Stephen E. Jones

Creation/Evolution Quotes: Unclassified quotes: January - March 2004

[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [Quotes, Unclassified, Classified]

The following are unclassified quotes posted in my email messages in January-March, 2004.
The date format is dd/mm/yy. See copyright conditions at end.

[Jan, Feb, Mar] [Apr-Jun] [Jul-Sep] [Oct-Dec]

January [top]
1/01/2004
"The theory of evolution cannot take the place of the doctrine of creation. Some speak as if the hypothesis
of evolution offered an explanation of the origin of the world, but this is clearly a mistake, for it does no such
thing. Evolution is development, and all development presupposes the prior existence of an entity or
principle or force, out of which something develops. The non-existent cannot develop into existence. Matter
and force could not have evolved out of nothing. It has been customary for evolutionists to fall back on the
nebular hypothesis, in order to explain the origin of the solar system, though in present day science this is
supplanted by the planetesimal hypothesis. But these only carry the problem one step farther back, and fail
to solve it. The evolutionist must either resort to the theory that matter is eternal, or accept the doctrine of
creation." (Berkhof, L., "Systematic Theology," [1932], Banner of Truth: London, British Edition, 1958, Third
Printing, 1966, p.161)

2/01/2004
"Fundamentalism, as I intimate throughout this book, is a parody of the American Religion, but its defensive
anxieties and its wounded aggressivities stem nevertheless from what is most authentic in the American
Gnosis. The true issue is by no means Biblical Inerrancy, because the Fundamentalists, as unwitting
Gnostics, do not believe anyway that God made them. Their deepest knowledge is that they were no
part of the Creation, but existed as spirits before it, and so are as old as God himself. To be told that they
evolved from a common ancestor both of themselves and of apes is no better or worse for them than to be
assured that they all descend from a single African woman. What wounds them unforgivingly is not the idea
of evolution (in whatever version) but the demonstration that they were never God, or part of God. Their
sense of their freedom depends ultimately upon being free not only of time and of nature but, more
secretively, being free of the very Creationism they urge upon all the rest of us." (Bloom, H., "The American
Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation," [1992], Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1993,
pp.56-57)

2/01/2004
"If science should render it certain that all the present species of living creatures were derived by natural
descent from a few original germs, and that these germs were themselves an evolution of inorganic forces
and materials, we should not therefore regard the Mosaic account as proved untrue. We should only be
required to revise our interpretation of the word bara in Gen. 1:21, 27, and to give it there the meaning of
mediate creation, or creation by law. Such a meaning might almost seem to be favored by Gen, 1:11-`let the
earth put forth grass'; 20 `let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life'; 2:7-`the
Lord God formed man of the dust'; 9-`out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree'; cf. Mark 4
:28 ... `the earth brings forth fruit automatically.'" ... (Strong, A.H.*, "Systematic Theology," [1907], Judson
Press: Valley Forge PA, 1967, reprint, pp.392-393)

2/01/2004
"The present author sternly resists any effort to dogmatize about the time involved in creation, and any
effort of fiat creationism to reduce progressive creationism to evolution or to impiety, as if progressive
creationism questioned the omnipotence of God. `For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it
stood fast' (Psa. 33:9) has been one of the verses repeatedly used in the history of Bible-and-science to
refute science, and yet the fiat-heliocentric interpretation of this verse has been continually put to rout. The
verse asserts nothing about time in creation, but it does assert the certainty with which
Nature obeys the divine will. The command of a great and powerful general is faithfully and obediently
carried out. The amount of time consumed in carrying out the will of the general is dependent on the task,
and a task which takes a long time is no depreciation of the general's authority, as a task which takes a short
time is no necessary tribute to his authority." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture,"
[1955] Paternoster: Exeter, Devon UK, 1967, reprint, p.77. Emphasis in original)

2/01/2004
"Writing on 'Creation, Evolution, and Mediate Creation' for The Bible Student in 1901 (pp. 197-210), for
example, Warfield reviewed the `scientific theology' of Otto Pfleiderer which, on inspection, revealed a
wholesale importation of evolutionism into theological reflection. What Pfleiderer's project amounted to
was-ultimately-a denial of God's creative intervention by an overemphasis on providential superintendence.
Pfleiderer's conclusions prompted Warfield to insist that `when we say 'evolution,' we definitely deny
creation. and when we say 'creation,' we definitely deny evolution. Whatever comes by the one process by
that very fact does not come by the other. Whatever comes by evolution is not created; whatever is created
is not evolved.' Evolution and creation were mutually exclusive categories. ... This 1901 essay was Warfield's
most articulate presentation yet of a crucial distinction he was drawing between three modes of divine
action or superintendence of the physical world. Warfield saw them as methods that God used to generate
physical forms, species, and individuals. First was theistic evolution, or the providentially controlled
unfolding of nature. Second was creation ex nihilo, or out of nothing. Warfield's third category was the most
complicated and the one that least resembles schemes developed since his time. This was the category of
mediate creation-in effect, a via media between evolution and creation ex nihilo that he developed from hints
in earlier Reformed theologians. By mediate creation Warfield meant that God acted, or intervened, with
already existing material to bring something new into existence that could not have developed from the
forces latent in the material itself. Like creation ex nihilo, mediate creation required a direct act of God. Like
evolution, mediate creation featured already existing material." (Noll, M.A. & Livingstone, D.N.,
"Introduction," in Noll, M.A. & Livingstone, D.N., eds, "B.B. Warfield: Evolution, Science and Scripture:
Selected Writings," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 2000, pp.34-35)

4/01/2004
"Your coverage of Robert Gallo's annual lab meeting (F. Hoke, The Scientist, Nov. 14, 1994, page 1) revealed
unmistakably that research based on the HIV theory of AIDS is at a standstill. Ten years after the discovery
of what the newspapers call `HIV, the virus that causes AIDS,' it is clear that scientists haven't a clue as to
what HIV is supposed to be doing to the cells of the immune system. Gallo's own summary said that there
are `conflicting views on the question of whether HIV kills T cells directly or indirectly. That general area
was, to me, one of the high points of the meeting, but without clear-cut resolution.' After a decade of futility,
HIV scientists are making no progress in explaining how a retrovirus can be killing cells it doesn't infect.
How many more years will it take before biomedical science is willing to reconsider a theory that was
established by a press conference, and that has generated nothing since but a steady stream of failed
predictions?" (Johnson, P.E.*, "HIV And AIDS," The Scientist, Vol. 9, No. 2, January 23, 1995, p.13)

5/01/2004
"Likewise, if the impacts transferred life-bearing rocks from Earth to Mars, or from Mars to Earth, the arrival
of these rocks from another planet might well have occurred not once but dozens, hundreds, or even
thousands of times, depending on how many rocks each impact blasted loose. Even if most of these
transfers failed to strike a spark on the new planet, the large number of interplanetary rock voyages
suggests that primitive Earth may well have received samples of early Martian life, if it existed, and that Mars
should have received a smaller, but still significant number, of life-bearing rocks from Earth." (Goldsmith,
D.A., "The Hunt for Life on Mars," Dutton: New York NY, 1997, p.141)

6/01/2004
"At the risk of repetition, let us also note that science offers one particular way to regard the world, a view
that has yielded great benefits not only to its adherents but also to those who know nothing of science.
However, you never gain something but that you lose something, as Thoreau said. Since science depends
on its skepticism, an attitude different from what we feel in our inner selves, we should never lose sight of
the fact that science is only one way to tell a story, only one myth that `explains' the world around us.
Science differs only because the story and myth concern what is generally called physical reality; for those
who find this fact incomplete or even low on the hierarchy of importance, science can never rank as much
more than a source of fascinating tidbits of information. Many a scientist feels the split between his or her
skeptical side, which leads to greater understanding of the physical world, and a more ethereal side, which
takes an interest in other matters. In what may be seen as an attempt to unite these two aspects, Albert
Einstein once said that `the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.' A fair
amount of mystery still lies within that word "comprehensible." (Goldsmith, D.A., "The Hunt for Life on
Mars," Dutton: New York NY, 1997, pp.232-233)

6/01/2004
"Chapter 9. The Seventy Weeks The Captivity, which was then drawing to a closes had lasted 70 years.
Daniel is here told by the angel that it would yet be `70 weeks' till the coming of the Messiah (24). The `70
weeks' is generally understood to mean 70 weeks of years, that is as 70 sevens of years, or seven times 70
years, that is 490 years. As if the angel were saying, The Captivity has been 70 years; the period between
the Captivity and the Coming of the Messiah will be seven times that long. Seven, and cycles of seven,
sometimes have symbolic meanings; yet the actual facts of this prophecy are most amazing, as follows: The
date from which the 70 weeks was to be counted was the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (25). There were three
decrees issued by Persian kings for this purpose (536 B.C., 457 B.C., 444 B.C., see under Ezra). The principal
one of these was 457 B.C. The 70 weeks is subdivided into 7 weeks, 62 weeks, and 1 week (25, 27). It is
difficult to see the application of the `7 weeks'; but the 69 weeks (including the 7) equal 483 days, that is, on
the year-day theory (Ezekiel 4:6), which is the commonly accepted interpretation, 483 years. This 483 years is
the period between the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the coming of the `Anointed One' (25). The decree to
rebuild Jerusalem, as noted above, was 457 B.C Adding 483 years to 457 B.C. brings us to A.D. 26, the very
year that Jesus was baptized and began his public ministry. A most remarkable fulfillment of Daniel's
prophecy, even to the year. Further, within 3 1/2 years Jesus was crucified, that is, `in the midst of the one
week' `the Anointed One' was `cut off,' `purged away sin and brought in everlasting righteousness' (24, 26,
27). Thus Daniel foretold not only the Time at which the Messiah would appear, but also the Duration of his
Public Ministry, and his Atoning Death for Human Sin. Some think that God's chronology was suspended at
the death of Christ, to remain so while Israel is scattered, and that the last half of the `one week' belongs to
the time of the End." (Halley, H.H.*, "Halley's Bible Handbook: An Abbreviated Bible Commentary," [1927],
Oliphants: London, Twenty-Fourth edition, 1965, p.349)

8/01/2004
"C. THE SEVENTY SEVENS (OF YEARS) (9). One of the most amazing predictions in the Bible foretold the
very time of Christ's coming. While meditating on the seventy-years captivity, as Jeremiah (ch. 25) had
predicted it, Daniel was told by the angel Gabriel that seventy sevens (of years) would be decreed upon
Jerusalem and the Jewish people before the messianic age would come. The first sixty-nine sevens (483
years) would run from the command of Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem (445 B.C.) to the cutting off of the
Messiah (the Crucifixion). Taking these to e lunar years (i.e., twelve 30-day months = 360 days) one comes
up with about 476 solar years, which takes US to A.D. 31, the time of the Crucifixion of Christ. Some scholars
believe this is the exact number of years, even days, to Christ. Others are content with a round number
approximation (70 x 7). Whatever the case, it is sufficiently close to be amazing, especially in view of the fact
that the most skeptical critic admits that the prophecy was given at least 165 years before Christ!" (Geisler,
N.L.*, "A Popular Survey of the Old Testament," [1977], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1984, Eighth printing,
p.288)

8/01/2004
"Darwinian evolution with its blind watchmaker thesis makes me think of a great battleship on the ocean of
reality. Its sides are heavily armored with philosophical barriers to criticism, and its decks are stacked with
big rhetorical guns ready to intimidate any would-be attackers. In appearance, it is as impregnable as the
Soviet Union seemed to be only a few years ago. But the ship has sprung a metaphysical leak, and the more
perceptive of the ship's officers have begun to sense that all the ship's firepower cannot save it if the leak is
not plugged. There will be heroic efforts to save the ship, of course, and some plausible rescuers will invite
the officers to take refuge in electronic lifeboats equipped with high-tech gear like autocatalytic sets and
computer models of self-organizing systems. The spectacle will be fascinating, and the battle will go on for a
long time. But in the end reality will win." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," InterVarsity Press: Downers
Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, pp.169-170)

8/01/2004
"The sinking ship. I beg readers' indulgence for the perhaps overly dramatic metaphor of the final paragraph.
A writer should be allowed his bit of fun. The reference to "high-tech" damage-control mechanisms is to the
school represented by Stuart Kauffman's Origins of Order (1993). I assume this is what Gould had in mind
when he referred to "the self-organizing properties of molecules and other physical systems." If the rulers of
science really mean to jump into this lifeboat, I will be happy to participate in the ensuing discussion, but I
think that after assessing the prospects they will elect to stay on the sinking ship and keep trying to plug
the holes. (Johnson, P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993,
p.213)

9/01/2004
"We live in a most uncommon time. Opposition to recent changes in Western society is not mere
sentimental idealization of yesteryear, or the fear of change. We are not faced with differences between
miniskirts and maxiskirts, wide ties or narrow. Ours is a choice of civilization. It is not a question of turning
back the clock to the rosy world of the '50s. it is the question of whether we opt for a Christian or pagan
society. Our society struggles at the brink of a new age, characterized by an unusual mixing of
fundamentally antithetical views regarding the world and God. In the confusion of worldviews, monism and
theism lock in a battle to the death. Which will emerge victorious to affect the future of the next generations?
Though ultimate victory belongs to the Creator, the Church has never been promised every battle. As
Professor Wilken of the University of Virginia has observed, with exceptional insight: `The ferocity of the
current assault on the legacy of Christian culture ... has brought a new clarity of vision. The alternatives are
set before us with unusual starkness: either there will be a genuine renewal of Christian culture-there is no
serious alternative-or we will be enveloped by the darkness of paganism in which the worship of the true
God is abandoned and forgotten. The sources of the cultural crisis, it turns out, are theological.'" (Jones, P.*,
"Pagans in the Pews," Regal: Ventura CA, 2001, p.39)

9/01/2004
"Does the average Christian know what is going on in our ostensibly civilized society? Pagan ideology,
sometimes of the most radical and anti-Christian nature, is taught in university departments of religion,
theological seminaries, mainline church agencies, feminist networks and Wicca covens across the land. It
adopts the name of Christianity but will render our world unrecognizable. ... If you doubt the success of this
revolution, note the following statistic: 71 percent of Americans and 40 percent of those who, based upon
their core beliefs, are considered Evangelicals, no longer believe in absolute truth. Since the '60s,
consciousness has changed. The present hour is crucial. `The church faces a crisis of identity possibly
unmatched since the second century. ... The threat has monumental implications for believers and especially
for their children." (Jones, P.*, "Pagans in the Pews," Regal: Ventura CA, 2001, pp.39-40)

9/01/2004
"Owing to my having accidentally omitted to mention that Dr. Krause had enlarged and corrected his article
in German before it was translated, Mr Samuel Butler abused me with almost insane virulence. How I
offended him so bitterly, I have never been able to understand. The subject gave rise to some controversy
in the Athenaeum newspaper and Nature. I laid all the documents before some good judges, viz. Huxley,
Leslie Stephen, Litchfield, etc., and they were all unanimous that the attack was so baseless that it did not
deserve any public answer; for I had already expressed privately my regret to Mr. Butler for my accidental
omission. Huxley consoled me by quoting some German lines from Goethe, who had been attacked by
someone, to the effect `that every Whale has its Louse.'" (Darwin, C.R., in Barlow N., ed., "The
Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882: With Original Omissions Restored," [1958], W.W. Norton &
Co: New York, 1969, reprint, p[.134-135)

9/01/2004
"The theory of biological evolution is based on the struggle for life and the survival of the fittest. Yet
cooperation is common between members of the same species and even between members of different
species. Before about 1960, accounts of the evolutionary process largely dismissed cooperative phenomena
as not requiring special attention. ... To account for the manifest existence of cooperation and related group
behavior, such as altruism and restraint in competition, evolutionary theory has recently acquired two kinds
of extension. These extensions are, broadly, genetical kinship theory and reciprocity theory. Most of the
recent activity, both in fieldwork and in further developments of theory, has been on the side of kinship. ... If
the players are sufficiently closely related, altruism can benefit reproduction of the set, despite losses to the
individual altruist. In accord with this theory's predictions, almost all clear cases of altruism, and most
observed cooperation-apart from their appearance in the human species-occur in contexts of high
relatedness, usually between immediate family members. The evolution of the suicidal barbed sting of the
honeybee worker could be taken as paradigm for this line of theory (Hamilton 1972). Conspicuous examples
of cooperation (although almost never of ultimate self-sacrifice) also occur where relatedness is low or
absent. Mutually advantageous symbioses offer striking examples such as these: the fungus and alga that
compose a lichen; the ants and ant-acacias, where the trees house and feed the ants which, in turn, protect
the trees (Janzen 1966); and the fig wasps and fig tree, where wasps, which are parasites of fig flowers, serve
as the tree's sole means of pollination and seed set (Wiebes 1976; Janzen 1979). Usually the course of
cooperation in such symbioses is smooth, but sometimes the partners show signs of antagonism, either
spontaneous or elicited by particular treatments (Caullery 1952).3 Although kinship may be involved, as will
be discussed later, symbioses mainly illustrate the other recent extension of evolutionary theory-the theory
of reciprocity." (Axelrod, R.M., "The Evolution of Cooperation," Basic Books: New York NY, 1984, pp.89-90)

10/01/2004
"In this highly polemic volume James Barr of Oxford uses `fundamentalism' according to British parlance, as
equivalent to `conservative evangelicalism.' Only secondarily does he deal with `fundamentalists' in the
current American sense of strict separatists, such as the dispensationalist variety. He mainly attacks British
conservative evangelical scholars associated with Inter-Varsity Fellowship, their American counterparts
such as those associated with Christianity Today, and their intellectual forebears, especially Charles Hodge
and B.B. Warfield. Throughout this work, Barr displays, almost nothing but disdain and contempt for
conservative evangelical scholarship. He says that he does `not find any of its arguments to have validity
except in very minor respects' (p. 9). Fundamentalism, he maintains, is `a pathological condition of
Christianity' (p.5). ... The values of such criticisms are offset considerably by being placed in the context of
other arguments, which are simply untrue or unfair. For instance, repeatedly he accuses conservative
scholars of sheer ignorance: "... the fundamentalist picture of what non conservative theology is like is not
based on any deep study of the latter ..." (p. 164). Moreover, many times (as in the instance just quoted) he
attributes to all conservative evangelicals the traits of some. Furthermore, he sets up several no-win
situations for conservative evangelical scholars. If they reject all modern critical methods or insights, they
are obscurantists; if they do consider some, they are inconsistent or `simply hanging on the coat-tails of
non conservative work...' (p. 232). This book apparently is written to free young converts from the shackles
of conservative evangelical influences. ... But the irony of this volume is that it has so many of the very
traits it most strongly criticizes." (Marsden, G., "Fundamentalism." Review of "Fundamentalism," by James
Barr Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1978. Theology Today, Princeton Theological Seminary: Princeton NJ,
Vol. 35, No. 4, January 1979)

10/01/2004
"Imagine that you are driving down a narrow road with a cliff on one side and a precipice on the other, when
you find that a huge, thick log blocks the way forward. The log is too heavy to lift, and there is no way
around it. If you are going to proceed, you must find some way to split the log into segments, so you can
move the barrier out of the way. Fortunately, this can be done. The log seems solid, but there are bound to
be cracks, some of which penetrate deep into the interior. What you need to do is insert the thin edge of a
wedge into the most profound crack and gradually drive the broader parts of the wedge into the log until the
crack widens and the log is split. The log in this metaphor is the ruling philosophy of modern culture, a
philosophy called naturalism or materialism or physicalism or simply modernism. Under any of those
names this philosophy assumes that in the beginning were the fundamental particles that compose matter,
energy and the impersonal laws of physics. To put it negatively, there was no personal God who created the
cosmos and governs it as an act of free will. If God exists at all, he acts only through inviolable laws of
nature and adds nothing to them. In consequence, all the creating had to be done by the laws and the
particles, which is to say by some combination of random chance and lawlike regularity. It is by building on
that philosophical assumption that modernist scientists conclude that all plants and animals are the
products of an undirected and purposeless evolutionary process and that humankind is just another animal
species, not created uniquely in the image of God. This philosophy controls academic work not only in
science but in all fields, including law, literature and psychology. It is promulgated throughout the
educational system and the mainstream media, and government backs it. Superficially it seems as immovable
as that great log that bars your progress on that mountain road. But on closer examination, the log is marked
by cracks. The most important crack in the modernist log is the difference between two distinct definitions
of science. On the one hand, modernists say that science is impartial fact-finding, the objective and
unprejudiced weighing of evidence. Science in that sense relies on careful observations, calculations, and
above all, repeatable experiments. That kind of objective science is what makes technology possible, and
where it can be employed it is indeed the most reliable way of determining the facts. On the other hand,
modernists also identify science with naturalistic philosophy. In that case science is committed to finding
and endorsing naturalistic explanations for every phenomenon - regardless of the facts. That kind of
science is not free of prejudice. On the contrary, it is defined by a prejudice. The prejudice is that all
phenomena can ultimately be explained in terms of purely natural causes, which is to say unintelligent
causes. The Wedge of my title is an informal movement of like-minded thinkers in which I have taken a
leading role. Our strategy is to drive the thin edge of our Wedge into the cracks in the log of naturalism by
bringing long-neglected questions to the surface and introducing them into public debate. Of course the
initial penetration is not the whole story, because the Wedge can split the log only if it thickens as it
penetrates. If we are raising the right questions after a long period in which those questions were
suppressed, then new avenues of inquiry should be suggested, and thinking will go off in new directions. A
new body of research and scholarship will gradually emerge, and in time the adherents of the old dogma will
be left behind, unable to comprehend the questions that have suddenly become too important to ignore."
(Johnson, P.E.*, "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism," Intervarsity Press:
Downers Grove IL, 2000, pp.13-15. Emphasis in original)

10/01/2004
"This perception of legitimacy was reinforced and rendered nearly irresistible by the inherent attractiveness
of the positive type of plot line of the rise of Design. A Darwinian (negative) telling of the Design story is a
flat, boring, and increasingly implausible tale of grim siege by emotional, ignorant villains. Therein, Design
scholars are construed as professors driven by `religious motivations,' who are `fearful' of evolution, who
aren't `Patient enough' to wait for the answers to be found, who don't understand how science works, or
who want to shut down science with a vision of a universe bursting with miracles.' By contrast, the tale of
Design told from a friendly point of view is a story that is fresh, profoundly interesting, and fascinating-
dramatic, in the most basic sense of the word. It seems to have what Walter Fisher described as `narrative
fidelity,' in ringing true to the experiences of our lives. One does not have to hold already to some sort of
divine intervention in nature to grasp this point. By thought experiment, anyone can imagine this story-that
scientists might be found profoundly misguided in their decades old pronouncement of `overwhelming
evidence' for evolution-and in this imagining, one realizes that such a drama contains powerful human-
interest themes. It is a moral tale of self-deluded blindness, long overlooked, but finally-at great sacrifice-
brought to light. Also, it is a story with broad cultural impact." (Woodward, T.E.*, "Doubts about Darwin: A
History of Intelligent Design," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 2003, pp.196-197)

11/01/2004
"The coming of prince Messiah is predicted in Daniel 9:25 as occurring sixty-nine; weeks (or heptads-
periods of seven) after the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem. ... [A] logical terminus a quo is to
be found in the restorations under Ezra or Nehemiah - which were of similar purpose and only twelve years
apart. The Temple had been rebuilt and its worship reestablished for many a year. But Jerusalem's wall was
still broken down and the city itself, with the exception, probably, of the estates of the rich, lay in ruins. The
purpose of Ezra and Nehemiah was to rebuild the city, and they received permission from the kings of Persia
to do precisely that Nehemiah's commission is very explicit (Neh. 2:5). Ezra had a similar purpose and work
(Ezra 7:8,9). Now, 48 years from Ezra's date of 456 B.C. is 26 A.D. (26 rather than 27, for there is no year 0
A.D.), the time, as nearly as we can tell, when John the Baptist proclaimed to the people of Judea, "Behold
the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." There would seem to be no need to look further
or to say that the author of Daniel is vague in his predictions of events which occurred after the days of the
Maccabees.' (Harris, R.L.*, "Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible: An Historical and Exegetical Study,"
Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1957, pp.150-151)

12/1/2004
"The prophecy of the seventy weeks has been variously interpreted. One conclusion seems self-evident.
Each week or `heptad' must be a period of seven years or a total of 490 years. Daniel divides this period into
three parts: the first has seven weeks or forty-nine years, the second has sixty-two weeks or 434 years, and
the third has one week or seven years. Some interpreters hold that the entire seventy weeks were to follow
one upon another without interruption. This interpretation, however, encounters the difficulty that,
according to the received Hebrew text of verse 25, there are to elapse only sixty-nine weeks, after which time
(according to verse 26) the anointed one is to be cut off. (Moreover, a full 490 years can hardly be made out
between any of eligible decrees-538, 457, and 445 B.C.- and the cutting off of the Messiah.) Others hold that
sixty-nine weeks only were by fulfilled the time the anointed one was cut off at Calvary, and that the last
week belongs to the period of the great tribulation. The early church fathers held this view. Some of those
who hold to the latter view interpret the New Testament church age as an unrevealed mystery during Old
Testament times, constituting a `parenthesis' until the beginning of the seventieth week. (Others who hold
the deferment of the seventieth week acknowledge that the New Testament church was quite frequently
alluded to in the Old Testament.) The terminus a quo for the commencement of these sixty nine weeks of
years is stated to be from the going forth of the word (or decree) to restore and build Jerusalem (ver 25). This
may refer to the divine decree, or one of three historical edicts: (1) decree of King Cyrus in 538 B.C. (Ezra -4);
(2) the order of Artaxerxes to Ezra in 457 B.C. (which apparently involved authority to erect the walls of
Jerusalem, cf. Ezra 7.6, 7; 9.9); (3) the order to Nehemiah in 445 B.C. to carry through the rebuilding of the
walls (which Ezra had not been able to accomplish). Of these choices, (1) must be ruled out as coming
nowhere to the time of Christ's ministry; (3) coming out too late, unless lunar years are used the
computation. Only (2) comes out right according to regular solar years, for it yields the result as A.D. 27, or
the commencement of Christ's ministry. Ezra and Nehemiah render an account of the rebuilding of Jerusalem
in forty-nine years and troublous times. Then follow the sixty-two weeks, after which Messiah was cut off
for sin. One's view of the remaining week is colored by his whole scheme of prophetic interpretation."
(Lindsell, H.*, ed., "Harper Study Bible," Revised Standard Version, Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1964,
Nineteenth printing, 1965, pp.1312-1313)

13/1/2004
"The Seventy Weeks The future of Jerusalem and the nation of Israel was outlined for Daniel as he
realized that the seventy years of captivity prophesied by Jeremiah (29:10) were almost over. That future
involved seventy sevens or weeks (Dan. 9:20-27) arranged in three groups: (1) one set of seven weeks, (2)
another of sixty-two weeks, and (3) a final set of one week. Hence 490 weeks (i.e., years) were to be divided
into 49, 434, and 7 years respectively. The purpose of this further extension of time before the awaited
Consummation set in was described in the six infinitives of verse 24: to finish the transgression to abolish
sin to atone for iniquity to bring in everlasting righteousness to seal vision and prophet to anoint the most
holy [place]. The order of events before the full redemption arrived included the complete deliverance from
sin and guilt, the conclusion of prophetic activity, and the introduction of the righteous kingdom with its
anointed sanctuary in Zion as predicted in Ezekiel 40-48, Zechariah 3:9ff., and their predecessors. Most
commentators agree that the 490 years began with the decree of Artaxerxes in his twentieth year of reign in
445 B.C. (Neh. 2:1-8), 7 which allowed the city of Jerusalem to be rebuilt, and continued through 483 of those
490 years, until the first advent of Messiah. But commentators differ widely on whether there is a gap of
undetermined length between the first 69 weeks or 483 years and the last week of 7 years or whether that
week also did not expire during the first Christian century during the persecution of the early church as
symbolized by Stephen's martyrdom The former position points to the temporal notation of `after the sixty-
two weeks [period]' (9:26) and the cutting off of Messiah (approx. A.D. 30) and the destruction of the temple
(A.D. 70) while the latter group tends to equate the `anointed one' and the `prince' of verse 26 and to argue
for the completion of the seventieth week during the first century A.D." (Kaiser, W.C., Jr*, "Toward an Old
Testament Theology," Academie Books/Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1978, Reprinted, 1990, pp.247-248.
Emphasis original)

13/1/2004
"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, or special definition, or metaphysics or lame,
then it would not have lasted so long in the scientific arena. Natural selection seems like powerful science
because 'fitness' is shifted to mean different things. Fitness can appear in three different ways. ... T
Tautology ... SD Special Definition ... M Metaphysics ... Alternatively, all references to fitness and
adaptation may be abandoned. Natural selection then appears as ... L Lame ... 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." (ReMine, W.J.*, "The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message
Theory," St. Paul Science: Saint Paul MN, 1993, p.107)

14/1/2004
"The prophecy of the seventy weeks also concerns the sufferings of the kingdom of God (ix. 24-27). The
prophetic era from which the weeks are reckoned is a decree, either of God or of an earthly king, for restoring
and building Jerusalem (25). The anointed one, the prince (25), and the anointed one (26) are interpreted,
with more or less soundness of reasoning, as referring to one person or two persons, and as being Cyrus or
a high priest or the line of high priests or Christ." (Davis, J.D.*, "A Dictionary of the Bible," [1898], Baker:
Grand Rapids MI, Fourth edition, 1924, Fifteenth printing, 1966, pp.162-163)

15/1/2004
"The seven weeks and sixty-two weeks and one week, amounting in all to seventy weeks (24-27), are
variously distributed. They are taken successively, so as to measure a period of 490 years; or the sixty-two
is held to include the seven, so that a period of 431 years only is covered- or the numbers are taken in the
reverse order from their mention in verse 25, and a significant period of seven weeks is made to follow the
periods of sixty-two weeks and one week." (Davis, J.D.*, "A Dictionary of the Bible," [1898], Baker: Grand
Rapids MI, Fourth edition, 1924, Fifteenth printing, 1966, p.163)

15/1/2004
"The theories which regard the decree as an edict of God are mainly two. They make the era either the
beginning of the exile, 605 B.C. (cp. Jer. xxv. 11), or the destruction of Jerusalem, 587 B.C. (cp. xxix. 10, written
soon after-the beginning of Jehoiachin's captivity verse 2; xxx. 18; xxxi. 38). Need it be added that the year
450 B.C. has also been sought, on the theory that the seventy years of punishment were doubled (Jer. xvi.
18; but see Is. xl. 2), and a divine decree of favor to Zion is implied at their close?" (Davis, J.D.*, "A
Dictionary of the Bible," [1898], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth edition, 1924, Fifteenth printing, 1966, p.163)

15/1/2004
"The theories which date the era from the decree of an earthly monarch are four: 1. The edict of Cyrus, 538
B.C. (Ezra i. 2-4; vi. 3-5; cp. Is. xliv. 28; xlv. 1, 13), under the provisions of which the rebuilding of the temple
was begun (Ezra vi. 14,15; Hag. i. 14, 15). 2. The edict of Darius (Ezra vi. 6:12). 3. The edict of the seventh
year of Artaxerxes, 457 B.C. (vii. 7, 1126), which granted to the Jews absolute authority in civil and religious
matters (25, 26), and under which they proceeded to build the city walls (iv. 12). The work was temporarily
interrupted by a new decree (iv. 21). 4. The edict of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, 444 B.C., which
included permission to restore and fortify the city (Neh. ii. 3, 5, 8, 17, 18)." (Davis, J.D.*, "A Dictionary of the
Bible," [1898], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth edition, 1924, Fifteenth printing, 1966, p.163)

15/1/2004
"The problem thus has three factors, to each of which several interpretations are given: the decree, the
anointed one, and the weeks- and these factors are susceptible of various combinations. Of all these
combinations, using any one of the decrees as a starting-point, and reckoning forward either sixty-two or
sixty-nine weeks of seven years each, and expecting either the time of Antiochus Epiphanes or that of Christ
to be reached by this measurement only one combination yields a result. All others require an invention of
history or involve an unusual chronological artifice or end in an unsolved mystery or assume a gross
miscalculation of the interval by the author." (Davis, J.D.*, "A Dictionary of the Bible," [1898], Baker: Grand
Rapids MI, Fourth edition, 1924, Fifteenth printing, 1966, p.163)

15/1/2004
"The one combination which coincides with known history throughout starts with the decree of Artaxerxes
in his seventh year, 457 B.C. A period of seven weeks or forty-nine years came to a close about 408 B.C.,
and the reformation under Ezra and Nehemiah was conducted during this period and characterized this
period as a whole. When this reform ceased to be the dominating feature of God's kingdom is unknown, but
Nehemiah's successor, who was a Persian and naturally not a maintainer of the exclusiveness of Jehovah's
religion, was in office in 411 B.C., before the close of the seventh week." (Davis, J.D.*, "A Dictionary of the
Bible," [1898], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth edition, 1924, Fifteenth printing, 1966, p.163)

15/1/2004
"Then follow sixty-two weeks or 434 years, coming down through A.D. 26 to the time when Jesus began his
public ministry, A.D. 27, probably early in that year. After these threescore and two weeks an anointed one
was cut off (Dan. ix. 26), making, it may well be, the reconciliation for iniquity and bringing in the everlasting
righteousness spoken of in verse 24; and in the midst of this last week one caused the sacrifice and oblation
to cease, not by forbidding them, but by the one sacrifice on Calvary that rendered all others henceforth
unnecessary. " (Davis, J.D.*, "A Dictionary of the Bible," [1898], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth edition,
1924, Fifteenth printing, 1966, p.163)

15/1/2004
"The Prophecy of Daniel Nine Because our Lord quotes from the prophecy of Daniel, it may be profitable
to study that passage ... Daniel 9:24-27 ... Dan. 9:24 ... The seven weeks are, in prophetic language, weeks of
years. The period in which the above was to find fulfillment consisted of 490 years. During this period four
things were to be accomplished: (1) reconciliation for iniquity, (2) righteousness established, (3) sealing up
vision and prophecy, and (4) the anointing of the Most Holy. All these things were to be accomplished by
the Messiah. The whole design of Christ's coming upon earth and dying upon Calvary's Cross was `to finish
transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity.' Daniel, in his prayer
previous to this particular prophecy, was deeply concerned with the forgiveness of both his and the
people's transgressions, sins, and iniquities. God assures him that within the prophetic seventy weeks one
would come who would remove these things. The whole of the New Testament proclaims that Christ did
exactly what Daniel prophesied. ... (Acts 3:18,19,26). Everlasting righteousness has been brought into this
world by the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. ... Also Christ sealed up both vision
and prophecy by fulfilling the same. ... This period, referred to in Daniel, saw also the fulfillment of the
anointing of the Most Holy. This anointing took place at the baptism of Jesus. ... (Acts 10:38). " (Kik, J.M.*,
"Matthew Twenty-Four: An Exposition," Presbyterian & Reformed: Philadelphia PA, 1948, pp.46-48.
Emphasis original)

15/1/2004
"... Dan. 9:25 ... The seventy weeks are divided into three divisions: 7-62-1. They form in years: 49-434-7. At
the time Daniel made this prophecy the children of Israel were in captivity and Jerusalem and its Temple
were in ruins. The first period of 49 years was to accomplish the rebuilding of the city. This actually took
place when Zerubbabel was governor over Judah. A number of Israelites were released from captivity, and
they rebuilt the city. The books of Nehemiah and Ezra relate the troublous times that were experienced in the
rebuilding. However, in spite of all these handicaps, the city was rebuilt." (Kik, J.M.*, "Matthew Twenty-
Four: An Exposition," Presbyterian & Reformed: Philadelphia PA, 1948, p.48)

15/1/2004
"... (Dan. 9:26). Notice that the above verse states after the threescore and two weeks shall the anointed
one be cut off. The Anointed One is, of course, Christ Jesus. The 483 years (7 plus 62 weeks) takes us up to
the ministry of Christ. During the last week of years the Messiah was to be cut off. We know that after three
and a half years of his ministry the Anointed One suffered a violent death. Isaiah used the same expression
in his fifty third chapter: `He was cut off out of the land of the living.' The prophecy records that this cutting
off of Christ was after the sixty ninth week. There are those who maintain that the last week of this
prophecy has as yet not been fulfilled in history. This amounts to a denial of the plain import of the
prophecy that the death of the Anointed One was to be after the sixty ninth week and during the seventieth
week. ... . If the seventieth week were postponed we would still be in our sins!" (Kik, J.M.*, "Matthew
Twenty-Four: An Exposition," Presbyterian & Reformed: Philadelphia PA, 1948, pp.49-50. Emphasis original)

15/1/2004
"The expression, `And shall have nothing,' seems to refer to the city and its Temple. ... The Temple and the
city were nothing to Christ after their rejection of him. And it was because of this cutting off of the Messiah
that the destruction of the city and its sanctuary was determined. ... Dr. Edward J. Young ... writes: `They
seem to indicate that all which should properly belong to the Messiah, he does not have when he dies. This
is a very forceful way of setting forth his utter rejection, both by God and man. ... The prophecy indicates
that the destruction was to be accomplished by the people of the Prince, namely, the Romans under the
command of the general Titus. As a matter of fact, the Roman soldiers destroyed the city and its sanctuary
directly against his wishes. And that destruction was certainly as a flood, for the city and its Temple were
completely destroyed." (Kik, J.M.*, "Matthew Twenty-Four: An Exposition," Presbyterian & Reformed:
Philadelphia PA, 1948, p.50)

15/1/2004
" ... (Dan. 9:27). That firm covenant is none other than that which Christ made with many. ... (Matt. 26:28).
We know that Christ by his death caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease by fulfilling the shadow and
becoming the substance. ... (Heb. 7:27). When Christ died upon the Cross the veil of the Temple was rent in
twain. Gone was the old system with its shadows. Even for the unbelieving Jews, Jesus caused the sacrifice
and oblation to cease by the destruction of the Temple and the city and by the dispersion of the Jews. This
is true even unto this day. Thus the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 finds its fufillment in the atoning sacrifice of
Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem. Dr. E. P. Pusey has stated: `All this meets in one in the Gospel. He,
the so long looked for', came: He was owned as the Messiah; he did cause the sacrifices of the law to
cease; he was cut off; yet he did make the covenant with the many; a foreign army did desolate the
city and Temple; the Temple for these 1800 years (ed. now 1900) has lain desolate; the typical sacrifices
have ceased, not through disbelief in their efficacy on the part of those to whom they were once given.'"
(Kik, J.M.*, "Matthew Twenty-Four: An Exposition," Presbyterian & Reformed: Philadelphia PA, 1948, p.51.
Emphasis original)

15/1/2004
"A Possible Objection The only valid objection against this general interpretation is that the destruction
of Jerusalem did not occur within he seventieth week-within the period of seven years. The seventy weeks
extended to about 33 A.D. The destruction of Jerusalem, of course, came in 70 A.D. A close examination of
the passage in Daniel does not disclose ant statement that the people of the prince were to cause this
destruction within the seven years. Within the seven years the destruction of the city was determined by
its rejection of Christ and his apostles. Because of this rejection `the people of the prince that shall come
shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.' Christ himself stated that for a short period after his death he
would send his prophets: `Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets and wise men, and scribes: and
some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and
persecute them from city to city.' [Mt 23:34] This actually happened before the seven year period was up.
After the stoning of Stephen, the Church was scattered abroad and the message went to the Samaritans and
Gentiles. Jerusalem, by the crucifixion of Christ and the persecution of his followers, overflowed the cup of
iniquity. Jerusalem was nothing but a stinking carcass. As Jesus stated: `For wheresoever the carcass is,
there will the eagles be gathered together.' [Mt 24:28] Jerusalem became a `carcass' during the seventieth
week. It was only a matter of time when the `eagles' would come with the outward destruction." (Kik, J.M.*,
"Matthew Twenty-Four: An Exposition," Presbyterian & Reformed: Philadelphia PA, 1948, pp.51-52.
Emphasis original)

15/1/2004
"Daniel prophesied that the events he enumerated were to occur in the continuous period of 490 years.
Would not God have revealed to him that the last seven years were not to be joined to the 483? Did not God
know that the Jews would reject his Son? The Scriptures and history have revealed that the prophecy of
Daniel has been wonderfully fulfilled. The Scriptures do not tell us that the seventieth week has been
postponed. If it were postponed, I repeat, we would still be in our sins and without hope. If one can believe
Luke, that the abomination of desolation is the Roman army [Lk 21:20] ..." (Kik, J.M.*, "Matthew Twenty-
Four: An Exposition," Presbyterian & Reformed: Philadelphia PA, 1948, pp.52-53)

15/1/2004
"So, what do we mean by a miracle? A miracle is something that happens, but which is exceedingly
surprising. If a marble statue of the Virgin Mary suddenly waved its hand at us we should treat it as a
miracle, because all our experience and knowledge tells us that marble doesn't behave like that. I have just
uttered the words 'May I be struck by lightning this minute'. If lightning did strike me in the same minute, it
would be treated as a miracle. But actually neither of these two occurrences would be classified by science
as utterly impossible. They would simply be judged very improbable, the waving statue much more
improbable than the lightning. ... In the case of the marble statue, molecules in solid marble are continuously
jostling against one another in random directions. The jostlings of the different molecules cancel one
another out, so the whole hand of the statue stays still. But if, by sheer coincidence, all the molecules just
happened to move in the same direction at the same moment, the hand would move. If they then all reversed
direction at the same moment the hand would move back. In this way it is possible for a marble statue to
wave at us. It could happen. The odds against such a coincidence are unimaginably great but they are not
incalculably great. A physicist colleague has kindly calculated them for me. The number is so large that the
entire age of the universe so far is too short a time to write out all the noughts! It is theoretically possible for
a cow to jump over the moon with something like the same improbability." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind
Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, pp.159-160)

15/1/2004
"Daniel's Prayer and Vision of the Seventy Weeks (9:1-27) A. Daniel's prayer (9:1-19). In the first year
of Persian rule (539/8 B.C.), Darius, son of Xerxes (Heb. Ahasuerus) and a Mede by descent, became the
governor of Babylon (v. 1). Daniel is drawn to meditate on the prophecy of Jeremiah, who was one of the
prophets predicting the era of restoration, consisting of covenant renewal, restoration of the people to the
land, and the continuous service of the priesthood in the temple (chaps. 30-34). Jeremiah had also predicted
that the Babylonian kingdom was to last seventy years (Jer. 25:12) and that subsequently Jerusalem would
be restored. Daniel longs for the era of restoration, for the establishment of the kingdom of God and of the
messianic kingdom. To this end he fasts and prays for the restoration of his people to the land."
(VanGemeren, W.A., "Daniel," in Elwell, W.A., ed., "Evangelical Commentary on the Bible," Baker: Grand
Rapids MI, 1989, Second printing, 1990, p.598. Emphasis original)

16/1/2004
"Daniel's prayer consists of confession and petition. In the confession he identifies with the history of his
people, with their sin and punishment. The prayer of confession consists of a repetition of four themes:
Israel's rebellious attitude to the Law and the Prophets, Yahweh's righteousness in judgment, the fulfillment
of the curses, and the hope in renewal of divine mercy and grace. Daniel begins with an affirmation of God's
mercy, inherent in Israel's confession of who Yahweh is: `Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his
covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands' (v. 4). In contrast Israel has sinned against
their covenant God: `We have been wicked and have rebelled; we have turned away from your commands
and laws' (v. 5). They have rejected the prophets. Therefore the Lord is righteous in his judgment. Yet, the
disgrace of Israel is apparent wherever they have been scattered. Their lot has changed by their own doing,
but the Lord is still the same. Israel has received the curses of the covenant (Lev. 26:33; Deut. 28:63-67). The
Lord has been faithful in judgment, even in bringing about the desolation of Jerusalem. Again Daniel affirms
the righteousness of Yahweh. Daniel throws himself on the mercy of God, as he prays for the restoration of
Jerusalem, the temple, and God's presence among his people." (VanGemeren, W.A., "Daniel," in Elwell,
W.A., ed., "Evangelical Commentary on the Bible," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1989, Second printing, 1990,
pp.598-599. Emphasis original)

16/1/2004
"B. God's response (9:20-27). Daniel prays from the conviction that the Lord has decreed an end to the
Babylonian rule. Now that this has taken place, Daniel prays for the speedy restoration of the people, the
city, Jerusalem, and the temple. He has acknowledged the sin of Israel, but trusts the Lord to be faithful to
his promises. Suddenly, the angel Gabriel appears to him in a vision. He was sent to explain God's plan as
soon as Daniel had begun to pray (v. 23)! This speedy response is an expression of God's special love for
Daniel. Building on the seventy-years motif, the angel reveals that the Lord has decreed `seventy 'sevens'
(v. 24). The purpose of the `seventy 'sevens' ` is to finalize judgment on sin, to atone for sin and
transgression, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to fulfill all the prophetic word, and to anoint the most
holy (v. 24). The exact identification of the phrase is open to interpretation. If we take it to refer to seventy
periods of time, the happenings may come to the foreground, rather than the speculations on the length of
time. The first period of seven `sevens' pertains to the return of the people from exile and the rebuilding of
the temple and Jerusalem (ca. 536-445 B.C.). This period begins with the issuing of the decree to restore and
rebuild Jerusalem, but opinions differ on when this took place: 538 B.C. (Cyrus's decree to restore the temple
in Jerusalem) or 445 B.C. (Nehemiah's permission to restore the walls of Jerusalem). There is little
disagreement on the identification of `the Anointed One, the ruler,' with our Lord Jesus. From the decree to
the coming of our Lord the progression of redemption took place: the people returned to the land, homes
and cities were rebuilt, temple worship was restored, and above all the people enjoyed God's favor and
covenant renewal." (VanGemeren, W.A., "Daniel," in Elwell, W.A., ed., "Evangelical Commentary on the
Bible," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1989, Second printing, 1990, p.599. Emphasis original)

16/1/2004
" A longer period of sixty-two `sevens' brings us to the crucifixion of the Messiah. The last `seven' will
witness the confirmation (renewal) of the covenant by the Messiah and the desecration of the temple.
Gabriel promises that `he will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven' (v. 27), but our problem is the
identity of the `he.' Some hold that the Messiah is the subject of the sentence, but others see here a
reference to Titus and the Antichrist. Indeed, Titus brought an end to sacrifices and offerings and set up
pagan symbols in the temple court. This is the `abomination that causes desolation' (v. 27). on the other
hand the confirmation of covenant could be a reference to the Anointed, whereas the abomination of
desolation is an allusion to Titus. These events are associated with the Romans, who destroyed the city and
the sanctuary. This marks the beginning of the end. It appears that the vision refers to the restoration of
God's covenant in the postexilic community, the renewal of the covenant by the Messiah, and the
destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. According to another view, the last `seven' pertains to the Jewish
people and marks the period of great tribulation before the millennial kingdom." (VanGemeren, W.A.,
"Daniel," in Elwell, W.A., ed., "Evangelical Commentary on the Bible," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1989,
Second printing, 1990, p.599)

16/1/2004
"THE DNA CODE AND THE INCARNATION. ... WE SHALL DRAW TOGETHER SOME OF THE varied
strands of our inquiry not only as they resolve themselves into a cohesive pattern, revealing purpose in the
mystery of existence, but also as they may bear upon the unique personality of Jesus Christ whom Paul
significantly called `the second Adam' [1 Cor. 15:45, 47] and who for him as for all Christians is uniquely the
Son of God, `God manifest in flesh'. [1 Tim. 3:16] Ultimate understanding of this mystery may well defeat our
finite knowledge, but it will not do simply to beg the question, as do those who blandly declare that they do
not believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ. This defeatist attitude fails to take account of our growing
knowledge of the details and mechanisms of genetics, and particularly of the DNA code. Yet even as we
consider, we do so in no arrogant spirit, but are conscious that we are treading on holy ground." (Pearce,
E.K.V.*, "Who Was Adam?," Paternoster: Exeter UK, 1969, p.137. Emphasis original)

16/1/2004
"The prologue to the fourth Gospel is a striking application of the - phraseology of Genesis 1. It becomes
very much more arresting today as we are able to reconsider it in the light of our knowledge of genetic
coding. `The Word' of John 1, known to the Greeks as the Logos, is an application of the repeated
expression of Genesis, `God said'. This is emphasized by other analogies which John makes. The passage is
among the best known of the Bible: `In the beginning was the Word, And the Word was with God, And the
Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him: And without
him was not anything made that was made. [Jn 1:1-3]. The prologue concludes with a statement
demonstrating to us that this same `Word' who Himself coded all life in the beginning, graciously allowed
Himself to become coded in the DNA of the Incarnation: `And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us,
And we beheld his glory, The glory as of the only begotten of the Father, Full of grace and truth.' " (Pearce,
E.K.V.*, "Who Was Adam?," Paternoster: Exeter UK, 1969, p.137)

16/1/2004
"We are not concerned with what God `could' or `could not' do by the exercise of supra-natural powers.
What we note is that apparently He chooses not to go contrary to His original creation, but to use the
mechanism He has already placed within that creation to bring about His purpose. He chose a human body
of a woman, with its normal cellular constitution. He chose to use the normal nine months' gestation (Luke
1:40 45, 56; 2:5, 6). He appointed a doctor (Luke), to record it in Holy Scripture. The growth of Jesus Christ to
physical, human maturity was also through the natural laws of God's own pre-set engineering, within the
normal human experience (Luke 2:40, 51, 52). It is Luke who tells us how the Word was coded in the DNA of
the Virgin Mary: `The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. And
behold you will conceive in your womb and bear a son Jesus - Son of the Most High .." Mary said to the
angel `How can this be, since I have no husband?' [Lk 1:30-32,34] The angel then revealed that the
conception would be accomplished by two agencies, the Holy Spirit, and the Most High: `The Holy Spirit
will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born
will be called holy, the Son of God. ... For with God nothing will be impossible. [Lk 1:35]" (Pearce, E.K.V.*,
"Who Was Adam?," Paternoster: Exeter UK, 1969, p.138)

16/1/2004
"We take the last points first. .. at the Incarnation the Holy Spirit was active, organizing and making
available the nucleic acids, with their sugar and phosphate bonds, in other words, the polymers of the DNA
strand ... But the instructions to be recorded in code had to be superimposed. ... We may also assume,
therefore, that when the same Holy Spirit came upon the Virgin, He likewise assembled these nucleic acids
and bonds which would be already available in the body of the Virgin. We speak with all reverence. These
volumes would be assembled into the 23 chromosomes required to match the 23 in the Virgin's ovum, but
would include a `Y' chromosome necessary for a male child. ... In the case of the Virgin, the `Most High' was
the dynamic (Luke 1:35). This might be because it was `the Word' Himself who was being recorded in those
nucleic acids, for He was `begotten of the Father' (John 1:14). The eventual result was that in Christ dwelt
`all the fullness of the Godhead bodily' (Col. 2:9). In this way all the fullness of the Trinity would be involved
in those 23 chromosomes prepared for fusion with the ovum of the Virgin - the Holy Spirit assembling the
DNA code bases, the Father sending forth the Word and the Word Himself becoming recorded upon those
bases." (Pearce, E.K.V.*, "Who Was Adam?," Paternoster: Exeter UK, 1969, pp.138-139)

16/1/2004
"Thus far we have spoken of the Divine side of Christ's nature, but we should realize that the physical and
spiritual, the human and divine, are not in two watertight compartments. The human side is given more fully
by Luke and Matthew. Within the Virgin, the ovum to be fertilized would contain the usual 23 chromosomes
there in DNA code would be recorded already an inheritance reaching back to David, Abraham and Eve,
with cellular instructions shared with the whole of mankind. Luke therefore records the genealogy of Mary
back to Adam." (Pearce, E.K.V.*, "Who Was Adam?," Paternoster: Exeter UK, 1969, p.139)

16/1/2004
"There are those who have asked whether the Virgin birth may not have been due to parthenogenesis. This
refers to a freak case of an ovum being triggered off into separate development. This suggestion does not
meet the requirements either of the Incarnation or of biology. If such a child had been born of the Virgin
Mary, it could only have been a girl, for no `Y' chromosome would have been available. Also the child would
have genetic material only of Mary's descent, so it would not be a true incarnation - a complete fusion of the
two natures into one. Also, the question of parthenogenesis appears to be ruled out by the statement in a
number of places that the Virgin did conceive, but it was without any human male union. It was by the Holy
Spirit, and that would be why God is referred to as the Father, and Jesus as the Son of God, and why He is
stated to be born holy (Luke 1:35; Matt. 1:20, 25; John 1:14)." (Pearce, E.K.V.*, "Who Was Adam?,"
Paternoster: Exeter UK, 1969, p.139)

16/1/2004
"Our knowledge that a foetus receives a complete set of 23 chromosomes from each of its parents gives
insight into the oneness of Christ's nature. Those of Divine origin and those of the Virgin would pair and
fuse (in the sense of producing gametes), resulting in the one personality, fully divine, fully human, without
sin. This insight into the possible mechanics of the Incarnation is a reply to those who contend that the
incarnation of the Lord is scientifically impossible. It is also a help in the difficulties which some in the early
centuries and the middle ages had in their speculations on how two natures could become one. Modern
genetics reveal that the alleles from both parents make one person at conception. The statement `That which
is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit' [Mt 1:20], shows how God was the Father and the Virgin Mary the
mother. Also, the fact that DNA is a code demonstrates how the speech, or `Word', of God, recorded upon
the nucleic acids, would form the real genetic contribution from the Divine side. We see how that Christ was
fully and truly man, and yet not two natures, but God-man, not God and man, thus illustrating physically
what had been arrived at theologically by earlier divines." (Pearce, E.K.V.*, "Who Was Adam?,"
Paternoster: Exeter UK, 1969, pp.139-140. Emphasis original)

16/1/2004
"Yet ultimately our only authoritative source for the doctrine of the Incarnation is still the revelation of God
in Holy Scripture. We could not discover such things through the medium of science, but having received
the revelation of God, we can note that increasing discoveries in science do show how it could come about,
and justify the terms of reference, hitherto not fully understood by us, which God's revelation uses."
(Pearce, E.K.V.*, "Who Was Adam?," Paternoster: Exeter UK, 1969, p.140)

16/1/2004
"We have demonstrated that this places Adam as a Neolithic, or at least a Proto-Neolithic man, created in
Periglacial environment at the end of the last Ice-age, in what is now Turkey and Armenia His cells probably
shared a common heritage with all life on earth, but reference to his formation and the manner of Eve's origin
indicate that his cells were recoded from an extra-cosmic (or supernatural) source, by the Word, or `Code', of
God. This Code of God ultimately Himself inherited the cells and DNA of Adam and Eve when the Holy
Spirit coded the Word at the Incarnation. Thus the Word became flesh, whom we know as Jesus Christ, Son
of God, fully God, fully man, without sin." (Pearce, E.K.V.*, "Who Was Adam?," Paternoster: Exeter UK,
1969, p.141)

17/01/2004
"The prophecy of the seventy weeks (ix. 24-27) is felt to be of crucial importance for biblical eschatology.
The writer believes that the seventy sevens of years are to be reckoned from the decree of Artaxerxes I to
rebuild Jerusalem in 444 BC (Ne. ii. 1-8) and terminate with the establishment of the millennial kingdom (ix.
24), It seems clear that a gap or hiatus separates the end of the sixty-ninth week from the beginning of the
seventieth (ix. 26), for Christ placed the abomination of desolation at the very end of the present age (Mt.
xxiv. 15 in context; cf. Dn. ix. 27). Such prophetic gaps are not uncommon in the Old Testament (e.g. Is. lxi. 2;
cf. Lk. iv. 16-21). Thus, the seventieth week, according to dispensationalist premillennialists, is a seven-year
period immediately preceding the second advent of Christ, during which time antichrist rises to world
dominion and persecutes the saints." (Whitcomb J.C.*, "Daniel," in Douglas J.D., et al., eds., "The New
Bible Dictionary," [1962], Inter-Varsity Fellowship: London, 1967, reprint, pp.292-293)

18/01/2004
"The `Traditional' Interpretation of the Seventy Weeks. (1) According to this view, all of the great
transactions referred to in vs. 24 are to be regarded as having been' fulfilled at the first advent and, more
specifically, in what is to be regarded as the climactic event of the prophecy, the redemption at Calvary,
which is referred to literally in vs. 26 and figuratively in vs. 27. Thus the words, `to' finish transgression and
to make an end of (or seal up) sins and to make reconciliation for iniquity,' are to be regarded as referring to
that atonement for sin which was accomplished, fully and completely, once for all, on the cross. This
interpretation is quite in accord with many New Testament statements (e.g., Heb. x. 12-14). Thus, Paul says
that Jesus has `abolished death' (2 Tim. i.10). Death was a very real thing to Paul. He was living under its
shadow, when he wrote these words to Timothy. But, the fear of death and the power of death had been
destroyed, because Christ had brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. For Paul, death was
indeed `abolished.' Sin is, likewise, very much alive; it is very active in the world. But sin was finally dealt
with (`made an end of') 8 and reconciliation brought about through the death of Christ, His passive
obedience as a sufferer for sin. It only remains that the benefits of that finished work be applied to all those
for whom it was performed. The same applies to the three other matters referred to in this verse. An
`everlasting righteousness' was provided for all. the redeemed through the active obedience of Christ, His
perfect keeping of the law of God. Prophecy was `sealed,' i.e., authenticated in a unique way by the life and
death and resurrection and ascension of Christ; and prophetic gifts ceased in the Christian Church with the
close of the apostolic age. The `anointing of a most holy" may refer either to a person or to a place. If to a
person, the reference may be to the descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus to fit Him for His Messianic work
(Lk. iii. 22, iv. 18); if to a place, it may refer to the entrance of the risen Christ into heaven itself, when
`through his own blood he entered once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption"
(Heb. ix. 12) for all His elect. In a word, we have in vs. 24 the prophecy of the `satisfaction of Christ," of His
obedience and sufferings, by virtue of which the sinner obtains forgiveness and acceptance with God. (2)
According to this view, the 69th week ended with the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist and the
baptism of Jesus; and the 70th week followed immediately upon it. Consequently, the `cutting off" of the
Anointed One which occurred `after the threescore and two weeks" must be regarded as having taken place
in the 70th week; and a reference to it is to be found in the words, `in the midst [half] of the week, he [the
Messiah] shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." That Christ by His death put an end to the
Jewish ritual of sacrifice, substituting for bulls and goats `a sacrifice of nobler name and richer blood than
they," is the great argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews. So interpreted, it is the Messiah who makes firm
or confirms the covenant for the one (the 70th) week; and the crucifixion which takes place in the midst of it
is the great event of that week and may be regarded as the climax of the entire prophecy. A difficulty with
this interpretation is to be found in the fact that it does not clearly define the terminus of the 70th week.
Unless the view is taken that `in the midst of the week" means `in the second half" of it, and even at the end
of that half, the end is not definitely fixed. It seems very unlikely that if `in the midst" really meant `at the
end," it would have been described in this way. On the other hand if `in the midst" is taken in its natural
sense, a half-week, or three and a half years, remains to be accounted for after the crucifixion. Many
interpreters regard this as referring to the period of the founding of the Church and the preaching of the
gospel exclusively to the Jews, a period ending with or about the time of the martyrdom of Stephen. Others
hold that the period of three and a half years was graciously extended to some 35 years, to the date of the
destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, a reference to which is found in vs. 26. Both of these explanations may be
regarded as possible. With regard to the claim that the prophecy extends to the date of the destruction of
Jerusalem in A.D. 70 it is to be noted that while the language of vs. 26 may seem to favor this, it does not
require it. Vs. 26 speaks of events which will come `after the threescore and two weeks." Of these events it
mentions first the cutting off of Messiah which vs. 27 describes as taking place in the midst of the week.
Then it speaks of the destruction of the city and sanctuary and finally of an `end" or an `end of war," which
is a very indefinite expression. Vs. 27 declares that a covenant is to be made firm for `one week," that `in the
midst of the week" someone will cause sacrifice and oblation to cease. Then it goes on to speak of the
coming of a `desolator" and of a `full end." None of the predictions of desolation and vengeance contained
in these verses can be regarded as so definitely included in the program outlined in vs. 24 that we can assert
with confidence that they must be regarded as fulfilled within the compass of the 70 weeks. They are
consequences of the cutting off, they may be regarded as involved in it, but their accomplishment may
extend, and if this interpretation is correct, clearly does extend beyond the strict limits of the 70 weeks, since
the destruction of Jerusalem was much more than three and a half years after the crucifixion. But, in either
case, the great climactic event of the last week was the crucifixion which took place `in the midst" of that
week. So interpreted there can be no interval between the 69th and the 70th weeks." (Allis, O.T.*, `Prophecy
and the Church: An Examination of the Claim of Dispensationalists," [1945], Presbyterian & Reformed
Publishing Co: Philadelphia PA, 1964, Third Printing, pp.113-115)

18/01/2004
"But this was only an entertaining diversion from the main issue. How is the factor 10⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰
really to be faced? Not by a galaxy-wide ensemble of living cells. Not even by adding other nearby galaxies
to the ensemble, or even the totality of galaxies observable with the largest telescopes. To face
10⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰ the ensemble of life must be hugely cosmological in its scale, and our cosmology has
to extend into the past by a time interval exceeding ten billion years by an enormous factor. So we are back
to the starting point, but now with more substance to the argument. It will of course be in the reader's mind
to ask if 10⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰ is really inevitable. The answer is yes, if life is to originate by what are called
the `blind' forces of nature, which is to say without initial information. Nothing is to be gained by attempting
to shake the calculation of 10⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰. The issue you will recall was the probability of a set of
amino acids randomly falling together into a workable aggregate of enzymes. Certainly it is easy to frame a
deceitful argument, in the following way for example. Start with much simpler, much smaller, enzymes that are
sufficiently elementary to be discoverable by chance. Then let evolution in some chemical environment
cause the simple enzymes to change gradually into the complex ones we have today. The first retort to this
mental deception is that an appeal to initial simplicity has been allowed for already. thus the number
10⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰ was obtained from a calculation in which less than twenty amino acids were required
to be in specific sequential positions for each of two thousand enzymes. If the calculation is to be criticized
it should be on the grounds of being much too conservative. But the real deceit comes from ignoring the
problem of what it was in the environment that caused simple enzymes to evolve into complex ones. If the
environment contained information, what was its source'? If not, then an improbability of the order of
10^-40000 has been concealed in the behavior of the environment. To face
10⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰ one must think unthinkable thoughts, which means any thought with a chance
greater than 1 in 10⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰ of being right, a condition that permits a wide class of possibilities!
One such possibility is that the enzymes were put together in accordance with instructions. Given a
knowledge of the appropriate ordering of amino-acids, it would need only a slightly superhuman chemist to
construct the enzymes with one hundred percent accuracy. It would need a somewhat more superhuman
scientist (again given appropriate instructions) to assemble a living cell, but not a level of skill outside our
comprehension. Rather than accept a probability less than 1 in 10⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰ of life having arisen
through the `blind' forces of nature, it seems better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate
intellectual act. By `better' I mean less likely to be wrong." (Hoyle, F., "The Universe: Past and Present
Reflections," Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 20, 1982, pp.1-35, pp.13-14)

20/01/2004
"Consilience is the key to unification. I prefer this word over `coherence' because its rarity has preserved its
precision, whereas coherence has several possible meanings, only one of which is consilience. William
Whewell, in his 1840 synthesis The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, was the first to speak of
consilience, literally a `jumping together' of knowledge by the linking of facts and fact-based theory across
disciplines to create a common groundwork of explanation. He said, `The Consilience of Inductions takes
place when an Induction, obtained from one class of facts, coincides with an Induction, obtained from
another different class. This Consilience is a test of the truth of the Theory in which it occurs." (Wilson,
E.O., "Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge," [1998], Vintage: New York NY, 1999, reprint, p.8-9)

20/01/2004
"According to ancient historians, the first century AD was a time of unusual expectation `among the Jews.
The feeling was widespread that some prophecy regarding the time of Messiah's coming was about to
expire. The Roman historian Suetonius (early 2nd cen) says of the Jewish revolt against Rome (AD 66-73):
`There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that time for men
coming from Judaea to rule the world. This prediction, referring to the Emperor of Rome, as afterwards
appeared from the event, the people of Judaea took to themselves.' [Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars,
"The Deified Vespasian," 4.5] Suetonius' contemporary Tacitus also speaks of this prophecy, supplying
more information about its source: `... in most there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their
priests was contained a prediction of how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers,
coming from Judaea, were to acquire universal empire. These mysterious prophecies had pointed to
Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, with the usual blindness of ambition, had interpreted these
mighty destinies of themselves, and could not be brought even by disasters to believe the truth.' [Tacitus,
Histories, 5.13] Closer to the scene, and writing less than ten years after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, was
the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Josephus wrote before Titus succeeded his father Vespasian as
emperor, and he indicates only a single expected ruler: `But now, what did most elevate them in undertaking
this war was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how "about that time, one
from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong
to themselves in particular; and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now
this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea.'
[Josephus, Jewish War, 6.5.4] Josephus' application of the prophecy to his patron Vespasian is
understandable, but it is doubtful that his fellow Jews agreed!" (Newman, R.C.*, "The Time of the Messiah,"
in Newman, R.C., ed., "The Evidence of Prophecy: Fulfilled Prediction as a Testimony to the Truth of Christianity,"
[1988], Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute: Hatfield PA, Fourth printing, 1998, p.111)

23/01/2004
"Darwin always considered his greatest contribution to evolutionary thought to be his collection of facts
supporting the notion of evolution in general, and his own ideas in particular. However as early as this first
chapter we learn about the way Darwin handled his facts; when they did not fit his views he ignored them or
tried to explain them away." (Lovtrup, S., "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth," Croom Helm: London,
1987, p.108)

23/01/2004
"If Darwin's theory of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless
competition to survive: a competition in which only a few in any generation can be winners. But it is
perfectly obvious that human life is not like that, however it may be with other species.
This inconsistency, between Darwin's theory and the facts of human life, is what I mean by 'Darwinism's
Dilemma', The inconsistency is so very obvious that no Darwinian has ever been altogether unconscious of
it. There have been, accordingly, very many attempts by Darwinians to wriggle out of the dilemma. But the
inconsistency is just too simple and direct to be wriggled out of, and all these attempts are conspicuously
unsuccessful. They are not uninstructive, though, or unamusing." (Stove, D.C., "Darwinian Fairytales," Avebury:
Aldershot UK, 1995, p.2)

23/01/2004
"Second, there were a number of decrees having to do with the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Most people
recognize that between one of these decrees and the appearance of `the Anointed One' (that is, the
Messiah) there should be 483 years, that is, seven plus sixty-two (or sixty-nine) times seven. But because
there are different points from which to begin, there are also different ways of arriving at an appropriate year
connected to the lifetime of Jesus Christ. There are three main possibilities. The most obvious one from
which these 483 years could start is the decree issued by Cyrus recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:23 (at the very
end of the book) and in Ezra 1:2-4, but this is a number of years too early. Besides, both biblical versions of
the decree mention only the reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple. They say nothing about rebuilding the
city itself. The second possibility is the decree issued by Artaxerxes 1 (464-424 B.C.) in the seventh Year of
his reign recorded in Ezra 7:12-26. This decree was issued in 457 B.C. If we move forward forty-nine years
from that point, we come to 408 B.C. by which time the walls, streets, and moat around the city were
completed. Then moving on 433 more years we come to A.D. 27. (The numbers bring us to A.D. 26, but it is
necessary to add one year to account for the `zero' year when we pass from 1 B.C. to A.D. 1.) This seems a
bit early at first. But it is probably just right if we are to understand Gabriel's wording as referring to the start
of Christ's ministry. The ministry was three years long. So this would give us a date for Jesus' death of A.D.
30, which (in my judgment) is exactly right by other calculations. 3. The third possibility is the decree
recorded by Nehemiah in 2:5-8. This occurred in the twentieth year of the reign of Artaxerxes 1, which is
therefore thirteen years after the earlier decree in Ezra. Calculating from this point brings us to the year A.D.
39 or 40. This seems too late. But it was a popular identification of the time frame years ago, and it was
defended by adjusting the years on the basis of a so-called `prophetic year' of 360 days. At one time I was
attracted by this possibility, but I now think that the second of these alternatives should be preferred."
(Boice, J.M.*, "Daniel: An Expositional Commentary," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1989, pp.100-101)

23/01/2004
"When the first insectivore went into trees and jumped and started to flutter, it went through that
transitional stage, quite likely in a period of a few million years. However, once the bat stage had been
reached 65 million years ago, very little new has happened. An Eocene bat looks just like a modern bat. So, I
think that during this stage of the reshuffling of the genotype, all sorts of things can happen that cannot
happen before nor afterwards." (Mayr, E.W., "Discussion: Paper by Dr. Mayr," 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.58)

25/01/2004
"Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him.
Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree
staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are
not, I think, fatal to the theory. " (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.156)

25/01/2004
"CHRIST (Gk., lit. 'Anointed One'), The word is a Gk. translation of the Heb. *Messiah. Originally a title, it
soon came to be used by the followers of the risen Jesus as a proper name for their Lord, so that they
themselves came to be known as *Christians. ...CHRISTIAN. The name was originally applied to the
followers of Christ by outsiders, acc. to Acts 11: 26 being first used at *Antioch c. 40-4. Acc. to *Tacitus it
was current among the people at Rome at the time of the *Neronian persecution (A.D. 64) and it was always
the official Roman designation of members of the Church; thus in times of persecution it was often the
confession or denial of this name that was crucial. It was later adopted by the Church as a designation to
distinguish itself from other religions. In modern times the name Christian has been claimed by every form of
belief stemming from historical Christianity, and has tended, in nominally Christian countries, to lose any
credal significance and imply only what is ethically praiseworthy." (Livingstone, E.A., ed., "The Concise
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church," Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1977, p.105)

25/01/2004
"The most important statement in Scripture about creation is not contained in Genesis but in the opening
verses of the Gospel of John: `In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not
one thing came into being.' (John 1:1-3) This statement plainly says that creation was by a force that was
(and is) intelligent and personal. The essential, bedrock position of scientific naturalism is the direct
opposite of John 1:1-3. Naturalistic evolutionary theory, as part of the grand metaphysical story of science,
says that creation was by impersonal and unintelligent forces. The opposition between the biblical and
naturalistic stories is fundamental, and neither side can compromise over it. To compromise is to surrender."
(Johnson, P.E.*, "Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education,"
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1995, pp.107-108)

26/01/2004
"Unfortunately the uniqueness of this Christian doctrine of Creation and the Creator is continually being
obscured by the fact that theologians are so reluctant to begin their work with the New Testament; when
they want to deal with the Creation they tend to begin with the Old Testament, although they never do this
when they are speaking of the Redeemer. The emphasis on the story of Creation at the beginning of the
Bible has constantly led theologians to forsake the rule, which they would otherwise follow, namely, that the
basis of all Christian articles of faith is the Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ. So when we begin to study the
subject of Creation, in the Bible we ought to start with the first chapter of the Gospel of John, and some
other passages of the New Testament, and, not with the first chapter of Genesis. If we can make up
our minds to stick to this rule, we shall be saved from many difficulties, which will inevitably occur if we
begin with the story of Creation in the Old Testament. Of course, I do not wish to deny the permanent
significance of, and the absolute necessity for, the Old Testament accounts of the Creation-not only in the
first two chapters of Genesis but also in the Prophets, the Psalms, and in the Book of Job. In order to expand
the somewhat scanty statements of the Testament we certainly need the weighty and enriching testimony of
the Old Testament; but in principle these statements are as introductory in character as the Old Testament
witness is to the Messiah is to that of the New Testament." (Brunner, E., "The Christian Doctrine of Creation
and Redemption," Dogmatics Vol. II, Wyon O., trans, [1952], Lutterworth: London, 1955, Second Impression,
pp.6-7. Emphasis in original)

26/01/2004
"There was a way to test the theory by fossil evidence, however, if Darwin and his followers had wanted a
test. Darwin was emphatic that the number of transitional intermediates must have been immense, even
`inconceivable.' Perhaps evidence of their existence was missing because in 1859 only a small part of the
world's fossil beds had been searched, and because the explorers had not known what to look for. Once
paleontologists accepted Darwinism as a working hypothesis, however, and explored many new fossil beds
in an effort to confirm the theory, this situation ought to change. In time the fossil record could be expected
to look very different, and very much more Darwinian. The test would not be fair to the skeptics, however,
unless it was also possible for the theory to fail. Imagine, for example, that belief in Darwin's theory were to
sweep through the scientific world with such irresistible power that it very quickly became an orthodoxy.
Suppose that the tide was so irresistible that even the most prestigious of scientists-Harvard's Louis
Agassiz, for example- became an instant has-been for failing to join the movement. Suppose that
paleontologists became so committed to the new way of thinking that fossil studies were published only if
they supported the theory, and were discarded as failures if they showed an absence of evolutionary
change. As we shall see, that is what happened. Darwinism apparently passed the fossil test, but only
because it was not allowed to fail." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], Inter Varsity Press: Downers
Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, pp.48-49)

27/01/2004
"Darwin, Marx and Freud. Whenever anyone is asked to name the thinkers who have had the greatest
influence in the twentieth century, these three names always head the list. Darwin's achievement was the
most fundamental of the three, because Marx and Freud relied heavily on their understanding of Darwinist
concepts, and especially upon the general impression that Darwin had provided scientific support for
metaphysical materialism and atheism. Before the triumph of Darwinism atheism was a minority position
among intellectuals , because atheists had to posit a self created universe, which seemingly violated
common sense. During the nineteenth century, however, the will to discard theistic religion and substitute a
naturalistic understanding of reality was very strong. Half baked theories of evolution were in the air, and
they were everywhere connected with revolt against religious and political traditions that were based upon a
theistic worldview. What was needed to make the naturalistic program plausible was a thoroughly
materialistic mechanism for evolution. By supplying the crucial blind watchmaker thesis, Darwin paved the
way for a century and more of atheistic domination of intellectual life. When I say that Darwinism gave a
huge boost to atheism, I am not denying that many persons found it possible to reconcile naturalistic
evolution with a belief in God. ... Darwinism furthered the cause of atheism not by making it impossible to
believe in God, but by making it easier not to believe." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Disestablishing Naturalism,"
1992 Founder's Lectures, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Revised, February 17, 1992)

28/01/2004
"The several difficulties here discussed, namely-that, though we find in our geological formations many
links between the species which now exist and which formerly existed, we do not find infinitely numerous
fine transitional forms closely joining them all together;-the sudden manner in which several groups of
species first appear in our European formations;-the almost entire absence, as at present known, of
formations rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian strata,-are all undoubtedly of the most serious nature. We
see this in the fact that the most eminent palaeontologists, namely, Cuvier, Agassiz, Barrande, Pictet,
Falconer, E. Forbes, etc., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, etc., have
unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species." (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.318)

28/01/2004
"That the geological record is imperfect all will admit; but that it is imperfect to the degree required by our
theory, few will be inclined to admit." (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.443)

29/01/2004
"But I have said that the Enlightenment, or more generally, the rebirth of reason in Western culture, had
both a `good' and a `bad' side. This is an important dimension of modern history that has often been
overlooked, especially by contemporary admirers of Enlightenment thinking. As a historical matter, reason
did not free human beings from dogmatism or tribalism or the worst cruelties-as we have witnessed firsthand
well into our own century. The rational or `scientific' faith of Marxist-Leninist ideology sanctioned cruelties
of a type and on a scale hardly imagined by the Inquisition in its darkest hours. Some estimates place the
number of victims of Soviet Communism as high, as 60 million, and the methods of torture employed by the
Soviet regime marked a kind of `progress' in this cruel art. Moreover, scientific rationalism, ironically, became
the basis of the most absurd form of dogma and dogmatism that history records-the `scientific' ideology of
Marxism-Leninism." (Glynn, P., "God: The Evidence: The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular
World," Forum: Rocklin CA, 1997, p.188)

29/01/2004
"CLEVER HANS, THE MATHEMATICAL HORSE. IN THE EARLY YEARS of the twentieth century there
was a horse in Germany who could read, do mathematics and exhibit a deep knowledge of world political
affairs. Or so it seemed. The horse was called Clever Hans. He was owned by Wilhelm von Osten, an elderly
Berliner whose character was such, everyone said, that fraud was out of the question. Delegations of
distinguished scientists viewed the equine marvel and pronounced it genuine. Hans would reply to
mathematical problems put to him with coded taps of his foreleg, and would answer nonmathematical
questions by nodding his head up and down or shaking it side to side in the conventional Western way. For
example, someone would say, 'Hans, how much is twice the square root of nine, less one?' After a moment's
pause Hans would dutifully raise his right foreleg and tap five times. Was Moscow the capital of Russia?
Head shake. How about St. Petersburg`? Nod. The Prussian Academy of Sciences sent a commission,
headed by Oskar Pfungst, to take a closer look; Osten, who believed fervently in Hans's powers, welcomed
the inquiry. Pfungst noticed a number of interesting regularities. Sometimes, the more difficult the question,
the longer it took Hans to answer; or when Osten did not know the answer, Hans exhibited a comparable
ignorance; or when Osten was out of the room, or when the horse was blindfolded, no correct answers were
forthcoming. But other times Hans would get the right answer in a strange place, surrounded by sceptics,
with Osten not only out of the room, but out of town. The solution eventually became clear. When a
mathematical question was put to Hans, Osten would become slightly tense, for fear Hans would make too
few taps. When Hans, however, reached the correct number of taps, Osten unconsciously and imperceptibly
nodded or relaxed - imperceptibly to virtually all human observers, but not to Hans, who was rewarded with
a sugar cube for correct answers. Even teams of sceptics would watch Hans's foot as soon as the question
was put and make gestural or postural responses when the horse reached the right answer. Hans was totally
ignorant of mathematics, but very sensitive to unconscious nonverbal cues. Similar signs were unknowingly
transmitted to the horse when verbal questions were posed. Clever Hans was aptly named; he was a horse
who had conditioned one human being and discovered that other human beings he had never before met
would provide him the needed cues. But despite the unambiguous nature of Pfungst's evidence, similar
stories of counting, reading and politically sage horses, pigs and geese have continued to plague the
gullible of many nations." (Sagan, C.E., "Broca's Brain: The Romance of Science," [1974], Coronet: London,
1980, reprint, pp.61-62)

30/01/2004
"9:20-27 Another 'seventy' The time of the revelation was about the time of the evening sacrifice (21, i.e. mid-
afternoon) - a remarkable indication of Daniel's city-of-God-centred approach to life, since he had now been
absent from Jerusalem for about seventy years (cf. 6:10). Gabriel appeared with dramatic swiftness in
response to his prayer, bringing a further divine communication which extended Daniel's horizon beyond the
seventy years of Jeremiah's prophecy to a period of seventy 'sevens' (24). There is a further peak in the
mountain ranges of God's purposes on which he is now to focus. The enigmatic revelation which follows
first outlines the divine programme, including six things to be accomplished within the period of seventy
'sevens' ordained by God (24). The first sixty-nine 'sevens' lead to the coming of the Anointed One (25) and
are divided into two unequal periods (seven 'sevens' and sixty-two 'sevens' = sixty-nine 'sevens'). This
division is one of the most enigmatic features of the whole book. Possibly the first 'sevens' look towards the
completion of the temple. Vs 26 and 27 may contain a miniature 'progressive parallelism': v 26 describing the
final 'seven' in panoramic terms while v 27 describes it in specific detail. Interpretations of this message vary
enormously, and depend on the interpreter's wider view of the fulfilment of prophecy. Critical scholarship,
setting the writing of Daniel in the context of the second century BC, sees the period in view as intended to
stretch from the sixth century to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (the four hundred and ninety years being
understood either in round terms, or literally and, perhaps, mistakenly). But from the perspective of the NT,
it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Anointed One (25) is fulfilled in Jesus Christ whose coming brings
atonement and the end of guilt (24). Some conservative interpreters have, in addition, employed various
chronologies to show that the figure of four hundred and ninety is a chronologically exact prediction of the
death of Christ. No agreement has been reached either about this or about the detailed interpretation of the
final 'seven'. If the Christological analysis is generally correct, the sixty-nine 'sevens' may represent the
period beyond the restoration until the coming of Christ and the kingdom he inaugurates. While difficult, v
26, the Anointed One will be cut off (the verb is one also used of confirming a covenant) and will have
nothing (see NIV mg.) is reminiscent of Is. 53:8 and an indication of absolute desolation (my Mt. 26:31,
27:46). V 27 could then be taken to refer to the ruler who will come (26), finding its fulfilment in Titus
Vespasian, the defilement of the temple and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (if Mt. 24:3-25).
Alternatively, v 27a could refer to Christ confirming the covenant of God for one 'seven', i.e. for all future
ages (cf: 1 Cor. 11:25-26); vs 27b and 27c to the desecration of Jerusalem." (Ferguson, S.B.*, "Daniel," in
Carson D.A., et al., eds, "New Bible Commentary," [1953], Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester UK, Fourth edition,
1997, reprint, p.759)

30/01/2004
"One more thing needs to be said. Evolutionists have often protested unfair to quoting an evolutionist as if
he were against evolution itself. So let it be said from the outset that the vast majority of authorities quoted
are themselves ardent believers in evolution. But that is precisely the point, and the value of The Revised
QUOTE BOOK. The foundations of the evolutionary edifice are hardly likely to be shaken by a collection of
quotes from the many scientists who are biblical creationists. In a court of law, an admission from a hostile
witness is the most valuable. Quoting the evolutionary palaeontologist who admits the absence of in-
between forms, or the evolutionary biologist who admits the hopelessness of the mutation/selection
mechanism, is perfectly legitimate if the admission is accurately represented in its own right, regardless of
whether the rest of the article is full of hymns of praise to all the other aspects of evolution."(Snelling, A.*,
"The Revised Quote Book," [1984], Creation Science Foundation: Brisbane QLD, 1990, inside cover)

31/01/2004
"Suppose for a moment that Darwin's theory of natural selection is a mistaken view about the origin and
development of life. If so, wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that scientists themselves would become
increasingly aware of this and publicly state their findings? After all, how could scientists in different
disciplines not say something if they were becoming more aware of the absence of hard evidence in support
of Darwin's theory and were face to face with scientific data that pointed to a completely different theory-
one that suggests the world was designed and exists for a purpose? Anyone who reads the private and
published reports of evolutionary scientists, especially since the 1980s, cannot help but notice that there are
many who admit they doubt the whole paradigm of evolutionary belief. First, despite their specific criticisms,
most of these scientists are not seeking to discredit what they view as the probable truthfulness of
evolution itself. Second, our citation of those who criticize not just part of evolutionary theory but the entire
concept does not imply that these individuals are creationists. In rejecting evolution as a whole, they
usually remain agnostic on the subject of origins. Third, some evolutionists have made controversial
statements that were widely circulated and resulted in their embarrassment. Under pressure from their
colleagues they "recanted" their views. Nevertheless, for whatever reason those statements were given, the
fact is that they were initially made in good faith. When we quote them, all we are saying is that they have
made these statements-and we think they have made some astute observations. Finally, when one considers
the great number of scientists who have expressed serious reservations regarding a particular area of
evolutionary thought, their collective weight is formidable. Virtually all aspects of evolutionary theory have
recently encountered major critique by someone. Thus collectively considered, what now remains factually
and scientifically established in evolutionary theory as a whole would appear to be marginal. Therefore we
think it is appropriate to consider new paradigms." (Ankerberg, J.* & Weldon, J.*, "Rational Inquiry & the
Force of Scientific Data: Are New Horizons Emerging?" in Moreland, J.P.*, ed., "The Creation Hypothesis:
Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer", InterVarsity Press: IL, 1994, pp.270-271)
February [top]
1/2/2004
"The day before the publication of The Origin of Species, Thomas Huxley wrote to Charles Darwin:
'You have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum so
unreservedly.' (quoted in Gould & Eldredge 1977). In other words, though Huxley was the great defender of
Darwin, he was criticizing him for presuming that 'Nature does not make jumps'. One of the most fundamental
changes that have happened in recent years in our thoughts about the geological past was again one
towards concepts of episodicity, this time in the evolution of life. Thus the doctrine of what is called
'punctuated equilibria' replaced that of 'phyletic gradualism', which had been the almost subconscious
presumption of palaeontologists since the days of Darwin. This intellectual revolution was brought about
chiefly by Stephen J. Gould of Harvard and his colleague Niles Eldredge. The first epoch making paper by
Eldredge & Gould (1972) put forward the idea that Nature did indeed make jumps. They maintained that
evolution proceeded by short, sharp changes, punctuating long periods of stasis, rather than by slow
progressive changes, which had been assumed since Darwin (1859) wrote of `descent with slow and slight
modifications' and the 'accumulation of successive slight favourable variations'. On the other hand Engels,
that remarkable capitalist who supported Karl Marx, said that 'nature is composed entirely of leaps'. I regret
to say that I prefer the view of one of the founding fathers of communism to that of one of the founding
fathers of evolution by natural selection." (Ager, D.V., "The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare
Event in Geological History," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1993, p.129)

1/2/2004
"Lyell's book [`Principles of Geology'] contained facts which would be of importance to Darwin during his
travels, and Professor Henslow recommended that he read it for that reason. However, he advised Darwin,
`on no account to accept the views therein advocated.' (Darwin F., ed., `The Life and Letters of Charles
Darwin,' D. Appleton and Co., 1888, Vol. 1, p.60) But this advice was not heeded, and Darwin's acceptance of
Lyell's theory marked the turning point in his life. One of Darwin's biographers says, `Darwin's point of
departure from orthodoxy on this voyage was, of course, his reading of the first volume of Lyell's Principles
of Geology.' (Haber F., in Glass B., ed., `Forerunners of Darwin, 1745-1859,' Johns Hopkins Press, 1959, p.259)
Another biographer calls it `the book which influenced him more than any other.' (Ward H., `Charles Darwin,'
Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1927, p.61) Still another biographer remarks, `Possibly, without Lyell's Principles of
Geology, Darwin would not have written his Origin of Species' (Dorsey G.A., `The Evolution of
Charles Darwin,' Doubleday Page & Co., 1927, p.152) Darwin himself acknowledged his indebtedness to
Lyell. He dedicated to Lyell his report of the voyage of the Beagle `as an acknowledgment that the chief part
of whatever scientific merit this Journal and the other works of the author may possess has been derived
from studying the well-known and admirable Principles of Geology.' (Ward H., `Charles Darwin,' Bobbs-
Merrill Co., 1927, p.67) In 1844 Darwin wrote, `I always feel as if my books came half out of Lyell's brain, and
that I never acknowledge this sufficiently... for I have always thought that the great merit of the Principles
[of Geology] was that it altered the whole tone of one's mind... ` (Darwin F., ed., `More Letters of Charles
Darwin,' D. Appleton and Co., 1903, Vol. 2, p.115). At the time of Lyell's death in 1875 he said, I never forget
that almost everything which I have done in science I owe to the study of his great works." (Darwin ,F., ed.,
"The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin", D. Appleton and Co., 1888, Vol. 2, p.37) (Davidheiser, B.*,
"Evolution and the Christian Faith", Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co: Nutley NJ, 1969, pp.60-61)

1/2/2004
"Darwin repeatedly apologized for the inadequacy of the fossil record and palaeontologists; have continued
to do so ever since, but I think they are unduly pessimistic. It is obviously inadequate if we are concerned
with some popular group such as the birds, whose skeletons make their preservation highly unlikely, but the
pessimism is not so justified if we consider the less showy marine invertebrates, especially if we consider
them on a world-wide basis and not just in our own back-yards." (Ager, D.V., "The New Catastrophism:
The Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK,
1993, p.151)

3/2/2004
"The figure of sixty million dead Russians did not include the twenty million dead the Russians lost in
World War II. Stalin must bear at least some share of the responsibility for the war. His pact with Hitler led
directly to the joint Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland, which led Britain and France to declare war on Hitler,
though not on Stalin. This means that Stalin was responsible for about eighty million violent deaths. In
tandem with Hitler, his sometime ally and fellow Darwinian, he can be linked to about one hundred million
violent deaths. Secular humanists who liked to cite religious intolerance as the major cause of man's
inhumanity to man might want to stop and ponder that figure." (Koster J.P., "The Atheist Syndrome,"
Wolgemuth & Hyatt: Brentwood TN, 1989, p.178)

3/2/2004
"Christianity gave birth to liberty. Constitutional republics, the separation of powers, limited government
and freedom of conscience are a result of the Reformation. It is the secular humanists who have a heritage of
oppression. The 44 secular or atheistic states have caused the deaths of over 160 million people in this
century alone. The abuse of human rights, atrocities and massacres in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Red
China, North Korea, Eastern Europe, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique and Cuba
were an inevitable result of rejecting God's Law. Either men will be governed by God's Law or they will be
ruled by tyrants." (Hammond, P., "Our Christian Heritage," Chalcedon Conference for Christian Culture,
Lusaka, Zambia, June 28, 1997. Christian Action Magazine, Vol. 4, 2003)

3/2/2004
"Adolf Hitler's mind was captivated by evolutionary teaching-probably since the time he was a boy.
Evolutionary ideas-quite undisguised-lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf and in his public
speeches. A few quotations, taken at random, will show how Hitler reasoned. In a speech at Nuremberg, in
1933, he argued that a higher race would always conquer a lower. `Thus there results the subjection of a
number of people under the will, often of only a few persons, a subjection based simply upon the right of
the stronger, a right which, as we see it in Nature, can be regarded as the sole conceivable right, because it
is founded on reason.' He went on to explain that it was for this reason that he hated communism. `For
communism is not a higher stage of development; rather it is the most primitive form of life- the starting-
point.' Hitler's hatred of the Jews was rationalized in the same way. The Germans were the higher race,
destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be
segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature's efforts `to
establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile' ... Hitler's attitude to the League
of Nations and to peace and war were based upon the same principles. `A world-court without a world
police would be a joke...the whole world of Nature is a mighty struggle between strength and weakness-an
eternal victory of the strong over the weak.' ... Evolutionary views were drilled into the German people
Germans were told they must suffer but that, when the day of victory came, they would be rewarded at the
cost of conquered peoples. As a German writer puts it- `To those Germans whose conscience was disturbed
by these promises, Darwin's materialistic doctrine of the struggle of species was expounded. Since all natural
history was simply a struggle for the survival of the fittest any trick or ruse was permissible in order to
facilitate the victory of one's own species." (Clark, R.E.D.*, "Darwin: Before and After: An Examination and
Assessment," [1948] Paternoster: London UK, 1966, reprint, pp.115-116)

3/2/2004
"But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them
embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be more convenient to discuss this question
in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state that I believe the
answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed." (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.157)

3/2/2004
"D-Days at Dayton is intended to provide judgement on the effects of the trial after 40 years. It contains the
contemporaneous accounts of an iconoclastic reporter E.L. Mencken. and the contemporaneous affidavits
of the three teachers of science, W.C. Curtis, K.F. Mather and F.-C. Cole. The main offering, however, is a
series of eight newly written essays by two ministers, a theologian, three scientists, a scientific journalist,
and a former director of the American Civil Liberties Union. Some of these were present at the trial, but none
had an active part in it and for some the only connection is that they remember hearing about the trial when
they were children. There is also an essay by Scopes himself, and this is extraordinary. Scopes apparently
had little interest in the trial at the time, has virtually none now, and is most nearly moved by his belief that
Bryan. his rabble rousing, anti-intellectual prosecutor, was "the greatest man produced in the United States
since the days of Thomas Jefferson". The not very clearly expressed thesis of the editor and some
contributors seems to be that the Scopes trial has current relevance because it marked the opening of a
largely successful attack on anti-evolutionism in the United States. As one contributor (Carlyle Marney, a
Southern Baptist minister and evidently a unique one) does point out, the thesis is flatly wrong on both
counts: the battle against anti-evolutionary fundamentalism began long before 1925 and was far from won in
1965. The strongest argument is that Tennessee was so ridiculed that no other States dared be so foolish.
But all the evidence suggests that Tennesseeans were delighted by the publicity and unconscious of the
ridicule. And in fact to-day the teaching of evolution is prevented in an enormous number of school districts
(locally almost autonomous in the United States) by devices much more effective than unenforced State
laws. This somewhat interesting but unconvincing and patchwork volume does nothing to alter the feeling
that the Scopes trial was a farce and that its only present importance is that it inspired a more successful and
more frank farce, the play Inherit the Wind." (Simpson, G.G., "Good Enough for Moses?," review of "D-Days
at Dayton: Reflections on the Scopes Trial." Edited by Jerry R. Tompkins, Louisiana State University Press:
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1965, in Nature, Vol 210, No. 5042, June 18, 1966, pp.1194-1195)

4/2/2004
"Daniel Dennett's 1995 book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, presents itself as the ultras' philosophical manifesto
of pure adaptationism. Dennett explains the strict adaptationist view well enough, but he defends a miserly
and blinkered picture of evolution in assuming that all important phenomena can be explained thereby. His
limited and superficial book reads like a caricature of a caricature--for if Richard Dawkins has trivialized
Darwin's richness by adhering to the strictest form of adaptationist argument in a maximally reductionist
mode, then Dennett, as Dawkins's publicist, manages to convert an already vitiated and improbable account
into an even more simplistic and uncompromising doctrine. If history, as often noted, replays grandeurs as
farces, and if T.H. Huxley truly acted as `Darwin's bulldog,' then it is hard to resist thinking of Dennett, in
this book, as "Dawkins's lapdog." (Gould, S.J., "Darwinian Fundamentalism," New York Review of
Books, June 12, 1997)

5/2/2004
"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number
of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such
finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be
urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological
record." (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.292-293)

5/2/2004
"I have attempted to show that the geological record is extremely imperfect. ... He who rejects this view of
the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory. For he may ask in vain where
are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative
species found in the successive stages of the same great formation? He may disbelieve in the immense
intervals of time which must have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how
important a part migration has played, when the formations of any one great region, as those of Europe, are
considered; he may urge the apparent, but often falsely apparent, sudden coming in of whole groups of
species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed
long before the Cambrian system was deposited?" (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.342-
343)

5/2/2004
"I can answer these questions and objections only on the supposition that the geological record is far more
imperfect than most geologists believe. " (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.441)

5/2/2004
"If we admit that the geological record is imperfect to an extreme degree, then the facts, which the record
does give, strongly support the theory of descent with modification. " (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.450)

5/2/2004
"The noble science of Geology loses glory from the extreme imperfection of the record. The crust of the
earth with its embedded remains must not be looked at as a well-filled museum, but as a poor collection made
at hazard and at rare intervals." (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.461)

6/2/2004
"Genesis 4:21-22. Lamech, a descendant of Cain, had three sons by his two wives. Jabal `was the father of
such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.' A second son Jubal, `was the father of all such as handle
the harp and organ.' In just eight generations counting Adam, there are tents, livestock, and musical
instruments; not caves, woolly mammoths, and hand axes. For many reasons, we can conclude that Adam
was not contemporary with the `Flintstones.' A wealth of Stone Age artifacts have been uncovered giving
silent testimony to a culture long disappeared at this point. So where does Adam fit in the history of man?
The next verse tells us. Genesis 4:22. One of Cain's descendants, Tubal-cain, was `an instructor of every
worker in brass and iron.' There is the proverbial smoking gun! Adam belongs after the old Stone Ages, at
the end of the Neolithic, at the threshold of a period called the Chalcolithic when traditional stone tools were
augmented by crude copper implements. Adam's descendants saw the dawning of the Bronze Age."
(Fischer, D.*, "The Origins Solution: An Answer in the Creation-Evolution Debate," Fairway Press: Lima OH,
1996, pp.238-239)

7/2/2004
"Does our culture, like many others, have an unpardonable heresy? Every culture constructs an idol unto
itself, punishing heresy by excommunication. We can discover the sacred idol of any culture by finding its
taboo question. In Medieval Europe, the peasant was forbidden to question the truth of the Church. Under
Communism, comrades doubting the Party were thrown in gulag labor camps. Now, citizens must recite
principles of Darwinism through compulsory schooling. We are encouraged to learn nuances like
punctuated equilibrium and neo- Darwinism, but questioning the universal explanatory power of evolution is
met with intellectual excommunication. ... Anti-religious prejudice among scientists significantly impeded
20th century scientific advance. Stephen Hawking wrote in A Brief History of Time that evidence for the Big
Bang was ignored for decades because it `smacks of divine intervention.' For fear of theological
implications, there were `a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a Big Bang.'
Intellectual honesty requires rationally examining our fundamental premises-yet expressing hesitation about
Darwin is considered irretrievable intellectual suicide, the unthinkable doubt, the unpardonable sin of
academia. Although the postmodern era questions everything else-the possibility of knowledge, basic
morality and reality itself-critical discussion of Darwin is taboo. While evolutionary biologists test Darwin's
hypothesis in every experiment they conduct, the basic premise of evolution remains an scientific Holy of
Holies, despite our absurd skepticism in other areas. Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins writes: `It is
absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who does not believe in evolution, that person is either
ignorant, stupid, or insane.' ... Skip Evans, of the National Center for Science Education, worried that
classroom discussions of evidence against evolution might `cast seeds of doubt in students' minds.'
Professors expressing doubts about evolution are often ostracized, demoted or fired. A Baylor University
professor found research funds rescinded because his project would undermine evolutionary
presuppositions. Other skeptical professors have resorted to using pseudonyms, fearing for their jobs and
careers if they openly publish contrary evidence. Evolution skeptics are almost universally dismissed with
an ad hominem charge of `religiously-motivated propaganda.' .... These dissenting voices are systematically
marginalized and silenced by academic McCarthyism. We must refuse to bow to our culture's false idols.
Science will not benefit from canonizing Darwin or making evolution an article of secular faith. We must
reject intellectual excommunication as a valid form of dealing with criticism: the most important question for
any society to ask is the one that is forbidden." (Halvorson, R.T., "Confessions of a Skeptic," The Harvard
Crimson, April 07, 2003)

7/2/2004
"Hart's CHZ [continuous habitable zone] is now believed to be too narrow because of several effects that he
did not take into account. One of these is the discovery of a remarkable chemical process known as the CO2-
silicate cycle that, on Earth, acts as a regulating thermostat to keep the planetary temperature within
"healthful" limits. This cycle can maintain habitable surface temperatures over moderate range of solar
heating effects. CO2 is a trace gas that constitutes, only 350 parts per million of the atmosphere, but it is a
`greenhouse' gas: infrared-absorbing properties retard the escape of heat back into space. The greenhouse
effect warms Earth's surface about 40�C above the temperature it would otherwise have. As we will see later
in the book, the thermostatic control of the CO2-silicate cycle (which is also known as the CO2-rock cycle)
occurs because of the effects of weathering. If the planet warms, in creased weathering removes CO2 from
the atmosphere, and the loss of CO2 leads to cooling. When Earth is too cool, weathering and CO2 removal
decrease, while the continual atmospheric buildup of volcanic CO2 leads to warming. This remarkable
negative-feedback system widens the continuously habitable zone and also complicates efforts to determine
its boundaries precisely, because the CO2-rock cycle is not perfectly understood on a planetary scale. Using
this new information, astrobiologist James Kasting and his colleagues defined the HZ as "the region around
a star in which an Earth-like planet (of comparable mass) and having an atmosphere containing nitrogen,
water, and carbon dioxide is climatically suitable for surface dwelling, water-dependent life." They estimated
in 1993 that the width of the CHZ is from 0.95 to 1.15 AU (1 astronomical unit represents the distance from
Earth to the sun, 93 million miles). This is much wider than Hart's estimate but still quite narrow. (Ward, P.D.
& Brownlee, D., "Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe," Copernicus: New York, 2000,
pp.18-19)

8/2/2004
"A more difficult case, which Gould himself takes on (in The Panda's Thumb), is that of a Philippine
anglerfish. In anglerfish generally, a fin spine has been elongated to project forward in front of the fish's
head. At the end of this spine is a `bait' which the angler uses to attract its prey. In a Philippine variety the
bait has developed into a remarkably fishlike lure, which the angler wiggles near its mouth while sitting on
the sea floor pretending to be an algae-encrusted rock. In form and coloring, this lure is an extraordinarily
good representation for an actual fish. It has spots of pigment to simulate eyes, compressed filaments and
extensions representing all the standard fish fins and even a rear projection perfectly mimicking a tail. The
Philippine angler even moves its bait so as to simulate the lateral undulations of a swimming fish. How did
this anglerfish's lure come into existence? Gould himself acknowledges the inconsistency of ascribing this
`adaptation' to small, cumulative, partial modifications. If we suppose the development of this lure required
500 separate steps, of what value, Gould asks, is the first step? `Is a five hundredth of a fake enough to
inspire the curiosity of any real, item?' And if we believe in small, cumulative modifications, we have to
explain how the process began. We are driven to postulate some `non-Darwinian' force establishing a goal
and directing the life-force of the fish to accomplish that end. And Gould, of course, is dead set against any
such `non-Darwinian' force. Moreover, in the punctuational model of evolution, Gould doesn't have time for
five hundred successive modifications. He has to explain how this anglerfish's lure arose relatively quickly."
(Fix, W.R., "The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution," Macmillan: New York NY, 1984, pp.202-203)

8/2/2004
"It's true that for the last eighteen months or so I've been kicking around non-evolutionary or even anti-
evolutionary ideas. ... One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a non-
evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was
working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night and it
struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it.
... Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, that is true? I tried that
question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence.
... Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge but does it convey any? Well
we're back to the question that I've been putting to people. "Is there any one thing you can tell me about
evolution?" The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any
knowledge or if so, I haven't yet heard of it. ... evolution not only conveys no knowledge but seems
somehow to convey anti-knowledge ..." (Patterson, C., "Evolutionism and Creationism," Transcript of
Address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York NY, November 5, 1981, pp.1-4.
Ellipses mine)

8/2/2004
""All of the Friedmann solutions have the feature that at some time in the past (between ten and twenty
thousand million-years ago) the distance between neighboring galaxies must have been zero. At that time,
which we call the big bang, the density of the universe and the curvature of spacetime would have been
infinite. Because mathematics cannot really handle infinite numbers, this means that the general theory of
relativity (on which Friedmann's solutions are based) predicts that there is a point in the universe where the
theory itself breaks down. Such a point is an example of what mathematicians call a singularity. In fact, all
our theories of science are formulated on the assumption that space-time is smooth and nearly flat, so they
break down at the big bang singularity, where the curvature of space-time is infinite. This means that even if
there were events before the big bang, one could not use them to determine what would happen afterward,
because predictability would break down at the big bang. Correspondingly, if, as is the case, we know only
what has happened since the big bang, we could not determine what happened beforehand. As far as we are
concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences, so they should not form part of a
scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a
beginning at the big bang. Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it
smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic Church, on the other hand, seized on the big bang model and in
1951 officially pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible.) There were therefore a number of attempts
to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang." (Hawking, S.W., "A Brief History of Time: From the
Big Bang to Black Holes," [1988], Bantam: London, 1991, reprint, p.50)

10/2/2004
"MR. WATTENBERG: Well, now, you wrote in 'The Selfish Gene' this. 'Living organisms had existed on
earth without ever knowing why for 3,000 million years before the truth finally dawned on one of them. His
name was Charles Darwin.' That sounds to me like a religious statement. That is a -that is near messianic
language. And you are making the case that these other people have this virus of the mind. That tonality
says, I found my God. MR. DAWKINS: You can call it that if you like. It's not religious in any sense in
which I would recognize the term. Certainly I look up to Charles Darwin." (Wattenberg, B., "Talking about
Evolution with Richard Dawkins," Think Tank: PBS, November 7, 1996)

10/2/2004
"Persons who want naturalistic evolution to be accepted as unquestioned fact must therefore use their
cultural authority to enact rules of discourse that protect the purported fact from the attacks of unbelievers.
First, they can identify science with naturalism, which means that they insist as a matter of first principle that
no consideration whatever be given to the possibility that mind or spirit preceded matter. Second, they can
impose a rule of procedure that disqualifies purely negative argument, so that a theory which obtains some
very modest degree of empirical support can become immune to disproof until and unless it is supplanted by
a better naturalistic theory. With these rules in place, Darwinists can claim to have proved that natural
selection crafted moths, trees, and people, and point to the peppered-moth observation as proof." (Johnson,
P.E.*, "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics:
Richardson TX, 1990, reprint, p.15)

12/2/2004
"Grown men could crumble in the presence of the god. The American mathematician and philosopher
Chauncey Wright paid a call on Darwin in 1872 and burbled about a near-religious experience. ... John
Lubbock said that another admirer of Darwin, whom he brought over to Down House for an hour's courtesy
call, burst into tears when safely on the way home. The visitor had been so overcome during the visit that
he could not summon up courage to speak to the great man. A few of these young men turned Darwin into a
secular saint and Darwinism into a religion." (Browne, E.J., "Charles Darwin: The Power of Place: Volume II of
a Biography," [2002], Pimlico: London, 2003, p.383)

12/2/2004
"Now, despite widespread publicity to the contrary, the Institute for Creation Research has always tried to
discourage a legalistic and political approach to this issue (as has the Creation Research Society). History
shows that neither scientific nor religious principles can be effectively legislated, and since there had been
no legal restriction against teaching creation anyway, most creationist scientists have felt rather strongly
that, in the long run, education and persuasion would accomplish more than legislation and coercion.
Furthermore, the present legal and judicial climate is so humanistic that court decisions, no matter how
strong the evidence and how valid the constitutional position, might very likely go against the creationists.
Even in the event of a favorable court decision, the creationists would be bound to lose the case in the
biased reporting of the news media. Finally such laws would be very difficult to enforce, even if upheld by
the courts. Teachers compelled to teach creationism against their will, and without any adequate knowledge
of the creationist arguments and evidence, would probably do more harm than good in the classroom
anyway. So, although the route of persuasion seems slower than that of compulsion, it holds more promise
of ultimate success, and our ICR literature has stressed this repeatedly. However, many creationists have
felt otherwise and have tried to use the courts or legislatures to get the two-model approach accepted. This
situation has, of course, placed ICR in a difficult position. While not favoring legislative or political action at
all, poorly-drawn bills and political defeats would be so harmful that ICR has become inadvertently involved
in these activities to try to prevent damaging errors." (Morris, H.M.*, "Evolution in Turmoil: An Updated
Sequel to The Troubled Waters of Evolution," Creation-Life Publishers: San Diego CA, 1982, pp.127-128)

13/2/2004
"An ancient superstition was current in the East, that out of Judaea at this time would come the rulers of the
world. This prediction, as the event later proved, referred to a Roman Emperor, but the rebellious Jews, who
read it as referring to themselves, murdered their Governor, routed the Governor of Syria when he came
down to restore order, and captured an Eagle. To crush this uprising the Romans needed a strong army
under an energetic commander, who could be trusted not to abuse his considerable powers. The choice fell
on Vespasian. He had given signal proof of energy and nothing, it seemed, need be feared from a man of
such modest antecedents. Two legions, with eight cavalry squadrons and ten auxiliary cohorts, were
therefore dispatched to join the forces already in Judaea; and Vespasian took his elder son, Titus, to serve
on his staff." (Suetonius, "Vespasian: Afterwards Deified," in "The Twelve Caesars," X.4, [1957], Graves R.
& Grant M., trans., Penguin: London, Revised, 2003, pp.283-284)

13/2/2004
"The majority were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very
time when the Orient would triumph and from Judaea would go forth men destined to rule the world. This
mysterious prophecy really referred to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, true to the selfish
ambitions of mankind, thought that this mighty destiny was reserved for them, and not even their calamities
opened their eyes to the truth." (Tacitus, "The Jews," in "The Histories," 5.13, [1964], Wellesley K., trans.,
Penguin: London, Revised, 1995, pp.287-288)

17/2/2004
"In line with the previous concern, Van Till offers the type III secretory system as a possible precursor to
the bacterial flagellum. This ignores that the current evidence points to the type III system as evolving from
the flagellum and not vice versa (cf. Milt Saier's recent work at UCSD). But beyond that, finding a
component of a functional system that performs some other function is hardly an argument for the original
system evolving from that other system. One might just as well say that because the motor in a motorcycle
can be used as a blender, therefore the motor evolved into the motorcycle. Perhaps, but not without
intelligent design. Even if it could be shown that the type III system predated the flagellum (contrary to Milt
Saier's work), it could at best represent one possible step in the indirect Darwinian evolution of the bacterial
flagellum. But that still wouldn't constitute a solution to the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. What's
needed is a complete evolutionary path and not merely a possible oasis along the way. To claim otherwise is
like saying we can travel by foot from Los Angeles to Tokyo because we've discovered the Hawaiian
Islands. Evolutionary biology needs to do better than that." (Dembski, W.A.*, "Naturalism's Argument from
Invincible Ignorance: A Response to Howard Van Till," Design Inference Website, September 2002)

18/2/2004
"The central thesis of this essay is that both Descartes and his materialist successors are fundamentally
mistaken about the essential nature of humans. We are neither angels nor apes. Rather, we are rational
animals. Our nature is an essential unity of both the material and the immaterial. As it is sometimes
said: we don't have a soul, we are a soul. As a motto and battle cry, this formula captures well
the ancient conception of humans as rational animals. ... Aristotelian metaphysics that supports this ancient
conception of humanity is fundamentally an articulation and defense of common sense. ... Aristotle's
metaphysics is largely a defense of our ordinary beliefs about the world against the attacks by his fellow
philosophers. ... Jews, Christians, and Muslims have historically been drawn to the conception of humans as
rational animals at least in part because it comported well with their faith, but the argument of this book is
not theological. ... Aristotle's fundamental principles are timeless. ... his philosophical understanding of
humanity is consistent with the findings of modern science, especially evolutionary biology and the
emerging field of cognitive science (including "artificial intelligence"). In short, our positive
argument in favor of Aristotle's conception of humanity will be based on observations and truths known to
all people at all times. However, we will also argue negatively that the many new observations and
truths of modern science do not demonstrate or even imply that the ancient view is false." (Machuga, R., "In
Defense of the Soul: What it Means to Be Human," Brazos Press: Grand Rapids MI, 2002, pp.16-17.
Emphasis in original)

18/2/2004
"Again, we encounter the major dilemma that I call (Gould, 1997f) "the paradox of the visibly irrelevant "-that
is, phenomena prominent enough to be detectable and measurable at all in local populations during ordinary
human time must cascade to instantaneous completion when scaled into geological time, whereas truly
gradual effects in geological time must be effectively invisible at scales of human observation in ecological
time. Consequently, what we see in our world can't be the direct stuff, by simple extrapolation, of sustained
macroevolutionary change-while what we view as slow and steady in the geological record can't be visible
at all (in the same form) by the measuring rod of our own life's duration. ... How can geological gradualism be
the extrapolated expression of natural selection within populations? Surely, if a doubling of tooth size (say)
requires 2 million years to reach completion, then the process must be providing so small an increment of
potential advantage in each generation that natural selection couldn't possibly "see" the effect in terms of
reliably enhanced reproductive success on a generational basis. Can a tooth elongated by a tiny fraction of
a single millimeter possibly confer any evolutionary advantage in a selective episode during one generation
of a population's history? Conversely, if bigger teeth provide such sustained advantages, why stretch the
process over millions of years?" (Gould, S.J., "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory," Belknap: Cambridge
MA, 2002, Fifth printing, pp.834-835)

18/2/2004
"Although at first glance the order of fossils seems to be good evidence for macroevolutionary theory, it
does present a couple of difficulties. The first concerns the issue of polarity. Although macroevolutionary
theory predicts major changes over the course of time, it is incapable of predicting ahead of time what the
direction or nature of change will be. For example, parasites have limited internal complexity, but
macroevolutionists generally do not know whether they were derived from simpler animals without internal
complexity or whether they were derived from more complex organisms but have since lost internal
complexity due in some part to disuse. Green algae are thought to be related to land plants because of similar
photosynthetic chemistry, but without the fossil record it might have been impossible to determine whether
land plants evolved from algae or algae from plants. Similarly, without the fossil record it might have been
difficult to determine whether marine mammals evolved from or into land mammals. As a result, to use the
fossil record to verify the "predictions" of phylogeny may in some cases (or all?) be assuming the order of
fossils to prove it." (Wise, K.P.*, "The Origin of Life's Major Groups," in Moreland, J.P.*, ed., "The Creation
Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1994,
p.224)

20/2/2004
"Following Dawkins, Dennett claims that the substrate that gets selected in cultural evolution is the
"meme," any memorable idea, jingle, or fashion that lasts long enough to get copied by another person. This
substrate neutrality argument is supremely important to Dennett. It -and nothing else -- explains why
selection can be lifted from its historical base in biology. It is what makes Darwinism so dangerous. But
Dennett slips here. While it is true that many different kinds of substrate can be selected, it is simply not
true that Darwinism works with any substrate, no matter what. Indeed Darwinism can't even explain old-
fashioned biological evolution if the hereditary substrate doesn't behave just right. Evolution would
quickly grind to a halt, for instance, if inheritance were blending, not particulate. With blending inheritance,
the genetic material from two parents seamlessly blends together like different colored paints. With
particulate Mendelian inheritance, genes from Mom and Dad remain forever distinct in Junior. This substrate
problem was so acute that turn-ofthe-century biologists -- all fans of blending inheritance -- concluded that
Darwinism just can't work. Modern evolutionary genetics was born in 1930 when Sir Ronald Fisher cracked
this problem: Population genetics shows that particulate Mendelian inheritance saves the day. It is just the
kind of substrate needed for evolution by natural selection to work." (Orr, H.A., "Dennett's Strange Idea:
Natural Selection: Science of Everything, Universal Acid, Cure for the Common Cold ...." Review of
"Darwin's Dangerous Idea," by Daniel C. Dennett, Simon and Schuster. Boston Review, Vol. 21., No. 3.,
Summer 1996. Emphasis in original.)

21/2/2004
"DR. EDEN: I think I would have to know more of the details. I agree with you fully that the mechanisms
which have been proposed, whether they are recombination mechanisms or mutational mechanisms,
certainly constrain the space. What I would like to find is the characterization of these constraints. Clearly,
we have the evidence available to us, namely, that we are alive, and the evidence that life has developed to
this state in a relatively small number of generations; so we have what a mathematician might call an
existence theorem. There is some path by which we have arrived at this relatively small corner in this large
space, on the basis of a relatively small number of generations. What I am claiming is simply that without
some constraint on the notion of random variation, in either the properties of the organism or the sequence
of the DNA. there is no particular reason to expect that we could have gotten any kind of viable form other
than nonsense. It is the character of the constraint that make things possible, not the variation. That is the
point I have been trying to make." (Eden, M., "Discussion: Paper by Dr. Eden," 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.14)

22/2/2004
"On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct
inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is
not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains
afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? Although geological research has
undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer
together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on
the theory; and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it. Why, again,
do whole groups of allied species appear, though this appearance is often false, to have come in suddenly
on the successive geological stages? Although we now know that organic beings appeared on this globe, at
a period incalculably remote, long before the lowest bed of the Cambrian system was deposited, why do we
not find beneath this system great piles of strata stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Cambrian
fossils? For on the theory, such strata must somewhere have been deposited at these ancient and utterly
unknown epochs of the world's history. I can answer these questions and objections only on the
supposition that the geological record is far more imperfect than most geologists believe." (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.441)

23/2/2004
"Ontological reductionism is the name given to the idea that the scientific explanation of any phenomenon is
the only valid one. Thus if we can explain anything, be it the origin of life, or human consciousness or
whatever, scientifically, then we have explained it, full stop. There is nothing more to be said. This is the real
nub of 'nothing-buttery' and was what Donald MacKay had in mind when he originally coined that
expression. It is closely related to epistemological reductionism, since often it is expressed in extreme
reductionist language-we are 'nothing but atoms and molecules'. In ultra-simplistic terms, the whole is
'nothing but the sum of its parts'. (Holder, R.D.*, "Nothing but Atoms and Molecules?: Probing The Limits of
Science," Monarch: Tunbridge Wells UK, 1993, p.92)

27/2/2004
"Readers of my article and the responses may have noticed that where I attacked Darwinism and the
establishment of naturalism, Thomas Jukes and William Provine responded with a spirited defense of
evolution. The choice of words is important, because "evolution" is a vague term with immense
power to confuse. The important claim of "evolution" is that life developed gradually from nonliving matter
to its present state of diverse complexity through purposeless natural mechanisms that are known to
science. Evolution in this sense is a grand metaphysical system that contradicts any meaningful notion of
creation, because it leaves the Creator with nothing to do. Contemporary neo-Darwinism rules out theistic or
"guided" evolution just as firmly as it rejects direct creation ex nihilo. It is this universal, naturalistic version
of evolution that Darwinists are preaching (the word is appropriate) in the schools and colleges, with more
or less clarity depending on the circumstances. As Provine rightly says, liberal theologians and Darwinists
share a common interest in obscuring the anti-theistic implications of Darwinism. The vagueness of
"evolution" permits Darwinists to hold open the possibility of a theistic interpretation for a time, and then to
slam that door shut when it is safe to do so." (Johnson, P.E.*, "A Reply to My Critics," in "Evolution as
Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," [First Things, November 1990], Foundation for Thought and
Ethics: Richardson TX, 1990, reprint, p.33. Emphasis in original)

27/2/2004
"The conflict requires careful explanation, because the terms are confusing. The concept of creation in itself
does not imply opposition to evolution, if evolution means only a gradual process by which one kind of
living creature changes into something different. A Creator might well have employed such a gradual
process as a means of creation. `Evolution' contradicts `creation' only when it explicitly or tacitly defined as
fully naturalistic evolution-meaning evolution that is not directed by any purposeful intelligence." (Johnson
P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991] InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, pp.3-4)

29/2/2004
"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 of Nod
(which means `Wandering')!" (Pinnock, C.H., "The Scripture Principle," Hodder & Staughton: London, 1985,
pp.116-117)
March [top]
1/3/2004
"Theological Implications of Possible Ancient Life on Mars. Among the many interesting reactions to the
news from ALH 84001, none stood out more than those of theologians of various denominations. The
possibility of life on Mars-even ancient life one-millionth of an inch across raises once again the question of
humanity's place and purpose in the universe. Astronomers, who had once dethroned the Earth as the core
of creation by showing that the sun, not the Earth, forms the center of the solar system, now seemed to be at
it again, this time with life from another planet. To be sure, tiny fossils hardly posed the question as
strikingly as the discovery of alien intelligence would have. ... In its organized theology, the Judeo-Christian
tradition has more difficulty accepting the notion of extraterrestrial life than most other major religions. ...
Though we risk oversimplification, we may divide the Judeo-Christian response to extraterrestrial life into
two basic categories, the Earth-centered and the greater-glory camps. The latter group sees life elsewhere in
the universe as just another jewel in the crown of creation. For theologians in this category, the story of
Genesis simply omits what may have happened on other worlds. ... This brings us to the second category,
the Earth-centered system of belief. At an intuitive level, everyone on Earth belongs to this group. Many of
us, however, have learned, and have accepted at some level in our inner selves, that the sun is one star
among several hundred billion in the Milky Way galaxy, and that our galaxy is one among hundreds of
billions, or even more, in the visible universe. ... For some Catholics and Jews, and for larger numbers of
fundamentalist and evangelical Protestants, this includes a so-called literal interpretation of the Bible .... For
many fundamentalist Christians, the words in this book deserve no respect, since they contradict the word
of God. Evolution is a hoax, they say, and Earth is the only planet with intelligent life. ... In that theology,
God created the world in six days, and each of those days contained twenty-four hours." (Goldsmith, D.A.,
"The Hunt for Life on Mars," Dutton: New York NY, 1997, pp.233-236)

1/3/2004
"From the outset, we note that at least some of the acrimony over the interpretation of the Genesis days
arises from language differences. Turning biblical Hebrew into English prose and poetry presents some
enormous difficulties. Whereas biblical Hebrew has a vocabulary of under 3,100 words (not including proper
nouns), English words number over 4,000,000. The disparity is even greater for nouns. Therefore, we should
not be surprised that Hebrew nouns have multiple literal definitions. The English word day most often refers
either to the daylight hours or to a period of 24 hours. As in `the day of the Romans,' it is also used for a
longer time period. English speakers and writers, however, have many words for an extended period-age, era,
epoch, and eon, just to name a few. The Hebrew word yom similarly refers to daylight hours, 24 hours, and a
long (but finite) time period. Unlike English, however, biblical Hebrew has no word other than yom to denote
a long timespan. The word yom appears repeatedly in the Hebrew Scriptures with reference to a period
longer than 12 or 24 hours. The Hebrew terms yom (singular) and yamin (plural) often refer to an extended
time frame. Perhaps the most familiar passages are those referring to God's `day of wrath.' Before English
translations were available, animosity over the length of the Genesis days did not exist, at least not as far as
anyone can tell from the extant theological literature. Prior to the Nicene Council, the early Church fathers
wrote two thousand pages of commentary on the Genesis creation days, yet did not devote a word to
disparaging each other's viewpoints on the creation time scale. All these early scholars accepted that yom
could mean `a long time period.' The majority explicitly taught that the Genesis creation days were extended
time periods (something like a thousand years per yom). Not one Ante-Nicene Father explicitly endorsed the
24-hour interpretation. Ambrose, who came the closest to doing so, apparently vacillated on the issue. We
certainly cannot charge the Church fathers with `scientific bias' in their interpretations. They wrote long
before astronomical, geological, and paleontological evidences for the antiquity of the universe, the earth,
and life became available. Nor had biological evolution yet been proposed. Lamarck, Darwin, and Huxley
came along some 1,400 years later." (Ross, H.N.* & Archer, G.L.*, "The Day-Age View," in Hagopian D.G.,
ed., "The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation," Crux Press: Mission Viejo CA, 2001,
pp.125-126)

1/3/2004
"Knowing the complexity of the processes involved, when we see a diagram showing how simple evolution
is, how one organ can change into another merely by adding a feature here and there, we must realize that
those demonstrations are a farce. As long as the intricate workings of the cell are disregarded, there's no
problem for a Steven Pinker, or Stephen Jay Gould, or Richard Dawkins to talk of random reactions
producing the goods of life. It is hard not to be fooled by the foolish arguments when they originate from
intelligent foolers. Abraham Lincoln is quoted as having said that while you can fool some of the people all
of the time, and all of the people some of the time, you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. The more
knowledge one has, the harder it becomes to be fooled. Those diagrams that in ten steps evolve from a
random spread of lines into people-like outlines, and in a few hundred steps simulate a light-sensitive patch
on skin evolving into an eye, once had me fooled. They are so impressively convincing. Then I studied
molecular biology." (Schroeder, G.L.*, "The Hidden Face of God: How Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth,"
The Free Press: New York NY, 2001, pp.103-104)

2/3/2004
"On October 22, John Paul II sent greetings to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, `the Church's scientific
senate.' His message was reported in the general press as `Pope accepts evolution' as if it were `Church
finally accepts heliocentrism.' Phew. What a relief. The pope's message was no such thing. Papal teaching
had previously accepted the idea of the descent of all life forms from common ancestry. John Paul II was
largely reiterating in a much less formal manner Pius XII's understanding and reminding the scientists that if
they were to be faithful Christians there were limits beyond which their science could not take them. Those
limits were theological: no theory of evolution was acceptable that was purely materialistic and that did not
recognize the direct divine origin of the human soul." (Neff, D., "The Pope, the Press, and Evolution,"
Christianity Today, Vol. 41, No. 1, January 6, 1997, p.18)

2/3/2004
"Gould's term `magisteria' was inspired by two popes who have issued dictates about evolution. In Humani
Generis (1950), Pius XII ruled physical evolution to be compatible with orthodox faith but still unproven, and
he warned against any supposition that the soul had emerged from natural processes. And in 1996 John
Paul II took note of the convergent findings that by then had rendered evolution `more than a hypothesis'-a
conclusion that Gould hails as his `favorite example of NOMA' emanating from an unexpected religious
source. If this is really the Pope's considered view, says Gould, `we may rejoice in a pervasive and welcome
consensus' between scientists and ecclesiastics. Regrettably, however, Gould barely hints at a crucial point
that ought to have muted his hosanna. John Paul II's position on the supernatural origin of the soul is
identical to that of every predecessor pope. `The Church's Magisterium,' he wrote in the very statement that
Gould hails, is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man:
Revelation teaches that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar
Constitution Gaudium et spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which...recalled that man is `the
only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake.' ...Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the
human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by
God.... Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them,
consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter,
are incompatible with the truth about man. This passage shows that the Church, while conceding that
evolutionary science can no longer be snubbed, remains intransigently creationist where its own interests
are concerned. Nor has Gould been unmindful of that fact. When he broached the NOMA rule in his Natural
History column of March 1997, he voiced a suspicion that John Paul II's `insistence on divine infusion of the
soul' was `a device for maintaining a belief in human superiority within an evolutionary world offering no
privileged position to any creature.' But he backed down at once, pleading in his next sentence that `souls
represent a subject outside the magisterium of science.' And now in Rocks of Ages, borrowing heavily from
his Natural History piece, he has chosen to omit any mention of his misgivings." (Crews, F.C., "Saving Us
from Darwin, Part II," The New York Review of Books, October 18, 2001)

2/3/2004
"atheism ... (Gr. a- (privative prefix) + theos god) n. the view that there is no divine being, no God. Sometimes
a distinction is made between theoretical and practical atheism. A theoretical atheist believes that there is no
divine being, no God. Practical atheism has been used in two entirely different senses. In one sense that
occurs in Cudworth, it is the (Epicurean) view that the gods exist but do not do anything that has a bearing
on human affairs. In the other, more usual sense, a practical atheist is one whose actions are not influenced
by any belief in God and whose actions are accordingly presumed to be under no moral constraint. An early
opponent of this presumption was Bayle." (Mautner, T., "The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy," [1996],
Penguin: London, Revised, 2000, p.48)

2/3/2004
"What kind of God can one infer from the sort of phenomena epitomized by the species on Darwin's
Galapagos Islands? The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste.
death, pain and horror. Millions of sperm and ova are produced that never unite to form a zygote. Of the
millions of zygotes that are produced, only a few ever reach maturity. On current estimates, 95 per cent of
the DNA that an organism contains has no function. Certain organic systems are marvels of engineering;
others are little more than contraptions. When the eggs that cuckoos lay in the nests of other birds hatch,
the cuckoo chick proceeds to push the eggs of its foster parents out of the nest. The queens of a particular
species of parasitic ant have only one remarkable adaptation, a serrated appendage which they use to saw
off the head of the host queen. To quote Darwin, "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and
omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their
feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars." Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the
data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a
loving God who cares about His productions. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job.
The God of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of
God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray." (Hull, D.L., "The God of the Galapagos." Review of
"Darwin on Trial," by Phillip E. Johnson, Regnery Gateway: Washington DC, 1991. Nature Vol. 352, 8
August 1991, p.486)

4/3/2004
"This book is intended for the reflective, open-minded reader who would appreciate a simplified discussion
of recent evolutionary-genetic findings. Human beings, like all other species on earth, are biological
products of evolutionary processes, and as such are physical expressions of genes, the "genetic gods."
Genes and the mechanistic evolutionary forces that have sculpted them thus assume many of the roles in
human affairs traditionally reserved for supernatural deities. Some may find this argument blasphemous or
sacrilegious; others may find it prosaic. Such contradictory responses reflect the paradoxical state of
philosophical affairs, in which religious revelation and scientific rationalism uncomfortably coexist as
powerful but opposing means of knowing." (Avise, J.C., "The Genetic Gods: Evolution and Belief in Human
Affairs," [1998], Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, Second printing, 2001, p.vi)

5/3/2004
"DR. EDEN: I would like here to come to the defense of Dr. Popper. I think we should make a clear
distinction between falsifiability and use. I am not denying and I don't know that anybody else is denying
the use fulness of evolutionary concepts as means for looking at problems; but it is a theory of a different
kind. We may contrast it with theories of physics. Certainly Newtonian physics is falsifiable. Even in
biology, I recall one occasion on which I helped develop a very ingenious and very plausible theory
regarding the countercurrent mechanism in the kidney. It was not only falsifiable, it was false. My point is
that for such a theory one could propose a crucial experiment and check as to whether or not the theory was
false or not. This cannot be done in evolution, taking it in its broad sense, and this is really all I meant when
I called it tautologous in the first place. It can, indeed, explain anything. You may be ingenious or not in
proposing a mechanism which looks plausible to human beings and mechanisms which are consistent with
other mechanisms which you have discovered, but it is still an unfalsifiable theory." (Eden, M., "Discussion:
Paper by Dr. Wald," 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)

5/3/2004
"MARCEL SCHUTZENBERGER: our thesis is that neo-Darwinism cannot explain the phenomena of
evolution on the basis standard physico-chemistry. ... I intend to restrict my argument to show the existence
of a serious gap in the current theory of evolution. The next question (which I will not discuss here) would
be to ask how much random mutation and selection would be needed once this gap is filled ... nowadays
computers are operating within a range which is not entirely incommensurate with that dealt with in actual
evolution theories. If a species breeds once a year, the number of cycles in a million years is about the same
as that which one would obtain in a ten day computation which iterates a program whose duration is a
hundredth of a second. Our ability to play with iteration of this magnitude is quite a new thing, and we can
begin to develop some concrete experience with this type of process. ... According to the `dogma' of
molecular biology the first level we start with is, ideally, something like a big book written in an alphabet of
20 odd letters. This is the blueprint of an individual, a genotype. Further we have a genic pool, i.e., a
collection of such books which are variants of each other. ...I shall take those books as the elements of the
first space ... According to molecular biology, we have a space of objects (genotypes) endowed with
nothing more than typographic topology. These objects correspond (by individual development) with the
members of a second space having another topology (that of concrete physico-chemical systems in the real
world). Neo-Darwinism asserts that it is conceivable that without anything further, selection based upon the
structure of the second space brings a statistically adapted drift when random changes are performed in the
first space in accordance with its own structure. We believe that it is not conceivable. In fact if we try to
simulate such a situation by making changes randomly at the typographic level (by letters or by blocks, the
size of the unit does not really matter), on computer programs we find that we have no chance (i.e. less than
1/10¹⁰⁰⁰) even to see what the modified program would compute: it just jams. ... Thus, to
conclude, we believe that there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we
believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology."
(Schutzenberger M.-P., "Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution," 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, pp.73-75)

5/3/2004
"The fossil record provides little information about the evolution of the human lineage during the late
Miocene, from 10 to 5 mya, Around 10 mya, several species of large-bodied hominoids that bore some
resemblance to modern orangutans lived in Africa and Asia. About this time, the world began to cool,
grassland and savanna habitats spread, and forests began to shrink in much of the tropics. The creatures
that occupied tropical forests declined in variety and abundance, while those that lived in the open
grasslands thrived. Apes were among the forest species that suffered drastic declines, particularly in Asia.
We know that at least one ape species survived the environmental changes that occurred during the late
Miocene because molecular genetics tells us that humans, gorillas, bonobos, and chimpanzees are all
descended from a common ancestor that lived sometime between 5 and 7 mya. Unfortunately, the fossil
record for the late Miocene tells us little about the creature that linked the forest apes to modern hominids.
Beginning about 5 mya, hominids begin to appear in the fossil record. These early hominids were different
from any of the Miocene apes in one important way-they walked upright as we do." (Boyd R. & Silk J.B.,
"How Humans Evolved," [1997], W.W. Norton & Co: New York NY, Second Edition, 2000, pp.326-327)

5/3/2004
"But because there has never yet been hailed a new find that was not a human ancestor, and because there
has never yet been announced a new find that was not bipedal, we may prefer to be extremely circumspect
until the fossils are widely available for study by the entire range of methods and investigators of the
present day." (Oxnard, C.E., Homo, Vol. 30, 1981, p.243, in Gish, D.T.*, "Evolution: The Challenge of the
Fossil Record," Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, 1986, p.163)]

7/3/2004
"Although Darwin did not invent the idea of evolution, he certainly was responsible for its widespread
acceptance. On the Origin of Species not only precipitated the intense popular debate on evolution,
but was in itself a convincing argument. Its persuasiveness arose only partly from the assemblage of
evidence from natural history and paleontology that evolution had occurred, but largely from the
construction of a plausible theory of how it occurred. When we speak of the "theory of evolution," a
constant confusion arises between the fact of the historical transformation of organisms over the last three
billion years and a detailed and coherent theory of the dynamics of that historical process. There is no
disagreement in science about whether evolution has occurred. There is bloody warfare on the question of
how it has occurred." (Lewontin, R.C., "It Ain't Necessarily So: The Dream of the Human Genome and Other
Illusions," [2000], Granta Books: London, 2001, reprint, pp.47-48)

7/3/2004
"Since evolution is a change in the genetic composition of populations, the mechanisms of evolution
constitute problems of population genetics." (Dobzhansky, T.G., "Genetics and the Origin of Species,"
[1937], Columbia University Press: New York NY, 1982, reprint, pp.11-12)

8/3/2004
"Where do our genes come from? Mostly from the distant evolutionary past. In fact, only 94 of 1,278 protein
families in our genome appear to be specific to vertebrates. The most elementary of cellular functions basic
metabolism, transcription of DNA into RNA, translation of RNA into protein, DNA replication and the like -
evolved just once and have stayed pretty well fixed since the evolution of single-celled yeast and bacteria.
The biggest difference between humans and worms or flies is the complexity of our proteins: more domains
(modules) per protein and novel combinations of domains. ... In vertebrates, not surprisingly, we see
elaboration and the de novo appearance of two types of genes: those for specific vertebrate abilities (such
as neuronal complexity, bloodclotting and the acquired immune response), and those that provide increased
general capabilities (such as genes for intra- and intercellular signalling, development, programmed cell
death, and control of gene transcription)." (Baltimore, D., "Our genome unveiled," Nature, Vol. 409,
15 February 2001, pp.814-816)

9/3/2004
"Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those
who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry."
(Dobzhansky, T.G., "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," The American
Biology Teacher, March 1973, Vol. 35, pp.125-129)

10/3/2004
"Many scientists have argued that life must be a ubiquitous phenomenon that pervades the universe, but
they can offer precious little empirical evidence to support that assertion. After decades of searching,
astronomers have found no signs of life elsewhere in the cosmos; a 1996 report of fossilized microbes in a
meteorite from Mars turned out to be erroneous. Researchers still cannot make matter animate in the
laboratory, even with all the tools of biotechnology. In fact, the more scientists ponder life's origin, the
harder it is to imagine how it occurred. Francis Crick once stated that "the origin of life appears to be almost
a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to be satisfied to get it going." (Horgan, J., "Between
Science and Spirituality," The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 49, No. 14, Page B7, November 29,
2002)

10/3/2004
"It is easy enough to set up a straw man, to point to the whale's vestigial pelvic bones, for example, and to
say that if God had created the whale, directly and from nothing, he wouldn't have included these useless
parts. Typically, neo-Darwinists then argue that it simply does not make sense to attribute the whale to
divine creation-as if there were nothing in heaven and earth except an omnipotent deity acting as his own
agent or natural selection of chance variations." (Fix, W.R., "The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution,"
Macmillan: New York NY, 1984, p.195)

11/3/2004
"In any case, what creationism is not is a valid intellectual argument between opposing points of
view. That battle was fought-with evolution emerging triumphant-in the latter half of the nineteenth century.
... Intellectually, the debate has been dead since 1859-and evolution was triumphant!" (Eldredge, N., "The
Triumph of Evolution: And the Failure of Creationism," [2000], Henry Holt & Co: New York, 2001, reprint,
pp.11-12. Emphasis in original)

12/3/2004
"Q: Dr. Ruse, do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of professional certainty about whether
creation science is science? A: Yes. Q: What is your opinion? A: In my opinion creation science is not
science. Q: What do you think it is? A: As someone also trained in the philosophy of religion, in my opinion
creation science is religion." (Ruse, M.E. "Witness Testimony Sheet," in Ruse, M.E., ed., "But is it Science?: The
Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1996,
p.306)

12/3/2004
"Certainly, historically, that if you look at, say, evolutionary theory ... it's certainly been the case that
evolution has functioned, if not as a religion as such, certainly with elements akin to a secular religion.
Those of us who teach philosophy of religion always say there's no way of defining religion by a neat,
necessary and sufficient condition. The best that you can do is list a number of characteristics, some of
which all religions have, and none of which any religion, whatever or however you sort of put it. And
certainly, there's no doubt about it, that in the past, and I think also in the present, for many evolutionists,
evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion.
... I think of Thomas Henry Huxley, the grandfather, and of Julian Huxley, the grandson. Certainly, if you
read Thomas Henry Huxley, when he's in full flight, there's no question but that for Huxley at some very
important level, evolution and science generally, but certainly evolution in particular, is functioning ... as a
kind of secular religion. And there's no question whatsoever ... that for Julian Huxley evolution was
functioning as a kind of secular religion." (Ruse, M.E., "Transcript: Speech by Professor Michael Ruse,"
Symposium, "The New Antievolutionism," 1993 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, February 13, 1993)

12/3/2004
"I allow - I insist - that, from its very birth, evolutionism has been used for more than mere science. In this
wise, it is often appropriate to speak of evolution as a form of religion, meaning a faith system with a moral
message that makes sense of life's ultimate meaning. You have only to look at the writings of a nineteenth-
century figure like Herbert Spencer to see that this is true. Or a twentieth-century figure like Julian Huxley
(brother of Aldous Huxley the novelist). This second evolutionist even went so far as to write a book entitle
Religion without Revelation! There is all sorts of stuff about evolution being the key to the mysteries of
existence and that kind of thing. Moreover, this brand of secular proselytizing is going on into the twenty-
first century. Look at Harvard entomologist and sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson's recent best-seller
Consilience." (Ruse, M.E., "Letter: Evolution and religion," Pratt Tribune, September 6, 2000)

12/3/2004
"The following science-fiction plot is feasible, given a technology that differs from today's only in being a
little speeded up. Professor Jim Crickson has been kidnapped by an evil foreign power and forced to work in
its biological-warfare labs. To save civilization it is vitally important that he should communicate some top-
secret information to the outside world, but all normal channels of communication are denied him. Except
one. The DNA code consists of sixty-four triplet `codons,' enough for a complete upper-and lower-case
English alphabet plus ten numerals, a space character and a full stop. Professor Crickson takes a virulent
influenza virus off the laboratory shelf and engineers into its genome the complete text of his message to the
outside world, in perfectly formed English sentences. He repeats his message over and over again in the
engineered genome, adding an easily recognizable `flag' sequence say, the first ten prime numbers. He then
infects himself with the virus and sneezes in a room full of people. A wave of flu sweeps the world, and
medical labs in distant lands set to work to sequence its genome in an attempt to design a vaccine. It soon
becomes apparent that there is a strange repeated pattern in the genome. Alerted by the prime numbers-
which cannot have arisen spontaneously-somebody tumbles to the idea of deploying code-breaking
techniques. From there it would be short work to read the full English text of Professor Crickson's message,
sneezed around the world." (Dawkins, R., "River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life," Phoenix: London,
1996, pp.20-21)

13/3/2004
"Religion is one of the latest fields to which the method of science has been extended. The resultant
sciences of comparative religion and religious psychology are already yielding deeply interesting results,
which will certainly be of value in leading humanity out of the religious impasse in which it now finds itself.
One of the major results has been the realisation that God is one among several hypotheses to account for
the phenomena of human destiny, and that it is now proving to be an inadequate hypothesis. To a great
many people, including myself, this realisation is a great relief, both intellectually and morally. ... What the
world needs is an essentially religious idea-system ... scientific and spiritual. This is not merely desirable but
urgent-urgent for individual men and women, urgent for the separate nations of the world, urgent for
mankind as a whole." (Huxley, J.S., "Religion Without Revelation," [1957], Mentor: New York NY, Revised,
1958, p.9)

14/3/2004
"The Law of Conservation of Information. 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 [Complex Specified Information]. I call this result the
Law of Conservation of Information, or LCI for short. The phrase Law of Conservation of Information" is not
new. ... LCI has profound implications for science. Among its immediate corollaries are the following: (1) The
CSI in a closed system of natural causes remains constant or decreases. (2) CSI cannot be generated
spontaneously, originate endogenously or organize itself (as these terms are used in origins-of-life
research). (3) The CSI in a closed system of natural causes either has been in the system eternally or was at
some point added exogenously (implying that the system, though now closed, was not always closed). (4) in
particular any closed system of natural causes that is also of finite duration received whatever CSI it
contains before it became a closed system." (Dembski, W.A.*, "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between
Science and Theology", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1999, p.170. Emphasis in original)

14/3/2004
"Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of
Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has
been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain." (Huxley,
T.H., "The Origin of Species," in "Darwiniana: Essays by Thomas H. Huxley," [1896], AMS Press: New York
NY, 1970, reprint, p.52)

14/3/2004
"Let it be borne in mind what the [Darwinian] theory is. It is not that all the species of any extant genus of
plants or animals have been derived from a common stock; that all genera and classes of organized beings
now living have been thus derived; but that all organisms from the earliest geological periods have, by a
process requiring some five hundred million years, been derived from one primordial germ. Nor is this all. It
is not only that material organisms have thus been derived by a process of gradation, but also that instincts,
mental and moral powers, have been derived and attained by the same process. Nor is even this all. We are
called upon to believe that all this has been brought about by the action of unintelligent physical causes. To
our apprehension, there is nothing in the Hindu mythology and cosmology more incredible than this."
(Hodge, C., "Systematic Theology," [1892], James Clark & Co: London, 1960, reprint, Vol. II, p.20)

14/3/2004
"Skepticism, to be true to its principles, must be willing to turn the light of scrutiny on anything. And yet
that is precisely what it cannot afford to do in the controversy over evolution and intelligent design. The
problem with skepticism is that it is not a pure skepticism. Rather, it is a selective skepticism that desires a
neat and sanitized world which science can in principle fully characterize in terms of unbroken natural laws.
... No other conception of science will do for skepticism. The normal is what is describable by a materialistic
science. The paranormal is what's not. ... And since intelligent design claims that an intelligence not
ultimately reducible to material mechanisms might be responsible for the world and various things we find in
the world (not least ourselves), it too is guilty of transgressing the normal and must be relegated to the
paranormal. ... To allow an unevolved intelligence a place in the world is, according to skepticism, to send
the world into a tailspin. It is to exchange unbroken natural law for caprice and thereby destroy science. And
yet it is only by means of our intelligence that science is possible and that we understand the world. Thus,
for the skeptic, the world is intelligible only if it starts off without intelligence and then evolves intelligence.
If it starts out with intelligence and evolves intelligence because of a prior intelligence, then the world
becomes unintelligible. The logic here is flawed, but once in its grip, there is no way to escape its
momentum. That is why evolution is a nonnegotiable for skepticism. For instance, on two occasions I
offered to join the editorial advisory board of Michael Shermer's Skeptic Magazine to be its resident skeptic
regarding evolution. Though Michael and I are quite friendly, he never took me up on my offer. Indeed, he
can't afford to. To do so is to allow that an intelligence outside the world might have influence in the world.
That would destroy the world's autonomy and render effectively impossible the global rejection of the
paranormal that skepticism requires. Skepticism therefore faces a curious tension. On the one hand, to
maintain credibility it must be willing to shine the light of scrutiny everywhere, and thus in principle even on
evolution. On the other hand, to be the scourge with which to destroy superstition and whip a gullible
public into line, it must commit itself to a materialistic conception of science and thus cannot afford to
question evolution. Intelligent design exploits this tension and thereby turns the tables on skepticism."
(Dembski, W.A.*, "Skepticism's Prospects for Unseating Intelligent Design," Fourth World Skeptics
Conference of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP),
Burbank, California, 21 June 2002)

16/3/2004
"In parentheses I should say that I do not mean only our present knowledge in the field of natural science,
but also our knowledge in the fields of history, prehistory, and cultural anthropology, of human psychology
and of comparative religion. This general statement on the nature of gods can be profitably reformulated and
spelled out somewhat as follows. History shows an increasingly successful extension of the naturalistic
approach to more and more fields of experience, coupled with a progressive failure and restriction of
supernaturalist interpretation. The time has now come for a naturalistic approach to theology. In the light of
this approach, gods appear as interpretative concepts or hypotheses. They are hypotheses aiming at fuller
comprehension of the facts of human destiny, in the same way that scientific hypotheses aim at fuller
comprehension of the facts of nature.' They are theoretical constructions of the human mind, in the same
way as are scientific theories and concepts: and, like scientific theories and laws, they are based on
experience and observable facts." (Huxley, J.S., "Religion Without Revelation," [1957], Mentor: New York
NY, Revised, 1958, pp.51-52)

16/3/2004
"The way nature acts right now does not agree with Darwin's premises, but does the history of life,
perhaps? Darwin himself recognized that the fossil record does not support gradualism. But instead of
changing his theory, he argued that the geological record was incomplete and unrepresentative
Paleontologist Eldredge puts it bluntly: Darwin's discussion of the `imperfections of the geological record is
one long ad hoc, special-pleading argument designed to rationalize, to flat-out explain away, the differences
between what he saw as logical predictions derived from his theory and the facts of the fossil record.'
[Eldredge N., `Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated
Equilibria,' Simon & Schuster: New York, 1985, p.28] Darwin had no reason independent of his theory for
claiming the fossil evidence to be unrepresentative. Today, more than one hundred years later, the fossil
record, much more complete and much better understood, still contradicts gradualism. It shows virtually
none of the intermediary species between major groups required by natural selection. Paleontologist David
Raup: `Different species usually appear and disappear from the [fossil] record without showing the
transitions that Darwin postulated.' [Raup D.M., `Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology,' Bulletin Field
Museum of Natural History 50, January 1979, p.24] Paleontologist Steven Stanley agrees: `The known fossil
record is not, and never has been in accord with gradualism." [Stanley S.M., "The New Evolutionary
Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species," Basic Books: New York, 1981, p.71]" (Augros, R.M.* &
Stanciu, G.N.*, "The New Biology: Discovering the Wisdom in Nature", New Science Library, Shambhala:
Boston, MA, 1987, pp.160-161)

17/3/2004
"In the popular idea of evolution, which has little to do with scientific theory, the primal man of mythological
thought is reborn as the creature who rises against tremendous odds from the primeval swamps and
progresses steadily upwards towards a day in which he will rule the cosmos by his technological prowess.
As with all myths it is produced mostly by imaginative selection of data and is designed to satisfy the
emotional needs of man rather than his intellect. It constitutes an impressive unity and has sufficient
connection with the facts to be confused with them. It can, therefore, be taught as fact to children and
constitute their initiation into modern society. But it speaks with an authority which is independent of
research, for in essence it is a recovery of an ancient mythological idea." (Fawcett, T., "The Symbolic
Language of Religion: An Introductory Study," SCM: London, 1970, p.276)

18/3/2004
"Darwin could not point to impressive examples of natural selection in action, and so he had to rely heavily
on an argument by analogy. In the words of Douglas Futuyma: `When Darwin wrote The Origin of
Species, he could offer no good cases of natural selection because no one had looked for them- He drew
instead an analogy with the artificial selection that animal and plant breeders use to improve domesticated
varieties of animals and plants. By breeding only from the woolliest sheep, the most fertile chickens, and so
on, breeders have been spectacularly successful in altering almost every imaginable characteristic of our
domesticated animals and plants to the point where most of them differ from their wild ancestors far more
than related species differ from them.' [Futuyma D.J., "Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution," Pantheon:
New York, 1982, p.117] The analogy to artificial selection is misleading. Plant and animal breeders employ
intelligence and specialized knowledge to select breeding stock and to protect their charges from natural
dangers The point of Darwin's theory, however, was to establish that purposeless natural processes can
substitute for intelligent design. Darwinists ... point with pride to experiments with laboratory fruitflies.
These have not produced anything but fruitflies, but they have produced changes in a multitude of
characteristics. Plant hybrids have been developed which can breed with each other, but not with the parent
species, and which therefore meet the accepted standard for new species. With respect to animals,
Darwinists attribute the inability to produce new species to a lack of sufficient time. Humans have been
breeding dogs for only a few thousand years, but nature has millions and even hundreds of millions of years
at her disposal. ... The time available unquestionably has to be taken into account in evaluating the results
of breeding experiments, but it is also possible that the greater time available to nature may be more than
counterbalanced by the power of intelligent purpose which is brought to bear in artificial selection. ... Lack
of time would be a reasonable excuse if there were no other known factor limiting the change that can be
produced by selection, but in fact selective change is limited by the inherent variability in the gene pool.
After a number of generations the capacity for variation runs out. It might conceivably be renewed by
mutation, but whether (and how often) this happens is not known." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial,"
[1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, pp.17-20)

19/3/2004
"These most primitive of bacteria are known by the most wondrous jargon, mastery of which is guaranteed
to cause jaws to drop at social functions, for the correct designation of many of them is
'chemolithoautotrophic hyperthermophiles'. ... But the second part of the name reveals the most astonishing
fact about these most primitive of living entities: they are heat lovers. This does not mean that they bask in
the kind of temperatures that we might just tolerate on a warm day in the Sahara Desert. These organisms are
hyperthermophiles - they need extreme heat, and die if they are deprived of it. Many species cannot
reproduce if the temperature drops below 80 degrees Centigrade - and many of them thrive under virtually
boiling conditions. They are found today around volcanic vents, mud holes and hot seeps on the ocean
floor, and at depth in the very body of the Earth. Their names - Thermoproteus, Thermofilium, Pyrobaculum -
accurately reveal their tastes. Pyrodictyum grows best at 105 degrees Centigrade. These are the creatures of
Hades itself, happy in hot vats that are torture for all other life. By the mud holes in Yellowstone Nationa
Park, or the geysers in New Zealand, or the fuming vents at Mount Etna, where acid, volcanic waters break
through from plutonic depths, they thrive in their billions. But they reveal themselves only as coloured
smears - red, orange; even blue - on the surface of the rocks, or as a subtle mistiness in a smoking pool. ...
The next, but probably not the final twist in this tale of microbes is that the heat-loving species, among them
the sulphur-eating and methane-brewing bacteria, proved to be near the root of all life. Their place in the
story was revealed by the branching pattern of the tree of descent, a tree drawn out from gauging the
relative similarities of ribosomal RNA molecules, and the genes which provide a code for certain enzymes
common to all life. The basic truth of genealogy is that all life as we know it descended from living things
that could only be content in extremely hot environments. Furthermore, most of them are anaerobes - which
means that their biochemistry works only in the absence of oxygen. In fact, oxygen the very element which
has become known as one of the essentials of life and nourishment - is lethally poisonous to many of these
bacteria. Now it is time to reflect on an extraordinary picture which has been sketched for the origin of life.
Far from Darwin's benign, almost cosy, 'small pond', we have a torrid cauldron, acidic, emitting the sharp
whiff of sulphur; and we have an atmosphere almost lacking oxygen. Almost everything in this biological
Eden would have been damaging to most of the animals and plants alive today. In the beginning, there was
dust and chaos and the relentless bombardment of meteorites. These also brought the seeds of life, no
doubt, but then the important stuff of enzymes and energetics and nucleic acids and proteins and cell
membranes was most likely cooked terrestrially; and all this between about 4,500 and 3,800 million years ago.
... Where the memory of this distant world lingers on it is in the most inhospitable places on Earth, in hot
springs and volcanic vents - in emanations from the Underworld, a sulphurous surrogate for Hades - and
there, too, the descendants of the most primitive organisms still cook with hydrogen sulphide and methane,
and many an arcane recipe besides. ... Some of Darwin's ingredients were correct, but how different the
cookery!" (Fortey, R.A., "Life, An Unauthorised Biography: A Natural History of the First Four Thousand
Million Years of Life on Earth," HarperCollinsPublishers: London, 1997, pp.45-48. Emphasis in original)

23/3/2004
"This post ... represents a shift in my position to a more consistent Progressive Creationist position. I
discuss important evidence supporting the reptilian jawbones-mammalian earbones transition from Gould's
"Eight Little Piggies". I now accept this transition as fact, although I do not accept it happened by a 100%
natural process. ... I still think evolution is weak when proposing a purely naturalistic mechanism for
the development of new features. For example, how did the feather really develop? How did the eye
really develop? The whale may have developed from a mesonychid, but what 100% naturalistic
mechanism made it do so, especially considering the specialised features of whales and the relatively short
time-frame. I now think it is a wrong approach to deny transitional forms and features. This however does
not mean that every claimed transitional form should be uncritically accepted.... all primates (including man)
have the same switched-off gene that prevents them from synthesing vitamin C. This is good evidence of
common ancestry and I provisionally accept it, pending more information. ... From a YEC viewpoint, even
one proven major transitional fossil would be fatal to their view. But it is not fatal to a PC, indeed transitional
fossils should be expected (albeit rare). It is the claimed 100% naturalistic mechanism that PC should focus
on and challenge. ... As a progressive creationist, I believe the ultimate explanation to Gould's "why" is that
God designed the mammalian ear, and brought it into actuality by a process that involved much natural
process, but the decisive factor was God's direct and supernatural intervention at strategic points. ... I
believe that it is a sub-theory which fits all the known facts within a wider Progressive Creation model which
endeavours to integrate the scientific facts within a fully Biblical model of reality. My future posts will
endeavour to build this Progressive Creation model of reality. I will accept the proven facts that
evolutionists unearth, including transitional fossils, but I will challenge their 100% naturalistic
explanations." (Jones, S.E.*, "Clarification of my Progressive Creationist position," Calvin Evolution Reflector,
28 June 1995)

24/3/2004
"In 1864, Pasteur announced his results before the French Academy with the words, 'Never will the doctrine
of spontaneous generation arise from this mortal blow.' It is, perhaps, ironic that we tell beginning students
in biology about Pasteur's experiments as the triumph of reason over mysticism yet we are coming back to
spontaneous generation, albeit in a more refined and scientific sense, namely, to chemical evolution."
(Ponnamperuma C.A., "The Origins of Life," Thames and Hudson: London, 1972, pp.20-21)

24/3/2004
"WHEN THE SUPREME COURT struck down the Louisiana law requiring balanced treatment for creation-
science, Justice Antonin Scalia dissented from the decision because he thought that `The people of
Louisiana, including those who are Christian fundamentalists, are quite entitled ... to have whatever
scientific evidence there may be against evolution presented in their schools.' Stephen Jay Gould was
baffled that a jurist of Scalia's erudition (he had held professorships at several major universities) would
entertain the absurd notion that fundamentalists could have scientific evidence against evolution. Gould
went looking in Scalia's opinion for an explanation, and found it in various sentences implying that
evolution is a theory about the origin of life. In an article correcting `Justice Scalia's Misunderstanding,'
Gould tried to set the matter straight. Evolution, he wrote, `is not the study of life's ultimate origin, as a path
toward discerning its deepest meaning.' Even the purely scientific aspects of life's first appearance on earth
belong to other divisions of science, because 'evolution' is merely the study of how life changes once it is
already in existence. In fact, Justice Scalia used the general term `evolution' exactly as scientists use it-to
include not only biological evolution but also prebiological or chemical evolution, which seeks to explain
how life first evolved from nonliving chemicals. Biological evolution is just one major part of a grand
naturalistic project, which seeks to explain the origin of everything from the Big Bang to the present without
allowing any role to a Creator. If Darwinists are to keep the Creator out of the picture, they have to provide a
naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.' (Johnson, P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press:
Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, pp.102-103)

25/3/2004
"The search for extraterrestrial life has been defined as the prime goal of space biology. Such a discovery
may influence human thinking far more profoundly than the Darwinian or Copernican revolutions. If our
sallies into space establish that Martian life is a reality and its origin independent of life on earth, we cannot
then escape the conclusion that there is nothing unique about the origin of life on earth and that the
interplay of cosmic forces would have given rise to a similar sequence of events in the countless number of
planetary systems in the universe. ... The information that we can obtain from the study of Martian
organisms, if they exist, will be of momentous consequence. On earth, living organisms, while exhibiting a
vast variety and diversity in size and form, are fundamentally alike. Their chemical composition is very
similar. It is a basic premise of the hypothesis of chemical evolution that all terrestrial types may have been
derived from a single ancestor. However, the question that is completely obscure and that may never be
solved by our earthbound studies, is whether this similarity is a result of some fortuitous biological accident
occurring early in the course of evolution, or whether it is dictated by the intrinsic properties of the elements
and molecules of living matter. If organisms are found on some other planet, and if they have properties
uniquely different from those we know on earth, the horizons of biology would be immeasurably broadened.
... If, on the other hand, the life we discover on Mars is very similar to life on the earth, we will be faced once
again with the question of whether life arose on the earth or whether it was brought to earth from another
source. ... The planet Mars has physical characteristics which do not exclude life. However, if life, even in its
most rudimentary form, is not detected there, we might be compelled to modify some of our concepts of
chemical evolution." (Ponnamperuma, C.A., "The Origins of Life," Thames and Hudson: London, 1972,
pp.169, 185)

25/3/2004
"What a book a Devil's Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel
works of nature" (Charles Darwin, 1856). A process of trial and error, completely unplanned and on the
massive scale of natural selection, can be expected to be clumsy, wasteful and blundering. The racing
elegance of cheetahs and gazelles is bought at huge cost in blood and the suffering of countless
antecedents on both sides. Clumsy and blundering though the process undoubtedly is, its results are
opposite. There is nothing clumsy about a swallow; nothing blundering about a shark. What is clumsy and
blundering is the Darwinian algorithm that led to their evolution. As an academic scientist I am a passionate
Darwinian. But I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to politics and how we should conduct our
human affairs. It is as though the Chaplain matured and offered a second half to the sermon. Yes, says the
matured Chaplain, the historic process that caused you to exist is wasteful, cruel and low. But exult in your
existence, because that very process has blundered unwittingly on its own negation. Only a small, local
negation, to be sure: only one species, and only a minority of that species; but there lies hope. So, the
Devil's Chaplain might conclude, Stand tall, Bipedal Ape. The shark may outswim you, the cheetah outrun
you, the swift outfly you, the capuchin outclimb you, the elephant outpower you, the redwood outlast you.
But you have the biggest gifts of all: the gift of understanding the ruthlessly cruel process that gave us all
existence; the gift of revulsion against its implications; the gift of foresight-something utterly foreign to the
blundering short-term ways of natural selection-and the gift of internalising the very cosmos." (Dawkins, R.,
"A Devil's Chaplain." New Edge Books Page, May 28, 2003)

26/3/2004
"We are now in a position to answer the question with which this lecture began. What is Darwinism?
Darwinism is a theory of empirical science only at the level of microevolution, where it provides a framework
for explaining such things as the diversity that arises when small populations become reproductively
isolated from the main body of the species. As a general theory of biological creation Darwinism is not
empirical at all. Rather, it is a necessary implication of a philosophical doctrine called scientific naturalism,
which is based on the a priori assumption that God was always absent from the realm of nature. As such
evolution in the Darwinian sense is inherently antithetical to theism, although evolution in some entirely
different and non-naturalistic sense could conceivably have been God's chosen method of creation."
(Johnson, P.E.*, "What is Darwinism?" Lecture at Hillsdale College, Michigan, November 1992.
Leadership U, 19 April 2003)

27/3/2004
"The question of the origin of life is not simple. It is not possible to go back in time and watch how life
originated; nor are there any witnesses. There is testimony, in the rocks of the earth, but it is not easily read,
and often this record is silent on issues crying out for answers. Perhaps the most fundamental of these
issues is the nature of the agency or force that led to the appearance of the first living organisms on earth-
the creation of life. There are, in principle, at least three possibilities: 1. Extraterrestrial origin. Life may not
have originated on earth at all but instead may have been carried to it, perhaps as an extraterrestrial infection
of spores originating on a planet of a distant star. How life came to exist on that planet is a question we
cannot hope to answer soon. 2. Special creation. Life-forms may have been put on earth by supernatural or
divine forces. This viewpoint, common to most Western religions, is the oldest hypothesis and is widely
accepted by non-scientists. It forms the basis of the very unscientific "scientific creationism" viewpoint ... 3.
Evolution. Life may have evolved from inanimate matter, with associations among molecules becoming more
and more complex. In this view, the force leading to life was selection; changes in molecules that increased
their stability caused the molecules to persist longer. In this book we deal only with the third possibility,
attempting to understand whether the forces of evolution could have led to the origin of life and, if so, how
the process might have occurred. This is not to say that the third possibility is definitely the correct one.
Any one of the three possibilities might be true. Nor does the third possibility preclude religion: a divine
agency might have acted via evolution. Rather, we are limiting the scope of our inquiry to scientific matters.
Of the three possibilities, only the third permits testable hypotheses to be constructed and so provides the
only scientific explanation, that is, one that could potentially be disproven by experiment, by obtaining and
analyzing actual information." (Raven, P.H. & Johnson, G.B., "Biology," [1986], Wm. C. Brown: Dubuque IA,
Third Edition, 1995, p.62)

27/3/2004
"The attempts to escape from Darwinism's dilemma all fall into one or ether of three types. These can be
usefully labelled 'the Cave Man way out', 'the Hard Man', and 'the Soft Man'. All three types are hardy
perennials, and have been with us, in one version or another, ever since Darwin published the Origin of
Species in 1859. What I call the Cave Man way out is this: you admit that human life is not now what it
would be if Darwin's theory were true, but also insist that it used to be like that. In the olden days,
(this story goes), human populations always did press relentlessly on their supply of food, and thereby
brought about constant competition for survival among the too-numerous competitors, and hence natural
selection of those organisms which were best fitted to succeed in the struggle for life. That is, human life
was exactly as Darwin's book had said that all life is. But our species, (the story goes on), escaped long ago
from the brutal regime of natural selection. We developed a thousand forms of attachment, loyalty,
cooperation and unforced subordination, every one of them quite incompatible with a constant and
merciless competition to survive. We have now had for a very long time, at least locally, religions, moralities,
laws or customs, respect for life and property, rules of inheritance, specialised social orders, distinctions of
rank, and standing provisions for external defence, internal police, education and health. Even at our lowest
ebb we still have ties of blood, and ties of marriage: two things which are quite as incompatible with a
universal competition to survive as are, for example, a medical profession, a priesthood, or a state. This Cave
Man story, however implausible, is at any rate not inconsistent with itself. But the combination of it with
Darwin's theory of evolution is inconsistent. That theory is a universal generalisation about all
terrestrial species at any time. Hence if the theory says something which is not true now of our
species (or another), then it is not true of our species (or that other); and if it is not true of our species (or
another), then it is not true finish. In short, the Cave Man way out of Darwinism's dilemma is in reality no
way out at all: it is self-contradictory." (Stove, D.C., "Darwinian Fairytales," Avebury: Aldershot UK, 1995,
pp.1-2. Emphasis in original)

28/3/2004
"The cost of sequencing the human genome is estimated optimistically at 300 million dollars (ten cents a
nucleotide for the three billion nucleotides of the entire genome), but if development costs are included it
surely cannot be less than a half-billion in current dollars. ... Yet more hundreds of millions must be spent on
chasing down the elusive differences in DNA for each specific genetic disease, of which some 3,000 are now
known, and some considerable fraction of that money will stick to entrepreneurial molecular geneticists.
None of our authors has the bad taste to mention that many molecular geneticists of repute, including
several of the essayists in The Code of Codes, are founders, directors, officers, and stockholders in
commercial biotechnology firms, including the manufacturers of the supplies and equipment used in
sequencing research. Not all authors have Norman Mailer's openness when they write advertisements for
themselves. It has been clear since the first discoveries in molecular biology that "genetic engineering," the
creation to order of genetically altered organisms, has an immense possibility for producing private profit. ...
Some have become very rich when a successful public offering of their stock has made them suddenly the
holders of a lot of valuable paper. Others find themselves with large blocks of stock in international
pharmaceutical companies who have bought out the biologist's mom-and-pop enterprise and acquired their
expertise in the bargain. No prominent molecular biologist of my acquaintance is without a financial stake in
the biotechnology business. As a result, serious conflicts of interest have emerged in universities and in
government service. In some cases graduate students working under entrepreneurial professors are
restricted in their scientific interchanges, in case they may give away potential trade secrets. Research
biologists have attempted, sometimes with success, to get special dispensations of space and other
resources from their universities in exchange for a piece of the action. Biotechnology joins basketball as an
important source of educational cash." (Lewontin, R.C., "It Ain't Necessarily So: The Dream of the Human
Genome and Other Illusions," [2000], Granta Books: London, 2001, reprint, pp.161-163)

28/3/2004
"If Darwin's theory of evolution is true, no species can ever escape from the process of natural
selection. His theory is that two universal and permanent tendencies of all species of organisms - the
tendency to increase in numbers up to the limit that die food supply allows, and the tendency to vary in a
heritable way are together sufficient to bring about in any species universal and permanent competition for
survival, and therefore universal and permanent natural selection among the competitors. So the 'modern'
part of this way out of Darwin's dilemma is inconsistent with Darwinism. But the Cave Man part of it is also
utterly incredible in itself. It may be possible, for all I know, that a population of pines or cod should exist
with no cooperative as distinct from competitive relations among its members. But no tribe of humans could
possibly exist on those terms. Such a tribe could not even raise a second generation: the helplessness of the
human young is too extreme and prolonged. So if you ever read a report, (as one sometimes does), of the
existence of an ongoing tribe of just this kind, you should confidently conclude that the reporter is mistaken
or lying or both. Even if such a tribe could somehow continue in existence, it is extremely difficult to
imagine how our species, as we now know it to be, could ever have graduated from so very hard a school.
We need to remember how severe the rule of natural selection is, and what it means to say that a species is
subject to it. It means, among other things, that of all the rabbits, flies, cod, pines, etc., that are born, the
enormous majority must suffer early death; and it means no less of our species. How could
we have escaped from this set up, supposing we once were in it?" (Stove, D.C., "Darwinian Fairytales,"
Avebury: Aldershot UK, 1995, p.2. Emphasis in original)

30/3/2004
"Theists who accommodate with scientific naturalism therefore may never affirm that their God is real in the
same sense that evolution is real. This rule is essential to the entire mindset that produced Darwinism in the
first place. If God exists He could certainly work through mutation and selection if that is what He wanted to
do, but He could also create by some means totally outside the ken of our science. Once we put God into the
picture, however, there is no good reason to attribute the creation of biological complexity to random
mutation and natural selection. Direct evidence that these mechanisms have substantial creative power is
not to be found in nature, the laboratory, or the fossil record. An essential step in the reasoning that
establishes that Darwinian selection created the wonders of biology, therefore, is that nothing else was
available. Theism is by definition the doctrine that something else was available." (Johnson, P.E.*,
"What is Darwinism?" Lecture at a symposium at Hillsdale College, November 1992)

30/3/2004
"The other and more general departments of natural history will rise greatly in interest. The terms used by
naturalists, of affinity, relationship, community of type, paternity, morphology, adaptive characters,
rudimentary and aborted organs, etc., will cease to be metaphorical, and will have a plain signification. When
we no longer look at an organic being as a savage looks at a ship, as something wholly beyond his
comprehension; when we regard every production of nature as one which has had a long history; when we
contemplate every complex structure and instinct as the summing up of many contrivances, each useful to
the possessor, in the same way as any great mechanical invention is the summing up of the labour, the
experience, the reason, and even the blunders of numerous workmen; when we thus view each organic
being, how far more interesting,-I speak from experience,-does the study of natural history become!"
(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.460) [top]

* 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 © 2004-2008, 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: 14 September, 2004. Updated: 19 October, 2008.