Stephen E. Jones

Creation/Evolution Quotes: Unclassified quotes: April - June 2004

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

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

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

April [top]
1/4/2004
"Surveys also reveal an alarming degree of ignorance or lack of acceptance of common scientific facts
related to evolution by the general public. Currently, some 44 percent of Americans identify themselves with
the biblical, creationist worldview that humans were created specially by God 10,000 years ago; another 39
percent subscribe to the theistic evolutionist position that `humans developed over millions of years from
less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process;' and only ten percent endorse the position that
`humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.'
In international comparisons of belief, American adults were ranked as the least likely of any of the 21
nationalities surveyed to accept the theory of evolution." (Chapman, A.R., "Evolution and the
Science and Religion Dialogue," American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1999)

2/4/2004
"The successor to classical Darwinism is known as neo-Darwinism, also commonly known as the Synthetic
Theory. There have been a number of studies lately of the Synthetic Theory and especially a long book by
Ernst Mayr and a man named Provine about the origin and history of it. They all concede that from 1900 to
about 1930, Darwinism was under somewhat of a cloud and the evolutionists had lost confidence among
themselves. This never came out to the public. At the Scopes trial, for instance, they all seemed to think that
it was still solid gold, but as a matter of fact within the fraternity there were great doubts and misgivings.
About 1930 they seemed to get a new breath of energy and confidence and put together something that was
generally known as the Synthetic Theory, and that has been the dominant idea ever since, for fifty years. It
is rather strange to say this, but the Synthetic Theory has never been formulated. It was a vague consensus
that was never formulated in any detail. This means that they were able to achieve remarkable agreement,
because nobody knew what it was all about; it was a vague assumption that natural selection had done
everything with a lot of help from genetic drift, sexual selection, and other possible mechanisms. When they
never formulated it in detail, they never had to worry about refutations." (Macbeth, N., "Darwinism: A time
for funerals," Robert Briggs Associates: San Francisco CA, 1982, p.3)

3/4/2004
"The heart of the whole business is natural selection, and whether natural selection actually means
anything. If you put it in the form of the survival of the fittest, which is substantially the same thing, you
can easily see that you are going around in a circle. If you ask which are the fittest, the answer is always
those who survive, they're obviously the fittest. And if you ask how do you decide they were the fittest, the
answer is of course obvious: it's because they survived. So you're going around in a circle and we call the
results of this kind of circular reasoning a tautology. Natural selection is a more difficult phrase and you
have to examine it a little longer before you see that it gets into exactly the same position. It is obvious that
there is a need for an independent criterion of fitness, if it is to be a serious theory. You can't simply say
you're fit because you've survived, because you survive you're fit." (Macbeth, N., "Darwinism: A time for
funerals," Robert Briggs Associates: San Francisco CA, 1982, p.1)

4/4/2004
"IN the growth of the numerous lesser ideas which have converged into the central idea of the history of life
by Evolution, we find ancient pedigrees for all that we are apt to consider modern. Evolution has reached its
present fulness by slow additions in twenty-four centuries. When the truths and absurdities of Greek,
mediaeval, and sixteenth to nineteenth century speculation and observation are brought together, it
becomes clear that they form a continuous whole, that the influences of early upon later thought are greater
than has been believed, that Darwin owes more even to the Greeks than we have ever recognized." (Osborn,
H.F., "From the Greeks to Darwin: An Outline of the Development of the Evolution Idea," [1894], Charles
Scribner's Sons: New York NY, 1924, reprint, p.1)

4/4/2004
"Evolution, as a natural explanation of the origin of the higher forms of life, succeeded the old mythology
and autochthony in Greece, and developed from the teachings of Thales and Anaximander into those of
Aristotle. This great philosopher had a general conception of the origin of higher species by descent from
lower, yet he could not know of any actual Evolution series, such as we have derived from Paleontology. ...
The Greek natural history literature, from beginning to end, is a continuous source of pleasure and surprise.
Amid wide differences of opinion as to how far the Greeks actually anticipated later discoveries, the true
conclusion is, that they anticipated many of our modern theories by suggestion; thus they carried the
Evolution idea well into its suggestive stage, which was so much ground gained for those who took it up in
Europe." (Osborn, H.F., "From the Greeks to Darwin: An Outline of the Development of the Evolution Idea,"
[1894], Charles Scribner's Sons: New York NY, 1924, reprint, pp.6-7)

4/4/2004
"Those who are tempted to ridicule directed panspermia should restrain themselves, because Crick's
extraterrestrials are no more invisible than the universe of ancestors that earth-bound Darwinists have to
invoke. Crick would be scornful of any scientist who gave up on scientific research and ascribed the origin
of life to a supernatural Creator. But directed panspermia amounts to the same thing. The same limitations
that made it impossible for the extraterrestrials to journey to earth will make it impossible for scientists ever
to inspect their planet. Scientific investigation of the origin of life is as effectively closed off as if God had
reserved the subject for Himself." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers
Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, pp.110-111)

5/4/2004
"I rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting the doctrine of modification in your new edition; nothing, I
am convinced, could be more important for its success. I honour you most sincerely. To have maintained in
the position of a master, one side of a question for thirty years, and then deliberately give it up, is a fact to
which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for,
thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a cold shudder has run
through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it
as morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I
rest in peace." (Darwin, C.R., Letter to Sir Charles Lyell, November 23, 1859, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and
Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, pp.24-25)

6/4/2004
"As one of the earliest of the natural philosophers in Greece is mentioned THALES of Miletus. ... between
650 and 580 B.C. ... He was probably of Phoenician origin ... he had educated himself by travailing and
studying in the East. He was very rich and of high standing and collected around him a number of disciples.
Of his philosophy it is mentioned that he regarded water as the cause of all things. The earth floated like a
disk on a vast sea which surrounded it on all sides. The details of his philosophy are unknown, but the
assumption mentioned above is to a certain extent reminiscent of the story of the creation in Genesis, with
its definite assertion of 'waters which were under the firmament' and `waters which were above the
firmament' That we are here dealing with a theory of oriental origin seems beyond all doubt." (Nordenskiold,
E., "The History of Biology: A Survey," [1920-24], transl. Eyre L.B., Tudor Publishing Co: New York NY,
1928, pp.10-11)

6/4/2004
"THALES (c600 B.C.) was the first known Greek philosopher who studied the realm of natural history. He
believed that water was the cause of all things, and that the earth floated like a vast disc with water around
all sides. It is interesting that Nordenskiold, in his book The History of Biology, notes the similarity this has
with the account in Genesis that the firmament divided "the waters which were under the armament from the
waters which were above the firmament", and comments " That we are here dealing with a theory of oriental
[!] origin seems beyond all doubt" (Bowden, M., "The Rise of The Evolution Fraud: An Exposure of its
Roots," Creation- Life Publishers: San Diego CA, 1982, p.4)

6/4/2004
"Thus Greeks of inquiring mind and reflective temper confronted no very impressive or well-organized
system of myth and doctrine which could give them an intellectual and emotional orientation to the world.
Yet when they began to trade and travel in the Orient, they encountered impressive theological and
cosmological systems, together with much useful knowledge. The Greek response was to wonder
articulately about the nature of things, i.e., to invent philosophy. Thales of Miletus (ca. 585 B.C.), the
traditional founder of Greek philosophy, is supposed to have learned geometry in Egypt and put it to
practical use. His view that water was the primary substance reminds one of the ancient Babylonian
cosmology, which made water the first element of creation. Indeed, the doctrines attributed to Thales might
he described as a restatement of Babylonian mythology, with the important difference that Thales omitted
the deities who lay, at the heart of the Oriental cosmology." (McNeill, W.H., "The Rise of the West: A
History of the Human Community," [1963], University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Seventh Impression,
1970, p.212)

7/4/2004
"The first Ionian scientist was Thales of Miletus, a city in Asia across a narrow channel of water from the
island of Samos. He had traveled in Egypt and was conversant with the knowledge of Babylon. ... Thales
attempted to understand the world without invoking the intervention of the gods. Like the Babylonians, he
believed the world to have once been water. To explain the dry land, the Babylonians added that Marduk
had placed a mat on the face of the waters and piled dirt upon it. Thales held a similar view, but, as Benjamin
Farrington said, `left Marduk out.' Yes, everything was once water, but the Earth formed out of the oceans
by a natural process-similar, he thought, to the silting he had observed at the delta of the Nile. Indeed, he
thought that water was a common principle underlying all of matter, just as today we might say the same of
electrons, protons and neutrons, or of quarks. Whether Thales' conclusion was correct is not as important
as his approach: The world was not made by the gods, but instead was the work of material forces
interacting in Nature. Thales brought back from Babylon and Egypt the seeds of the new sciences of
astronomy and geometry, sciences that would sprout and grow in the fertile soil of Ionia. (Sagan, C.E.,
"Cosmos," [1980], Macdonald: London, 1981, reprint, pp.176-177)

8/4/2004
"But a much deeper and more penetrating analysis of the [tautology] problem was put together by Professor
Ronald H. Brady of Ramapo College in the quarterly called "Systematic Zoology" for December 1979 [Brady
R.H., "Natural selection and the criteria by which a theory is judged," Systematic Zoology, Vol. 28, 1979,
pp.600-621]. He has about a 21-page article on natural selection and criteria for judging it. He seemed to me
to utterly destroy the entire idea of natural selection as presently conceived. He does it in a philosophical
and scientific way, to which there has been as yet, as far as I'm aware, no serious reply. I think it destroys
the idea of natural selection, and this is certainly the opinion of many people at the American Museum of
Natural History. The whole basis for the Synthetic Theory is shot to pieces right there in his article."
(Macbeth, N., "Darwinism: A time for funerals," Robert Briggs Associates: San Francisco CA, 1982, p.2)

8/4/2004
"All this apparent design has come about without a designer. No purpose, no goals, no blueprints. Natural
selection is simply about genes replicating themselves down the generations. Genes that build bodies that
do what's needed-seeing, running, digesting, mating-get replicated; and those that don't, don't." (Cronin, H.,
"The Evolution of Evolution," TIME, Summer 1997/98, p.80)

8/4/2004
"Howard Van Till, Professor Emeritus of physics and astronomy at Calvin C., was presented with a Friend of
Darwin Award for 2002 by the National Center for Science Education. NCSE is affiliated with the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and defends the teaching of evolution in public
schools. This award is presented `for support of evolution and science education and for service to NCSE.'
NCSE's executive director Eugenie Scott states: `For decades, Howard has been working to help the public
understand evolution as a science, and science as a way of knowing. His thoughtful reflections on the
complex, and often contentious, relationship between evolution and Christian theology have been nothing
short of inspirational to those who hope for a rapprochement between the two.'" ("Van Till Receives NCSE Honor,"
Newsletter of the American Scientific Affiliation and the Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation, Vol.
45, No. 5, September/October, 2003)

9/4/2004
"As thought grew deeper, the tendency was to suppose one divine being who is responsible for everything,
who directs humanity, Earth, and the whole Universe, combining it all into a harmonious whole directed
toward some specific end. It is this sophisticated picture of a monotheistic God that the Bible presents - but
one who constantly engages himself in the minutiae of his creation." (Asimov, I., "In The Beginning...:
Science Faces God in the Book of Genesis," Crown: New York NY, 1981, pp.10-11)

9/4/2004
"Scientific naturalism, on the other hand, does leave a place for `religious belief,' provided that the religious
believers do not challenge the authority of naturalistic science to say what is real and what is not. ... blurring
the issues a little to save a place for theistic religion in a naturalistic intellectual culture may seem like a
sound strategy. Of course, I do not agree with that strategy. I do not think that the mind can serve two
masters, and I am confident that whenever the attempt is made, naturalism in the end will be the true master
and theism will have to abide by its dictates." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," InterVarsity Press:
Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, p.169)

9/4/2004
"In a 1982 Gallup poll, 44% of American respondents supported the statement `God created man pretty much
in his present form at one time within the last ten thousand years.' Only 9% supported the statement `Man
has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.' In a
1988 survey of 43 members of the U.S. Congress who chose to answer a questionnaire, 88% felt that
`modern evolutionary theory has a valid scientific foundation,' but less than half could say, even roughly,
what the basic idea of evolution might be." (Sagan, C.E. & Druyan, A., "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors: A
Search for Who We Are", [1992] Arrow: London, 1993, reprint, p.425)

9/4/2004
"Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not
planned. " (Simpson, G.G., "The Meaning of Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of its Significance
for Man," [1949], Yale University Press: New Haven CT, 1960, reprint, p.344)

10/4/2004
"It is not only biochemists who have difficulty in envisaging the design of a simple self-replicating system.
Eminent engineers and mathematicians, such as von Neumann, (Von Neumann J., "Theory of Self-
Reproducing Automata," University of Illinois Press: Urbana, 1966) who have considered theoretically the
general abstract design of self-replicating automata have shown that any automaton sufficiently complex to
reproduce itself would necessarily possess certain component systems which are strictly analogous to
those found in a cell. One component would be an automatic factory capable of collecting raw materials and
processing them into an output specified by a written instruction. This is the analogue of the ribosome.
Another component would be a duplicator, an automaton which takes the written instruction and copies it.
This is the analogue of the DNA replicating system. Another component would be a written instruction
containing the specification for the complete system, which is the analogue of the DNA ... . The fact that
artificial automata and living organisms both have to conform to the same general design to meet the criteria
for selfreplication tends to reinforce the feeling that perhaps no system simpler than the cell system can exist
which can undergo genuine autonomous self-duplication." (Denton, M.J., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,"
Burnett Books: London, 1985, p.269)

10/4/2004
"One of the accomplishments of living systems which is, of course, quite without any analogy in the field of
our own technology is their capacity for self-duplication. With the dawn of the age of computers and
automation after the Second World War, the theoretical possibility of constructing selfreplicating automata
was considered seriously by mathematicians and engineers. Von Neumann discussed the problem at great
length in his famous book Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata, but the practical difficulties of converting
the dream into reality have proved too daunting. As Von Neumann pointed out, the construction of any sort
of selfreplicating automaton would necessitate the solution to three fundamental problems: that of storing
information; that of duplicating information; and that of designing an automatic factory which could be
programmed from the information store to construct all the other components of the machine as well as
duplicating itself. The solution to all three problems is found in living things and their elucidation has been
one of the triumphs of modern biology. So efficient is the mechanism of information storage and so elegant
the mechanism of duplication of this remarkable molecule that it is hard to escape the feeling that the DNA
molecule may be the one and only perfect solution to the twin problems of information storage and
duplication for self-replicating automata." (Denton, M.J., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," Burnett Books:
London, 1985, pp.337-338)

10/4/2004
"It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we
find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of
chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of
which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the
very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?
Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most
advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of twentieth-
century technology." (Denton, M.J., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," Burnett Books: London, 1985, p.342)

10/4/2004
"But on Saturday 15 April the old pain struck again. That night at dinner he became giddy and staggered,
fainting, to the sofa where he collapsed, face down. He recovered and seemed somewhat better until at a
quarter before midnight on Tuesday 18 April, he woke Emma, saying, 'I have got a pain and I shall feel
better, or bear it better, if you are awake.' He asked her to get a capsule of amyl. nitrate from his study, but it
took her some time to find it and when she returned he had fainted. Brandy revived him and when he
recovered, thinking death was near, he murmured to Emma, 'Tell all my children how good they have always
been to me', and, as though to comfort her, 'I am not in the least afraid of death. But dying was agony for him
to suffer and for Emma to watch. Later she would tell a friend how impossible it was to erase the memory
from her mind. It was not an easy end. Etty and Frank were with him and remembered his anguish: 'All that
morning and afternoon the old nausea and retching returned. Again and again he moaned, `if I could but die'
and Emma prayed for his release.' Etty gave him his smelling salts, rubbed him and once 'gave him a little
pure whisky by his own desire. His hands were deathly cold and clammy and Frank could not feel his pulse
at all.' All that afternoon. Etty recalled, 'he kept lifting his hands to hold his rope, and then they dropped off
with a feeble quivering motion, and many times he called out, `Oh God, oh Lord God!', but only as
exclamations of distress I think.'" (Healey, E., "Emma Darwin: The Inspirational Wife of a Genius," Headline:
London, 2001, p.318)

10/4/2004
"There is no version of primeval history, preceding the discoveries of modern science, that is as rational and
as inspiring as that of the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis." (Asimov, I., "In The Beginning...:
Science Faces God in the Book of Genesis," Crown: New York NY, 1981, p.3)

11/4/2004
"WHY LAND LIFE? The most primitive of known amphibians were, as we have said, inhabitants of fresh-
water pools and streams in Carboniferous and Devonian times. Alongside them lived representatives of the
ancestral crossopterygians, forms similar to them in food habits and in many structural features and differing
mainly in the lesser developments of the paired limbs. Why should the amphibians have developed these
limbs and become potential land dwellers? Not to breathe air, for that could be done by merely coming to the
surface of the pool. Not because they were driven out in search of food, for they were fish-eating types for
which there was little food ta be had on land. Not to escape enemies, for they were among the largest
animals of the streams and pools of that day. The development of limbs and the consequent ability to live
on land seem, paradoxically, to have been adaptations for remaining in the water, and true land life seems to
have been, so to speak, only the result of a happy accident. Let us consider the situation of these two types
- lobe-finned fishes and amphibians living in the streams and pools of the late Paleozoic. As long as the
water supply was adequate, the crossopterygian was probably the better off of the two, for he was
obviously the better swimmer; legs were in the way. The Devonian, the period in which the amphibians
originated, was a time of seasonal droughts. At times the streams would cease to flow, and the water in the
remaining pools into which the fish and ancestral amphibians were crowded must have been foul and
stagnant. Even so the lobe-finned fish, since he possessed lungs, was at no disadvantage, for he could
come to the surface and breathe air as well as the amphibians. If, however, the water dried up altogether and
did not soon return, the tables were turned. Under such circumstances the crossopterygian was helpless
and must die. But the amphibian, with his newly developed land limbs, could crawl out of the shrunken pool,
walk up or down the stream bed or overland and reach another pool where he might take up his aquatic
existence again. Land limbs were developed to reach the water, not to leave it." (Romer, A.S., "Man and the
Vertebrates," [1933], Penguin: Harmondsworth UK, 1960, Vol. 1, reprint, pp.48-49)

11/4/2004
"So please respect the humble bacterium that is playing this game. It can reproduce, it can evolve. E.
coli must have some sort of long-term memory about how to make itself that can outlast its substance.
That means that an E. coli must be an automatic factory containing something analogous to control
tapes and automatic manufacturing equipment. And that is only part of it. All the equipment must be
contained, organised, fed. Pieces for it to work on, energy to drive it, must be provided by the E. coli
cell. Apart from the manufacturing machinery that can follow instructions, there has also to be
another kind of machinery that instead reprints them - something analogous to a Xerox machine or a
tape copier. All these things have to be contrived through the manufacturing machinery duly instructed by
appropriate bits of the Library tape. It may seem hardly surprising that no one has ever actually made a self-
reproducing machine, even though Von Neumann laid down the design principles more than 40 years ago.
You can imagine a clanking robot moving around a stock-room of raw components (wire, metal plates, blank
tapes and so on) choosing the pieces to make another robot like itself. You can show that there is nothing
logically impossible about such an idea: that tomorrow morning there could be two clanking robots in the
stock-room...(I leave it as a reader' home project to make the detailed engineering drawings.) There is
nothing clanking about E. coli; yet it is such a robot, and it can operate in a stock-room that is
furnished with only the simples raw components. Is it any wonder that E. coli's message tape is
long? (... about 10 kilometres long.) Is it any wonder that no free-living organisms have been discovered
with message tapes below '2 kilometres'? Is it any wonder that Von Neumann himself, and many others, have
found the origin of life to be utterly perplexing?'" (Cairns-Smith, A.G., "Seven Clues to the Origin of Life: A
Scientific Detective Story," [1985], Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1993 reprint, pp.14-15.
Emphasis in original)

11/4/2004
"Yet despite the dreams of artificial life and the gurus of nanotechnology, the undeniable fact remains that
many characteristics of living organisms are still without any significant analogue in any machine which has
yet been constructed. Every living system replicates itself, yet no machine yet possesses this capacity even
to the slightest degree. Nearly half a century after von Neumann, Claude Shannon, Norbert Wiener, and
their circle dreamed of self-replicating machines, the dream is nowhere near realization. Nor does there exist
even a well-developed, detailed blueprint in the most advanced area of nanotechnology for a machine that
could carry out such a stupendous act. In the case of von Neumann's model, for example, no serious
consideration was given to the fuel and energy supply problem. Von Neumann assumed conveniently that
his automata would have unlimited energy! The challenge is enormous. A self-replicating machine requires a
data storage system which must be accessible or comprehensible to the constructor device. It requires that
the constructor be assembled from a very small number of readily available substances. It requires a means
of energy generation, storage, and distribution to its working components and so forth. None of these
problems has been solved. Yet every second, countless trillions of living systems from bacterial cells to
elephants replicate themselves on the surface of our planet." (Denton, M.J., "Nature's Destiny: How the
Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe," Free Press: New York NY, 1998, pp.147-148)

11/4/2004
"To turn from propaganda to reality, there is a conspicuous dichotomy in the reality and predicting power of
mathematical models. We see this in what goes on around us from day to day. The precision with which
mathematics and computers can put men on the moon, within a few 100 m of a predetermined point at a
range of something like 400 000 km or - million miles, is an example at the reality of mathematical models
when all significant factors are known and can be precisely quantified. On the ether hand, failure of
mathematics and computers to predict weather accurately even at short range is an example of the unreality
of mathematical models when significant factors are not all known or can not be precisely quantified. This
dichotomy extends to mathematical models of evolution. The precision with which they can describe and
predict simple Mendelian processes or the outcomes of population-growth and competition experiments in
glass jars proves the reality of the models in artificially simple cases in which factors are few, known, and
quantifiable. On the other hand, the factors concerned in real cases of organic evolution are more numerous
and more difficult to identify and measure than the factors that determine weather. Mathematical models of
real evolutionary processes may therefore be even more wrong than weather predictions. But while bad
weather predictions are promptly falsified by visible events, bad mathematical models of evolution are not,
because evolution cannot be seen as weather can. So, erroneous models of evolution may be uncritically
accepted. This is not just a remote possibility but a frightening probability, frightening because the wrong
conclusions are likely to be applied to man with consequences incomparably more disastrous than having a
picnic rained out." (Darlington, P.J., Jr., "Evolution for Naturalists: The Simple Principles and Complex
Reality," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1980, p.40)

12/4/2004
So if a computer simulation claims to simulate "evolution" then (since the computer has yet to be built that
could model even a tiny fraction of what goes on even in a small population of organisms-the simplest
genome is of the order of megabits and that of a population, gigabits or even terabits, without even
considering proteins, cells, the environment and time) they should get it "wrong". If they claim to get it
right, i.e. the result is the same as nature, then I assume they have fudged the program, as Dawkins did:
"Evolutionists often use computers to simulate evolution. These demonstrations sought to convince the
public that evolution by natural selection is a scientifically proven fact. A famous simulation is by Richard
Dawkins in his 1986 book, The Blind Watchmaker. He programmed a computer to simulate the evolution of a
phrase from Shakespeare's Hamlet: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL ... Dawkins programmed the
computer to mimic the cumulative selection process of Darwinism. It starts out with 28 random characters.
The computer uses this as a 'parent' and makes many copies with a certain chance of random error, to
simulate mutations. From these N mutant copies, the computer selects the one closest to the target phrase
and uses it as the 'parent' of the next generation. This process of cumulative selection continues generation
after generation until it reaches the target phrase. ... The target phrase was finally reached in generation 43.
Dawkins ran the simulation again, starting with a new random sequence of letters. This time the computer
reached the target in 64 generations. On a third run, the computer reached the target in 41 generations. ...
Evolutionists advertised the rapid simulated evolution as evidence for Darwinism. ... The computer
simulations use many unrealistic assumptions that favor evolution. First, the simulations assume away
everything that could prevent evolution. * They do not allow extinction, which normally would terminate all
further evolution. * They do not allow error catastrophe, which normally would cause a degradation away
from any target sequence-no matter how severe the selection. * They do not allow canyons and hills in the
fitness terrain, which normally would prevent evolution. In short, they assume naive natural selection - that
evolution is upward, ever upward. Having artificially disallowed all possible failure modes, it is not
surprising the evolution simulations work. ... Dawkins' simulation gives many unrealistic advantages to
evolution: * The simulation disallows recessive mutations, ordinary epistasis, polygenic and pleiotropic
effects-which would normally increase the cost of substitution and slow down evolution. * The simulation
assumes perfect selection (s=1), which is not typical of nature. Evolutionists ordinarily acknowledge that the
typical beneficial mutation has less than a one percent advantage (s<0.01). * The simulation assumes
extreme truncation selection, which is not like nature. Nature has no means to count mutations, rank the
population by the count, and keep only the highest ranking individual. Truncation selection gives an
unrealistic advantage to evolution by substantially lowering the cost of mutation. * The simulation
disallows any costs due to random death, balancing selection, heterosis, or segregation. * The simulation
assumes a high probability of beneficial mutation. It assumes that a mutation has one chance in 27 of being
so beneficial that the rest of the population is completely wiped out. This high rate of beneficial mutation
reduces the cost of harmful mutation and increases the speed of evolution * Dawkins did not say in his
book, but his simulation must have assumed a high reproduction rate (N=100 or higher) This is higher than
real species can produce For a sexual species to accomplish this, the females must give at least 200 progeny
each. * Dawkins did not say, but he must have chosen the mutation rate to optimize the speed of evolution.
If he had chosen a low mutation rate, (such as 10^-8 as in humans) then the simulation would
require roughly 50 million generations On the other hand, if he had chosen too high a mutation rate, then it
would cause error catastrophe and the target phrase would never be reached. Dawkins picked the mutation
rate that produced the fastest evolution. Dawkins' readers got the impression he casually threw the
computer simulation together and speedy evolution just happened automatically. In reality, Dawkins
carefully designed his simulation to favor rapid evolution. One could hardly design a simple, easily
understood simulation that is faster. His computer simulation aids the illusion that evolution is simple in
concept, inevitable, and fast." (ReMine, W.J.*, "The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message Theory,"
St. Paul Science: Saint Paul MN, 1993, pp.231-233)

12/4/2004
"Goldschmidt: Very well, I will switch ... to the emergence of evolutionary novelties, by which I mean the
first appearance of new things, such as blood or lungs. You do not have to trace ancestors; you only have
to show me how these things could grow up on a step-by-step basis. Simpson: I have just done a neat
study on the first appearance of crochets, the little spurs or crests on the cheek teeth of horses.
Goldschmidt: This is hopelessly micro. I mean big things. I have made a list of seventeen, and I challenge
you to explain any of them on a step-bystep basis. [Goldschmidt R.B., "The Material Basis of Evolution,"
Yale University Press; 1940, pp.6-7] Here they are: hair in mammals; feathers in birds; segmentation of
arthropods and vertebrates; the transformation of the gill arches in phylogeny; teeth; shells of mollusks;
ectoskeletons; compound eyes; blood circulation; alternation of generations; statocysts; ambulacral system
of echinoderms; pedicellaria of the same; cnidocysts; poison apparatus of snakes; whalebone; and primary
chemical differences like hemoglobin versus hemocyanin. I could give you many more from the plant world,
but since you are not botanists I will spare you. Mayr: I have done a little work on the birds known as
Hawaiian honeycreepers. Would that be useful here? Goldschmidt: No, that is just beaks again." (Macbeth,
N., "Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason," Gambit: Boston MA, 1971, pp.155-156)

13/4/2004
"To begin with, fifteen billion years ago, the Universe consisted of a structureless cosmic egg which
exploded in a vast outpouring of energy." .... The cosmic egg ... apparently represented a very orderly
conglomeration of matter. Its explosion represented a vast shift in the direction of disorder, and ever since,
the amount of disorder in the Universe has been increasing. .... The existence of the cosmic egg is, however,
itself something of an anomaly. If the general movement of the Universe is from order to disorder, how did
the order 'which presumably existed in the cosmic egg) originate? Where did it come from? It is tempting to
suppose that we can expand on the biblical account for the answer. The Spirit of God, moving upon the face
of the deep (Chaos), collected all the matter of the Universe into an ultimately compressed cosmic egg
(Cosmos) and then allowed it to explode into energy ("Let there be light"), cool down into matter and the
Universe as we know it, and then run downhill according to the laws of nature (presumably also designed
by God) until it is Chaos again." (Asimov, I., "In The Beginning...: Science Faces God in the Book of
Genesis," Crown Publishers: New York NY, 1981, pp.23-24)

13/4/2004
[Gen. 1:2] "`And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.' ... This,
too, fits the scientific view, in a way, for the original cloud of dust and gas out of which the solar system
was formed (or the larger clouds out of which the galaxies were formed) was dark." (Asimov, I., "In The
Beginning...: Science Faces God in the Book of Genesis," Crown: New York NY, 1981, pp.15,18)

14/4/2004
"When we examine a modern living machine we should also think of it as one which has evolved-one which
no doubt had much simpler beginnings that may be reflected in the living organisms we see around us
today, but which has changed, perhaps quite basically, in the course of many millions of years. And this
machine is of a kind that is unique in our experience, for it is one that can replicate itself; and moreover one
which can undergo evolution by natural selection, which means that it is subject to errors in replication that
can themselves be replicated-we call these mutations. As the late John von Neumann pointed out, a machine
that replicates itself can, with some difficulty be imagined; but such a machine that could originate itself
offers a baffling problem which no one has as yet solved. In the present case, we are trying to understand
how a self-replicating machine came into existence; this poses problems that are indeed difficult to formulate
in our imagination, and should not be passed over too lightly. It should perhaps be pointed out that
admitting to ourselves the difficulty of the problem is not resorting to vitalism or mysticism; but may, on the
other hand, be the only way to avoid extra-physical concepts." (Blum, H.F., "Time's Arrow and Evolution,"
[1951], Harper Torchbooks: New York NY, 1962, pp.178G-178H)

14/4/2004
"The living machine is clearly not just a mixture of chemicals, yet there seems to be widespread belief that,
once the proper molecular compounds were there, life would appear, whether on the earth, on Mars, or
elsewhere in the universe. This no more follows, I may point out at the risk of being thought overly
facetious, than that an automobile, 1962 model, might spring spontaneously from a mixture of all the
chemical species from which it is composed." (Blum, H.F., "Time's Arrow and Evolution," [1951], Harper
Torchbooks: New York NY, 1962, p.178G)

15/4/2004
"It is the cytoskeleton's role as the cell's 'nervous system' that will have the main importance for us here. For
our own neurons are themselves single cells, and each neuron has its own cytoskeleton! Does this mean
that there is a sense in which each individual neuron might itself have something akin to its own 'personal
nervous system'? This is an intriguing issue, and a number of scientists have been coming round to the
view that something of this general nature might actually be true. ... In order to address such issues, we
should first glimpse the basic organization of the cytoskeleton. It consists of protein-like molecules arranged
in various types of structure: actin, microtubules, and intermediate filaments. It is the microtubules that will
be our main concern here. They consist of hollow cylindrical tubes, some 25 nm in diameter on the outside
and 14 nm on the inside (where 'nm'='nanometre', which is 10^-9 m) ... The 'control centre' of the
cytoskeleton ... is a structure known as the centriole. This seems to consists essentially of two cylinders of
nine triplets of microtubules, where the cylinders form a kind of separated `T'. ... The centriole forms the
critical part of a structure called the microtubules organizing centre or centrosome. ... the centriole, which
seems to be the focal point of the cytoskeleton, a structure that apparently controls the cell's movements
and its detailed organization. ... Hameroff and his colleagues have argued, for more than a decade, that
microtubules may play roles as cellular automata, where complicated signals could be transmitted and
processed along the tubes as waves of differing electric polarization states of the tubulins. Recall that
tubulin dimers can exist in (at least) two different conformational states that can switch from one to the
other, apparently because of alternative possibilities for their electric polarizations. The state of each dimer
would be influenced by the polarization states of each of its six neighbours (because of van der Waals
interactions between them) giving rise to certain specific rules governing the conformation of each dimer in
terms of the conformations of its neighbours. This would allow all kinds of messages to be propagated and
processed along the length of each microtubule. These propagating signals appear to be relevant to the way
that microtubules transport various molecules alongside them, and to the various interconnections between
neighbouring microtubules-in the form of bridgelike connecting proteins referred to as MAPs (microtubule
associated proteins). ... What is the significance of microtubules for neurons? Each individual neuron has its
own cytoskeleton. .... In particular, microtubules in neurons can be very long indeed, in comparison with
their diameter (which is only about 2930 nm) and can reach lengths of millimetres or more. Moreover, they
can grow or shrink, according to circumstances, and transport neurotransmitter molecules. There are
microtubules running along the lengths of the axons and dendrites. Although single microtubules do not
seem to extend individually to the entire length of an axon, they certainly form communicating networks that
do so, each microtubule communicating with the next ones by means of the connecting MAPs referred to
above. Microtubules seem to be responsible for maintaining the strengths of synapses and, no doubt, for
effecting alterations of these strengths when the need arises. Moreover, they seem to organize the growth
of new nerve endings, guiding them towards their connections with other nerve cells. Since neurons do not
divide after the brain is fully formed, there is not a role of this particular kind for a centriole in a neuron.
Indeed, centrioles seem to be absent in the neuron's centrosome-which is found close to the neuron's
nucleus. Microtubules extend from there right up to the vicinity of the presynaptic endings of the axon, and
also, in the other direction, into the dendrites and, via contractile actin, into dendritic spines, which
frequently form the postsynaptic end of a synaptic cleft. These spines are subject to growth and
degeneration, a process which seems to form an important part of brain plasticity, whereby the overall
interconnections in the brain are undergoing continual subtle changes. There would seem to be significant
evidence that microtubules are indeed importantly involved in the control of brain plasticity. ... How does
this help us in our quest for a non-computational role for the mind? ... Indeed, if tubulin dimers are the basic
computational units, then we must envisage the possibility of a potential computing power in the brain that
vastly exceeds that which has been contemplated in the AI literature. Hans Moravec, in his book Mind
Children (1988), assumed, on the basis of a 'neuron alone' model, that the human brain might in principle
conceivably achieve some 10¹⁴ basic operations per second, but no more, where we consider
that there might be some 10¹¹ operational neurons, each capable of sending about
10³ signals per second. If, on the other hand, we consider the tubulin dimer as the basic
computational unit, then we must bear in mind that there are some 10⁷ dimers per neuron, the
elementary operations now being performed some 10⁶ times faster, giving us a total of around
10²⁷ operations per second. Whereas present-day computers may be beginning to close in
on the first figure of 10¹⁴ operations per second, as Moravec and others would strongly
argue, there is no prospect of the 10²⁷ figure being achieved in the foreseeable future."
(Penrose, R., "Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness," [1994], Vintage:
London, 1995, reprint, pp.358-366)

16/4/2004
"MATTHEW 7:15 ... The second section (vv. 15-20) focuses on false prophets, a phenomenon already well
known in the Old Testament (e.g. Dt. 13:1-5; Je. 23:9-32), but increasingly found also in the New Testament
church, within which prophecy was an honoured gift (Acts 11:27-28; 21:9-11; 1 Cor. 12:10, 28; 14:1ff.; etc.).
We hear of false prophets already active in 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1-3; Revelation 2:20. as well as in Jesus'
warning in Matthew 24:11, 24. By the end of the first century they were a serious problem (Didache 11:8-12).
The connection of thought with vv. 13-14 may well be that, like the false prophets in the Old Testament Ge.
6:13-14; Ezk. 13:1-16) they would offer an easier alternative to the narrow way of Christian discipleship.' Their
teaching would be plausible, enabling them to pass as true disciples (sheep), but in fact their effect would be
destructive (cf. Acts 20:29-30 for a similar use of wolves for false teachers from within the congregation)."
(France, R.T.*, "Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary", Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, 1985, p.147)

16/4/2004
"The idea that the progress of science has somehow altered this question is closely bound up with the idea
that people `in olden times' believed in them `because they didn't know the laws of Nature.' Thus you will
hear people say, `The early Christians believed that Christ was the son of a virgin, but we know that this is a
scientific impossibility.', Such people seem to have an idea that belief in miracles arose at a period when men
were so ignorant of the course of nature that they did not perceive a miracle to be contrary to it. A moment's
thought shows this to be nonsense: and the story of the Virgin Birth is a particularly striking example. When
St. Joseph discovered that his fiancee was going to have a baby, he not unnaturally decided to repudiate
her. Why? Because he knew just as well as any modern gynaecologist, that in the ordinary course of nature
women do not have babies unles they have lain with men. No doubt the modern gynaecologist knows
several things about birth and begetting which St. Joseph did not know. But those things do not concern
the main point-that a virgin birth is contrary to the course of nature. And St. Joseph obviously knew
that. In any sense in which it is true to say now, `The thing is scientifically impossible,' he would
have said the same: the thing always was, and was always known to be, impossible unless the
regular processes of nature were, in this particular case, being over-ruled or supplemented by something
from beyond nature. When St. Joseph finally accepted the view that his fiancee's pregnancy was due not to
unchastity but to a miracle, he accepted the miracle as something contrary to the known order of nature. All
records of miracles teach the same thing. In such stories the miracles excite fear and wonder (that is what the
very word miracle implies) among the spectators, and are taken as evidence of supernatural power. If
they were not known to be contrary to the laws of nature how could they suggest the presence of the
supernatural? How could they be surprising unless they were seen to be exceptions to the rules? And how
can anything be seen to be an exception till the rules are known? If there ever were men who did not know
the laws of nature at all, they would have no idea of a miracle and feel no particular interest in one if
it were performed before them. Nothing can seem extraordinary until you have discovered what is ordinary.
Belief in miracles, far from depending on an ignorance of the laws of nature, is only possible in so far as
those laws are known." (Lewis, C.S.*, "Miracles: A Preliminary Study," [1947], Fontana: London, 1960,
Revised edition, 1963, reprint, pp.50-51. Emphasis original)

18/4/2004
"The point of the above discussion is that even though the Big Bang hypothesis may appear at first blush
to support a particular religious idea, no scientific theory can compel belief in a positive religious tenet by
sheer force of logic. ... Saying that the universe began in a Big Bang is one thing, but saying life was
designed by an intelligence is another. The phrase Big Bang itself evokes only images of an explosion, not
necessarily a person. The phrase intelligent design seems more urgent and quickly invites questions about
who the designer might have been. Will persons with philosophical commitments against the supernatural
be painted into a corner by the theory? No. The human imagination is too powerful. ... Francis Crick also
thinks that life on earth may have begun when aliens from another planet sent a rocket ship containing
spores to seed the earth. ... The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges
the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic
explanation. ... It is not a very big leap, though, to say that a civilization capable of sending rocket ships to
other planets is also likely to be capable of designing life ... This scenario still leaves open the question of
who designed the designer-how did life originally originate? Is a philosophical naturalist now trapped?
Again, no. The question of the design of the designer can be put off in several ways. It could be deflected
by invoking unobserved entities: perhaps the original life is totally unlike ourselves, consisting of
fluctuating electrical fields or gases; perhaps it does not require irreducibly complex structures to sustain it.
Another possibility is time travel, which has been seriously proposed by professional physicists in recent
years. ... Of course, time travel leads to apparent paradoxes (things like grandsons shooting grandfathers
before their offspring are born), but at least some physicists are ready to accept them. Most people, like me,
will find these scenarios entirely unsatisfactory, but they are available for those who wish to avoid
unpleasant theological implications." (Behe, M.J.*, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to
Evolution," Free Press: New York NY, 1996, pp.247-249)

19/4/2004
"Never to be forgotten, to be neglected, to be derided, is the inconspicuous figure in the quiet back room.
He sits with head bent, silent, waiting, listening to the commotion in the streets. He is the keeper of the
kinds. Who is he? We do not know. Nor shall we ever. He is a presence, and that is all. But his presence is
evident in the last reaches of infinite space beyond man's probing eye. His presence is guessable in the last
reaches of infinite smallness beyond the magnification of electron or microscope. He is present in all living
beings and in all inanimate matter. His presence is asserted in all things that ever were, and in all things that
will ever be. And as his command is unanswerable, his identity is unknowable. But his most ancient concern
is with order. You may sense his presence in a star-scattered sky as silenced you stand on a lonely hill.
There above you floats in tightly-packed grandeur the Milky Way, your galaxy, your celestial home. And
there, beyond Andromeda's faint indication, floats your nearest brother in space. Twenty-six quintillion
miles away revolves your galaxy's twin in all manner of description and behaviour. You may sense his
presence in the kind of matter called helium, that has always and will forever behave according to the rules
and regulations of helium. You may sense his word in the second law of thermodynamics, or the patterned
behaviour of brook trout in a clear New Zealand pool. You may feel his command in the choice of the reed
bunting to defend his territory before his young; or in the pause of a jewel fish that saves his dinner and his
small fry too. You may find his word in the forms of cities and symphonies, of Rembrandts and fir trees and
cumulus clouds. You may read his command in the regularity of turning things, in stars and seasons, in tides
and in striking clocks. Where bursts the green of the apple-orchard, all of a springtime day, there passes his
presence. And here, too, he passes, in the windy fluttering of scarlet leaves and the calls of the harvesters.
Where a child is born, or a man lies dead; where life must go on, though tragedy deny it; where a farmer
replants fields again despoiled by flood or drought; where men rebuild cities that other men destroy; where
tides must ebb as tides have flowed; there, see his footprints, there, and there." (Ardrey, R., "African
Genesis: A Personal Investigation into the Animal Origins and Nature of Man," [1961], Collins/Fontana:
London, 1971, Seventh Impression, pp.395-396)

19/4/2004
"... a creator is extremely unwelcome. Now, in this connection let me again refer to Robert Ardrey, who was, I
think, without any doubts whatsoever as to the correctness of the Darwinian approach; but at the end of his
first book (I think it was "African Genesis") he has an eloquent passage about the man in the quiet back
room, the keeper of the kinds, whom he describes beautifully. `Never to be forgotten, to be neglected, to be
derided, is the inconspicuous figure in the quiet back room. He sits with head bent, silent, waiting, listening
to the commotion in the streets. He is the keeper of the kinds. Who is he? We' do not know. Nor shall we
ever. He is a presence, and that is all. But his presence is evident in the last reaches of infinite space beyond
man's probing eye. His presence is guessable in the last reaches of infinite smallness beyond the
magnificent of electron or microscope. He is present in all living beings and in all inanimate matter, His
presence is asserted in all things that ever were, and in all things that will ever be. And as his command is
unanswerable, his identity is unknowable. But his most ancient concern is order. Robert Ardrey "African
Genesis" p. 353 (Dell) 1961' But Ardrey was really describing a creator, and ... Darwin frankly admitted that
his aim was to provide a theory that would explain how we got where we are without resorting to any kind of
creator or divine intervention... and it never dawned on Robert Ardrey that when he did this excellent
passage he was undermining the whole foundation of Darwinism. I've seen the passage quoted in many
places. People admire it as an intuition but they don't realize that it's ruled out from the beginning if you're
going to be Darwinist or a materialist." (Macbeth, N., "Darwinism: A time for funerals," Robert Briggs
Associates: San Francisco CA, 1982, p.16)

19/4/2004
"Reduced to simplest terms, courts rightly assume that theism is a religious position, while wrongly
assuming that atheism is not. It will be countered that atheism is not taught in public schools, which
is true if teaching is taken to proceed explicitly only and not implicitly as well, but no educational theorist
thinks that the two forms of instruction can be separated completely. If God is omitted from accounts of
human origins, students will take that absence as implying that God has no place in the picture. .... This is a
clear case of marginalizing. Religious claims are not squarely faced for their truth or falsity. Rather, they are
eased out of the picture by classifications; in this case, theism is religious, while its alternative is not. This is
supposed to reflect a national policy of neutrality, but the move is anything but neutral when the effect is to
exclude important ideas and public policies from national scrutiny and debate." (Smith, H., "Why Religion
Matters: The Fate of the Human Spirit in an Age of Disbelief," [2000], HarperCollins Publishers: New York
NY, 2001, reprint, pp.132-133. Emphasis in original)

19/4/2004
"A corollary to this idea is that God is undetectable in creation. For natural laws, even if God used them as
his creation tools, are still just natural laws. As such, his creative acts were done in such a way so as to
have the appearance of having been done in such a way so as to have the appearance of having been done
strictly by unguided natural forces. We may believe that God created the species directly, but only in an
undetectable way. This leaves science free to go about its investigations without having to consider the
God hypothesis, and it has the effect of separating God from the world. After all, if God's only potential
involvement with the world is otherwise undetectable, then why consider it? This separation of God and the
world is one aspect of Gnosticism. It is not surprising that these ideas are encouraged by evolution. As I
discussed in Darwin's God, Gnostic ideas predated and influenced the development of evolution, and the
wide acceptance of evolution, in turn, strengthened modern Gnosticism. Today, these ideas have had the
effect of privatizing God. Evolution has helped to advance the notion that matters of faith should be kept
private and out of public life. The reason is that if God is separate from the world and cannot be objectively
verified, then what we believe about God is strictly subjective-a matter of opinion. Those who promote this
view claim it is neutral and fair to all, for those who wish to believe are free to do so. Likewise, those who
wish not to believe are free from unsolicited exposure to religious ideas. God need not be acknowledged in
public, for faith is a private affair. Indeed, God should not be acknowledged in public, for this inevitably
would force one person's religion on another person. In America these ideas have resonated with the
secularization of the government. There is now firmly entrenched a doctrine of separation of church and
state. It is commonly interpreted as the idea that the government may not support or allow any type of
religious activity. And the government includes everything from the White House to the local elementary
school. God has now been privatized in America. The problem with this view is that it is not religiously
neutral as claimed. It is in fact, wedded to its gnostic roots as firmly as ever. What is more, its advocates are
not generally able to understand the religious bias that is woven into their view. They are apparently so
deeply Gnostic that they cannot perceive their own religious position. To them their position seems to be
religiously neutral. Why is the privatization of God not religiously neutral? The simple answer is that it
presupposes that God can be privatized. While its advocates think they are being neutral because
they are allowing for the existence of God, they are allowing only for a God who isn't involved in the daily
matters of our lives. This is the god of Gnosticism, a god who is disjointed from the world." (Hunter, C.G.*,
"Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion Over Science," Brazos Press: Grand Rapids MI, 2003, pp.118-119.
Emphasis in original)

20/4/2004
"Man is a mathematical improbability. Astronomers may assault the Illusion of Central Position with the
estimate that our galaxy alone affords one hundred million planetary possibilities for sapient life. Against
that estimate must be read the record of planet Earth. We have produced in the course of some billions of
respectable years a current crop of perhaps a million species of animate beings. Of them, one may loosely be
described as sapient. And that one has come about through fortune's most dazzling display. Were we not so
evident, an impartial observer would be forced to conclude A that we could not and do not exist. Man is ... a
product of circumstances special to the point of disbelief." (Ardrey, R., "African Genesis: A Personal
Investigation into the Animal Origins and Nature of Man," [1961], Collins/Fontana: London, 1971, Seventh
Impression, pp.368-369)

20/4/2004
"We have good reason to believe, as shown in the first chapter, that changes in the conditions of life give a
tendency to increased variability; and in the foregoing cases the conditions have changed, and this would
manifestly be favourable to natural selection, by affording a better chance of the occurrence of profitable
variations. Unless such occur, natural selection can do nothing." (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.82)

20/4/2004
"To sum up, I believe that species come to be tolerably well-defined objects, and do not at any one period
present an inextricable chaos of varying and intermediate links: first, because new varieties are very slowly
formed, for variation is a slow process, and natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual
differences or variations occur, and until a place in the natural polity of the country can be better filled by
some modification of some one or more of its inhabitants." (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.160)

20/4/2004
"As a matter of fact it is rather hard to refute the Synthetic Theory because nobody ever stated it clearly.
There is nothing to get a handle on; but in the year 1980 this Mayr and Provine history came out and this
has precipitated some pretty strong expressions of opinion about the status of the Synthetic Theory. I am
able to report that some of the most penetrating students of the subject are now asserting, even publicly,
that the Synthetic Theory has died. I specify Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, and Niles
Eldredge at the American Museum of Natural History. They have all written articles that state firmly and
pretty clearly that there is nothing left of the Synthetic Theory. I don't say that this has penetrated the entire
profession. The second and third echelons are hardly aware of what's happened. It's the beginning of what
looks like almost complete disintegration." (Macbeth, N., "Darwinism: A time for funerals," Robert Briggs
Associates: San Francisco CA, 1982, pp.3-4)

21/4/2004
"Natural selection is based on the existence of self-replicating machines which carry over their patterns from
one generation to the next, thus having, in a sense, `memory.' To invoke natural selection to explain chemical
evolution prior to the origin of self-replicating machines is thus putting the cart before the horse. The loose
use of the term, or the tacit introduction of the concept, into this phase of the evolutionary process would
seem only to add confusion to our thoughts about the problem." (Blum, H.F., "Time's Arrow and Evolution,"
[1951], Harper Torchbooks: New York NY, 1962, p.178I-178J)

21/4/2004
"Empedocles imagined that after these unnatural products became extinct, other forms arose which were
able to support themselves and multiply; but even these were not formed at once. First came shapeless
masses built of earth and water, or earth slime, without limbs, organs of reproduction, or speech, thrown
from fires beneath the earth. Later came the separation of the two sexes and the existing mode of
reproduction. These trials of Nature were not a succession of organisms, improving as time went on, but a
series of direct births from Nature, which were unfit to live, and hence eliminated, until, after ceaseless trials,
Nature produced the fit and perpetual tribes. Thus, in the ancient teachings of Empedocles, we find the germ
of the theory of the Survival of the Fittest, or of Natural Selection. And the absolute proof that Empedocles'
crude hypothesis embodied this world famous thought, is found in passages in Aristotle's Physics, in which
he refers to Empedocles as having first shown the possibility of the origin of the fittest forms of life through
chance rather than through Design." (Osborn, H.F., "From the Greeks to Darwin: An Outline of the
Development of the Evolution Idea," [1894], Charles Scribner's Sons: New York NY, 1924, reprint, pp.39-40)

22/4/2004
"Biological evolution, for instance, is considered a fact of nature by almost all biologists. There may be and,
indeed, are many arguments over the details of the mechanics of evolution, but none over the fact-just as we
may not completely understand the workings of an automobile engine and yet be certain that a car in good
working order will move if we turn the key and step on the gas." (Asimov, I., "In The Beginning...: Science
Faces God in the Book of Genesis," Crown: New York NY, 1981, p.1)

22/4/2004
"What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without
any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose
structure is laid down by the code. But, as Monod points out the machinery by which the cell (at least the
nonprimitive cell which is the only one we know) translates the code `consists of a least fifty
macromolecular components which are themselves coded in DNA' (Monod, 1970; 1971, 143). Thus
the code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a really
baffling circle: a vicious circle, it seems for any attempt to form a model, or a theory, of the genesis of the
genetic code." (Popper, K.R., "Scientific Reduction and the Essential Incompleteness of All Science," in
Ayala, F.J. & Dobzhansky, T.G., eds, "Studies in the Philosophy of Biology," Macmillan: London, 1974,
pp.259-284, p.270. Emphasis original)

23/4/2004
"These tales, in the `just-so story' tradition of evolutionary natural history, do not prove anything. But the
weight of these, and many similar cases, wore down my faith in gradualism long ago. More inventive minds
may yet save it, but concepts salvaged only by facile speculation do not appeal much to me." (Gould, S.J.,
"The Return of the Hopeful Monster," [Natural History, Vol. 86, June/July 1977, pp.22-30] in
"The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History," [1980], Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1990, p.158)

25/4/2004
"The American biochemist Harold Morowitz has speculated as to what might be the absolute minimum
requirement for a completely self-replicating cell, deriving essential organic precursors, amino acids, sugars,
etc. from its environment but autonomous in every other way in terms of current biochemistry. Such a cell
would necessarily be bound by a cell membrane and the simplest feasible is probably the typical bilayered
lipid membrane utilized by all existing cells. The synthesis of the fats of the cell membrane would require
perhaps a minimum of five proteins. Energy would be required and some eight proteins might be needed for
a very simplified form of energy metabolism. A minimum of ten proteins would be required for synthesis of
the nucleotide building blocks of the DNA, and for DNA synthesis. Such a cell would also require a protein
synthetic apparatus for the synthesis of its proteins. If this was along the lines of the usual ribosomal
system, it would require a minimum of about eighty proteins. Such a minimal cell containing, say, three
ribosomes, 4 mRNA molecules, a full complement of enzymes, a DNA molecule 100,000 nucleotides long and
a cell membrane would be about 1000A (1A = 10^-8 cm) in diameter. According to Morowitz:
`This is the smallest hypothetical cell that we can envisage within the context of current biochemical
thinking. It is almost certainly a lower limit, since we have allowed no control functions, no vitamin
metabolism and extremely limited intermediary metabolism. Such a cell would be very vulnerable to
environmental fluctuation. The smallest known bacterial cells, Morowitz continues, have: `...an average
diameter of less than 3000A. Since the minimum hypothetical cell has a diameter of over 1000A there is a
limited gap in which to seek smaller cells.' The minimal cell described above would contain sufficient DNA to
code for about one hundred average sized proteins, which is close to the observed coding potential of the
smallest known bacterial cells. It may be, therefore, that the tiniest of all known bacterial cells are very close
to satisfying the minimum criteria for a fully autonomous cell system capable of independent replication. The
complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object
could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an
occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle." (Denton, M.J., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,"
Burnett Books: London, 1985, pp.263-264)

26/4/2004
"The book of Pierre P. Grasse is a frontal attack on all kinds of `Darwinism'. Its purpose is `to destroy the
myth of evolution as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon,' and to show that evolution is a
mystery about which little is, and perhaps can be, known. Now, one can disagree with Grasse but not ignore
him, he is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of `Traite de Zoologie',
author of numerous original investigations and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge
of the living world is encyclopedic, and his book is replete with interesting facts that any biologist would
profit by knowing." (Dobzhansky, T.G., "Darwinian or `Oriented' Evolution?." Review of Grasse P.-P.,
L'Evolution du Vivant ["Evolution of Living
Organisms"], Editions Albin Michel: Paris, 1973, in "Evolution," Vol. 29, June 1975, pp.376-378, p.376).

26/4/2004
"The amino acids must link together to form proteins; and the other chemicals must join up to make nucleic
acids, including the vital DNA. The seemingly insurmountable obstacle is the way the two reactions are
inseparably linked - one can't happen without the other. Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But
DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein. This biological treadmill greatly worries all biologists actively
concerned in research into the origin of life. The puzzle was put succinctly: 'How, when no life existed, did
substances come into being which, today, are absolutely essential to living systems, yet which can only be
formed by those systems?' (Blum, H.F., American Scientist, Vol. 43, 1955, p.595) No one knows the answer.
'Which came first?' asked Professor Sidney Fox of Miami University. 'Whichever postulate has been
considered has seemed to leave an unresolved question.' (Fox S.W., ed., "The Origins of Prebiological
Systems and their Molecular Matrices," Academic Press: New York, 1965, p.359). Nor is it relatively easy
chemistry, as in the formation of the amino acids. Proteins are highly complex biological molecules - long
chains of amino acids strung out like pearls on a necklace, often twisted and folded in a specific way. Where
an amino acid typically has ten atoms, a protein may have thousands. Research sponsored by NASA
(Morowitz H.J., "Biological Self- Replicating Systems," in Snell F.M., ed., "Progress in Theoretical Biology,"
Academic Press: New York, 1967, pp.35ff), to enable astronauts to recognize the most rudimentary forms of
life, suggested that the simplest kind of living thing would contain at least 124 proteins of 400 amino acids
each. A genetic code would be functioning, making sure the organism reproduced true to type. Now that we
have learned to build self-replicating robots, we can make some calculations of the magnitude of difficulty in
creating a life form even as 'simple' as that. Marcel J.E Golay, from the viewpoint of an engineer, wrote in
Analytical Chemistry: `Suppose we wanted to build a machine capable of reaching into bins for all its parts,
and capable of assembling from these parts a second machine just like itself. What is the minimum amount of
structure or information that should be built into the first machine? The answer comes out to be of the order
of 1,500 bits - 1,500 choices between alternatives which the machine should be able to decide. This answer is
very suggestive, because 1,500 bits happens to be also of the order of magnitude of the amount of structure
contained in the simplest large protein molecule which, immersed in a bath of nutrients, can induce the
assembly of those nutrients into another large protein molecule like itself, and then separate itself from it.
(Golay M.J. E., "Reflections of a Communications Engineer," Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 33, June 1961, p.23).
The problem is that a self-replicating robot has been designed to build copies of itself, whereas the chemical
reactions that led to the first living organism must have happened entirely by chance. Yet the odds against
such a chance occurrence seem insuperable - by any statistical standards, plain impossible. Golay calculated
the odds of his robot reaching into the bin at random and sticking all its component bits and pieces together
haphazardly, and then finishing with a perfect copy of itself: there was only one chance in
10⁴⁵⁰ , he said. (10⁴⁵⁰ is a convenient way of writing 10 with 450 noughts after
it. Thus 10² =100, 10³ =1,000, and so on.) Frank B. Salisbury in American
Biology Teacher, using different calculations, concluded that the odds of the chance evolution of a medium-
sized protein of 300 amino acids was about one in 10⁶⁰⁰ - a number 'completely beyond our
comprehension'. (Salisbury F.B., American Biology Teacher, Vol. 33, 1971, p.335). Since scientists generally
rule out of consideration any event that has less than one chance in 10⁵⁰ of occurring, it is
hardly surprising that many have come to believe that new biochemical laws will be needed to solve the
problem." (Hitching, F., "The Neck of the Giraffe: Or Where Darwin Went Wrong," Pan: London, 1982, pp.66-
67)

26/4/2004
"The ... smallest bacteria (the mycoplasma) ... we can safely assume .. is very close to the lower limit of size
for an autonomously self-replicating cell. The biochemist Harold Morowitz has speculated as to what might
be the absolute minimum requirement for a completely self-replicating cell deriving all essential organic
precursors-amino acids, sugars, etc.-from its environment but autonomous in every other way in terms of
our current understanding of biochemistry. [Morowitz H.J., "The Minimum Size of Cells," in Wolstenholme
G.E.W. & O'Connor M., "Principles of Biomolecular Organisation," Churchill: London, 1966, pp.446-459]
Such a cell would necessarily be bound by a cell membrane and the simplest feasible would probably be the
typical bilayered lipid membrane utilized by all existing cells on earth today. The synthesis of the fats of the
cell membrane would require perhaps a minimum of five proteins. Energy would be required, and this might
require a further eight proteins for a very simple form of energy metabolism. Altogether, probably a minimum
of another hundred proteins would be required for DNA replication and protein synthesis. The size of such
a cell, containing perhaps four mRNA molecules, a full complement of enzymes, a DNA molecule about
100,000 nucleotides long and bounded by a cell membrane, would be about one- tenth of a micron in
diameter. Morowitz comments: `This is the smallest hypothetical cell that we can envisage within the context
of current biochemical thinking. It is almost certainly a lower limit, since we have allowed no control
functions, no vitamin metabolism and extremely limited intermediary metabolism.' [Ibid., p.456]" (Denton,
M.J., "Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe," Free Press: New York,
1998, p.309)

26/4/2004
"The proposal of an RNA catalyst for the origin of life raises many questions which are as difficult as the
one the proposal attempts to solve. Michael J. Behe notes the difficulty in this proposal: `The big problem is
that each nucleotide "building block" is itself built up from several components, and the processes that form
the components are chemically incompatible. Although a chemist can make nucleotides with ease in a
laboratory by synthesizing the components separately, purifying them, and then recombining the
components to react with each other, undirected chemical reactions overwhelmingly produce undesired
products and shapeless goop on the bottom of the test tube. Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel-two scientists
who have worked long and hard on the origin of life problem-call RNA "the prebiotic chemist's nightmare."
[Behe, M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free Press: New York NY, 1996,
p.171] ... Behe quotes origin of life scientists Joyce and Orgel as they set forth their quandary: `This
discussion... has, in a sense, focused on a straw man: the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose
de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current
understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's
catalytic potential.... Without evolution it appears unlikely that a self-replicating ribozyme could arise, but
without some form of self-replication there is no way to conduct an evolutionary search for the first,
primitive self-replicating ribozyme. [Joyce & Orgel, in Behe, p.172 ] ... Robert A. Shapiro, a DNA chemist at
New York University, has demonstrated that synthesis of ribose and deoxyribose sugar under plausible
prebiotic conditions was impossible. [Shapiro R.., "Prebiotic Ribose Synthesis: A Critical Analysis." Origins
of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, Vol, 18, 1988, p.71] RNA is difficult to synthesize under the best of
conditions, much less under plausible prebiotic ones. The trend among the opinions of scientists today is
that the random generation of RNA in plausible prebiotic conditions was extremely unlikely." (Overman
D.L.*, "A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, 1997, pp.72-
73)

27/4/2004 "MATTHEW 10: ... 32-33. ["Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him
before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in
heaven."] The fear of men, which from three different angles has formed the subject of vv. 26-27, 28 and 29-
31, could cause the disciple to fail to acknowledge Jesus before men, which is effectively to deny him. These
verses reinforce the warning of v. 28 that there is a worse fate than human persecution, that is to be
repudiated by Jesus himself before the Father. The 'acknowledgment', whether of Jesus by the disciple or
vice versa, is one of solidarity - 'we belong together'. To be denied is to be excluded from this fellowship. A
man's standing before God is thus explicitly made to depend on his relationship to Jesus, and Jesus himself
stands in the role of arbiter of a man's ultimate destiny. This 'egocentricity' is a striking characteristic of the
teaching of Jesus. '... Even more remarkably, the saying is patterned on 1 Samuel 2:30, where the one
honoured or despised is God himself .... The Christological implications of this saying are therefore
important. So the disciple must choose which solidarity be prefers, that with men in this life, or that with
Jesus before my Father who is in heaven. The inevitability of this choice dominates the rest of the chapter
up to v. 39." (France R.T.*, "Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary," Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK,
1985, pp.187-188)

28/4/2004
"In the wake of the decision in the Arkansas Creationism trial (McLean v. Arkansas), the friends of science
are apt to be relishing the outcome. The creationists quite clearly made a botch of their case and there can
be little doubt that the Arkansas decision may, at least for a time, blunt legislative pressure to enact similar
laws in other states. Once the dust has settled, however, the trial in general and Judge William R. Overton's
ruling in particular may come back to haunt us; for, although the verdict itself is probably to be commended,
it was reached for all the wrong reasons and by a chain of argument which is hopelessly suspect. Indeed,
the ruling rests on a host of misrepresentations of what science is and how it works. The heart of Judge
Overton's Opinion is a formulation of `the essential characteristics of science.' These characteristics serve as
touchstones for contrasting evolutionary theory with Creationism; they lead Judge Overton ultimately to
the claim, specious in its own right, that since Creationism is not `science,' it must be religion. The Opinion
offers five essential properties that demarcate scientific knowledge from other things: `(1) It is guided by
natural law; (2) it has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; (3) it is testable against the empirical
world; (4) its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word; and (5) it is falsifiable.' These
fall naturally into two families: properties (1) and (2) have to do with lawlikeness and explanatory ability; the
other three properties have to do with the fallibility and testability of scientific claims. I shall deal with the
second set of issues first, because it is there that the most egregious errors of fact and judgment are to be
found." (Laudan L., "Science at the Bar-Causes for Concern," in Ruse M., ed., "But is it Science?: The
Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1996,
p.351)

28/4/2004
"The victory in the Arkansas case was hollow, for it was achieved only at the expense of perpetuating and
canonizing a false stereotype of what science is and how it works. If it goes unchallenged by the scientific
community, it will raise grave doubts about that community's intellectual integrity. No one familiar with the
issues can really believe that anything important was settled through anachronistic efforts to revive a
variety of discredited criteria for distinguishing between the scientific and the non-scientific. Fifty years
ago, Clarence Darrow asked, a propos the Scopes trial, `Isn't it difficult to realize that a trial of this kind is
possible in the twentieth century in the United States of America?' We can raise that question anew, with
the added irony that, this time, the pro-science forces are defending a philosophy of science which is, in its
way, every bit as outmoded as the `science' of the creationists." (Laudan L., "Science at the Bar-Causes for
Concern," in Ruse M., ed., "But is it Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution
Controversy," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1996, p.355)

28/4/2004
"There is no agreement on the extent to which metabolism could develop independently of a genetic
material. In my opinion, there is no basis in known chemistry for the belief that long sequences of reactions
can organize spontaneously - and every reason to believe that they cannot. The problem of achieving
sufficient specificity, whether in aqueous solution or on the surface of a mineral, is so severe that the
chance of closing a cycle of reactions as complex as the reverse citric acid cycle, for example, is negligible.
The same, I believe, is true for simpler cycles involving small molecules that might be relevant to the origins
of life and also for peptide cycles. In summary, there are several tenable theories about the origin of organic
material on the primitive earth, but in no case is the supporting evidence compelling. Similarly, several
alternative scenarios might account for the self-organization of a self-replicating entity from prebiotic
organic material, but all of those that are well formulated are based on hypothetical chemical syntheses that
are problematic. Returning to our detective story, we must conclude that we have identified some important
suspects and, in each case, we have some ideas about the method they might have used. However, we are
very far from knowing whodunit. ... This review has necessarily been highly selective. I have neglected
important aspects of prebiotic chemistry (e.g. the origin of chirality, the organic chemistry of solar bodies
other than the earth, and the formation of membranes)." (Orgel L.E., "The origin of life - a review of facts and
speculations," Trends in Biochemical Sciences, Vol. 23, December 1998, pp.491-495, pp.494-495)

28/4/2004
"There is no such thing as a self replicating molecule, only a self replicating system, involving flow of
energy and molecules through it; involving a structural relationship between molecules also. This is ignored
by many biologists, but is essential in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry. Natural selection could
only operate on a complex system of interacting molecules. In so far as our planet is concerned the time
interval between the arrival on earth of conditions in which life would be possible and the known existence,
as revealed in the fossil records, of organisms 'engineered' in the manner described in this chapter, has
become shorter and shorter as fossils in progressively more ancient rocks have been found. When it is
realised that the total number of hydrogen atoms in the Universe is only 10⁷⁸ , the magnitude
of the improbability of the code in the DNA message which controls that 'engineering' i.e. 1 in
10^2,000,000 having arisen by chance can be appreciated. The fact that a living cell represents
high technology in which the components have no meaning, except in relation to the function of the whole,
has proved to be a great stumbling block in the attempts to bridge the gap between nonliving and living. For
example all life processes are dependent upon energy being supplied by a chemical carrier like ATP. To make
the carrier from a primary source of energy requires enzymes. The protein chains of enzymes are themselves
built up both with the help of the DNA, messenger RNA and transfer RNA molecules, all steps being
dependent on an energy supply, ATP. The necessary concentration of material inside the cell to enable it to
function depends on a lipid barrier, the very synthesis of DNA to transmit the key message to daughter cells
depends both on ATP and on a protein enzyme. Hutchison points out that the complexity of the process is
staggering for to make a living cell a host of compounds must be available yet individually, each must have
been useless!" (Ambrose E.J., "The Mirror of Creation," Theology and Science at the Frontiers of
Knowledge, Number 11, Scottish Academic Press: Edinburgh UK, 1990, pp.95-96)

29/4/2004
"These difficulties have led Cairns-Smith to propose that self replication really started with clay particles, as
low technology, on which organic structures were progressively built up. Electron microscopy reveals
highly complex layers, films, etc., generated within clay particles. But life with its self replication depends on
an extremely delicate balance between the forces holding molecules together, as with the hydrogen bonds in
nucleic acids and proteins leading to the stepwise formation of strong chemical bonds. Whereas the bonds
in clay particles are of enormous strength, silicates being formed at high temperatures are hardly suitable for
self- replication at lake temperatures. In any case Bernal pointed out that the element silicon is found only
rarely in living organisms, never in their functional parts, similarly with aluminium the other main component
of clays. If life had developed out of clay replication processes, these elements would still be found in more
abundance in living organisms." (Ambrose E.J., "The Mirror of Creation," Theology and Science at the
Frontiers of Knowledge, Number 11, Scottish Academic Press: Edinburgh UK, 1990, p.96)

29/4/2004
"What has all this to do with life? As we know it, life is based on a kind of deal struck between two very
different classes of molecules. One of these are the nucleic acids, which contain the genetic information
encoded in the sequence of their atoms. These molecules can't do very much. It is the proteins, the other
class of molecules, that are the real workers in biology. But both types of molecules need the other: the
nucleic acids on their own are helpless; the proteins on their own are also helpless. ... This is the ultimate
chicken-and-egg problem. The great mystery about the origin of life is, which came first: chicken or egg?
Was it the nucleic acids or the proteins? That is the traditional biochemical mystery." (Davies P.C.W. &
Adams P., "More Big Questions," ABC Books: Sydney, Australia, 1998, pp.55-56)

29/4/2004
"The third risk is that of misrepresentation. If the expert's views are not representative of a settled
consensus of opinion in the relevant community of scholars, then policy based on those views will lack
credibility within that community, and the members of that community are likely to regard such lack of
credibility as discrediting the policy in question. This was the major problem in McLean v. Arkansas. Ruse's
views do not represent a settled consensus of opinion among philosophers of science. Worse still, some of
them are clearly false and some are based on obviously fallacious arguments." (Quinn P.L., "The
Philosopher of Science as Expert Witness," in Ruse M., ed., "But is it Science?: The Philosophical Question
in the Creation/Evolution Controversy," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1996, p.384)

30/4/2004
"In the meantime, another related change was taking place in the way scientists viewed the universe. In the
20th century, it was fashionable to view it as blind, pitiless, and indifferent, and to describe earth as a
mediocre planet in a suburban galaxy, far from the center of things. This was one of the most popular themes
in the art and literature of the period. As cosmologist Stephen Hawking has said: `We are such insignificant
creatures on a minor planet of a very average star in the outer suburbs of one of a hundred billion galaxies.
So it is difficult to believe in a God that would care about us or even notice our existence.' [Hawking, S., in
"Master of the Universe," BBC TV, 1989] This was also a key theme of Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the
Human Future in Space, by astronomer Carl Sagan (1934-1996). In this book, Sagan muses on the idea
that the universe is favorable to us, saying: `You might imagine an uncharitable extraterrestrial observer
looking down on our species over all that time-with us excitedly chattering, "The Universe is created for us!
We're at the center! Everything pays homage to us!"-and concluding that our pretensions are amusing, our
aspirations pathetic, that this must be the planet of the idiots.' [p.12] Sagan's alien is, of course, really Sagan
himself, an atheist giving his own view. In the next paragraph, he says that his judgment is too harsh.
Indeed, it is. But not just because the judgment isn't polite. Sagan is in fact simply wrong. There is good
reason to think that the cosmos is fine-tuned to allow for our existence." (O'Leary D.*, "By Design or by
Chance?: The Growing Controversy on the Origins of Life in the Universe," 2004, pp.21-22)

30/4/2004
"In particular, the enzymes are a large class of molecule that for the most part runs across the whole of
biology, without there being any hint of their mode of origin. There are about two thousand of them.
Enzymes are polypeptides (proteins) that specialize in speeding up biological reactions, which they do with
far greater efficiency than man-made catalysts. They act both to build up and to break down a wide range of
biosubstances. The surface shapes of enzymes are critical to their function. ... Surface shape is determined
by the particular sequence of amino acids in the polypeptide structure. One can think of getting the surface
shape right in two stages of approximation. There are some ten to twenty distinct amino acids which
determine the basic backbone of the enzyme and these simply must be in the correct position in the
polypeptide structure. The rest of the amino acids, usually numbering a hundred or more, then control the
finer details of the surface shape. There are also the active sites that eventually promote the biochemical
reactions in question, and these too must be correct in their atomic forms and locations. Consider now the
chance that in a random ordering of the twenty different amino acids which make up the polypeptides it just
happens that the different kinds fall into the order appropriate to a particular enzyme. The chance of
obtaining a suitable backbone can hardly be greater than one part in 10¹⁵ , and the chance of
obtaining the appropriate active site can hardly be greater than one part in 10⁵ . Because the
fine details of the surface shape can be varied we shall take the conservative line of not 'piling on the agony'
by including any further small probability for the rest of the enzyme. The two small probabilities we are
including are quite enough. They have to be multiplied, when they yield a chance of one part in
10²⁰ of obtaining the required enzyme in a functioning form. By itself, this small probability
could be faced, because one must contemplate not just a single shot at obtaining the enzyme, but a very
large number of trials such as are supposed to have occurred in an organic soup early in the history of the
Earth. The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a
random trial is only one part in (10²⁰)²⁰⁰⁰ = 10^40,000 , an
outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic
soup." (Hoyle, F. & Wickramasinghe, N.C., "Evolution from Space," [1981], Paladin: London, Reprinted,
1983, pp.19-20)

30/4/2004
"The inference to design can be made with a high degree of confidence even when the designer is very
remote. Archeologists digging for a lost city might come across square stones, buried dozens of feet under
the earth, with pictures of camels and cats, griffins and dragons. Even if that were all they found, they would
conclude that the stones had been designed But we can go even further than that. I was a teenager when I
saw 2001: A Space Odyssey. ... The first space flight had landed on the moon, and an astronaut was
going out to explore. In his meanderings he came across a smoothly shaped obelisk that towered against the
moonscape. I, the astronaut, and the rest of the audience immediately understood, with no words necessary,
that the object was designed-that some intelligent agent had been to the moon and formed the obelisk. Later
the movie showed us that there were aliens on the planet Jupiter, but we couldn't tell that from the obelisk.
For all we knew by looking at the object itself, it might- have been designed by space aliens, angels, humans
from the past (whether Russians or inhabitants of the lost civilization of Atlantis) who could fly through
space, or even by one of the other astronauts on the flight (who, as a practical joke, might have stowed it
away and put it on the moon ahead of the astronaut who later discovered it). If the plot had actually
developed along any of these lines, the audience would not be able to say the plot was contradicted by the
appearance of the obelisk. If the movie had contrived to assert that the obelisk was not designed, however,
the audience would have hooted till the projectionist turned the film off. The conclusion that something was
designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer As a matter of procedure the
design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The
inference to design can be held with all the firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything
about the designer." (Behe, M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free Press:
New York NY, 1996, p.197)

30/4/2004
"There are, of course, gaps in nature's capabilities that human agents can bridge. Most cases of counterflow
and artifactuality are just such cases. There is a gap between nature's capabilities and a diesel bulldozer that
human agents can bridge, although nature cannot. Generally, any identification of a phenomenon as
artifactual on the basis of counterflow involves an implicit gap argument that since this (counterflow) is
something nature would not do, an agent must have had a hand in it. Thus, the basic structure of (finite) gap
arguments is suspect only if our recognition of artifactuality is generally illegitimate-which it manifestly is
not. It must be recognized, of course, that it is quite possible that there are gaps that nature cannot bridge,
and that humans cannot bridge, although other finite agents-for example, aliens-might be able to. In fact, the
special case of alien signal recognition in SETI programs differs from everyday earthly gap cases only in
depending upon identifying actual signals that neither nature nor we produce, but that other finite agents
could. Such cases are, of course, scientifically unproblematic. Supernatural gap arguments would have an
identical logical structure, with merely the added condition that aliens couldn't produce the relevant
phenomenon either. In specific cases, we could have scientific justification for thinking that neither nature
nor humans could produce the phenomenon in question, and there is no compelling reason for thinking that
we could not also have scientific justification for thinking that no alien could produce some given
phenomenon either. ... So if God-of-the-gaps explanations are scientifically illegitimate, it will have to be
solely due to their reference to the supernatural- not because their logical structure violates any other canon
of science or rationality. " (Ratzsch D.L.*, "Nature, Design and Science: The Status of Design in Natural
Science," State University of New York Press: Albany NY, 2001, p.48)

30/4/2004
"The controversy over the origin of life was supposed to have been settled in the 1950s by the tidy doctrine
of Darwinian evolution. Now, Darwin seems to be going the way of Marx and Freud, and we once again
confront the age-old questions. Did the universe have no beginning? No end? Was it designed? Did it arise
by chance? A roll of supercosmic dice? Though many people think so, the most recent evidence does not
support their view. That is the great, unnoticed revolution of the 20th century. Just a few decades ago, the
overwhelming evidence from science was thought to support a self-perpetuating universe that did not need
God as designer. But there was one serious problem. Most of the evidence was not in. Now that we know
much more about the universe and about life on earth, a surprising thing has happened. Far from supporting
an atheistic, meaningless universe, the evidence supports a universe that is bursting with design." (O'Leary
D.*, "By Design or by Chance?: The Growing Controversy on the Origins of Life in the Universe," 2004,
pp.1-2) May [top]

1/5/2004
"Even if these difficulties are overcome, the system, though simple, is already somewhat sophisticated. It is,
for example, unnaturally pure. It is difficult to imagine how a little pond with just these components, and no
others, could have formed on the primitive earth. Nor is it easy to see exactly how the precursors would
have arisen. These might be expected to be nucleoside triphosphates in simpler terms, molecules consisting
of a base, a sugar (ribose) and three phosphates in a row, though those were not the exact compounds used
in the experiment described above. It is possible to see how each of these separate components might
possibly have arisen on the primitive earth in one place or another; it is less easy to see how the
combination was formed correctly and how it was at least partially separated from other, rather similar
molecules which, if present, might possibly have fouled up the system. Certainly nobody has been able to
cook up a primitive soup with water, salts, a few gases and ultraviolet light (or some other energy source)
and let it stew away till a neat RNA replicating system arose from it. This failure is not too surprising, since it
may have taken nature many millions of years, in many places on the earth's surface, before one happy
combination of circumstances produced a system which could both initiate replication and also keep going
for some time. We are thus in a most tantalizing situation. On the one hand we believe that there may have
been a fairly adequate supply of organic molecules, amino acids in particular, on the earth's surface, even
though their concentration in most places may have been somewhat low. In addition, the double helix of
RNA or DNA certainly suggests that it could form a good basis for a primitive replication system. On the
other hand, it is difficult to see how an accurate system could have arisen easily from such a complex
mixture, and even more difficult to figure out the exact components needed and the exact steps followed. "
(Crick F.H.C., "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1981, pp.85-86)

1/5/2004
"Evolution Defined. Any given generation is descended from only a small fraction of the previous
generation. It should be evident that the genes transmitted by those individuals who most successfully
reproduce will predominate in the next generation. Because of unequal reproductive capacities of individuals
with different hereditary constitutions, the genetic characteristics of a population become altered each
successive generation. This is a dynamic process that has occurred in the past, occurs today, and will
continue to occur as long as inheritable variation and differing reproductive abilities exist. Under these
circumstances, the composition of a population can never remain constant. This, then, is evolution --
changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation." (Volpe
E.P., "Understanding Evolution," [1967], Wm. C. Brown Publishers: Dubuque IA, Fifth edition, 1985, p.21.
Emphasis in original)

1/5/2004
"Evolution. The gradual process by which the living world has been developing following the origin of life"
(Mayr, 2001, p.286)

2/5/2004
"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one part in 10^40,000 must
be judged superior to random shuffling. The theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we
believe, a probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40,000 of being the correct explanation
of the many curious facts discussed in preceding chapters. Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one
wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than
scientific. Something of this kind was implied by the special creation theory - God created each individual
life-form. When biologists began to see clearly that individual lifeforms were not entirely separate from each
other, as the original form of the special creation theory required, but that evolutionary connections existed
between some of them, the impulse was to swing to the opposite extreme. The whole of the special creation
theory was thought to be wrong and there was a general revulsion among scientists against it. In effect,
because the details were seen to be incorrect, the fundamental idea that life was created by an intelligence
was also rejected." (Hoyle F. & Wickramasinghe C., "Evolution from Space," [1981], Paladin: London, 1983,
reprint, pp.141-142)

3/5/2004
"DNA was extracted from the Neandertal-type specimen found in 1856 in western Germany. By sequencing
clones from short overlapping PCR products, a hitherto unknown mitochondrial (mt) DNA sequence was
determined. Multiple controls indicate that this sequence is endogenous to the fossil. Sequence
comparisons with human mtDNA sequences, as well as phylogenetic analyses, show that the Neandertal
sequence falls outside the variation of modern humans. Furthermore, the age of the common ancestor of the
Neandertal and modern human mtDNAs is estimated to be four times greater than that of the common
ancestor of human mtDNAs. This suggests that Neandertals went extinct without contributing mtDNA to
modern humans." (Krings M., Stone A., Schmitz R.W., Krainitski H., Stoneking M. & Paabo S., "Neandertal
DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans," Cell, Vol. 90, July 11, 1997, p.19)

3/5/2004
"The idea that Homo sapiens derives from a relatively recent migration from Africa is based on study
of the DNA in the sub-cellular entities called mitochondria. This DNA-or rather the diversity within it-is a
convenient evolutionary clock. The diversity of mitochondrial DNA of people now living outside Africa
would have taken 120,000 years to accumulate. The conclusion that Neanderthals contributed nothing to the
genetic endowment of modern Homo sapiens rests on the analysis of this mitochondrial DNA."
(Maddox J., "Why can man speak?," The World in 1998, The Economist: London, 1997, p.130)

3/5/2004
"The Neanderthals have had a chequered scientific career. Berated throughout the first half of the century
as distinctly retarded, they were suddenly elevated in the 1960s to having been only marginally less
accomplished in biological and behavioural terms than modern Homo sapiens But in the late 1980s they were
again relegated to an extinct side-line of human evolution, and this was confirmed a couple of years ago by
the recovery of surprisingly well-preserved mitochondrial DNA from the original Neanderthal skeleton (from
Neanderthal itself).". (Mellars P., "The fate of the
Neanderthals," Nature, Vol. 395, 8 October 1998, pp.539-540)

3/5/2004
"The 1997 resurrection of a snippet of Neandertal mitochondrial DNA electrified human paleontology and
attracted wide media attention.1 By comparing the number of base changes in that Neandertal sample to
variability in modern humans, scientists concluded that a common African ancestor existed about 600,000
years ago, far earlier than the generally accepted origin of modern humans about 150,000 years ago. And
while Neandertals were still around as late as 30,000 years ago, it's unlikely that modern humans cavorted in
the same gene pool." (Palevitz, B.A., " Ancient DNA--When Is Old Too Old?" The Scientist, Vol 13,
No. 15, p. 10, July 19, 1999)

3/5/2004
"The sequencing of mitochondrial DNA from Neanderthal fossil bone is a terrific achievement. Among the
conclusions to be drawn from the data is that there was a period of more than 500,000 years during which
Neanderthals and the line leading to modern humans evolved independently. Neanderthals hold a central
place in studies of human evolution, yet their relationship to contemporary humans remains enigmatic Now,
a molecular analysis has seemingly resolved many of the disputes about that relationship. The work,
reported in last week's Cell represents the first successful recovery and analysis of mitochondrial DNA
(mtDNA) from a Neanderthal specimen. ...The new molecular work considerably clarifies matters. ...Detailed
comparisons of the Neanderthal sequence with 994 human mtDNA lineages and 16 chimpanzee mtDNA
lineages indicated that, although human mtDNA lineages differed among themselves by 8.03 substitutions,
the difference between humans and the Neanderthal sequence was 272.2. The overall difference between the
Neanderthal sequence and that of humans was about three times the average difference among humans, but
only about half the difference between humans and chimpanzees. This implies that the Neanderthal
divergence is of considerable antiquity, dating to 555,000 to 690,000 years ago. This is about four times
greater than the time back to the common ancestor of modern human mtDNA (120,000 to 150,000 years).
More extensive analyses confirmed that the Neanderthal sequence consistently fell outside the mtDNA
sequence variation observed in modern humans. They also suggested that the closest contemporary
lineages to the Neanderthal sequence came from Africa. So the genetic relationship between Neanderthals
and modern Europeans appears to be no closer than the average relationship between Neanderthals and any
modern human - running counter to the view that Neanderthals were at least partly ancestral to modern
Europeans. ..." (Ward, R. & Stringer, C., "A molecular handle on the
Neanderthals," Nature, Vol 388, 17 July 1997, pp.225-226)

3/5/2004
"A century-old question concerning the Neanderthals has been settled, thanks to new genetic evidence.
After extracting DNA from fossil bones, anthropologists say they are now sure that Neanderthals were not
our ancestors, but a side branch of our family tree that became extinct about 30 000 years ago. The first
Neanderthal bones were discovered in 1856, in a limestone cave in Germany. Ever since, their role in human
prehistory has been controversial. Heavy-boned and muscular, the Neanderthals have been embraced by
some scientists as forerunners of modern European populations, while others have rejected them as
irrelevant. Over the past few decades, the pendulum has swung in the latter direction, with Neanderthals
judged to be a distinct species. ... The evidence comes in the form of a short sequence of mitochondrial
DNA, 328 nucleotides long. This was extracted from less than half a gram of fossil bone from the original
Neanderthal specimen. Svante Paabo, a pioneer in ancient DNA research at the University of Munich, led
the effort. He joined forces with Mark Stoneking at Pennsylvania State University, where the extraction and
analysis were replicated to check the results. In last week's Cell (vol 90, p 19), the team reports that both labs
retrieved the same DNA sequence. The Neanderthal DNA was different in 27 of the 328 positions when
compared with an average modern human sample. Within modern human populations, individuals differ by
an average of only eight positions. ... `I don't know of any reasonable interpretation of these data, other than
that Neanderthals were not ancestral to modern humans,' says Paabo. ... If confirmed, the data indicate that
Neanderthals and modern humans last shared a common ancestor some 600 000 years ago, an estimate
based on the number of mutations that have accumulated in the DNA. The results support the `Out of
Africa' model of modern human evolution. This holds that the modern human physique first appeared in
Africa about 150 000 years ago, and then spread into the rest of the Old World, replacing existing
populations of archaic human forms. ... `Alternatives can be thought of,' responds Paabo, `but they are by
no means equally plausible." (Lewin R., "Distant cousins," New Scientist, 19 July 1997, Vol. 155, No. 2091,
p.5) 4/5/2004
"One fact about the story of Intelligent Design is undeniable-it is a significant and growing movement,
rooted in the universities but possessing tendrils that multiply and grow ever deeper into the soil of
American society. It has now penetrated the consciousness of major U.S. media, and the tale of the
emergence of Design is beginning to play its own role as a powerful factor in persuasion. For example, James
Glanz's April 2001 front-page story on Design in the New York Times [Glanz J., "Evolutionists Battle New Theory on
Creation," The New York Times, April 8, 2001] was fundamentally a movement story. Glanz highlights
Design as an emerging band of scientists-one that possibly poses a cogent or legitimate challenge to
evolutionary theory. Glanz's various descriptions and his quotes of approval and disapproval dramatized
and caused only slight problems for the plausibility of Design's own plot line. They did nothing to squelch
it. On the contrary, the article was so fair and well balanced, it had the effect of encouraging the
consideration of the story. Such textual representations in major media are growing more frequent, and they
have legitimized the need of my deeper exploration of that movement story, sketching key characters, texts,
interactions, and its emerging rhetorical consciousness. At this point, the reader is acquainted with Design's
major texts and interactions through my retelling of that story. In a sense, the historical watershed of this
story came in the late 1990s, after the addition of Behe's molecular argument and Dembski's mathematical
filter for the detection of design in nature. Here a turning point was reached-a dawning of the perception
that a new genre had been born. Design was finally being seen as a separate intellectual and rhetorical
phenomenon from creation science; it was being taken seriously. The precipitating event was Behe's
Darwin's Black Box, with its explosion of excitement and brisk sales. 21 This led to Behe's extensive speaking
tours in universities and the cascade of media coverage, punctuated by the string of five Design articles in
the New York Times that emphasized Behe, including two invited columns written by Behe himself [Behe
M.J., "Darwin Under the Microscope,"
New York Times, October 29, 1996. & Behe, M.J., "Teach Evolution - And Ask Hard
Questions," The New York Times, August 13, 1999]. 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)

5/5/2004
"That Neanderthal man was an aberrant form of modern man is supported by the authors of Fossil Men who
say: `In the Mousterian period it represented a belated type existing side by side with the direct ancestors of
Homo sapiens; its relation to the latter was similar to that which exists at the present day between
the races we call inferior and the superior races. Perhaps one might go so far as to say that it was a
degenerate species.' From these two papers there seems to be good evidence that as far as European history
is concerned, Neanderthal man was a degenerate form of existing Homo sapiens, suffering from
malnutrition and rickets possibly living promiscuously, which allowed the widespread infection of syphilis.
The whole race appears to have been swept from history, to be later replaced by modern man with a higher
culture from the East." (Bowden M., "Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy?," [1978], Sovereign Publications: Bromley,
Kent UK, Second Edition,1981, reprint, 1988, p.173) 5/5/2004
"I will grant that the path of chemical evolution seems sensible and in the right direction. There are a few
obvious puddles to be avoided and some of the flagstones are a bit uneven, perhaps. but there is the
promise of an easy walk up to the foothills of the mountain that we can see straight ahead of us. It is a
promise that is unfulfilled. The trouble with this path is that it leads us toward, but it does not lead us to
expect, a sudden near-vertical cliff-face. Suddenly in our thinking we are faced with the seemingly
unequivocal need for a fully working machine of incredible complexity: a machine that has to be complex, it
seems. not just to work well but to work at all." (Cairns-Smith, A.G., "Seven Clues to the Origin of Life: A
Scientific Detective Story," [1985], Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1993, reprint, p.37)

5/5/2004
"Was 'chemical evolution' the connection? I do not think so. The building up of a primordial soup, if such a
thing ever happened, would have been part of environmental evolution. The oceans would have
accumulated organic molecules in much the same way as any other geochemical process would have taken
place. Unless you take a religious or mystical view there was no guiding hand to contrive an outcome
suitable for the origin of life. Mountains were made and worn down, the wind blew, the sun shone - and a
soup did or did not form: all such processes were on an equal footing; it would only have been with an eye
to the future that some of these processes might have been given a special label and called 'chemical
evolution'. Biological evolution, on the other hand, is special, as discussed in the opening pages of this
book. Above all what makes it special is heredity. This is the great divide: either there is a long-term
hereditary mechanism working or there is not. If there is not then there is no accumulation of 'know-how' as
Kuhn (1976) put it: the survival or non-survival of some putative half-organism will not be 'remembered' in
the distant future to have any effect. Things would change, systems such as coacervates would come and
go, but you could not expect them to become more efficient: you would not expect them to become more
efficient at organic chemical operations, for example. Only evolving organisms can progress in that sort of
way. Suppose that by chance some particular coacervate droplet in a primordial ocean happened to have a
set of catalysts, etc. that could convert carbon dioxide into D- glucose. Would this have been a major step
forward towards life? Probably not. Sooner or later the droplet would have sunk to the bottom of the ocean
and never have been heard of again. It would not have mattered how ingenious or life-like some early
system was; if it lacked the ability to pass on to offspring the secret of its success then it might as well
never have existed." (Cairns-Smith, A.G., "Genetic Takeover and the Mineral Origins of Life," [1982],
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1987, reprint, pp.69-70)

6/5/2004
"Protozoa are often erroneously referred to as `simple' organisms. There are no simple organisms. Many are
exceedingly complex and are the most elaborately organized of all known cells. Protozoa carry on all the
basic functions of multicellular animals and are amazingly efficient in the performance of these functions.
Each is extremely well adapted to its own environment. They are widespread ecologically and are found in
fresh, marine, and brackish water and in moist soils." (Hickman C.P. & Hickman F.M., "Laboratory Studies in
Animal Diversity," McGraw-Hill: Boston MA, Third Edition, 1995, p.23)

7/5/2004
"For his doctoral studies, Behe moved across town to the University of Pennsylvania. There he plugged
away for four years and, after completing his Ph.D. in biochemistry in 1978, attained an appointment to the
National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. One of his colleagues in the genetics laboratory at the
National Institutes of Health was a fellow Catholic biochemist, Jo Ann Nichols. Rarely did their work touch
on evolution, but Behe recalls one day when the issue did arise, as a matter of joint speculation between
them during a break. The question was this: `If the first life did arise by random naturalistic processes from a
chemical soup, as all textbooks are saying, what exactly are the minimum systems that are required for life?'
Together they ticked off a mental list of the minimum requirements: a functioning membrane, a system to
build the DNA units, a system to control the copying of DNA, a system for energy processing. Suddenly,
they broke off their speculation, looked at each other, and smiled, jointly muttering, `Naaah--too many
systems; it couldn't have happened by chance.'" (Woodward T.*, "Meeting Darwin's Wager," Part 2 of 3,
Christianity Today, April 28, 1997)

7/5/2004
"Having failed to get very far with the bottom-up approach, let us try going 'top-down'. We know that the
living cell today relies on three things: DNA, to carry an accurate copy of protein-making instructions, RNA,
to take those instructions to the protein-making parts of the cell, and special enzymatic proteins to get the
protein making process to work. Which came first: DNA, RNA or proteins? If we opt for DNA, we encounter
the ultimate chicken-and-egg problem in biology: DNA contains the instructions for building proteins, but it
needs certain proteins - enzymes in the first place to carry out its task of passing on that information. In
1982, Thomas Cech and colleagues at Colorado University made a Nobel prizewinning discovery that
promised to cut through the impasse. They discovered that RNA molecules have the ability to rearrange
themselves, cutting out various bits and rejoining others, without the need for outside help. It was later
discovered that one RNA molecule could also help in the rearrangement of another; bits of RNA could act
like enzymes 'ribozymes', in the jargon. Thus there is little doubt now that RNA preceded DNA, as RNA can
perform useful tasks - perhaps even the direction of protein synthesis - without the aid of proteins. But did
RNA exist before proteins as well? There are grave difficulties with this idea. RNA is an extremely complex
molecule. It is hard to construct it out of ingredients thought to exist on the early Earth and harder still to get
RNA to copy itself - the key requirement." (Matthews R.A.J., "Unravelling the Mind of God: Mysteries at
the Frontier of Science," [1992], Virgin Books: London, 1993, p.60)

7/5/2004
"Epicurus counseled his followers to study nature. The reason is rather strange. The goal of the study of
nature was not, as one might think, the discovery of the truth. The goal, oddly enough, was to produce and
maintain a certain condition of mind, a state of being undisturbed or untroubled. As he cheerfully told his
followers, `Do not believe that there is any other goal to be achieved by the knowledge of meteorological
phenomena [i.e., knowledge of the sun, moon, stars, planets, etc.] ... than freedom from disturbance and a
secure conviction, just as with the rest [of physics.' This dual goal, creating `freedom from disturbance' and
`secure conviction,' is worth dwelling on because it defines the why of his whole system. The Greek words
ataraxia (freedom from disturbance) and pistis bebaios (secure conviction) mean, literally, `not stirred
up' (hence, `undisturbed') and `firm faith.' Freedom from disturbance as the goal of science? A secure
conviction about what? What did Epicurus have in mind here? Let's begin with his desire that the goal of
science be defined in term of science (somehow) freeing us from disturbance. Naturally we ask, disturbance
from what? Or from whom? According to Epicurus, there are actually two related causes of disturbance, the
second following upon the first. The first is the belief that things in the sky-whether lightning, thunder, sun,
moon, stars, comets or eclipses are themselves either gods or the effects of the gods' trying to communicate
their pleasure or displeasure to human beings. Such suspicion that things in the heavens are divine (or are
the media of divine communication) is, for Epicurus, the cause of all the anxiety and dread associated with
religion. The belief that there are gods who not only continually watch over us but are trying to make their
wills known to us through astronomical phenomena keeps us in a continual state of disturbance, worried at
every clap of thunder or searing drought that we have crossed the will of the gods and are there fore ripe for
even worse punishment." (Wiker, B.*, "Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists," InterVarsity Press:
Downers Grove IL, 2002, pp.32-33)

7/5/2004
"The second cause of disturbance is the belief in an afterlife. Even if we think we can escape the wrath of
the gods in this life, we still dread their hold on us in the next. Rather than spend our lives in a state of
contentment, we fritter them away, scurrying about trying to placate the gods with sacrifices and prayers,
cowering at each bolt of lightening or eclipse, and being eaten away by fear of the horrible impending
punishments recounted in the myths about Hades. If only we could rid ourselves of this dark cloud,
Epicurus argued, then we would be free from the `worst disturbance [that] occurs in human souls,' the fear
of hell. But science, understood in a particular way, can cure us of such dread, and can thereby bring us
this-worldly contentment. Such, for Epicurus, was the whole point of natural science, for `if our
suspicions about heavenly phenomena and about death did not trouble us at all and were never anything to
us ... then we would have no need of natural science.' Clearly, then, science for Epicurus was not primarily
truth-seeking, but therapeutic. For this reason, not just any view of natural science would do. The cure for
our anxieties resides in a view of nature and natural science that (ironically) by design would completely
eliminate any possible divine influence and, beyond that, eliminate the immaterial soul; for those who
believe that they are completely extinguished at death certainly have no fear of punishments in the afterlife."
(Wiker, B.*, "Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2002,
p.33. Emphasis original)

7/5/2004
"As a consequence, Epicurus defined science with this therapeutic goal in mind, the establishment of a kind
of tranquillity. This goal of tranquillity, or freedom from disturbance, was moral in the broadest sense: it
directed all one's thoughts and actions to achieve a particular goal, establishing habits of thinking and
acting-the Latin root of `morality' is mos, which means `habit'-that determined one's entire way of life. To
establish this freedom from disturbance in the minds of the adherents requires `a continuous recollection of
the general and most important points' of a particular view of natural science, one which rests in turn on a
particular view of nature. We must meditate continually on nature constructed as a closed system, closed to
any influence by the gods, and closed to any possibility of the existence of an immortal soul that could live
after death. This continued reflection makes materialism a habit of mind, that is, a firm faith, or `secure
conviction,' as he called it, that nature really is that way." (Wiker, B.*, "Moral Darwinism: How We Became
Hedonists," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2002, pp.33-34)

7/5/2004
"For a professional group that takes metaphysical naturalism for granted and seeks only to provide ever
more complete naturalistic explanations, that way of thinking may be appropriate. When the naturalistic
project itself is called into question, however, a different kind of reasoning is called for. Darwinists tell us
that there is no need to consider the possibility that plants and animals owe their existence to a supernatural
Creator, because natural mechanisms like mutation and selection were adequate to perform the job of
creation. I want to know whether that claim is true, not just whether it is the best naturalistic speculation
available. No doubt evolutionary biologists are devoted to the theory that defines their field, and no doubt
scientific naturalists regard the project of naturalistic explanation as overwhelmingly successful. Persons
who do not share their a priori commitment to naturalism may nonetheless be correct in thinking that the
reigning theory is not merely incomplete, but quite inconsistent with the evidence." (Johnson, P.E.*, Darwin
on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, econd Edition, 1993, pp.158-159)

8/5/2004
"The prophecy of the Seventy Weeks in Daniel 9:24-27 is one of the most remarkable long-range predictions
in the entire Bible. It is by all odds one of the most widely discussed by students and scholars of every
persuasion within the spectrum of the Christian church. And yet when it is carefully examined in the light of
all the relevant data of history and the information available from other parts of Scripture, it is quite clearly
an accurate prediction of the time of Christ's coming advent and a preview of the thrilling final act of the
drama of human history before that advent. Daniel 9:24 reads: `Seventy weeks have been determined for
your people and your holy city [i.e., for the nation Israel and for Jerusalem].' The word for `week' is sabuac,
which is derived from seba` the word for `seven.' Its normal plural is feminine in form: sebu`ot. Only in this
chapter of Daniel does it appear in the masculine plural sabu`im. (The only other occurrence is in the
combination sebu`e sebu`ot ['heptads of weeks'] in Ezek. 21:28 [21:23 English text]). Therefore, it is strongly
suggestive of the idea `heptad' (a series or combination of seven), rather than a `week' in the sense of a
series of seven days. There is no doubt that in this case we are presented with seventy sevens of years
rather than of days. This leads to a total of 490 years. At the completion of these 490 years, according to
v.24b, there will be six results: (1) `to finish or bring transgression [or 'the sin of rebellion'] to an end'; (2) `to
finish [or 'seal up'] sins'; (3) `to make atonement for iniquity'; (4) `to bring in everlasting righteousness'; (5)
`to seal up vision and prophecy'; and (6) `to anoint the holy of holies.' ... Daniel 9:25 reads: `And you are to
know and understand, from the going forth of the command [or `decree'; lit., `word'-dabar] to restore and [re]
build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince [nagid] will be [or 'there are; the Hebrew omits the verb 'to be' in
this case] seven heptads and sixty-two heptads.' This gives us two instalments, 49 years and 434 years, for a
total of 483 years. Significantly, the seventieth heptad is held in abeyance until v.27. Therefore we are left
with a total of 483 between the issuance of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the coming of the Messiah.
As we examine each of the three decrees issued in regard to Jerusalem by kings subsequent to the time
Daniel had this vision (538 B.C., judging from Dan. 9:1), we find that the first was that of Cyrus in 2
Chronicles 36:23: `The LORD, the God of heaven.... has appointed me to build Him a house in Jerusalem,
which is in Judah' (NASB). This decree, issued in 538 or 537, pertained only to the rebuilding of the temple,
not of the city of Jerusalem. The third decree is to be inferred from the granting of Nehemiah's request by
Artaxerxes I in 446 B.C., as recorded in Nehemiah 2:5-8. His request was `Send me to Judah, to the city of my
fathers' tombs, that I may rebuild it.' Then we read, `So it pleased the king to send me, and I gave him a
definite time [for my return to his palace]' (NASB). The king also granted him a requisition of timber for the
gates and walls of the city. It should be noted that when Nehemiah first heard from his brother Hanani that
the walls of Jerusalem had not already been rebuilt, he was bitterly disappointed and depressed-as if he had
previously supposed that they had been rebuilt (Neh. 1:1-4). This strongly suggests that there had already
been a previous decree authorizing the rebuilding of those city walls. Such an earlier decree is found in
connection with Ezra's group that returned to Jerusalem in 457, the seventh year of Artaxerxes I. Ezra 7:6 tells
us: `This Ezra went up from Babylon,... and the king granted him all he requested because the hand of the
LORD his God was upon him' (NASB; notice the resemblance to Neh. 2:8, the last sentence). According to
the following verse, Ezra was accompanied by a good-sized group of followers, including temple singers,
gatekeepers, temple servants, and a company of laymen `some of the sons of Israel'). After arriving at
Jerusalem, he busied himself first with the moral and spiritual rebuilding of his people (Ezra 7:10). But he had
permission from the king to employ any unused balance of the offering funds for whatever purpose he saw
fit (v. 18); and he was given authority to appoint magistrates and judges and to enforce the established laws
of Israel with confiscation, banishment, or death (v.26). Thus he would appear to have had the authority to
set about rebuilding the city walls, for the protection of the temple mount and the religious rights of the
Jewish community. In 9:9 Ezra makes reference to this authority in his public, penitential prayer: `For we are
slaves; yet in our bondage, our God has not forsaken us, but has extended lovingkindness to us in the sight
of the kings of Persia, to give us reviving to raise up the house of our God, to restore its ruins, and to give
us a wall in Judah and Jerusalem' (NASB; italics mine). While this `wall' may have been partly
a metaphor for `protection,' it seems to have included the possibility of restoring the mural defenses of
Jerusalem itself. Unfortunately, we are given no details as to the years that intervened before 446; but it may
be that an abortive attempt was made under Ezra's leadership to replace the outer wall of the city, only to
meet with frustration-perhaps from a lack of self-sacrificing zeal on the part of the Jewish returnees
themselves or because of violent opposition from Judah's heathen neighbors. This would account for
Nehemiah's keen disappointment (as mentioned above) when he heard that `the wall of Jerusalem is broken
down and its gates are burned with fire' (Neh. 1:3, NASB). If, then, the decree of 457 granted to Ezra himself
is taken as the terminus a quo for the commencement of the 69 heptads, or 483 years, we come out to the
precise year of the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah (or Christ): 483 minus 457 comes out to A.D.
26. But since a year is gained in passing from 1 B.C. to A.D. 1 (there being no such year as zero), it actually
comes out to A.D. 27. It is generally agreed that Christ was crucified in A.D. 30, after a ministry of a little
more than three years. This means His baptism and initial ministry must have taken place in A.D. 27. A most
remarkable exactitude in the fulfillment of such an ancient prophecy. Only God could have predicted the
coming of His Son with such amazing precision; it defies all rationalistic explanation." (Archer, G.L.*,
"Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1982, pp.289-291)

9/5/2004
"Legends of finding the ark on Mt. Ararat have flourished for centuries. Only those unfamiliar with such
matters were surprised by the recent expeditions to find the ark. These legends will be found in Baring-
Gould, The Legends of the Patriarchs (n.d.) and should be consulted by those who seek further information
of this nature. To date all such legends of finding the ark are fictions. As we shall subsequently indicate, the
ark did not come down on the top of Mt. Ararat (some 17,000 feet high), but on the Ararat range. If that is
the case the ark disappeared a long time ago through rot, or for firewood, or for building material." (Ramm
B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1955] Paternoster: Exeter, Devon UK, 1967, reprint,
p.158)

10/5/2004
"Anyone trying to solve this puzzle immediately encounters a paradox. Nowadays nucleic acids are
synthesized only with the help of proteins, and proteins are synthesized only if their corresponding
nucleotide sequence is present. It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are
structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to
have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact,
have originated by chemical means." (Orgel L.E., "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American, Vol.
271, No. 4, October 1994, p.54)

10/5/2004
"The attorneys developing the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) case believed it important to show
that creation-science is not genuine science ... whatever the merits of the plaintiffs' case, the kinds of
conclusions and strategies apparently favored by Laudan are simply not strong enough for legal purposes.
His strategy would require arguing that creation-science is weak science and therefore ought not to be
taught: The core issue is not whether Creationism satisfies some undemanding and highly controversial
definitions of what is scientific; the real question is whether the existing evidence provides stronger
arguments for evolutionary theory than for Creationism. Once that question is settled, we will know what
belongs in the classroom and what does not. Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution does not bar the teaching
of weak science. What it bars (through the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment) is the teaching of
religion. The plaintiffs' tactic was to show that creation science is less than weak or bad science. It is not
science at all." (Ruse M., "Pro Judice," in Ruse M., ed., "But is it Science?: The Philosophical Question in
the Creation/Evolution Controversy," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1996, pp.356-357)

11/5/2004
"It sometimes happens that the best arguments one can give in support of a view are not going to be
effective and the most effective arguments one can give are not going to be good. After all, decision- makers
are sometimes too busy to master complex arguments. Then, too, they can be prejudiced or even stupid.
When one is aware that this is the situation-and I suspect this is rather common-then one confronts the
philosophers dilemma. One horn looks roughly like this. Convinced of the overall rightness of ones position,
one opts to present the effective bad argument. Each time one does this, one's hands get a little bit dirtier.
At first one is painfully sensitive to even small compromises that one knows to be violations of one's
intellectual integrity, but gradually numbness of conscience sets in. At last, when presenting the effective
bad argument has become easy and habitual-second nature, as it were-one's hands have become dirty
beyond all cleansing and one suffers from a thoroughgoing corruption of mind. The other horn looks
roughly like this. Concerned to preserve one's integrity at all costs, one resolves never to present the
effective bad argument. One always presents the best argument one can for the position one thinks most
nearly right, and one's hands remain clean. But frequently these good arguments fail to persuade or carry
the day, and gradually one's credibility and effectiveness wane. At last, when one has an established track
record of failure, the decisionmakers conclude that one is of no use to them, and one is unceremoniously
cast aside. ... Maybe this is a way in which we could manage to have our cake and eat it too. For a short
period one might engage in giving bad effective arguments without being thoroughly corrupted. Then one
could retreat back to the academy to wash one's moderately soiled hands. After having one's intellectual
integrity restored and reinforced, one might then be ready to repeat the cycle. ... So there may well be
circumstances in which only the bad effective argument will work against them [the creationists] in the
political or legal arenas. If there are, then I think, though I come to this conclusion reluctantly, it is morally
permissible for us to use the bad effective argument, provided we continue to have qualms of conscience
about getting our hands soiled. But I also believe we must be very careful not to allow ourselves to slide all
the way down the slippery slope to intellectual corruption. Perhaps, if we divide up the labor so that no one
among us has to resort to the bad effective argument too frequently, we can succeed in resisting effectively
without paying too high a price in terms of moral corruption." (Quinn P.L., "Creationism, Methodology, and
Politics," in Ruse M., ed., "But is it Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution
Controversy," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1996, pp.397-398)

11/5/2004
"6. And now a certain person came running to Titus, and told him of this fire, as he was resting himself in his
tent after the last battle; whereupon he rose up in great haste, and, as he was, ran to the holy house, in order
to have a stop put to the fire; after him followed all his commanders, and after them followed the several
legions, in great astonishment; so there was a great clamor and disturbance raised, as was natural upon the
disorderly motion of so great an army. Then did Caesar, both by calling to the soldiers that were fighting,
with a loud voice, and by giving a signal to them with his right hand, order them to quench the fire. But they
did not hear what he said, though he spoke so loud, having their ears already dimmed by a greater noise
another way; nor did they attend to the signal he made with his hand neither, as still some of them were
distracted with fighting, and others with passion. But as for the legions that came running there, neither any
persuasions nor any threatenings could restrain their violence, but each one's own passion was his
commander at this time; and as they were crowding into the temple together, many of them were trampled on
by one another, while a great number fell among the ruins of the passages, which were still hot and smoking,
and were destroyed in the same miserable way with those whom they had conquered; and when they were
come near the holy house, they made as if they did not so much as hear Caesar's orders to the contrary; but
they encouraged those that were before them to set it on fire. As for the rebellious, they were in too great
distress already to afford their assistance [towards quenching the fire]; they were everywhere killed, and
everywhere beaten; and as for a great part of the people, they were weak and without arms, and had their
throats cut wherever they were caught. Now around the altar lay dead bodies heaped one upon another, as
at the steps I going up to it ran a great quantity of their blood, where also the dead bodies that were killed
above [on the altar] fell down. 7. And now, since Caesar was no way able to restrain the enthusiastic fury of
the soldiers, and as the fire proceeded on more and more. he went into the holy place of the temple, with his
commanders, and saw it, with what was in it, which he found to be far superior to what the relations of
foreigners contained, and not inferior to what we ourselves boasted of and believed about it. But as the
flame had not as yet reached to its inward parts, but was still consuming the rooms that were about the holy
house, and Titus supposing what the fact was, that the house itself might yet be saved, he came in haste
and tried to persuade the soldiers to quench the fire, and gave order to Liberalius the centurion, and one of
those spearmen that were about him, to beat the soldiers that were refractory with their staves, and to
restrain them; yet were their passions too strong for the regards they had for Caesar, and the dread they had
of him who forbade them, as was their hatred of the Jews, and a certain vehement inclination to fight them,
too hard for them also. Moreover, the hope of plunder induced many to go on, as having this opinion, that
all the places within were full of money, and as seeing that all around it was made of gold. And besides, one
of those that went into the place prevented Caesar, when he ran so hastily out to restrain the soldiers, and
threw the fire upon the hinges of the gate, in the dark; whereby the flame burst out from within the holy
house itself immediately, when the commanders retired, and Caesar with them, and when nobody any longer
forbade those that were without to set fire to it. And thus was the holy house burned down, without
Caesar's approval." (Josephus, Flavius, "The
Jewish War," 6.4.6-7 , in Whiston W., trans., "The New Complete Works of Josephus," Kregel
Publications: Grand Rapids MI, Revised Edition, 1999, p.896. Loeb numbering system removed)

11/5/2004
"And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes,
according to Daniel's vision, and what he wrote many years before they came to pass. In the very same
manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate
by them. All these things did this man leave in writing, as God had showed them to him, insomuch that such
as read his prophecies, and see how they have been fulfilled, would wonder at the honor wherewith God
honored Daniel; and may thence discover how the Epicureans are in an error, who cast Providence out of
human life, and do not believe that God takes care of the affairs of the world, nor that the universe is
governed and continued in being by that blessed and immortal nature, but say that the world is carried
along of its own accord, without a ruler and a curator; which, were it destitute of a guide to conduct it, as
they imagine, it would be like ships without pilots, which we see drowned by the winds, or like chariots
without drivers, which are overturned; so would the world be dashed to pieces by its being carried without a
Providence, and so perish, and come to nought. So that, by the forementioned predictions of Daniel, those
men seem to me very much to err from the truth, who determine that God exercises no providence over
human affairs; for if that were the case, that the world went on by mechanical necessity, we should not see
that all things would come to pass according to his prophecy." (Josephus F., "Jewish Antiquities," 10.11.7, in "The New
Complete Works of Josephus," Whiston W., transl., Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids MI, Revised Edition,
1999, p.357)

11/5/2004
"And to a certain extent, I must confess, in the ten years since I performed, or I appeared, in the creationism
trial in Arkansas, I must say that I've been coming to this kind of position myself. And, in fact, when I first
thought of putting together my collection But Is It Science?, I think Eugenie [Scott] was right, I was inclined
to say, well, yes, creationism is not science and evolution is, and that's the end of it, and you know just
trying to prove that. Now I'm starting to feel - I'm no more of a creationist now than I ever was, and I'm no
less of an evolutionist now that I ever was - but I'm inclined to think that we should move our debate now
onto another level, or move on. And instead of just sort of, just - I mean I realize that when one is dealing
with people, say, at the school level, or these sorts of things, certain sorts of arguments are appropriate. But
those of us who are academics, or for other reasons pulling back and trying to think about these things, I
think that we should recognize, both historically and perhaps philosophically, certainly that the science side
has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which - it may not be a good thing to admit
in a court of law - but I think that in honesty that we should recognize, and that we should be thinking about
some of these sorts of things." (Ruse, M., "Nonliteralist Anti-Evolutionism: The Case of Phillip
Johnson," in "The New Antievolutionism," Symposium at the 1993 Annual Meeting of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, February 13, 1993)

11/5/2004
"On cross examination ... Ruse said that there are no authorities in the area of philosophy of science. He
agreed that `What is science?' was a question for philosophers of science, and that there is no agreement on
its answer." (Geisler N.L., "The Creator in the Courtroom `Scopes II': The 1981 Arkansas Creation-Evolution
Trial," Mott Media: Milford MI, 1982, pp.70-71)

12/5/2004
"To return to the technique required for abiogenetic in vitro synthesis: In the first place, there are probably
no such things as single self-replicating molecules-although one speaks a great deal about them today. To
achieve self-replication in general, one needs more than single molecules, the interaction of several different
types of molecules with one another is mandatory. Maybe a DNA or RNA molecule might be able to
replicate itself but it will be in the presence of certain other molecules - such as enzymes or replicases.
Maybe the one molecule can act in several roles, of course. In this sense there have been reports, that some
nucleic acids can act as their own catalysts. But it is usually the interaction of several molecules with one
another that brings self-replication into play. The interacting molecules need not be all of varying analyses -
as in the case of the molecules which act as their own catalysts. Varying roles are required for replication.
We keep. then. in mind that the replication of one molecule entirely by itself is not yet known. Several
molecules interact with one another to give the replication we ascertain in the von Neumann machine known
as the biological cell. This interaction reminds us again of the machine nature of the self-replicating von
Neumann machine, for the latter consists of an interacting multitude of component parts to achieve self-
replication. The many different molecules correspond to the many different components of the replicating
von Neumann machine. The above being the case, the synthesis of life has little to do with the clever
synthesis of just one super molecule which self-replicates and hides the secret of life even though the
literature speaks often of a primeval self-reproducing molecule arising. A real synthesis of life will more
probably lie in the synthesis and ordering or arranging of the many component parts (i.e. molecules) Of the
von Neumann machine. By interacting with one another these components will produce the dynamic
metabolic machine. Obviously the synthesis of a machine consisting of a multitude of mutually reacting
component parts is an entirely different project to that which was formerly envisaged - the synthesis of one
large macromolecule. It is for this reason that, although the DNA molecule is vital for biology in that it is
life's information storage and retrieval system, yet it itself has to provide somehow the various different
molecules with which it can react, as life starts to develop from the zygote. In the synthesis of the cell or the
virus it is, then a question, not so much of the synthesis of any single macromolecule (although that will
come into the solution of the problem) but the synthesis of a whole hierarchy of interacting molecules, that
is, of a dynamically metabolizing, functioning machine." (Wilder-Smith A.E.*, "The Scientific Alternative to
Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory," T.W.F.T. Publishers: Costa Mesa CA, 1987, pp.94-95)

13/5/2004
"Anaximander, the second philosopher of the Milesian school. ... He held that all things come from a single
primal substance, but that it is not ... the substances that we know. It is infinite, eternal and ageless, and 'it
encompasses all the worlds'-for he thought our world only one of many. The primal substance is
transformed into the various substances with which we are familiar, and these are transformed into each
other. ... There was an eternal motion, in the course of which was brought about the origin of the worlds.
The worlds were not created, as in Jewish or Christian theology, but evolved. There was evolution also in
the animal kingdom. Living creatures arose from the moist element as it was evaporated by the sun. Man,
like every other animal, was descended from fishes. He must be derived from animals of a different sort,
because, owing to his long infancy, he could not have survived, originally, as he is now." (Russell B.,
"History of Western Philosophy," [1946], George Allen & Unwin: London, Second edition, 1991, reprint,
1993, pp.46-47)

13/5/2004
"Media accounts and judicial opinions take for granted that the balanced treatment statutes were the work
of a highly organized nationwide coalition of creation-scientists, but this has been denied. According to the
creation-scientist attorney Wendell R. Bird, most of the national creation-science organizations oppose
legislation of this kind, `preferring instead to persuade teachers and administrators of the scientific merit of
the theory of creation without legal compulsion.' An individual named Paul Ellwanger appears to have taken
the lead in proposing balanced treatment legislation, with the result that some reluctant creation-scientists
were drawn into losing battles on ground not of their own choosing. See Wendell R. Bird, "The Origin of
Species Revisited," vol. 2, pp. 357-359 (1989)." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," InterVarsity Press:
Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, p.201)

13/5/2004
"More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are: (1) It is guided by natural law; (2) It has to be
explanatory by reference to natural law; (3) It is testable against the empirical world; (4) Its conclusions are
tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word; and (5) It is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses.)"
(Overton J., "The Judge's Decision Against the Creation-Evolution Act," in Geisler N.L., "The Creator in the
Courtroom `Scopes II': The 1981 Arkansas Creation-Evolution Trial," Mott Media: Milford MI, 1982, p.176)

13/5/2004
"Dr. Michael Ruse, professor of Philosophy at the University of Guelph, in Ontario, Canada, testified
concerning the nature of science, particularly biology. Ruse defined science as consisting of four essentials.
First, science must explain events by means of natural law, or `unguided natural regularities.' Also, science
must be `explanatory,' `testable,' and `tentative.' Ruse said `explanatory' means that science must predict and
confirm events, so that science is self-generating, it is constantly moving into new areas. To say that
science must be `testable,' or `falsifiable,' means there must be at least potential for evidence against a
scientific belief. As an example, Ruse cited the theory of evolution. Evolution is thought to be unidirectional,
that is evolution is thought to continually lead to more and more complex forms of life. If scientists were to
find evidence that evolution sometimes proceeded in the direction of less complexity, this aspect of the
theory would be falsified. The fourth essential of science is that it be `tentative.' This means that a scientist
must always be willing to modify his understanding of the data." (Geisler N.L.*, "The Creator in the
Courtroom `Scopes II': The 1981 Arkansas Creation-Evolution Trial," Mott Media: Milford MI, 1982, p.68)

13/5/2004
"On recross examination, Williams asked, `is evolution a fact?' Ruse replied in the affirmative. Williams
asked, `How then is it tentative?'" (Geisler N.L., "The Creator in the Courtroom `Scopes II': The 1981
Arkansas Creation-Evolution Trial," Mott Media: Milford MI, 1982, p.72)

13/5/2004
McLean v. Arkansas -
Plaintiff's transcript, testimony of Michael Ruse [...]
RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q You stated that evolution was a fact? A I have in my book, yes. Q What is a
tentative fact? A Tentative fact? Q Yes. A I think it's the question of the approach that somebody takes to it.
One holds something tentatively. But it's a fact that I have a heart. If you ask me my justification or
something like this, of course, ultimately I have to say, logically I cannot logically prove it as I do in
mathematics. But I can simply say the fact that I have a heart. And you have a heart, too, Mr. Williams. Q
The fact of evolution, you have testified to, has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt? A Beyond
reasonable doubt. Q But yet you say you think it's still tentative? Is that your answer? A I'm using the word
"tentative" here today in the sense that it's not logically proven. There are some things which, you know, I
think it would be very difficult to imagine, but I'm not saying logically I couldn't imagine it, very difficult to
imagine that it wouldn't be true. I mean, I find it very difficult to imagine that neither of us have got hearts. A
(Continuing) On the other hand, I've never seen one, or rather, haven't seen yours and I haven't seen mine.
So in that sense I'm talking about it being a fact, that it's something I'm quite sure is true, but in that tentative
sense, if you like the logical sense, it's tentative. MR. WILLIAMS: No further questions. [...]

14/5/2004
"Living beings he [Anaximander] conceives as having evolved through a kind of primordial procreation in
the mud which formerly covered the earth. Thus, first there arose animals and plants, and then human
beings, who, originally formed like fishes, lived in the water, but afterwards cast off their fish-skin, went up
on dry land and thenceforth lived there. We see, then, that Anaximander produced a complete theory of
evolution, childishly clumsy, it is true, but interesting for the audacity with which he deduced his
conclusions from his premisses." (Nordenskiold, E., "The History of Biology: A Survey," [1920-24], transl.
Eyre L.B., Tudor Publishing Co: New York NY, 1928, p.12)

14/5/2004
"According to Orr, neither specified complexity nor irreducible complexity is beyond the reach of Darwinism.
Yet to justify this claim, all Orr has done is describe supposedly possible Darwinian pathways, in highly
abstract and schematic terms, to which, in the case of Darwinism, no significant details have been added
since the time of Darwin (and, I would urge, none has been added even since the time of Empedocles and
Epicurus). In consequence, critics of Darwinism who say it is merely a theory don't go far enough -- it
doesn't even deserve to be called a theory. No Darwinist, for instance, has offered a hypothetical Darwinian
production of any tightly integrated multi-part "adaptation" with enough specificity to make the hypothesis
testable even in principle. When it comes to the large-scale evolutionary changes needed to account for the
complexity and diversity of life, Darwinism is a pile of promissory notes for future theories, none of which
has been redeemed since the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species almost 150 years ago." (Dembski
W.A.*, "Evolution's
Logic of Credulity: An Unfettered Response to Allen Orr," Design Inference Website: The Writings of
William A. Dembski, 2002)

15/5/2004
"A federal judge in the McLean case, on the basis of expert witness testimony by Michael Ruse*, a
prominent philosopher of science at University of Guelph, listed five `essential conditions of science': that it
is `guided by natural law,' `explanatory by reference to natural law,' `testable,' `falsifiable,' and `tentative.'
[McLean v. Arkansas Bd. of Educ., 529 F. Supp. 1255,1267 (E.D. Ark. 1982).] One philosopher of science has
responded that `the criteria which Judge Overton offered [in McLean] as 'essential conditions' of science are
nothing of the sort,' and that the McLean opinion made `anachronistic efforts to revive a variety of
discredited criteria' and gave `a false stereotype of what science is.' [Laudan L., `More on Creationism,'
Science, Technology & Human Values, Winter 1983, pp.36,36; Laudan L., `Commentary: Science at the Bar-
Causes for Concern,' Science, Technology & Human Values, Fall 1982, pp.16,19.] Another philosopher of
science described the McLean criteria as `demonstrably false,' [Quinn P., `The Philosopher of Science as
Expert Witness,' in (Cushing J., Delaney C. & Gutting G., eds. `Science and Reality: Recent Work in the
Philosophy of Science,' 1984, pp.32,41- 42] as discussed further below. The one thing that is absolutely
clear, in considering the various proposed definitions of science, is that no group of philosophers of science
had formulated a definition even remotely resembling the McLean definition of science, and no such group
subsequently has endorsed anything remotely resembling that definition, except for Ruse as a courtroom
witness for tactical purposes." (Bird W.R.*, "The Origin of Species Revisited," Regency: Nashville TN, 1991,
Vol. II, p.14)

16/5/2004
"His [Empedocles'] biological speculations have more interest. He thought that the earth, when she was
younger, had produced a much greater variety of living things, but that 'many races of living things must
have been unable to beget and continue their breed. For in the case of every species that now exists, either
craft or courage or speed has from the beginning of its existence protected and preserved it.' Here is a clear
hint of the doctrine of the survival of the fittest." (Farrington B., "Greek Science: Its Meaning for Us," [1944],
Penguin Books: Harmondsworth, Middlesex UK, 1953, pp.60-61)

16/5/2004
"Aristotle's view is brought out clearly and emphatically in the most striking passage of all his writings
where he undertakes to refute Empedocles. This is of the greatest interest today, because Aristotle clearly
states and rejects a theory of the origin of adaptive structures in animals altogether similar to that of Darwin.
Aristotle perceived in Empedocles' crude suggestion of the survival of adapted and extinction of inadapted
beings, the gist of an argument which might be applied not only to entire organisms but to parts of
organisms, to explain purposive structures, and which might thus become a dangerous rival to his own
theory of the origin of purposive structures by the direct operation of his perfecting principle. In the
following passages, selected from the early books of his Physics, we seem to gain a clear insight into
Aristotle's whole chain of reasoning, in a manner which enables us to compare it with modern lines of
thought. The headings and parentheses are my own; the passages are selected and adapted from Taylor's
translation of the Physics and brought together to give a clear idea of Aristotle's meaning in his own
language. ... Adaptive Structures not Produced by Survivals of the Fittest. `What, then, hinders but that the
parts in Nature may also thus arise (namely, according to law). For instance, that the teeth should arise from
necessity, the front teeth sharp and adapted to divide the food, the grinders broad and adapted to breaking
the food into pieces. (Another explanation may be offered.) Yet, it may be said that they were not made for
this purpose (i.e. for this adaptation), but that this (adaptative) purposive arrangement came about by
chance; and the same reasoning is applied to other parts of the body in which existence for some purpose is
apparent. And it is argued that where all things happened as if they were made for some purpose, being
aptly (adaptively) united by chance, these were preserved, but such as were not aptly (adaptively) made,
these were lost and still perish, according to what Empedocles says concerning the bull species with human
heads. This, therefore, and similar reasoning, may lead some to doubt on this subject.'" ([Aristotle, Physics,
198b17-33, in] Osborn H.F., "From the Greeks to Darwin: An Outline of the Development of the Evolution
Idea," [1894], Charles Scribner's Sons: New York NY, 1924, reprint, p.51)

17/5/2004
"What is the purpose of sex? At first glance, the answer seems obvious to the point of banality. But a
second glance brings a different thought. Why must a baby be the product of two people? Why not three,
or one? Need there be a reason at all? About twenty years ago, a small group of influential biologists
changed their ideas about sex. From considering it logical, inevitable and sensible as a means of
reproduction, they switched almost overnight to the conclusion that it was impossible to explain why it had
not disappeared altogether. Sex seemed to make no sense at all. Ever since, the purpose of sex has been an
open question, and it has been called the queen of evolutionary problems." (Ridley M., "The Red Queen:
Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature," [1993], Penguin: London, 2000, reprint, pp.26-27)

17/5/2004
"As noted in the Preface, one often sees it said that `evolution is not a fact, but a theory.' Is this the essence
of my claim? Not really! Indeed, I suggest that this wise-sounding statement is confused to the point of
falsity: it almost certainly is if, without regard for cause, one means no more by `evolution' than the claim
that all organisms developed naturally from primitive beginnings. Evolution is a fact, fact, FACT!"
(Ruse M., "Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies," [1982], Addison-Wesley:
Reading MA, 1983, Third Printing, p.58. Emphasis in original)

20/5/2004
"Further on that, because it is such a crucial point: my colleague Michael Behe in his well-known book
Darwin's Black Box says he has nothing against common ancestry; there may be common ancestry from the
first bacterium up to present-day organisms (or there may not be; he accepts that as a possibility). What he
says is that you need an information source to produce the irreducible complexity, and the materialist
mechanism can't do that. There has to be an intelligent designer guiding the process. Is Behe a theistic
evolutionist or a creationist? Is he a friend of science or an enemy of science? In these terms, the answer is
that he is an enemy of science. Why? You could very easily call his view theistic evolution. What makes
Behe a heretic, rather than a member of the team, is that he says there is evidence of the need for
intelligence. You see, that crosses the faith/reason boundary and brings the intelligent designer into the
realm of things that can be seen by evidence, that objective observers can evaluate, instead of the realm of
purely subjective belief. That is why he is on my side rather than their side, whereas somebody else whose
position sounds superficially the same would be clearly on the other side. (Johnson, P.E.*, "Evolution and the Curriculum: A
Conversation with Phillip Johnson and Gregg Easterbrook," Ethics and Public Policy Center, February
2000, No. 4)

20/5/2004
"The deviations from the standard [genetic] code ... are very small. In each case a series of three nucleotides
(a codon) which normally marks the point on messenger RNA at which protein manufacture should stop,
instead codes for the incorporation of an amino acid. ... Sydney Brenner, head of the Medical Research
Council's Laboratory of Molecular Biology at Cambridge, and contributor to the breaking of the standard
code ... emphasised that the deviations found so far are all very minor variations on the standard and still
universal theme, rather than entirely novel codes in which all or most of the codons have their meanings
changed. ... So what are we to make of the discovery of slightly altered versions of the code? It probably
simply means that the organisms concerned diverged from the common stock at an early stage ... it does
appear that the "frozen accident" may have experienced the occasional thaw." (Scott A., "Genetic code is
not so universal," New Scientist, 11 April 1985, p.21)

20/5/2004
"THE genetic code, which is the same in Homo sapiens as in Escherichia coli, is widely thought to
have been fixed prior to the divergence of all life forms and so to be universal. Since a mutation changing a
codon assignment would effectively cause thousands of mistakes in the proteins translated, it has seemed
quite reasonable to assume that such mutations would be lethal. Although studies on mitochondrial genes
have shown that the code is not strictly universal, mitochondria could be thought of as exceptions that
prove the rule: their genetic systems produce only a very limited number of proteins and so might tolerate
changes. Now, some 'real' exceptions have come to light in both eukaryotic and prokaryotic freeliving
organisms, and the notion of universality will have to be discarded. In the erstwhile universal code, the
codons UAA and UAG mark the termination of translation of a sequence into protein. But in three different
ciliated protozoans there is now a strong indication that UAA and UAG encode the amino acid glutamine. ...
How, or when, these events took place is anyone's guess. Either the line leading to ciliates diverged before
the standard code was fixed or, perhaps more likely, the changes occurred soon after the divergence of the
line from ancestors that used the standard code." (Fox, T.D. "Diverged genetic codes in protozoans and a
bacterium," Nature, Vol. 314, 14 March 1985, pp.132-133)

22/5/2004
"Dawkins tried a variant of this `fatal concession' ploy on me in an e-mail conversation by demanding to
know if I would admit that humans and lobsters share a common ancestor. If I had agreed to such a fantastic
proposition (the supposed `fact' of evolution), I would have left myself with no logical basis for doubting
any other Darwinian claim, and Dawkins would have had grounds to insinuate that I must be only
pretending to disbelieve. Dawkins had ready a series of follow-up questions designed to tighten the noose,
but I changed the subject, asking: `On what basis are you so confident that the hypothetical common
ancestor of lobsters and humans is not merely an artifact of evolutionary theory but actually lived on the
earth? My understanding is that your confidence is founded on philosophy, specifically on your belief in
materialism and reductionism. That is what permits you to proclaim 'Universal Darwinism,' that is, that
something like Darwinian evolution must be the explanation for the existence of complex life even on distant
planets where we can make no observations. Am I correct, or do you have scientific evidence stemming from
your specialized knowledge as a zoologist that ought to convince someone who does not already share
your belief that the existence of this ancestor is a philosophical necessity?' Dawkins responded that `the
reason we know for certain we are all related, including bacteria, is the universality of the genetic code and
other biochemical fundamentals. Philosophical commitment to materialism and reductionism is true, but I
would prefer to characterize it as philosophical commitment to real explanation as opposed to complete lack
of explanation, which is what you espouse.' I knew then that I had turned the tables on Dawkins and
induced him to accept a fatal premise that must undermine his position in any extended public debate. That
`universal genetic code' is not truly universal, but the more important point is that biochemical similarities,
like the musical similarities in Beethoven's symphonies, may be evidence of a common designer rather than a
common physical ancestor. By appealing to the philosophical question of what constitutes a real
explanation, Dawkins had conceded that the fundamental question was outside the professional domain of
biology." (Johnson, P.E., "The Right Questions: Truth, Meaning & Public Debate, InterVarsity Press:
Downers Grove IL, 2002, pp.82-83)

22/5/2004
"Modern creationism arose, by contrast, from the efforts of earnest Seventh-day Adventists who wanted to
show that the sacred writings of Adventist- founder Ellen G. White (who made much of a recently created
earth and the Noachian deluge) could provide a framework for studying the history of the earth. Especially
important for this purpose was the Adventist theorist, George McCready Price (1870-1963), who published a
string of creationist works, most notably The New Geology (1923). That book argued that a "simple" or
"literal" reading of early Genesis showed that God had created the world six to eight thousand years ago
and had used the Flood to construct the planet's geological past. Price, an armchair geologist with little
formal training and almost no field experience, demonstrated how a person with such a belief could
reconstruct natural history in order to question traditional understandings of the geological column and
apparent indications that the earth was ancient. Price's ideas were never taken seriously by practicing
geologists, and they had little impact outside of Adventist circles. One exception was the Lutheran Church-
Missouri Synod, where a few energized critics of the modern world found Price's biblical literalism
convincing, despite the fact that on almost every other religious question the Missouri Synod was about as
far removed from Seventh-day Adventism as it was possible to be. Although Price and various associates
founded several creationist organizations (like the Deluge Geological Society), these groups were short-
lived. Similarly, early creationist literature seemed to have little visible effect beyond a narrow circle. A few
fundamentalists, like the Presbyterian minister Henry Rimmer (1890-1952), proposed somewhat similar views
concerning the Flood, but Rimmer's influence had much diminished by the time of his death. ... Nothing
daunted, creationists continued to prosecute their case. At last, in the late 1950s, a breakthrough occurred.
John C. Whitcomb, Jr. (b. 1924), a theologian at Grace Theological Seminary (Winona Lake, Indiana) of the
Grace Brethren denomination, and Henry M. Morris (b. 1918), a hydraulic engineer of Southern Baptist
background, had each been moving in a creationist direction for quite a while before finding confirmation in
Price's work. .... Soon after Whitcomb and Morris met each other they published The Genesis Flood (1961),
an updating of Price's work, but one that, because of Whitcomb's theological contribution and Morris'
scientific expertise, made Price's points more persuasively. The rest is history-massive demand for The
Genesis Flood (twenty-nine printings and sales in excess of 200,000 by the mid-1980s); the popularization
(by Whitcomb, Morris, and others) of the creationist viewpoint in tens of millions of other books, articles,
pamphlets, and Sunday School lessons ..." (Noll M.A., "Ignorant Armies." Review of Numbers
R.L., "The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism," Knopf, in First Things, No. 32, April 1993,
pp.45-48)

22/5/2004
"So, ironically, the only type of creationism that is at odds with most current science findings-young earth
creationism-is by no means the oldest type. It is actually the newest type, arising in the United States after
Scopes [Trial, 1925]. Most Europeans took Genesis as a starting point for earths history because it was the
only source, prior to modern geology. They did not choose the account in Genesis over a contemporary
one. By contrast, today's young earth creationist makes the decision to believe that Genesis should be
interpreted literally and that modern research should use it as a starting point. And that is a decision with
consequences, especially for scientists, as we will see in the next chapter." (O'Leary D.*, "By Design or by
Chance?: The Growing Controversy on the Origins of Life in the Universe," 2004, p.130)

26/5/2004
Dn 9:24-27 (NIV) [24] "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy
city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting
righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy. [25] "Know and understand
this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler,
comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in
times of trouble. [26] After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.
The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood:
War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. [27] He will confirm a covenant with
many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing
of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured
out on him." 27/5/2004
"The result of all of this is that we see no evidence to preclude dating the book to the sixth century B.C.
Furthermore, the linguistic evidence (in regard to both the Hebrew and the Aramaic of Daniel) points toward
a time earlier than the second century, as does the appearance of Daniel in the Septuagint (usually dated as
early as the third century B.C.) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (from the first and second centuries B.C.). The fact
that Daniel speaks in first-person narrative from chapter 7 to the end naturally suggests that he is the
author, though the use of third person in the first part of the book may indicate that someone else laid out
the framework and organized it." (Hill A.E. & Walton J.H.*, "A Survey of the Old Testament," [1991],
Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Second Edition, 2000, p.454)

29/5/2004
"ON MARCH 27, 1981, CBS radio news quoted a NASA scientist as saying that engineers will be able to
build self-replicating robots within twenty years, for use in space or on Earth. These machines would build
copies of themselves, and the copies would be directed to make useful products. He had no doubt of their
possibility, only of when they will be built. He was quite right. Since 1951, when John von Neumann
outlined the principles of self-replicating machines, scientists have generally acknowledged their possibility.
In 1953 Watson and Crick described the structure of DNA, which showed how living things pass on the
instructions that guide their construction. Biologists have since learned in increasing detail how the self-
replicating molecular machinery of the cell works. They find that it follows the principles von Neumann had
outlined. As birds prove the possibility of flight so life in general proves the possibility of self-replication, at
least by systems of molecular machines. The NASA scientist, however, had something else in mind.
Biological replicators, such as viruses, bacteria, plants, and people, use molecular machines. Artificial
replicators can use bulk technology instead. Since we have bulk technology today, engineers may use it to
build replicators before molecular technology arrives. ... Biochemists understand how cells replicate and
they find no magic in them. Instead, they find machines supplied with all the materials, energy, and
instructions needed to do the job. Cells do replicate; robots could replicate." (Drexler K.E.,
"Engines of Creation," [1990], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 1992, reprint, pp.53-54. Emphasis in
original)

30/5/2004
"A second reason for casting doubt on the significance of the Miller- Urey experiment is that amino acids
are not, in fact, all that hard to make anyway. Many successful variants on the original Chicago set-up have
been tried, in which the electric spark has been replaced by a furnace, an ultra-violet lamp, shock waves or
energized chemical mixtures. It turns out that making amino acids is a cinch. In fact, they are found to occur
naturally in meteorites, and even in outer space. There is also a conceptual reason why the Miller-Urey
experiment is no longer accorded the status it once had. It is a serious mistake to regard the road to life as a
uniform highway down which a soup of chemicals is inexorably conveyed by the passage of time. Amino
acids may be building blocks of proteins, but there is a world of difference between building blocks and an
assembled structure. Just as the discovery of a pile of bricks is no guarantee that a house lies around the
corner, so a collection of amino acids is a long, long way from the sort of large, specialized molecules such
as proteins that life requires." (Davies P.C.W., "The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin of Life,"
Penguin: Ringwood, Australia, 1998, pp.57-58) June [top]
1/6/2004
"Actually, the argument based upon the presence of Greek words turns out to be one of the most
compelling evidences of all that Daniel could not have been composed as late as the Greek period. By 170
B.C. a Greek- speaking government bad been in control of Palestine for 160 years, and Greek political or
administrative terms would surely have found their way into the language of the subject populace. The
books of Maccabees testify to the very extensive intrusion of Greek culture and Greek customs into the life
of the Jews by the first half of the second century, particularly in the big cities. This is especially significant
in view of the fact that the Aramaic of Daniel was a linguistic medium which readily absorbed foreign
terminology. It includes approximately fifteen words of Persian origin, almost all of which relate to
government and politics. It is hard to conceive, therefore, how after Greek had been the language of
government for over 160 years, no single term pertaining to politics or administration had ever intruded into
Palestinian Aramaic. The same generalization holds good for the Hebrew portions of Daniel as well. It
contains such Persian terms as "Palace" (appeden in 11:45, from apaddna), "noblemen" (partemin in 1:3, from
fratama) and "king's portion" (patbag in 1:5, from patibaga). Yet the Hebrew chapters contain not a single
word of Greek origin (even though, according to some critics, Daniel's Hebrew is later than his Aramaic
sections)." (Archer, G.L.*, "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction," [1964], Moody Press: Chicago IL,
1966, Third printing, pp.375-376)

1/6/2004
"It is not clear how in the dilute, nonliving (prevital) soup of the early earth the more complex molecules
characteristic of life were formed. Among the many questions that arise, one is particularly significant: How
did amino acids aggregate spontaneously to form the first proteins? The question is a puzzle because it
seems to defy what we know of the laws of chemistry. Biological proteins form by the joining of subunits
into chains. The addition of each element to the growing chain requires the input of energy and the removal
of a water molecule. This addition is accomplished by the removal of an -OH group from the end of the chain
and an -H from the incoming element. Because this reaction is chemically reversible, an excess of water
should in principle drive the reaction in the direction of breakdown of the molecule rather than synthesis.
The puzzle is that these reactions critical to the evolution of life are thought to have taken place within the
oceans and therefore in a high excess of water. It is difficult to imagine that the spontaneous formation of
proteins could have occurred under these conditions." (Raven P.H. & Johnson G.B., "Biology," [1986], Wm.
C. Brown: Dubuque IA, Third Edition, 1995, p.69)

2/6/2004
"I want to be explicit about what I am, and am not, questioning. The word `evolution' carries many
associations. Usually it means common descent -the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by
common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains
similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among
species." (Behe, M.J., "Darwin Under the
Microscope," The New York Times, October 29, 1996, p.A25. Access Research Network, 4 November
1996)

5/6/2004
"[2Th 2:]3. The Thessalonians must not be deceived in any way, whether by the things listed in verse 2
or by anything else whatever. The construction is broken in the following clause, but NIV is surely right in
supplying the words that day will not come. While the coming of 'the day of the Lord' will be unexpected (1
Thes. 5:2-3), certain things will precede it. One is the rebellion. The definite article shows that the rebellion
was well known to the readers; evidently it had formed part of Paul's previous teaching. Our difficulty is that
we do not know what he had told them. In classical Greek apostasia meant a political or military rebellion, but
in LXX it is used of rebellion against God (e.g. Jos. 22:22), and this became the accepted biblical usage. Paul
is saying that in the last times there will be a great uprising of the powers of evil against God (cf. Mt.
24:10ff.; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:1-9; 4:3-4). It is as though Satan were throwing all his forces into one last
despairing effort." (Morris, L.L.*, "The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians: An Introduction and
Commentary," [1956], Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Second edition, 1984, p.127)

5/6/2004
"The first chapter of Genesis has yielded many different day-age interpretations. Our intent is to discuss
and defend only one of them, in contrast with the 24-hour and framework views. We build our day-age
interpretation upon the conviction that we can trust God's revelation as truth in both the words of the Bible
and the works of creation-including the entire physical universe. This conviction presupposes that truth is
knowable, consistent, and, although sometimes paradoxical, never contradictory. Our day-age interpretation
treats the creation days literally as six sequential, long periods of time. Integrating biblical and scientific
data, we assert that the physical creation events reported in Genesis appear in correct sequence and in
scientifically defensible terms. The seventh day of God's creation week continues still. From the words of
Scripture, we can infer that this seventh day will continue until God permanently conquers evil at the final
judgment.' During this seventh day, God has ceased to miraculously intervene to prepare the planet for
human habitation and to place human life upon it. His spiritual creation continues, however, and He
intervenes in human affairs (before, during, and after the time of Jesus' earthly ministry) as He sees fit to
fulfill His divine purposes. Both Scripture and science suggest that the creation days begin in earth's
primordial past. The creation of humanity at the end of the sixth creation day appears to be a relatively
recent event. Both the biblical texts and scientific inquiry lead us to conclude that all humankind, Homo
sapiens, descended from Adam and Eve, who suddenly appeared no more than a few tens of thousands
of years ago." (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.123-124)

9/6/2004
"THE chimpanzee and the human share about 99.5 per cent of their evolutionary history, yet most human
thinkers regard the chimp as a malformed, irrelevant oddity while seeing themselves as stepping-stones to
the Almighty. To an evolutionist this cannot be so. There exists no objective basis on which to elevate one
species above another. Chimp and human, lizard and fungus, we have all evolved over some three billion
years by a process known as natural selection. Within each species some individuals leave more surviving
offspring than others, so that the inheritable traits (genes) of the reproductively successful become more
numerous in the next generation. This is natural selection: the non-random differential reproduction of
genes. Natural selection has built us, and it is natural selection we must understand if we are to comprehend
our own identities." (Trivers R.L., "Foreword," in Dawkins R., "The Selfish Gene," [1976], Paladin: St Albans,
Hertfordshire UK, 1978, reprint, p.vii)

9/6/2004
"BIODIVERSITY What is a Species? `In all probability more paper has been consumed on the questions of
the nature and definition of the species than any other subject in evolutionary and systematic biology.' E. O.
Wiley, 1978 Species, kinds of organisms whose individuals are more like each other than they are to other
kinds, are central to our concepts of biodiversity and to our concerns about loss of variety in nature. But
what is a species? An answer is not as easy as one might imagine on first consideration! However, the
question is one that we need to think about. We require some tractable entity, as a focus of our
conservation concerns and efforts, and that entity must be coincident with our understanding of patterns
and processes in living nature. What are these entities? What is a species? We all have an intuitive feel for
the differences between the different kinds of organisms that we encounter in our lives. We know that a dog
is a different kind of living being than a cat, that both are different from an oak tree. And if we know trees,
we know that white oak is a kind of oak different from red oak, that among the red oaks, a northern red oak is
different from a southern red oak. Moving in a little closer, we might observe a good many northern red oaks
and notice that no two individuals are exactly alike. However we would likely also observe enough shared
similarities among the individuals to conclude that they are individuals of a kind, different from each other
but more similar to each other than to other kinds. ... The Biological Species Concept The problems of
creating a linguistic representation, a concept of species compatible with the diversity of patterns and
processes in living nature is seen in the biological species concept of Ernst Mayr. The biological species
concept defines a species as a group of individuals that are actually or potentially interbreeding, and that
are reproductively isolated from other such groups. Mayr's definition is one of the more commonly used
definitions because it has an intuitive appeal to what we think species are, and because it addresses the
biological reality that reproduction is at least in part a key to what species are. The definition is consistent
with our everyday observations that cats give birth to kittens and dogs give birth to puppies (and that cats
do not give birth to puppies, nor dogs to kittens - to say nothing of chimeras). Closer examination however
reveals a number of deficiencies. Foremost is the problem of asexual reproduction. Asexually reproducing
individual organisms are by definition reproductively isolated from all other individuals, individuals that are
similar (or morphologically indistinguishable), or otherwise. Is each individual asexually reproducing
organism a species? Of course not, although a literal application (or an over reading) of the biological
species concept would so imply! Mayr was very much aware of this deficiency in his definition. However, as
an evolutionary biologist his focus was on a concept that emphasized our understanding of evolutionary
mechanisms. In Mayr's view (as well as in the view of most evolutionary biologists) genetic recombination
as a consequence of sexual reproduction (or at the very least, some level of genetic interchange) is essential
to evolutionary change, at least in complex, multicelled organisms. Mutations at the genetic level are
certainly the ultimate source of novelty in living nature, but it is the variety of genetic combinations that are
possible with sexual reproduction that provides the raw material for evolution. On this criterion, asexually
reproducing organisms without sources of genetic exchange are evolutionary non-participants: they may
persist as asexually reproducing lines for millions of years, but they are unlikely to participate in the grand
evolutionary diversification of Life on Earth. Ironically, a second problem with Mayr's concept is its
applicability to the long evolutionary history of Life on Earth! How are we to distinguish species over this
enormous history? How do we distinguish reproductive isolation in the fossil record? If species give rise to
new species, how are we to distinguish the new species from the old? The answer to the first two questions
is that we certainly need criteria different from or in addition to reproductive isolation in order to distinguish
species. An answer to the third question centers around a long standing discussion of tempo and mode in
evolution. If speciation is the gradual process of selection acting upon gene pools, then the transition from
one species to another does indeed pose a problem for our ability to identify when one species `becomes'
another, when two populations are sufficiently different in time and in phenotype to be recognized as
different. ... What is a species? ... Species then are the tips of evolutionary lineages. The tips are
distinguished on the basis of a variety of characteristics. In the end, these identifications are based on the
judgments of skilled and experienced naturalists and taxonomists: a species is whatever a competent
naturalist or taxonomist says it is." (Guffey S.Z.,
n.d., "Biodiversity:
What is a Species?" The University of Tennessee)

10/6/2004
"The Role of the Moon. There's another factor in the evolution of Earth's biosphere, and in the prevention
of the environment from swinging too far out of line leading to irreversible "runaway glaciation" or
"greenhouse." That factor, ignored by Hart's model and by most other planetary scientists, is the effect of
the presence of the nearby Moon. As summarized in Science in an article by Alan Hammond `Only the earth
of the inner planets has a massive satellite, which may account for the planet's relative climatic stability. ...
On Mars, large oscillations in the obliquity or tilt of the planet's axis are thought by some to lead to gross
changes in the Martian climate. The oscillations are due to an interaction between two dynamic phenomena-
the precession of the equinox as the tilted axis describes a conical motion and the precession of the planet's
orbital plane as the entire orbit wobbles in and out of alignment with the rest of the Solar System.' The
earth's obliquity changes very little, at present, because the presence of the moon shortens the equinoctal
precession period, precluding a resonant interaction with the orbit plane precession. Without the moon,
however, the earth's obliquity would oscillate, even more than that of Mars, leading to far greater climatic
instability than we presently experience and endangering the course of biological evolution.' [Hammond
A.E., "The Uniqueness of Earth's Climate," Science, Vol. 187, January 24, 1975, p.245] We'll examine
these factors again in a subsequent chapter, when we consider natural ways in which the climate changes.
But the lesson is clear: the presence of the Moon's guiding and stabilizing gravity may, well have prevented
Earth from slipping over the edge of climatic disaster during the billions of years of its history. And since
the existence of such a relatively large moon appears to be a statistically unlikely occurrence, most other
proto-Earths in the universe may not likewise have been so fortuitously saved. Our Earth looks, then, more
and more unique-and therefore precious." (Oberg J.E., "New Earths: Restructuring Earth and Other Planets,"
[1981], Meridian: New York NY, 1983, reprint, pp.75-76)

15/6/2004
"To explain biological design, we need more than Darwinism. Morphology, too, must be seen as a cause of
design. ... Not all animal designs are equally likely. Some imaginable animal concoctions simply do not work
mechanically, so they never arise. Their bulk is too great or their design unwieldy. An elephant with wings
would literally never fly; that is obvious. Yet many modern evolutionary biologists tend to forget about
physical limitations when discussing animal design. Most resort solely to evolutionary explanations. It is
tempting to be satisfied with such comfortable explanations of animal design-the long necks of giraffes give
them reach to treetop vegetation, the hair of mammals insulates their warm- blooded bodies, the fins of
fishes control their swimming, the venom of vipers improves their hunting success. These and other
examples of animal design were favored by natural selection, presumably for the adaptive advantages each
conferred. This is reasonable, as far as it goes, but it is only half an explanation. Figuratively, natural
selection is an external architect that chooses designs to fit current purposes. But the raw materials or
morphology of each animal is itself a factor in design. To build a house with doors, walls, and roof, the
architect lays out a scheme, but the materials available affect the character of the house. Use of brick, wood,
or straw will place limits or constraints on the design of the house. Straw cannot bear several stories of
weight like bricks, but it can be bent into rounded shapes. Wood makes for economical construction but is
susceptible to rot. Opportunities and limitations for design lie in each material. ... To understand form and to
explain design, we must evaluate both external and internal factors. The external environment assaults an
organism with a wrath of predators, challenges of climate, and competition from others. Natural selection is a
manifestation of these factors. Internal factors play a part as well. Parts are integrated into a functionally
whole individual. If design changes, it must do so without serious disruption of the organism. Because parts
are interlocked into a coherent whole, there exist limits to change before the organism's machinery will fail.
The internal construction of an organism sets boundaries to allowable change. It establishes possibilities
engendered by natural selection. As new species appear, further possibilities open. But natural selection
does not initiate evolutionary changes in design. Like a jury, natural selection acts only on the possibilities
brought before it. If natural selection is strong and possibilities are few, then extinction occurs or
diversification along that particular evolutionary course is curtailed. As a result, the avian design for
delicacy of flight offers few possibilities for evolution of robust design and powerful forelimbs for digging.
On the other hand, the avian design allows for the further evolution of airborne vertebrate species. Not all
evolutionary changes are equally probable, in large part because not all morphologies (combinations of
parts) are equally available to natural selection. (Kardong K.V., "Vertebrates: Comparative Anatomy,
Function, Evolution," [1995], McGraw Hill: Boston MA, Third Edition, 2002, pp.13-14)

17/6/2004
"Born to wealth, reared in privilege, advantaged by travelling the globe as a young man, Charles Darwin
came to view life in a way that, he believed, would cost him dear if people knew his innermost thoughts. As
an evolutionist in the turbulent, half-reformed, Anglican-dominated society of young Victoria's reign; he
devised schemes for concealment, 'fortifications for the self'. His existence became contradictory, his life a
camouflage. He became profoundly ill. Outwardly liberal and polite, of modest opinions, the pillar of the
parish, he was inwardly Darwin contra mundum, the failed ordinand, the Christian manque, the angry
unbeliever." (Moore J.R., "The Darwin Legend," [1994], Hodder & Stoughton: London, 1995, reprint, p.69)

17/6/2004
"The advantage of sexual selection was that it did not have to prove utility; what was patently not useful,
and therefore not subject to natural selection, could be regarded, by a sufficient exercise of imagination, as
sexually attractive. Indeed, sexual selection could not only account for those characteristics that were
useless; it could also account for those that were actually injurious. Darwin now admitted that sexual
selection could work at cross purposes with natural selection, the objects of sexual admiration interfering
with the more elementary struggle for existence. Having dispensed with natural selection when there was no
evidence of utility, he soon came to dispense with it even where he might have made out a case for utility.
More and more, the Lamarckian principle of the inherited effects of use and disuse came to replace natural
selection. A variety of phenomena were now attributed to this cause: the smallness of the tail in some
monkeys and its absence in man, the development of the vocal organs and power of speech, the thin legs
and thick arms of Indians who spent most of their lives in canoes, the larger hands of English laborers
compared with those of the gentry, the hardened skin on the soles of the feet, the inferiority of Europeans
compared with savages in sight and other senses, customs such as the deliberate eradication of hair and
other mutilations, even the virtuous habits inculcated in youth. Where once he would have re-interpreted
these findings to make them conform to natural selection-and they are amenable to such re-interpretation-he
was now easily persuaded of the simpler Lamarckian idea." (Himmelfarb G., "Darwin and the Darwinian
Revolution," [1959], Elephant Paperbacks: Chicago IL, 1996, reprint, p.367)

18/6/2004
"The scientific theory of organic evolution was thus definitely formulated and made coherent, but Darwin
was not the first to think of the idea of evolution. Darwin's theory was apparently confirmed by a large mass
of observational facts. As time went by the number of observations and even the experimental evidence
increased enormously and tended to establish the theory on a firm basis. So also there was an increase in
the number of observations and in experimental matter which raised difficulties for the theory-difficulties
which enthusiasts of this theory of evolution often overlook." (Fothergill P.G., "Historical Aspects of
Organic Evolution," Hollis & Carter: London, 1952, p.5)

19/6/2004
"The first point to make is that, although biologists often speak of 'sexual reproduction', the sexual process
is in fact the precise opposite of reproduction. In reproduction, one cell divides into two: in sex, two calls
fuse to form one. Sex is not even necessary for continued reproduction. Many single-celled organisms, and
some animals and plants, reproduce indefinitely without sex. The production of eggs that develop without
fertilization is called parthenogenesis, or virgin birth. Many insect species consist only of
parthenogenetically reproducing females. Among reptiles, there are parthenogenetic species consisting
entirely of females producing daughters genetically identical to themselves. One of the American whiptail
lizards, Cnemidophorus uniparens, is such a species: it is thought to be of relatively recent origin, perhaps
thousands rather than millions of years old, and to be descended from a female that was probably a hybrid
between two sexual species. Parthenogenesis is even commoner in plants: for example, most dandelions,
blackberries, and ladies' mantles reproduce without sex. It is curious that mammals never reproduce
parthenogenetically, and that there are no parthenogenetic species of birds, although parthenogenesis is
not unknown in domestic varieties. Thus, whatever may be the explanation of sex, it cannot be said that
without it continued reproduction is impossible." (Maynard Smith J. & Szathmary E., "The Origins of Life:
From the Birth of Life to the Origin of Language," Oxford University Press: New York NY, 1999, p.79)

19/6/2004
"By sex in eukaryotes, we understand a more-or-less regular succession of meiosis and syngamy. A natural
consequence of this is the alternation of haploid and diploid phases in the life cycle. Eukaryotic sex
significantly differs from prokaryotic sex in two crucial respects: the cellular mechanisms are quite different,
and the transfer of genetic material in prokaryotes is less frequent and more localized." (Maynard Smith J. &
Szathmary E., "The Major Transitions in Evolution," W.H. Freeman: Oxford UK, 1995, p.149)

19/6/2004
"When a sexual organism forms gametes (sperm or egg cells) there is a division, in which half the genes are
removed. Then, when sperm combines with egg, the resulting progeny contains a full complement of genes,
half from each parent. In sexual reproduction only half a parent's genes are sent to each of its progeny. This
is called the cost of meiosis. Meanwhile, an asexual parent sends all its genes to each progeny. In
the Darwinian struggle to pass on more of one's genes to future generations, asexuality is twice as efficient
as sexuality. .... the literature focuses on the 50% figure as the major cause for concern. ... Why is sex so
extremely prevalent? Why is it here at all?" (ReMine, W.J., "The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message
Theory," St. Paul Science: Saint Paul MN, 1993, pp.196-197)

19/6/2004
"Yet puzzles remain. One problem is the existence of sex. When an organism forms gametes (sperm cells or
egg cells) there is a meiotic division, so that in sexual reproduction only half of an organism's genes are
transmitted to each of its progeny. Because of this `cost of meiosis,' it is hard to see how genotypes for
sexual reproduction might have become prevalent. (Apparently, they will spread only half as fast as their
asexual rivals.) So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the question. Despite some
ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians (notably G.C. Williams 1975; John Maynard Smith 1978),
there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction." (Kitcher P., "Abusing
Science: The Case against Creationism," [1982], MIT Press: Cambridge MA, Ninth printing, 1996, p.54)

19/6/2004
"Sex has long been a puzzle to evolutionary biologists A popular explanation for why we have frequent sex
has been challenged by a report published in Science magazine. According to the Red Queen Hypothesis,
sex exists to help organisms protect themselves against parasites. Parasites are constantly developing new
ways to take advantage, so animals need to evolve defences quickly - and sex, say some, allows them to do
this. But scientists have constructed a model, which suggests this `arms race' alone is not enough to
account for sex. ... `It is a paradox why so many organisms have sex,' said the paper's co-author Sarah Otto,
from the University of British Colombia, Vancouver, Canada. `If you are a parent who has survived to
reproduce you probably have a good gene combination, so shuffling them about is not going to benefit
you.' But sex does exist - in great abundance. ... Red Queen to the rescue? The Red Queen Hypothesis takes
its name from the character in Lewis Carroll's Through The Looking-Glass, who tells Alice she has to run as
fast as she can to stay in the same place. The idea is that organisms have to keep evolving - keep adopting
new genetic combinations - to `outwit' pathogens. ... `But for this theory to work, there have to be an awful
lot of parasites about, and they have to have very dramatic effects.' And there is the rub. According a
mathematical model developed by Sarah Otto and her colleague Scott Nuismer, there are not enough
parasites about to explain why organisms have so much sex. ... Having sex every now and again might be an
advantage, Dr Otto believes. Doing it occasionally should fox the parasites. But doing it frequently probably
just spoils winning genetic combinations. According to her model, if evading parasites was the only
objective, organisms should reproduce sexually sometimes, but asexually often. ... A little sex makes enough
of the combinations present, but having more sex breaks apart the combinations that are working to evade
the parasites.' Since we - and many other organisms - have more than a little sex, we might have to look
beyond the Red Queen for the whole answer. `What the Red Queen can't explain is why creatures have more
than a minimal amount of sex,' said Dr Otto. `If organisms only had sex very rarely, then it could be the case
that the Red Queen could explain that." (Kettlewell J., "Famous sex theory questioned," BBC, 17
May 2004)

19/6/2004
"Our problem is to explain why sex arose, and why it is today so widespread. If it is not necessary, why do
it? The problem is made harder by what has been called the 'twofold cost of sex'. To understand this cost,
imagine a typical sexual species of lizard. A female can lay, perhaps, a hundred eggs during her lifetime, but
on average, because the number of lizards remains roughly constant, only two of them will survive to breed,
one a male and one a female. Thus, on average, each female will produce one daughter. Now imagine a
mutant gene causing a female to be parthenogenetic, producing daughters genetically identical to herself.
She, too, will, on average, lay a hundred eggs, of which two will survive. But both these will be
parthenogenetic females. Initially, and barring accidents, the number of parthenogenetic females in the
population will double in every generation. Rather quickly, parthenogens will replace sexuals. Thus there is
a twofold advantage associated with parthenogenesis, or, equivalently, a twofold cost of sex." (Maynard
Smith J. & Szathmary E., "The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life to the Origin of Language," Oxford
University Press: New York NY, 1999, p.80)

19/6/2004
"Because the first sexual eukaryotes were certainly isogamous, it follows that the twofold cost is a problem
only if we are concerned to explain the maintenance of sex in later, anisogamous organisms, but not when
discussing the origin of sex. All the same, there must be some costs associated with sex, even in isogamous
organisms. Apart from the necessity of a gamete finding a partner with which to fuse, growth and
reproduction are interrupted by the complex process of meiosis whereby gametes with half the number of
chromosomes are produced. To ensure the proper distribution of chromosomes, the production of gametes
is a complicated process, as anyone familiar with the accounts of meiosis in biology textbooks will be aware.
Because of these complications, and the obvious disadvantages associated with them, it is not surprising
that the origin and maintenance of sex continue to be a matter of controversy among biologists." (Maynard
Smith J. & Szathmary E., "The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life to the Origin of Language," Oxford
University Press: New York NY, 1999, pp.80-81).

19/6/2004 "The Red Queen hypothesis posits that sex has evolved in response to the shifting adaptive
landscape generated by the evolution of interacting species. Previous studies supporting the Red Queen
hypothesis have considered a narrow region of parameter space and only a subset of ecological and genetic
interactions. Here, we develop a population genetics model that circumscribes a broad array of ecological
and genetic interactions among species and derive the first general analytical conditions for the impact of
species interactions on the evolution of sex. Our results show that species interactions typically select
against sex. We conclude that, although the Red Queen favors sex under certain circumstances, it alone
does not account for the ubiquity of sex." (Otto S.P. & Nuismer S.L., "Species Interactions and the
Evolution of Sex," Science, Vol 304, No. 5673, 14 May 2004, pp.1018-1020)

20/6/2004
"It's turning out that the Earth is anything but ordinary, that our sun is far from average, and that even the
position of our planet in the galaxy is eerily fortuitous. The idea that the universe is a flourishing hothouse
of advanced civilizations is now being undermined by surprising new scientific discoveries and fresh
thinking. In short, new findings are suggesting that we are special. More and more scientists are
studying the mind-boggling convergence of scores of extraordinary `coincidences' that make intelligent life
possible on Earth and concluding that this can't possibly be an accident. They're seeing signs of design, a
kind of unlikely fine-tuning for life similar to the fine-tuning of physics that we explored in the previous
chapter. In fact, said one noted researcher, `new evidence which could potentially have refuted the [design]
hypothesis has only ended up confirming it.' [Denton, M.J., `Nature's Destiny,' 1998, p.387] Once again, we
find the evidence of science pointing in the direction of a Creator." (Strobel L.P.*, "The Evidence of
Astronomy: The Privileged Planet," in "The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence
that Points Toward God." Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 2004, pp.155-156)

23/6/2004
"The curtain at Planck time. Prior to some empirical confirmation of the Big Bang theory, the dominant
theory of the universe was the steady state theory which held that the universe had always existed and time
plus chance could allow for almost anything. As discussed above, however, the calculations by George
Gamow, results from the Cosmic Background Explorer concerning the uniformity of microwave background
radiation ripples, and even Einstein's admission of his blunder in using the cosmological fudge factor,
destroyed the steady state theory. The confirmation of the Big Bang shows that the universe had a
beginning and that it did not always exist. We have already discussed the impossibility of an oscillating
universe alternating between cycles of Big Bang and Big Crunch. So where did the universe come from?
Matter, space and time came into existence with the Big Bang. What existed "before" the bang? We cannot
move our observations or calculations of the universe backwards in time beyond Planck time or
10¹¹ of the first second after the Big Bang. Before Planck time the universe would still be
smaller than a proton, the temperature would be 10¹¹ degrees K, and the particles of quantum
physics could not have existed. (As indicated above, technically, we cannot even use the terms `before',
`prior' or `pre' in relation to Planck time, because time begins at Planck time which is time zero.) The laws of
physics and our understanding of quantum particles limit our ability to speculate as we approach the
singularity of time zero of the Big Bang. At Planck time or time zero the theories of physics fail completely.
Quantum physics and other classical theories of physics no longer suffice to describe the state of the
universe. The dimensions of the universe decrease as we extrapolate back in time towards the singularity.
As the size of the universe decreases to less than the size of a proton, the quantum fluctuations of gravity
become so large that the classical laws of physics can no longer be valid. This problem occurs when the
dimension of the universe is 1.6 x 10^-11 centimeters. Assuming that the universe expanded
from an infinite density, this dimension would be reached at Planck time with the density of the universe at
10¹⁴ grams per cubic centimeter. We can only speculate about the state of the universe
"prior" to this Planck time which, as noted above, is time zero when the cosmic dock began to tick. As John
D. Barrow has written recently: `The Planck time of 10^-43 seconds is significant, because
when we reach this extraordinarily early time the size of the visible universe becomes smaller than its
quantum wavelength and is thus enshrouded by quantum uncertainty. When quantum uncertainty
overtakes everything, we don't know the positions of anything, and we can't even determine the geometry
of space. This is when Einstein's theory of gravitation breaks down.' [Barrow J.D., "The Origin of the
Universe," Basic Books: New York, 1994, p.90] Something happened before Planck time, but the equations of
science cannot speak to it." (Overman D.L., "A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization," Rowman &
Littlefield: Lanham MD, 1997, pp.152-153)

23/6/2004
"Lamarckism The doctrine that offspring may inherit the acquired characteristics of their parents (that is, the
features they acquired during their lives, rather than those with which they were genetically endowed). In
fact the view of the French botanist and zoologist Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck (1744-1829) was slightly
different. He held that it was a desire for change, or a besoin, that caused change in the organism itself, and
thence in its offspring. The view is discredited, with evolutionary theory firmly wedded to the mechanism of
random genetic variation followed by natural selection." (Blackburn S., "The Oxford Dictionary of
Philosophy," [1994], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 1996, p.210)

23/6/2004
"Lamarck, Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet Chevalier de (1744-1829) A French naturalist who, in 1809,
proposed the first formal theory of evolution. He advanced the theory that evolutionary change may occur
by the inheritance of characteristics acquired during the lifetime of the individual. For example, fossil
evidence suggests that the ancestors of the giraffe had short necks: Lamarck proposed that competition for
food encouraged them to stretch upward in order to browse among higher vegetation, causing their necks to
lengthen, and that this lengthening was passed on to their descendants. Over millions of years the minute
increases from each generation to the next culminated in the long necked form. It is interesting to note that
the theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics did not hold a central position in Lamarck's own
writings. His cardinal point was that evolution is a directional, creative process in which life climbs a ladder
from simple to complex organisms. He believed the inheritance of acquired characteristics provided a
mechanism for this evolution. Lamarck explained that this progress of life up the ladder of complexity is
complicated by organisms being diverted by the requirements of local environments; thus cacti have
reduced leaves (and giraffes have long necks). ... Lamarckism The theory of evolution propounded by
Lamarck, based on the inheritance of acquired characteristics." (Allaby M., ed., "Oxford Dictionary of
Zoology," [1991], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, Second Edition, 1999, pp.286-287)

23/6/2004
"Lamarck, Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de (1744-1829) French natural historian. In 1778
he published a flora of France, which included a dichotomous identification key, and later worked on the
classification of invertebrates, published in a seven-volume natural history (1815-22). In 1809 he put forward
a theory of evolution that has become known as Lamarckism (later rejected in favour of Darwinism).
Lamarckism One of the earliest superficially plausible theories of inheritance proposed by Jean-Baptiste de
Lamarck in 1809. He suggested that changes in an individual are acquired during its lifetime, chiefly by
increased use or disuse of organs in response to "a need that continues to make itself felt", and that these
changes are inherited by its offspring. Thus the long neck and limbs of a giraffe are explained as having
evolved by the animal stretching its neck to browse on the foliage of trees. This so-called inheritance of
acquired characteristics has never unquestionably been demonstrated to occur and the theory was largely
displaced by the genetic theories of Mendel and his successors (see Mendelism)." (Martin, E. & Hine, R.S.,
eds., "Oxford Dictionary of Biology," [1985], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, Fourth Edition, 2000,
p.338-339)

26/6/2004
"As for Roy Porter's story of `the demise of the soul,' to anyone sufficiently impressed with the mysteries of
life, this demise seems greatly exaggerated. Science since the eighteenth century has accomplished so very
much--medically, technologically, purely heuristically--failing only to answer the really serious questions. It
still cannot explain the origin of the universe, how consciousness arises, how the brain turns into the mind.
It cannot tell us why there is so much suffering in the world, or whence genius derives. Nor can it account
for acts of unmotivated goodness and heroism. The mind-body problem is still that, a problem in search of a
solution. Until science and philosophy can answer such questions and solve such problems, the time for
ditching the soul is not yet at hand. Should one add, Amen?" (Epstein, J., "Body and Soul:
Roy Porter on the body of Enlightenment thought." Review of "Flesh in the Age of Reason: The
Modern Foundations of Body and Soul," by Roy Porter, W.W. Norton, 2004. The Weekly Standard, June 21,
2004)

26/6/2004
"With that framework set, I moved ahead to discuss one of the main attitudes of scientists who embrace the
Copernican Principle. `They believe if you can just find a place anywhere in the universe where water stays
liquid for a long enough period of time, then life Will develop, just as it did on Earth,' I said. `I assume you
don't agree with that.' `No, I don't,' Gonzalez said. `It's true that in order to have life you need water-which is
the universal solvent-for reactions to take place, as well as carbon, which serves as the core atom of the
information-carrying structural molecules of life. But you also need a lot more. Humans require twenty-six
essential elements; a bacterium about sixteen. Intermediate life forms are between those two numbers. The
problem is that not just any planetary body will be the source of all those chemical ingredients in the
necessary forms and amounts.' ... `Unfortunately, people see life as being easy to create. They think it's
enough merely to have liquid water, because they see life as an epiphenomenon-just a piece of slime mold
growing on an inert piece of granite. Actually, the Earth's geology and biology interact very tightly with
each other. You can't think of life as being independent of the geophysical and meteorological processes of
the planet. They interact in a very intimate way. So you need not only the right chemicals for life but also a
planetary environment that's tuned to life." (Strobel L.P.*, "The Evidence of Astronomy: The Privileged
Planet," in "The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Toward God,"
Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 2004, pp.164-165)

26/6/2004
"In all the reviews of my book that I am aware of, no one claims that the biochemical systems I describe have
already been explained by science. James Shreeve, reviewing the book for the New York Times, says, `Mr.
Behe may be right that given our current state of knowledge, good old Darwinian evolution cannot explain
the origin of blood clotting or cellular transport.' [Shreeve J., "Design for Living," New York Times, August
4, 1996, sec. 7, p.8] In the National Review microbiologist James Shapiro of the University of Chicago writes,
`There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular
system, only a variety of wishful speculations.' [Shapiro J., "In the Details...What?," National Review,
September 19, 1996, pp.62-65]
In Nature University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, although very unfriendly to the
concept of intelligent design, states," There is no doubt that the pathways described by Behe are
dauntingly complex, and their evolution will be hard to unravel.... We may forever be unable to envisage the
first proto-pathways." [Coyne J.A., "God in the Details," Nature, Vol. 383, 19 September 1996, pp.227-
228] In New Scientist Andrew Pomiankowski writes, "Pick up any biochemistry textbook, and you win find
perhaps two or three references to evolution. Turn to one of these and you will be lucky to find anything
better than 'evolution selects the fittest molecules for their biological function." [Pomiankowski A., "The
God of the tiny gaps," New Scientist, 14 September 1996, pp.44-45] So apparently everyone at least agrees
that complex biochemical systems have yet to be explained." (Behe, M.J.*, "Darwin's Breakdown: Irreducible
Complexity and Design at the Foundation of Life," in Dembski W.A. & Kushiner J.M., eds., "Signs of
Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design," Brazos Press: Grand Rapids MI, 2001, pp.99-100)

27/6/2004
"We are survival machines-robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as
genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment. Though I have known it for years, I never seem
to get fully used to it. One of my hopes is that I may have some success in astonishing others." (Dawkins,
R., "The Selfish Gene," [1976] Oxford University Press: Oxford 1989, New Edition, p.v)

27/6/2004
"Darwin gradually came to understand that the implications of his conception of evolution were profound.
While difficult for him to accept, the implications were finally impossible for him to reject. Let's see what they
are. First, the argument from design failed. There is no intelligent design in the natural world. When
mammals die, they are really and truly dead. No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no ultimate meaning in
life exists, and free will is merely a human myth. These are all conclusions to which Darwin came quite
clearly. Modern evolutionary biology not only supports Darwin's belief in evolution by descent, and his
belief in natural selection, but all of the implications that Darwin saw in evolution have been strongly
supported by modern evolutionary biology." (Provine, W.B., "Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic
Philosophy?", A debate between William B. Provine and Phillip E. Johnson at Stanford University,
April 30, 1994, Origins Research, Vol., 16, No. 1)

29/6/2004
"Natural selection undoubtedly explains some adaptations, such as camouflage. The adaptation in this case,
as well as in other famous examples of natural selection, are all simple, however. In the peppered moth,
adaptation is simply a matter of adjusting external color to the background. The problem arises in complex
characters, which are adapted to the environment in many interdependent respects. Darwin's explanation for
complex adaptations is that they evolved in many small steps, each analogous to the simple evolution in the
peppered moth; as a result, Darwin meant termed evolution `gradual.' Evolution must be gradual because it
would take a miracle for a complex organ, requiring mutations in many parts, to evolve in one sudden step. If
each mutation arose separately, in different organisms at different times, the whole process becomes more
probable ... The Darwinian should be able to show for any organ that it could, at least in principle, have
evolved in many small steps, with each step being advantageous. If exceptions are found, it would cast
serious doubt on the entire theory. In Darwin's words, `if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ
existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory
would absolutely break down.' Darwin argued that all known organs indeed could have evolved in small
steps. He took examples of complex adaptations and showed how these examples could have evolved
through intermediate stages. In cases such as the eye ..., these intermediates can be illustrated by analogies
with living species; in other cases, they can only be imagined. Darwin had to show only that the
intermediates could possibly have existed. His critics had the more difficult task: they had to show that the
intermediates could not have existed. It is very difficult to prove negative statements." (Ridley, M.,
"Evolution," [1993], Blackwell: Cambridge MA, Second Edition, 1996, Third Printing, 1999, p.342)

30/6/2004
"In my mind, these varied lines of evidence - anatomy, archaeology and genetics - all point to a single
conclusion. True language seems to me to have been a very recent acquisition, one that just precedes and
enables the evolution of anatomically modern humans and fully modern behaviors. ... Homo erectus
was speechless, illinguate. Not only does this conclusion contradict the accepted wisdom that language
acquisition demarcates the origin of the genus Homo, it leaves me with a haunting and novel image of the
Nariokotome boy. Here was a young man, tall, black, lean, and muscled, thoroughly adapted to his
environment. He made tools that, although crude, represented a substantial advance over those of his
predecessors and he made these tools according to a distinct and repetitive plan, using deliberate
techniques. He lived in a group with strong social ties, one that nurtured helpless infants and nourished
their mothers. He and his kind were very successful in obtaining high-quality foods, almost certainly by
hunting, so successful that the evolution of big brains and large bodies could occur. The boy's species,
Homo erectus, was perhaps the cleverest that had yet walked the face of the earth. Long-legged and
immensely strong, this species strode out of Africa. They were such effective predators that they could
invade and colonize most of the Old World at a rate that appears virtually instantaneous to our modern
dating techniques: less than a hundred thousand years to get from Africa to Java, not by deliberate
migration but by simple population expansion, year after year. All of this looks and sounds so human, and
yet ... and yet the boy could not talk and he could not think as we do. For all of his human physique and
physiology, the boy was still an animal - a clever one, a large one, a successful one - but an animal
nonetheless. This final discovery of the boy's speechlessness had an enormous emotional impact on me.
Over the years that had passed since ... I had first excavated his bones, I had thought I was growing to
know the boy, to understand him, to speak his language, metaphorically. I grew fond of his form; his face
took on the familiarity of a member of the family or an old friend. I could almost see him moving around the
harshly beautiful Turkana landscape, at a distance looking enough like the Turkana people to be mistaken
for human. ... But then, as I approached him closely, preparing mentally to hail him and at last make his
acquaintance in person, it was as if he turned and looked at me. In his eyes was not the expectant reserve of
a stranger but that deadly unknowing I have seen in a lion's blank yellow eyes. He may have been our
ancestor, but there was no human consciousness within that human body. He was not one of us." (Walker,
A.C. & Shipman, P., "The Wisdom of Bones: In Search of Human Origins," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London,
1996, pp.234-235)

* 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: 7 December, 2008.