `Who was the naturalist aboard the H.M.S.
Beagle?' And they would all be wrong. Let me not sound too shocking at the outset. Darwin was on
the Beagle and he did devote his attention to natural history. But he was brought on board for another
purpose, and the ship's surgeon, Robert McKormick, originally held the official position of naturalist. ...
Darwin, to cut the suspense, sailed on the Beagle as a companion to Captain Fitzroy." (Gould, S.J.,
"Darwin's Sea Change, or Five Years at the Captain's Table," in "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural
History," [1978], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, pp.28-29)
10/12/02
"The higher vertebrates (especially those mammals which are most nearly related to man) have just as good
a title to `reason' as man himself, and within the limits of the animal world there is the same long chain of the
gradual development of reason as in the case of humanity. The difference between the reason of a Goethe, a
Kant, a Lamarck, or a Darwin, and that of the lowest savage, a Veddah, an Akka, a native Australian, or a
Patagonian, is much greater than the graduated difference between the reason of the latter and that of the
most `rational' mammals, the anthropoid apes, or even the papiomorpha, the dog, or the elephant." (Haeckel
E., "The Riddle of the Universe," [1929], McCabe J., transl., Watts & Co: London, 1937, Fourth Impression,
pp.101-102)
10/12/02
"THE greatest, vastest, and most difficult of all cosmic problems is that of the origin and development of the
world-the `question of creation,' in a word. Even to the solution of this most difficult world-riddle the
nineteenth century has contributed more than all its predecessors; in a certain sense, indeed, it has found
the solution. We have at least attained to a clear view of the fact that all the partial questions of creation are
indivisibly connected, that they represent one single, comprehensive `cosmic problem,' and that the key to
this problem is found in the one magic word-evolution." (Haeckel E., "The Riddle of the Universe," [1929],
McCabe J., transl., Watts & Co: London, 1937, Fourth Impression, p.191)
10/12/02
"In a discussion with the biologist Richard Dawkins I asked him about the Cartesian view that animals were
machines. Descartes had excluded people because his God ensured they were more than machines. But
Dawkins asked simply how we could define a being that was not a machine - as, he suggested, some thing
with an immortal soul. Because he did not believe in any such thing, people were machines. Dawkins has
sound and consistent reasons for believing this. But it is a choice and, to me, it is incoherent. For people
throughout history have felt they have souls. This feeling is real, it is not modified by either psychoanalysis
or physics. Indeed, the word 'machine' only functions in the language at all if we do exclude people - it
means an artificial mechanism that is not a person or it means nothing. This is not a quibble, it is at the
centre of what we are. The way the language works tells us at every moment how to be ourselves. We are
not machines because the language tells us so. Perhaps from that we can conclude we have immortal souls.
All right, human beings as a whole may have invented or evolved the idea of a soul. But does that make it
any less real, less permanent? It has outlasted all scientific conception." (Appleyard B., "Understanding the
Present: Science and the Soul of Modern Man," Picador: London, 1992, p.246)
10/12/02
"I am got most deeply interested in my subject; though I wish I could set less value on the bauble fame,
either present or posthumous, than I do, but not I think, to any extreme degree: yet, if I know myself, I would
work just as hard, though with less gusto, if I knew that my book would be published for ever
anonymously." (Darwin, C.R., letter to his cousin, W.D. Fox, February 22, 1857, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life
and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. I., 1959, reprint, p.452)
10/12/02
"In his autobiography Darwin describes how at Edinburgh in 1826 he was introduced to Lamarckian
evolution by Dr Robert Grant: `I listened in silent astonishment, and as far as I can judge, without any effect
on my mind. I had previously read the 'Zoonomia' of my grandfather, in which similar views are maintained,
but without producing any effect on me. ... the latter is dishonest, as became known when Darwin's
notebooks on transmutation were published. In the first one, opened in 1837, Darwin did not hesitate about
the source of information on evolution closest at hand, for the first page is headed `ZOONOMIA'. Darwin
began the collection of notes from his grandfather's book; he knew where to find information on the subject
of evolution. Furthermore, all his copies of Erasmus Darwin's works were heavily marked and commented.
Could Charles read these books without getting hints as to 'the struggle for existence', 'sexual selection' and
'mimicry'?" (Lovtrup S., "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth," Croom Helm: London, 1987, pp.19-20)
11/12/02
"PJ: First and foremost, the subject should be approached with honesty and candor. I agree with the
Darwinists that students should learn more about evolution. The difference is that they want to indoctrinate
students, and I want them to learn the flaws in the theory. I want them to see why the fossil evidence is so
inconsistent with Darwinism and how they point to a few isolated examples and ignore everything that
doesn't fit their premise. If science is going to deal with the question of whether there is a Creator, they
ought to openly and honestly deal with both sides of the issue rather than just one. They say they stay
away from religious issues, but that is false. They deal with them constantly by trying to persuade people
that there is no intelligent Creator who had a hand in the creation, that purely physical, material mechanisms
were the only thing at work. They refuse to deal with all the compelling evidence for an active, intelligent
Creator." (Aust J., "Creation or Evolution: An Interview With Phillip Johnson," The Good News Magazine,
July/August 1998. http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn17/interview.html)
11/12/02
"The creationists make no secret of their distaste for the `atheistic' philosophy of evolution, but they
present their case in an ostensibly scientific form that does not refer explicitly to the Genesis story. ... Their
argument is based on an attempt to show that biologists have greatly exaggerated the success of evolution
theory. In fact, the theory faces a number of major scientific problems, which would all disappear if the
possibility were accepted instead that species are miraculously created. Many arguments are directed
against natural selection, which creationists see as the heart of evolutionary materialism because of its
emphasis on a trial-and-error sorting of random mutations. They argue that such a haphazard process could
never generate the complex structures of living things, and they have revived the argument from design in
the form once employed by Paley. The fossil record is brought in on the assumption that gradual
development of new forms must have left evidence in the rocks if it occurred at all. Instead, they argue, we
see only the sudden appearance of new types and classes." (Bowler P.J., "Evolution: The History of an
Idea," [1983], University of California Press: Berkeley CA, Revised Edition, 1989, pp.354-355)
11/12/02
"The divisions of Christendom are undeniable and are by some of these writers most fiercely expressed. But
if any man is tempted to think-as one might be tempted who read only contemporaries - that "Christianity" is
a word of so many meanings that it means nothing at all, he can learn beyond all doubt, by stepping out of
his own century, that this is not so. Measured against the ages "mere Christianity" turns out to be no
insipid interdenominational transparency, but something positive, self-consistent, and inexhaustible. I know
it, indeed, to my cost. In the days when I still hated Christianity, I learned to recognise, like some all too
familiar smell, that almost unvarying something which met me, now in Puritan Bunyan, now in Anglican
Hooker, now in Thomist Dante. It was there (honeyed and floral) in Francois de Sales; it was there (grave
and homely) in Spenser and Walton; it was there (grim but manful) in Pascal and Johnson; there again, with
a mild, frightening, Paradisial flavour, in Vaughan and Boehme and Traherne. In the urban sobriety of the
eighteenth century one was not safe - Law and Butler were two lions in the path. The supposed "Paganism"
of the Elizabethans could not keep it out; it lay in wait where a man might have supposed himself safest, in
the very centre of The Faerie Queene and the Arcadia. It was, of course, varied; and yet - after all - so
unmistakably the same; recognisable, not to be evaded, the odour which is death to us until we allow it to
become life" (Lewis C.S.*, "Introduction", in Athanasius, "On the Incarnation."
http://www.gty.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm#ch_0)
12/12/02
"Grant did much more than provide Darwin with this promising professional start. He introduced him to the
acute excitement of evolutionary thought. `He, one day, when we were walking together burst forth in high
admiration of Lamarck and his views on evolution. I listened in silent astonishment.' But, Darwin added, `as
far as I can judge, without any effect on my mind.' (Autobiography, p.49) Grant had long appreciated not
only Lamarck but also Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin. ... Grant was probably delighted by the idea
that his young disciple was a direct descendant of this famous English evolutionist. ... But Charles Darwin's
phlegmatic response was puzzling. Far too disingenuous in his Autobiography, he was in truth well
prepared to understand the importance both of Lamarck and of his grandfather. At the time Grant spoke to
him, Darwin had already read Lamarck's technical guide to the classification of invertebrates, the Systeme
des animaux sans vertebres (1801), which included the text of a lecture in which Lamarck clearly proposed
that species change through time. From this lecture he would quickly have grasped the essentials of
Lamarck's theory. And he had by then studied Erasmus Darwin's evolutionary works, particularly the
Zoonomia. A previously unknown list made by Darwin of the books he read during his second year at
Edinburgh makes it plain that he studied his grandfather's volumes closely-closely enough to continue the
interest by reading Anna Seward's biography of him (published in 1804) and following up crucial questions
about the nature of life and organisation as raised in the Zoonomia and by contemporary debates in
Edinburgh in other medical texts of the period. Young Darwin, it now turns out, was well aware of
evolutionary views and perfectly capable of grasping the full implications of what Grant had to say. There
can be no doubt that he was impressed by his grandfather and his ideas." (Browne E.J., "Charles Darwin
Voyaging: A Biography," [1995], Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1996, reprint, p.83)
13/12/02
"It is clear from this testimony that Bryan not only rejected the notion of a 6,000-year-old Earth but freely
interpreted the days of Genesis as vast periods of time. Such beliefs may have struck Darrow (and a host of
historians) as being inconsistent with hard-core Fundamentalism, but there is little evidence that
Fundamentalists themselves expressed either shock or surprise. During the 1920s Fundamentalists divided
over the correct interpretation of the Mosaic account of creation, but few insisted on a young Earth. ... An
influential minority, including Bryan, chose to accommodate the fossil evidence by reading the "days" of
Genesis as vast geological ages. Only a relatively tiny group, mostly Seventh-day Adventists, insisted on
the recent appearance of life on Earth in six days of twenty-four-hours each. Despite their differences, the
Fundamentalists in all three hermeneutical camps regarded themselves as strict biblical literalists. ... In
advocating the day-age interpretation of Genesis, Bryan found himself in impeccable Fundamentalist
company. George Frederick Wright, author of an essay on evolution in The Fundamentals,
subscribed to the same view, as did William Bell Riley, head of the World's Christian Fundamentals
Association, the organization that had sent Bryan to Dayton." (Numbers, R.L., "Darwinism Comes to
America," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1998, pp.80-81)
14/12/02
"The problem as the surgeon saw it was simple: was it he or Darwin who was the Beagle's naturalist?
As McCormick saw it, custom decreed that he should be the expedition's natural historian, and to all intents
and purposes he was right. By tradition, and usually also by inclination, the ship's doctor was the man most
obviously concerned with natural history during a naval voyage. The Beagle survey was no
exception. Darwin was not responsible for bringing together a natural history collection for the Crown, nor
was Darwin appointed, or even called, the Beagle's naturalist except in his own imagination and in a
few informal letters from FitzRoy to Beaufort. In the absence of any specific instructions from the Admiralty,
it ought to have been McCormick's official duty to fill that role. One or two letters exchanged between
FitzRoy, Darwin, and Beaufort before the Beagle sailed suggest the point was tacitly agreed among
them: `the Surgeon's collection would be at the disposal of Government.' This, thought Darwin, made it
easier for him, as a paying guest, to retain possession and disposal of his own private collections. His
appointment was `not a very regular affair,' he admitted to Fox before sailing." (Browne E.J., "Charles Darwin
Voyaging: A Biography," [1995], Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1996, reprint, p.203)
14/12/02
"Theorists often claim individuals are unimportant to the progress of science. Great researchers see far
because they stand on the shoulders of others. If one slips, another will climb to take his place. So if Darwin
had backed away, someone else would have picked up the notion that species evolve as environments
eliminate animals that are unsuited to their surroundings, Alfred Russel Wallace being the obvious
candidate. .... not much would have changed, it is argued. We would simply speak of Wallacism, not
Darwinism. Thanks to Browne we can now see this notion is untenable: Darwin was irreplaceable. ....
impoverished Wallace had no connections while Darwin was armed with powerful defenders who took
control of key scientific publishing outlets and academic positions and ensured natural selection got the
most favourable of receptions ... [Wallace's] decision in 1869 to renounce natural selection and claim that
only a 'spirit force or deity' could explain the evolution of human attributes would have been calamitous for
the general acceptance of natural selection had Wallace been its prime exponent. By contrast, Darwin never
wavered through all his subsequent works, presenting a consistent, ungodly, rational explanation of the
living world ... Thanks to Darwin's intellectual rigour, care for his ideas and concern for his own status, his
beloved theory gained an acceptance that no other scientist could have achieved so quickly or thoroughly.
His success may vex those who still refuse, for religious reasons, to accept natural selection. The rest of us
have many reasons to be grateful." (McKie R., "The origin of The Origin of Species." Review of "Charles
Darwin: The Power of Place," by Janet Browne, Jonathan Cape, 2002. The Observer, November 10, 2002.
http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/scienceandnature/0,6121,836872,00.html)
15/12/02
"The old idea of spontaneous generation is now taken in many different senses. It is owing to this
indistinctness of the idea, and its application to so many different hypotheses, that the problem is one of the
most contentious and confused in the science of the day. I restrict the idea of spontaneous generation-also
called abiogenesis or archigony-to the first development of living protoplasm out of inorganic carbonates ...
Naegeli has also treated the hypothesis in quite the same sense in his mechanico-physiological theory of
descent (1884), and has represented it to be an indispensable thesis in any natural theory of evolution. I
entirely agree with his assertion that `to reject abiogenesis is to admit a miracle.'" (Haeckel E., "The Riddle of
the Universe," [1929], McCabe J., transl., Watts & Co: London, 1937, Fourth Impression, pp.210-211)
16/12/02
"A telescope, a telephone, or a typewriter is a complex mechanism serving a particular function. Obviously,
its manufacturer had a purpose in mind, and the machine was designed and built in order to serve that
purpose. An eye, an ear, or a hand is also a complex mechanism serving a particular function. It, too, looks
as if it had been made for a purpose. This appearance of purposefulness is pervading in nature, in the
general structure of animals and plants, in the mechanisms of their various organs, and in the give and take
of their relationships with each other. Accounting for this apparent purposefulness is a basic problem for
any system of philosophy or of science." (Simpson G.G., "Plan and Purpose in Nature," [Scientific Monthly,
Vol. 64, June, 1947, pp.481-495] in "This View of Life: The World of an Evolutionist," Harcourt, Brace &
World: New York NY, 1964, p.190)
16/12/02
"Take the fine structure constant, or alpha, for example, which tells us the strength of electromagnetic forces
and controls the nature of atoms and molecules. It is determined by a combination of the charge of the
electron e, Planck's constant h, traditionally divided by 2.pi, and the speed of light c. Denoted by the Greek
letter alpha and defined by 2.pi.e2/hc, it is currently determined to be approximately equal to
1/137.03599976... This is an important number. If it were much larger, atoms and molecules would be unable
to exist; alpha's value affects the interaction between electrons and protons, and determines their binding
energy. No stars would be able to form either, because their centres would be too cool to start self-
sustaining nuclear reactions; alpha dictates the ignition temperature at which these can occur. In short, if
alpha were much larger we wouldn't be here to know about it." (Barrow J.D., "Enigma variations," New
Scientist, Vol. 175, No. 2359, 7 September 2002, p.30.
http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp?rp=1&id=mg17523595.200)
17/12/02
"And then there is omega, a number that measures the present-day deviation of our Universe's expansion
rate from the "critical rate". The critical rate is the value that separates universes that will expand forever
from those that will contract back to a "big crunch". Observation shows omega to be close to 1, and popular
theories of the Universe, such as inflation, predict that it will be within 1 part in 100,000 of that figure. With
such a small margin either way, we may never know on which side of the critical divide we lie." (Barrow J.D.,
"Enigma variations," New Scientist, Vol. 175, No. 2359, 7 September 2002, p.30.
http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp?rp=1&id=mg17523595.200)
17/12/02
"First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural
selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically. It no longer requires
God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts
evolution). Darwin pointed out that creation, as described in the Bible and the origin accounts of other
cultures, was contradicted by almost any aspect of the natural world. Every aspect of the `wonderful design'
so admired by the natural theologians could be explained by natural selection. ... Eliminating God from
science made room for strictly scientific explanations of all natural phenomena; it gave rise to positivism; it
produced a powerful intellectual and spiritual revolution, the effects of which have lasted to this day."
(Mayr E., "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American, Vol. 283, No. 1, July 2000,
pp.67-71, p.69)
18/12/02
"Some scientists are still fighting a rearguard action on behalf of Darwinism. ... Darwin's great advantage, it
now seems clear, was that he lived before the age of specialization, when great syntheses of ideas were still
possible. It is no wonder that scientists part reluctantly with Darwin. His theory of natural selection was
beautiful in its simplicity, and it has served well for over a century. To tamper with it is to raise a host of
questions for which there are no answers." (Adler J. & Carey J., "Is Man a Subtle Accident?," Newsweek,
November 3, 1980, pp.54-55, p.55)
18/12/02
"But the idea of design has a very great significance and application in the organic world. We do
undeniably perceive a purpose in the structure and in the life of an organism. The plant and the animal seem
to be controlled by a definite design in the combination of their several parts, just as clearly as we see in the
machines which man invents and constructs; as long as life continues the functions of the several organs
are directed to definite ends, just as is the operation of the various parts of a machine." (Haeckel E., "The
Riddle of the Universe," [1929], McCabe J., transl., Watts & Co: London, 1937, Fourth Impression, p.214)
18/12/02
"Should Darwinian theory come to be vindicated, Dabney planned out the route evangelical theologians
should take. It was precisely what the Princeton men had already begun to do. `I remark that if the theory of
the evolutionist were all conceded, the argument from designed adaptation would not be abolished but only
removed one step backward. If we are mistaken in believing that God made every living creature that moveth
after its kind; then the question recurs: Who planned and adjusted these wondrous powers of
development? Who endowed the cell-organs of the first living protoplasm with all this fitness for evolution
into the numerous and varied wonders of animal life and function, so diversified, yet all orderly adaptations?
There is a wonder of creative wisdom and power, at least equal to that of the Mosaic genesis. That this
point is justly taken, appears thus: Those philosophers who concede (as I conceive, very unphilosophically
and unnecessarily) the theory of `creation by law,' do not deem that they have thereby weakened the
teleological argument in the least." (Dabney R.L., "Lectures in Systematic Theology," [1878], Zondervan:
Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1980, p.37, in Livingstone D.N., "Darwin's Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter
between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1987, p.125)
18/12/02
"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of
magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory. The litany is familiar: cold, dispassionate,
objective, modern science shows us that races can be ranked on a scale of superiority. If this offends
Christian morality or a sentimental belief in human unity, so be it; science must be free to proclaim
unpleasant truths. But the data were worthless." (Gould, S.J., "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap Press:
Cambridge MA, 1977, p.127)
18/12/02
"Also, there is no longer any need to present an exhaustive list of the proofs for evolution. That evolution
has taken place is so well established that such a detailed presentation of the evidence is no longer needed.
In any case, it would not convince those who do not want to be persuaded." (Mayr E., "What Evolution Is,"
Basic Books: New York, 2001, p.xv)
19/12/02
"`Creation-science' is thus manifestly a device designed to dilute the persuasiveness of the theory of
evolution. The dualistic mode of analysis and the negative argumentation employed to accomplish this
dilution is, moreover, antithetical to the scientific method." (National Academy of Sciences, Brief for Amicus
Curiae, in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 594 (1987).
http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/edwards_v_aguillard_NAC.html)
19/12/02
"I do not know the origin of life. Those of us who hold, like I do, that life emerged spontaneously from
inanimate matter are, we must admit, at a distinctly, embarrassing disadvantage: we have not yet come up
with a convincing mechanism for abiogenesis. In his presidential address to the 1871 meeting of the British
Association for the Advancement of Science, Lord Kelvin stated, `Dead matter cannot be come living
without coming under the influence of matter previously alive. This seems to be as sure a teaching of
science as the law of gravitation.' If he is right, which I doubt, then life must have been present in the
universe for all past time. Either that or we must turn to the finger of God in the Sistine Chapel, and indeed,
after reading this chapter you may well conclude that that is our only hope." (Silver B.L., "The Ascent of
Science," Oxford University Press: New York NY, 1998, p.339)
19/12/02
"During the nineteenth century, abiogenesis was given a boost by the successful synthesis of organic
molecules from inorganic precursors, but the fact that we can synthesize amino acids and nucleic acids from
inorganic starting materials does not explain how life started. We are intelligent beings who can
purposefully bring together chosen chemicals under carefully controlled conditions. This is very different
from accounting for the spontaneous formation of living systems in an inanimate world empty of all
intelligence. And we have come nowhere near creating life in the laboratory." (Silver B.L., "The Ascent of
Science," Oxford University Press: New York NY, 1998, p.339)
19/12/02
"Many writers have correctly demonstrated the problems arising from the genetic diversity of today's plant
and animal population if each 'kind' derived from one pair. It matters not what concoction or confusion the
creation 'scientists' use to redefine a species in order to fit their dogma, there are two basic conclusions.
First, the fewer species on the ark, then the more rapid the rate of evolution must have occurred since
beaching of the ark on some unknown mountain. Second, the gene pool of a pair of organisms is just not
large enough to give us the genetic diversity we see today." (Plimer I.R., "Telling Lies for God: Reason vs
Creationism", Random House: Sydney, Australia, 1994, p.113)
19/12/02
"Ever since Danish astronomer Nicholas Copernicus plucked it from the center of the Universe and put it in
orbit around the sun, Earth has been periodically trivialized. We have gone from the center of the Universe
to a small planet orbiting a small, undistinguished star in an unremarkable region of the Milky Way galaxy-a
view now formalized by the so-called Principle of Mediocrity, which holds that we are not the one planet
with life but one of many. Various estimates for the number of other intelligent civilizations range from none
to 10 trillion. If it is found to be correct, however, the Rare Earth Hypothesis will reverse that decentering
trend. What if the Earth, with its cargo of advanced animals, is virtually unique in this quadrant of the
galaxy-the most diverse planet, say, in the nearest 10,000 light-years? What if it is utterly unique: the only
planet with animals in this galaxy or even in the visible Universe, a bastion of animals amid a sea of microbe -
infested worlds?" (Ward P.D. & Brownlee D., "Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the
Universe," Copernicus: New York NY, 2000, pp.xxiii-xxiv)
19/12/02
"... in tackling the problem of the origin of life, there are two basic, and interdependent, questions that have
to be answered: 1. Living systems are based on extremely large and complex carbon-containing, molecules.
As Sir James Jeans remarked, `Life exists in the universe only because the carbon atom possesses certain
exceptional properties.' In contrast, the nonliving world from which life is presumed to have arisen is
composed small, very simple molecules-except for silicates, which can form enormous chains of atoms but
are not a basis for life. How did the large, complex, carbon-containing molecules of life originate in the
first place?" 2. Living systems are very highly organized. The living cell is a very spatially structured
entity, operating through a sophisticated system of catalysis, transport, and feedback mechanisms. It is a
highly improbable structure, or, in other words, it has low entropy. How did the molecules of life get
organized? One can believe that a complex system like the living cell is capable of manufacturing large,
complex molecules from small, simple precursors, but the original manufacturing mechanism has to come
from somewhere. Factories making CD players do not assemble themselves. Believers in abiogenesis are
forced to accept that life is a self-organized invention." (Silver B.L., "The Ascent of Science," Oxford
University Press: New York NY, 1998, pp.339-340. Emphasis in original)
20/12/02
"The family tree of theriodonts is bushlike, and all its unequal branches are directed toward mammalian
structure, following varying ways. According to Darwinian doctrine, this persevering orientation of
evolution would depend on preexisting information contained in the strands of chromosomal DNA and
stemming from a series of random events. Before outlining the relevant information produced by
paleontology, we wish to restate briefly (as it is so evident) that Darwinian factors, i.e., random mutations
and subsequent selection, played no part in the evolution of theriodont reptiles. Yet Olson (1944), Simpson
(1960), and Mayr (1963) held that these factors do explain the evolution of reptiles. They all postulate that
the Darwinian doctrine is true. They only take into account the facts that fit in with the theory, strictly
excluding those which indicate its weaknesses. In fact, we quite objectively note that the variations of
theriodonts and early mammals did not occur at random; they keep accumulating and adjusting in time and
lack any pathological character. No recourse to selection is required to explain any feature which
characterizes "mammalization." On the contrary, the diversity of subtypes (evolution is branching), the large
distances between populations, and the variety of the climates to which they are submitted do not support
the theory of selection." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of
Transformation," Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.49-50)
20/12/02
"... according to Darwinist Richard Dawkins, writing in the New Statesman, the book is 'loony', 'stupid',
'drivel' and its author a 'harmless fruitcake' who 'needs psychiatric help'. When The Facts of Life was
published, I expected it to arouse controversy, because it ... deals with Darwinism - always a touchy subject
with the biology establishment. ... Richard Dawkins, a reader in zoology at Oxford University ... devoted two
thirds of his review to attacking my hardback publishers, Fourth Estate, for their irresponsibility in daring to
accept a book criticizing Darwinism, and the remainder to assassinating my own character in the sort of
terms quoted above. Dawkins is employed at one of Britain's most distinguished universities and is
responsible for the education of future generations of students. Yet this is not the language of a responsible
scientist and teacher. It is the language of a religious fundamentalist whose faith has been profaned."
(Milton R., "The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism," [1992], Corgi: London, 1993, pp.9-10)
21/12/02
"Moreover, self-awareness is a phenomenon of a kind for which it seems impossible to see how any
explanation in terms of observable phenomena could ever be provided. In however much detail we could
describe the electrical phenomena going on in our brain cells, this description could never have as its
consequence that an act of self-awareness occurred. Awareness can never he constructed theoretically out
of our present fundamental scientific concepts, since these contain no element which has any similarity in
kind with self-consciousness. ... We confront, in the phenomenon of self-awareness, a basic mystery which
lies at the heart of our whole life. ... our whole understanding of the external world is deduced from what we
consciously perceive. We can explain to ourselves some of the mechanisms by which, for instance, light
waves emitted from an object are focused on our retina, and there cause electrical disturbances which travel
into and around our brains. But the most essential step in the whole process is that these events cause us to
be aware of something; and so long as we have not the faintest idea what this awareness means, and cannot
envisage any way in which the phenomenon of awareness could be expressed in terms of anything else, the
act of perception, and the whole observable world which depends on it, contains an inescapable element of
mysteriousness. ... Since the nature of self-awareness completely resists our understanding, the natural
philosophy of biology cannot but bring us face to face with the conclusion that, however much we may
understand certain aspects of the world, the very fact of existence as we know it in our experience is
essentially a mystery." (Waddington C.H., "The Nature of Life," [1961], Unwin Books: London, 1963, reprint,
pp.117,119-120)
22/12/02
"One might, in principle, propose such a revision by arguing that a higher force, operating by an
overarching principle of order, `employ' natural selection as its mechanical agent. (I speak only
hypothetically here, for no such defendable scientific hypothesis now exists, although the concept certainly
remains intelligible. Explicitly theological versions don't count as science, whatever their kind or form of
potential validity.)" (Gould, S.J., "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory," The Belknap Press: Cambridge
MA, 2002, Fifth printing, p.21)
22/12/02
"Our major space agency, NASA, has a `space bioscience' program. Biologists meeting under the auspices
of the National Academy of Sciences have agreed that their `first and ... foremost [task in space science] is
the search for extraterrestrial life' (Hess et al., 1962). The existence of this movement is as familiar to
the reader of the newspapers as to those of technical publications. There is even increasing recognition of a
new science of extraterrestrial life, some times called exobiology-a curious development in view of
the fact that this `science' has yet to demonstrate that its subject matter exists!" (Simpson G.G., "The
Nonprevalence of Humanoids," [Science, Vol. 143, 1964, pp.769-775] in "This View of Life: The
World of an Evolutionist," Harcourt, Brace & World: New York NY, 1964, pp.253-254. Emphasis original)
22/12/02
"From the standpoint of manueverability, a housefly can outperform any bird. Not only can a housefly fly a
rapid straight course and hover, it can fly upside down and turn in the distance of one body length."
(Ruppert E.E. & Barnes R.D., "Invertebrate Zoology," [1968], Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: Orlando FL, Sixth
Edition, 1994, p.830)
22/12/02
"Natural selection tends only to make each organic being as perfect as, or slightly more perfect than, the
other inhabitants of the same country with which it has to struggle for existence. And we see that this is the
degree of perfection attained under nature. ... Natural selection will not produce absolute perfection, nor do
we always meet, as far as we can judge, with this high standard under nature." (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of
Species by Means of Natural Selection: or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,"
[1859], First Edition, Penguin: London, 1985, reprint, p.229)
23/12/02
"The argument over whether macromutations such as antennapaedia could ever be beneficial (or at least
could avoid being harmful), and therefore whether they could give rise to evolutionary change, therefore
turns on how 'macro' the mutation is that we are considering. The more 'macro' it is, the more likely it is to be
deleterious, and the less likely it is to be incorporated in the evolution of a species. As a matter of fact,
virtually all the mutations studied in genetics laboratories - which are pretty macro because otherwise
geneticists wouldn't notice them - are deleterious to the animals possessing them (ironically I've met people
who think that this is an argument against Darwinism!)." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986],
Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.233)
23/12/02
"So, all possible genetic messages (genomes) are points in a single multidimensional probability space,
which has been called genetic phase space, `GPS' ... the size of the matrix: GPS, the probability space of all
possible genomes, has an information content of 2n bits where n is the number of bases. ...
the GPS of genomes of mammalian size, (2.5 billion bases), contains around 101,000,000,000
binary bits of information. ... If we knew the contours of GPS, we could state which morphogenetic
trajectories would be likely in fossil history, and thus deduce the likelihood of intelligent guidance. But, we
do not know if viable locations in GPS are uniformly distributed, contiguous networks, or clumped and
isolated. In our ignorance, we assume a structure for GPS. We project back onto the vast and misty canvas a
map of the structure of reality that will support our view of cosmic formal cause. If we reject intelligent
cause, we assume GPS is rich in linked viable probabilities. If we hold to intelligent cause, we realize that the
GPS might be much poorer. The statement that GPS must have a structure that would allow gradual and
undirected emergence is based on worldview assumptions, not on observations. The GPS becomes our
`field of dreams,' its contours a projection of our metaphysics." (Wilcox D., "How Blind the Watchmaker?,"
in Templeton J.M, ed., "Evidence of Purpose: Scientists Discover the Creator," Continuum: New York NY,
1994, pp.173-175)
23/12/02
"If evolution almost always occurs by rapid speciation in small, peripheral isolates-rather than by slow
change in large, central populations-then what should the fossil record look like? We are not likely to detect
the event of speciation itself. It happens too fast, in too small a group, isolated too far from the ancestral
range. We will first meet the new species as a fossil when it reinvades the ancestral range and becomes a
large central population in its own right. During its recorded history in the fossil record, we should expect no
major change; for we know it only as a successful, central population. It will participate in the process of
organic change only when some of its peripheral isolates speciate to become new branches on the
evolutionary bush. But it, itself, will appear "suddenly" in the fossil record and become extinct later with
equal speed and little perceptible change in form." (Gould, S.J., "Bushes and Ladders in Human Evolution,"
in "Ever Since Darwin," [1978], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, pp.61-62)
23/12/02
"It could be a scene straight out of Star Trek. A doctor examining a crew member who has fallen
mysteriously ill discovers something remarkable in samples taken from the patient. What she finds is a tiny
self-contained, self-sustaining unit tightly packed with even tinier subunits, which is controlled by what
appear to be software and processors so compact and condensed that their components are specialized
complex individual molecules. Further, the doctor discovers, this microscopic entity contains a propulsion
system driven by a nifty, minutely inboard electric rotary motor. The motor is attached to an outboard
component which it rotates, thereby generating the propulsion. Although the entity is obviously not of
human manufacture, the doctor recognizes an intelligently designed micro machine when she sees one. And
though she does not yet know who designed it, what its purpose is or how it got into the crew member, she
immediately issues a security alert. That might have been a scene from Star Trek, but it is not it is a story
about us. Each of us has millions of these remarkable units in our own bodies - they are
microorganisms called E. coli. Although E. coli are common parts of our natural internal and external
environments, it is difficult not to be rather astonished by the existence of the microscopic electric rotary
motors. In most contexts we (like the doctor) would take the existence of such a motor-complete with organic
rotors, stators, bushings, driveshafts-as virtually conclusive evidence that some intelligent designer had
been at work here. In fact, a number of scientists (e.g., Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box) have
come to exactly that conclusion and maintain that we cannot have a complete scientific understanding of
some parts of nature without incorporating the concept of design." (Ratzsch D.L.*, "Science & Its Limits:
The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective," [1986], Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., Second
Edition, 2000, pp.110-111. Emphasis in original)
23/12/02
"People have realized at least since classical times that man's propensity for making tools sets him apart from
the rest of nature. And even though we know today that toolmaking and use, in the strictest senses, are not
our exclusive province, it is nonetheless clear that the complexity of our technology, even as it is expressed
in the earliest of human societies, is altogether unique. Certainly, chimpanzees strip and prepare twigs to
"fish" for termites in their earthen mounds. Capuchin monkeys use stones to crack open hard nuts. Baboons
kill scorpions with rocks before removing their stings and eating them; and even otters use stones to beat
open shellfish. But this gray area, much as has been made of it, is largely of academic interest. Man alone is
distinguished not only by the richness and variety of the tools he makes-and of the things he makes with
those tools-but by the fact that he has become dependent on his tools for his very survival." (Eldredge N. &
Tattersall I., "The Myths of Human Evolution," Columbia University Press: New York NY, 1982, p.8-9)
24/12/02
"I'm tired of hearing about the imperfections of the fossil record,' said John Sepkoski of the University of
Chicago; `I'm more interested in hearing about the imperfections of our questions about the record.' `The
record is not so woefully incomplete,' offered Steven Stanley of Johns Hopkins University; `you can
reconstruct long sections by combining data from several areas.' Olson confessed himself to be `cheered by
such optimism about the fossil record,' and he listened receptively to Gould's suggestion that the gaps in
the record are more real than apparent. `Certainly the record is poor,' admitted Gould, `but the jerkiness you
see is not the result of gaps, it is the consequence of the jerky mode of evolutionary change.'" (Lewin R.,
"Evolutionary-Theory Under Fire: An historic conference in Chicago challenges the four-decade long
dominance of the Modern Synthesis," Science, Vol. 210, pp.883-887, 21 November 1980, pp.883-884)
24/12/02
"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 cycling 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." (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872],
Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, pp.462-463)
"It will be some time before we see `slime, protoplasm, &c.,' generating a new animal. But I have long
regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really
meant "appeared" by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of
life; one might as well think of the origin of matter." (Darwin, C.R., letter to J.D. Hooker, March 29, 1863, in
Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959,
reprint, pp.202-203)
25/12/02
"However, it should not be ignored that there is wide spread distrust throughout the Christian world about
the theory of evolution. Many of the arguments raised against it are invalid and the incidence of invective
and hatred directed toward the evolutionists by some is to be deplored. But all this is evidence of a deep-
down nagging feeling that something is wrong in this area of thought. Since the Holy Spirit works through
believing Christians, He may be planting this concern. Human frailty is such that we cannot put too much
weight on this assumption, but it should serve as a warning to act very carefully before assuming the
evolutionary explanation is correct. It is no use objecting that the Christian world once thought the world
was flat, for then it was merely reflecting current scientific opinion. Now it is uneasy even in spite of the fact
that evolution in some form or other is generally assumed by the world of science, and this uneasiness
remains after a hundred years." (Jauncey, J.H.*, "Science Returns to God," [1961], Zondervan: Grand Rapids
MI, 1962, Second printing, pp.56-57)
25/12/02
"Much of the controversy has arisen over the description of creation in terms of successive days in Genesis
1. One amazing thing here is that the order of creation is extremely close indeed to that which has been given
by the geologists. For instance, Andre Senet in his Man in Search of His Ancestors writes: `... The
Abbe de Lapparent, one of the greatest contemporary geologists said one day: "If I had to summarize in a
few lines the main events in the history of the earth I would copy out again the first paragraphs of Genesis.'"
To those who would deny the inspiration of the Biblical narrative, this presents a problem. How could a
writer some three or four thousand years ago be able to think out the order of creation which has only been
available to science itself in very recent years?" (Jauncey, J.H.*, "Science Returns to God," [1961], Zondervan:
Grand Rapids MI, 1962, Second printing, p.49)
27/12/02
"Christians have seen in this story the fashion in which God works. They have believed that always and
everywhere God has been seeking man and has been confronting man with Himself and with the standard
which He has set for man. Yet man, so they have held, persistently rebels against God and becomes corrupt.
God, of His mercy and love, has wrought for man's redemption. This He has not done in the way which men
would have predicted. Even those whom men have accounted wise have been so blinded by sin, especially
by pride and self-confidence, that they could not clearly see or hear God. For reasons known only to
Himself, so Christians have maintained, God chose as His channel for man's salvation a small, insignificant
minority among the people of Israel, themselves of slight consequence in physical might. As the culmination
of His revelation of Himself and His redemption of man, He sent His son, who, the heir of this humble
minority and building on the foundations laid by them, became the centre of the Christian faith. ... God has
always, from the beginning of the human race, been seeking to bring men into fellowship with Himself and
into His likeness. He has respected man's free will and has not forced Himself on man. Only thus could He
produce beings who are not automata, but are akin to Himself. In response to God's initiative, men
everywhere were stimulated to grope for God. As a result of their seeking, various religions arose. All of
these, clouded by man's sin, were imperfect and could not meet man's need or fulfil God's purpose. For some
inscrutable reason, God found among the people of Israel a minority who responded to Him and, therefore,
was able to disclose Himself fully through one who came out of that succession and through him made
possible the salvation of man." (Latourette, K.S., "A History of Christianity: Volume 1: to A.D. 1500," [1953],
Harper & Row: New York NY, 1975, reprint, p.8)
27/12/02
"On the mere doctrine of chances, it seems to me in the highest degree improbable that so many points of
structure all tending to favour his mental development should concur in man, and in man alone of all
animals. If the erect posture, the freedom of the anterior limbs for purposes of locomotion, the powerful and
opposable thumb, the naked skin, and the great symmetry of force, the perfect organs of speech, and his
mental faculties, calculation of numbers, ideas of symmetry, of justice, of abstract reasoning, of the infinite,
of a future state, and many others, cannot be shown to be each and all useful to man in the very lowest state
of civilisation, how are we to explain their coexistence in him alone of the whole series of organized beings?"
(Wallace, A.R., Letter 1869 to Sir Charles Lyell, "Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell," John Murray:
London, 1881, Vol. 2, pp.442-443, in Lovtrup, S., "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth," Croom Helm:
London, 1987, pp.227-228)
27/12/02
"The idea that science and theology can never be discussed in the same terms is only true if we decide that
science can deal with nothing but physical and chemical events. But need science be so limited? Who made
such a rule and on what authority? There are certainly those who believe that all life will ultimately be
explained in terms of physics and chemistry: that physiology, biochemistry and biophysics are the scientific
core of biology, the study of living things. Those branches do indeed at present appear to make up the
science of the organism as analysed into its various component parts. We should certainly push these
physical methods as far as we can, they will go on revealing more and more that is of benefit to man in
understanding the working of his bodily mechanism. As I have said before, the physical laws must hold
good within the body as outside it; but it is also a truism to say that when we study living creatures in this
analytic physico-chemical way, we can only expect to get physical and chemical answers." (Hardy, A.C.,
"The Living Stream: Evolution and Man," [1965], Meridian: Cleveland OH, 1968, reprint, p.265)
28/12/02
"There is a phrase of facile liberality uttered again and again at ethical societies and parliaments of religion:
`the religions of the earth differ in rites and forms, but they are the same in what they teach.' It is false; it is
the opposite of the fact. The religions of the earth do not greatly differ in rites and forms; they do
greatly differ in what they teach. It is as if a man were to say, `Do not be misled by the fact that the Church
Times and the Freethinker look utterly different, that one is painted on vellum and the other carved on
marble that one is triangular and the other hectagonal; read them and you will see that they say the same
thing.' The truth is, of course, that they are alike in everything except in the fact that they don't say the same
thing. An atheist stockbroker in Surbiton looks exactly like a Swedenborgian stockbroker in Wimbledon.
You may walk round and round them and subject them to the most personal and offensive study without
seeing anything Swedenborgian in the hat or anything particularly godless in the umbrella. It is exactly in
their souls that they are divided. So the truth is that the difficulty of all the creeds of the earth is not as
alleged in this cheap maxim: that they agree in meaning, but differ in machinery. It is exactly the opposite.
They agree in machinery; almost every great religion on earth works with the same external methods, with
priests, scriptures, altars, sworn brotherhoods, special feasts. They agree in the mode of teaching; what
they differ about is the thing to be taught." (Chesterton, G.K., "Orthodoxy," [1908], Fontana: London, 1961,
reprint, pp.127-128. Emphasis in original)
29/12/02
"DR. FENTRESS: I would simply like to give one example which I think illustrates how important it is to ask a
precise question. When I was in Cambridge, we were working with two species of British vole. We had a
little test in which an object moved overhead; one species would run away and the other species would
freeze. Also, one species happened to live in the woods and the other happened to live in the field. This was
rather fun, and, not really being a zoologist, I went up to see some of my zoologist friends and I reversed the
data. I asked them, simply, why a species which lived in the field should freeze and why one that lived in the
woods should run away (when the converse was the case). I wish I had recorded their explanations, be
cause they were very impressive indeed." (Fentress, J.C., "The Problems of Vicarious Selection: Discussion,"
in Moorhead, P.S. & Kaplan, M.M., ed., "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of
Evolution: A Symposium Held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, April 25 and 26, 1966," The
Wistar Institute Symposium Monograph Number 5, The Wistar Institute Press: Philadelphia PA, 1967, p.71)
30/12/02
"God is free to create through natural or supernatural means, and by rapid processes or over long periods of
time; no single type of process can, in an a priori fashion, be identified as uniquely suited to the divine
purpose. ... Rather than a two-fold distinction between `natural' and `supernatural' means, it is more biblically
accurate to recognize a three-fold distinction among God's works of ordinary providence, special
providence, and miracle. In ordinary providence, God works immanently through the regular laws of nature
...; in extraordinary providence, God redirects the forces and laws of nature...; in miracles God transcends the
laws of nature ... ." (Davis, J.J., "Is `Progressive Creation' Still a Helpful Concept?: Reflections on Creation,
Evolution, and Bernard Ramm's Christian View of Science and Scripture - a Generation Later," American
Scientific Affiliation, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Vol. 50, December 1998, p.250)
30/12/02
"It has always been apparent that the social sciences are susceptible to ideological penetration, or may even
be totally captured, so that official social science becomes in its turn an ideological weapon. ... The
possibility that the natural sciences might be similarly occupied does not seem to have been explored by
Marx and Engels themselves ... However, in a comment on Darwin's Origin of Species made in a letter
to Engels, Marx noted the way in which Darwin appeared to have looked at the biological world, and found
mirrored therein the class structure of Victorian capitalism - a mirror which the Social Darwinists were also to
use for their own ideological purposes. ... As capitalism has developed, mechanical materialism -described
variously more recently as 'scientism', 'positivism', 'hard-nosed objectivity'-has become the dominant
ideology. Science as ideology has extended the reductionist methods of natural science over the human
sciences as well, turning human subjects into objects (that is, making the potentially active, passive) -at its
logical extreme reducing human beings to 'nothing but' the abstract categories of biological and chemical
laws. All knowledge except that which is legitimised by this mechanical materialism is denied. The
consequence, as the 'scientists' are the producers of mechanical materialism, is that science becomes an
ideology and scientists the ideologists. ... As the material world controls the limits of an interpretation of the
scientist in his own work, the answer lies, as Marx and Engels saw, outside the precise research area,
where the scientist, freed from such constraints, talks (typically in the name of science) pure ideology. In the
name of science, invoking neutrality, technique and expertise, the scientist supports the ruling strata ..."
(Rose, H. & S., "The Problematic Inheritance: Marx and Engels on the Natural Sciences," in Rose, H. & S., ed.,
"The Political Economy of Science: Ideology of/in the Natural Sciences," Macmillan: London, 1976, pp.8-9.
Emphasis in original)
30/12/02
"To me, one of the most problematic references in the New Testament is where the gospel writers claim that
the earth went dark during part of the time that Jesus hung on the cross. Wasn't this merely a literary device
to stress the significance of the Crucifixion, and not a reference to an actual historical occurrence? After all,
if darkness had fallen over the earth, wouldn't there be at least some mention of this extraordinary event
outside the Bible? However, Dr. Gary Habermas has written about a historian named Thallus who in A.D. 52
wrote a history of the eastern Mediterranean world since the Trojan War. Although Thallus's work has been
lost, it was quoted by Julius Africanus in about A.D. 221-and it made reference to the darkness that the
gospels had written about!' `Could this,' I asked, `be independent corroboration of this biblical claim?'
Explained Yamauchi, `In this passage Julius Africanus says, 'Thallus, in the third book of his histories.
explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun-unreasonably, as it seems to me. `So Thallus apparently
was saying yes, there had been darkness at the time of the Crucifixion, and he speculated it had been caused
by an eclipse. Africanus then argues that it couldn't have been an eclipse, given when the Crucifixion
occurred.' [Passover-a full moon] Yamauchi reached over to his desk to retrieve a piece of paper. `Let me
quote what scholar Paul Maier said about the darkness in a footnote in his 1968 book Pontius Pilate,' he
said, reading these words: `This phenomenon, evidently, was visible in Rome, Athens, and other
Mediterranean cities. According to Tertullian ... it was a `cosmic' or `world event.' Phlegon, a Greek author
from Cania writing a chronology soon after 137 A.D., reported that in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad
(i.e., 33 A.D.) there was `the greatest eclipse of the sun' and that `it became night in the sixth hour of the day
[i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many
things were overturned in Nicaea.' Yamauchi concluded, `So there is, as Paul Maier points out, nonbiblical
attestation of the darkness that occurred at the time of Jesus' crucifixion. Apparently, some found the need
to try to give it a natural explanation by saying it was an eclipse." (Strobel L.P., "The Case For Christ: A
Journalist's Personal Testimony of the Evidence for Jesus," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1998, pp.110-111)
31/12/02
"This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries,
but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it, though we shall
continue to add footnotes to their solution for a while yet." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986],
Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.xiii)
31/12/02
"If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it
can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is
clearly incredible." (Watson, D.M.S., "Adaptation," Nature, No. 3119, Vol. 124, August 10, 1929,
pp.231-234, p.233)
31/12/02
"Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection carried a heavy burden: `If it could
be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous,
successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' [Darwin, C., 1872, "Origin of
Species", 6th ed., 1988, New York University Press: New York, p.154]. It is safe to say that most of the
scientific skepticism about Darwinism in the past century has centered on this requirement. From Mivart's
concern over the incipient stages of new structures to Margulis's dismissal of gradual evolution, critics of
Darwin have suspected that his criterion of failure had been met. But how can we be confident? What type
of biological system could not be formed by `numerous, successive, slight modifications'? Well, for starters,
a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex, I mean a single system composed of
several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one
of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be
produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the
same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an
irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex
biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since
natural selection can only choose systems that are already working then if a biological system cannot be
produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to
have anything to act on." (Behe, M.J.*, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free
Press: New York NY, 1996, p.38. Emphasis in original)
* Authors with an asterisk against their name are believed not to be evolutionists. However, lack of an
asterisk does not necessarily mean that an author is an evolutionist.
[top]
Copyright © 2002-2008, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved.
These my quotes may be used for
non-commercial purposes only and may not be used in a book, ebook, CD, DVD, or any other
medium except the Internet, without my written permission. If used on the Internet, a link back to
this page would be appreciated.
Created: 27 July, 2002. Updated: 26 September, 2008.