[Home] [Site map] [Updates] [Quotes, Unclassified, Classified]
The following are unclassified quotes saved by me in August-September 2005. The date format is dd/mm/yy.
The date format is dd/mm/yy. See copyright conditions at end.
[Jan-Feb; Mar; Apr; May-Jun; Jul (1), (2)] [Aug; Sep; Oct] [Nov; Dec]
August [top]
1/08/2005
"Canon Liddon is authority for the statement that there are in the Old Testament three hundred and thirty-two
distinct predictions which were literally fulfilled in Christ. The mathematical probability that these would all be
fulfilled would be represented by a fraction having one for the numerator and eighty-four followed by ninety-
seven ciphers as the denominator! This fulfillment of prophecy about Christ and the fulfillment of prophecy in
general is one of the strongest lines of proof that the Bible is the Word of God, and will be discussed fully in a
later chapter, but at present we wish to point out the fact that these prophecies are not contradictory! Things
which in the Old Testament dispensation may have seemed to be contradictory, are seen as history unfolds to be
merely references to separate events. For example as the prophets looked forward into time they saw the future
events without any sense of perspective, so that things which were really centuries apart in time are often
mentioned in the same paragraph. The two comings of Christ were inextricably tangled in Old Testament
prophecy. Only the fulfillment of the event enables us to separate the two elements of prophecy. But notice
particularly that when we examine the writings of the different prophets, we do not find contradictions between
them. If it were only one person composing the messages and giving them to different individuals to put into
their own language there could not be greater agreement than there actually is. There is every evidence even in
the wording of the prophecies themselves to say nothing of their fulfillment to indicate that there was one Master
Mind which inspired the words which each prophet expresses in his own language." (Hamilton F.E.*, "The Basis
of Christian Faith: A Modern Defense of the Christian Religion," [1927], Harper & Brothers: New York NY, Third
Edition, 1946, pp.156-157)
2/08/2005
"By creation we mean the bringing into being of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden,
or fiat, creation described in the first two chapters of Genesis. Here we find the creation by God of the plants and
animals, each commanded to reproduce after its own kind using processes which were essentially instantaneous.
We do not know how God created, what processes he used, for God used processes which are not now
operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to divine creation as special creation. We
cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by God. As we have
pointed out earlier, evolutionists have not witnessed any real evolutionary changes take place nor will this be
possible in the future. They, likewise, will never be able to know how their postulated evolutionary changes may
have taken place. " (Gish D.T.*, "Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record," [1985], Creation-Life: El Cajon
CA, 1986, Second Printing, p.35. Emphasis in original)
2/08/2005
"Although Dawkins and fellow Darwinists use this example to illustrate the power of evolutionary algorithms, in
fact it raises more problems than it solves. For one thing, choosing a prespecified target sequence as Dawkins
does here is deeply teleological (the target here is set prior to running the evolutionary algorithm and the
evolutionary algorithm here is explicitly programmed to end up at the target). This is a problem because
evolutionary algorithms are supposed to be capable of solving complex problems without invoking teleology
(indeed, most evolutionary algorithms in the literature are programmed to search a space of possible solutions to
a problem until they find an answer-not, as Dawkins does here, by explicitly programming the answer into them in
advance). ... A more serious problem then remains. We can see it by posing the following question: Given
Dawkins's evolutionary algorithm, what besides the target sequence can this algorithm attain?" (Dembski W.A.*,
"No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence," Rowman & Littlefield:
Lanham MD, 2002, p.183)
2/08/2005
"One of the first critics to deny that Daniel wrote the book bearing his name was Porphyry, a neo-Platonic
philosopher of the third century .A.D. On a visit to Sicily Porphyry, then about forty years of age, wrote a work in
fifteen books entitled Against the Christians. This work is completely lost, but parts of the twelfth book in which
Porphyry attacked Daniel have been preserved in Jerome's commentary on Daniel. Porphyry denied that Daniel in
the sixth century B.C. was the author of his book, and asserted that it was written by someone who lived in
Judaea during the times of Antiochus Epiphanes. The reason which led Porphyry to this conclusion was that the
book of Daniel speaks so accurately about the times of Antiochus. Hence, it must be history, not prophecy,
since, according to Porphyry, predictive prophecy is impossible (si quid autem ultra opinatus sit, quia futura
nescient, esse mentitum) . The author of Daniel lied (mentitum) for the sake of reviving the hope of the Jews
of his time. Porphyry's criticism of Daniel, therefore, was based upon his anti--theistic philosophical
presuppositions. He thought that predictive prophecy was impossible, hence he denied that Daniel could have
uttered such prophecy." (Young E.J.*, "An Introduction to the Old Testament," [1949], Tyndale Press: London,
1958, reprint, pp.382-383)
4/08/2005
"I have no metaphysical necessity driving me to propose the miraculous action of the evident finger of God as a
scientific hypothesis. In my world view, all natural forces and events are fully contingent on the free
choice of the sovereign God. Thus, neither an adequate nor an inadequate `neo-Darwinism' (as mechanism) holds
any terrors. But that is not what the data looks like. And I feel no metaphysical necessity to
exclude the evident finger of God. I conclude that the easy acceptance of neo-Darwinism as a complete
and adequate explanation for all biological reality has indeed been based in the metaphysical needs of a dominant
materialistic consensus. One can be a theistic `Darwinian,' but no one can be an atheistic `Creationist'." (Wilcox
D.L.*, "Tamed Tornadoes," in
Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?" Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson
TX, 1994, p.215. Emphasis in original)
5/08/2005
"Spontaneous generation occurred once and only once; life cannot be reinvented, it is transmitted, it `is'
continuity. Our cells are the daughters (to the nth generation, but daughters nevertheless) of the first animal
which appeared on the surface of the earth some 800 million years ago; this animal was itself partly reproducing
the substance out of which the first living being, floating in the salt waters of the primeval ocean, was made. The
study of the groups of animals or plants for which we have fossil evidence has revealed that, in their case,
evolution is not the continuous unfolding of a simple phenomenon occurring at a regular speed and repeating
itself in a regular sequence. It is a history, that is to say a maze of facts, of phenomena, pertaining to a group of
objects whose nature, arrangement, and order change with time, following certain irreversible rules or laws. ... Yet,
in the course of time celestial bodies undergo irreversible variations: a star cannot return to its original state; the
conditions prevailing in the earth's mass and on its surface shortly after its genesis will never be found again. ...
The historicity of biological evolution is proved by the present complete interruption of all forms of spontaneous
generation of living beings from inert materials. Creation from nitrogenous and other organic compounds
dispersed or aggregated to a varying degree in sea water cannot be repeated. Spontaneous generation, which
satisfies our logic, was a historical phenomenon in the highest sense of the word; although impossible today, it
did, however, occur on earth in its early days or on another planet outside of our solar system, once only, and
that was enough to launch life in the cosmos." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New
Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.88-89)
6/08/2005
"Our logic, with its many hypotheses, attributes the interruption of biogenesis to changes in the
physicochemical conditions prevailing on earth, around the earth, under the earth's surface, and in the seas,
which prevent the synthesis of prebiotic materials. Once the proteins floating in the ocean waters had been
consumed by the first living beings, the recurrence of any new biogenesis became impossible. This situation
required that their immediate successors possess the ability to reproduce on their own, as well as a
capacity for chemosynthesis. Their perenniality could not have been maintained without these two
conditions." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation,"
[1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.89-90. Emphasis in original)
6/08/2005
"Examining the record of past research from the vantage of contemporary historiography, the historian of science
may be tempted to exclaim that when paradigms change, the world itself changes with them. Led by a new
paradigm, scientists adopt new instruments and look in new places. Even more important, during revolutions
scientists see new and different things when looking with familiar instruments in places they have looked before.
It is rather as if the professional community had been suddenly transported to another planet where familiar
objects are seen in a different light and are joined by unfamiliar ones as well. Of course, nothing of quite that sort
does occur: there is no geographical transplantation; outside the laboratory everyday affairs usually continue as
before. Nevertheless, paradigm changes do cause scientists to see the world of their research-engagement
differently. In so far as their only recourse to that world is through what they see and do, we may want to say
that after a revolution scientists are responding to a different world. It is as elementary prototypes for these
transformations of the scientist's world that the familiar demonstrations of a switch in visual gestalt prove so
suggestive. What were ducks in the scientist's world before the revolution are rabbits afterwards. The man who
first saw the exterior of the box from above later sees its interior from below. Transformations like these, though
usually more gradual and almost always irreversible, are common concomitants of scientific training. Looking at a
contour map, the student sees lines on paper, the cartographer a picture of a terrain. Looking at a bubble-
chamber photograph, the student sees confused and broken lines, the physicist a record of familiar subnuclear
events. Only after a number of such transformations of vision does the student become an inhabitant of the
scientist's world, seeing what the scientist sees and responding as the scientist does. The world that the student
then enters is not, however, fixed once and for all by the nature of the environment, on the one hand, and of
science, on the other. Rather, it is determined jointly by the environment and the particular normal-scientific
tradition that the student has been trained to pursue. Therefore, at times of revolution, when the normal-scientific
tradition changes, the scientist's perception of his environment must be re-educated-in some familiar situations
he must learn to see a new gestalt. After he has done so the world of his research will seem, here and there,
incommensurable with the one he had inhabited before." (Kuhn T.S., "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,"
[1962], University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Third edition, 1996, pp.111-112)
6/08/2005
"Were the famous scientists of long ago young earth creationists? William Provine; a prominent Darwinist,
thinks so. In a recent online review, he complained that a National Academy of Sciences publication on how
teach evolution is flawed. He questioned the Academy's decision to cite Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton
as examples of thinkers whose views on physics and astronomy were vindicated because, as be put it: `Why
would the National Academy have chosen this example in a book about evolution when all four were young-
earth creationists? 34 Well, prior to about 1750, everyone was, in one sense, a young earth creationist! For
example, the Venerable Bede (672?-735) wrote a history of the world, and so did Sir Walter Raleigh. (1554?-1618}.
Both men began with `Creation,' the origin of the universe, as described in Genesis 1 and 2. They assumed that
Creation took place about 6000 years ago. But the two men could hardly have been more different! Bede was an
English monk in the Dark Ages, and Raleigh was a skeptical English adventurer who lived nearly a thousand
years later in the Elizabethan Renaissance. Raleigh was rumored to be an atheist, holding forth in taverns, but his
religious views had no impact on where he would begin his account of history. Prior to the development of
geology as a scientific discipline in the 18th century, there was no widely accepted source of information about
cosmic or human origins apart from the Bible. Raleigh would have to either begin with Genesis, or take the risk of
resurrecting an account of origins written by a classical Greek philosopher. But the philosophers' accounts were
not science-based; they were simply accounts that were not based on a Christian understanding of the universe.
So Copernicus and the others were not young earth creationists in the sense that Provine assumes. They
accepted a traditional account of origins as an alternative to no account." (O'Leary D.*, "By Design or by
Chance?: The Growing Controversy on the Origins of Life in the Universe," 2004, p.129)
8/08/2005
"TO SAY that orthodoxy is true does not mean that it has no difficulties. Orthodoxy has difficulties, and
the apologist does not try to conceal them. To affect omniscience is cultic. Plato set an example of right
procedure. First he defended the world of Ideas; then he reviewed the difficulties. He did not fear the difficulties
because he believed that the substance of his philosophy was true. No other system could answer the question,
How is knowledge possible? In a similar way, orthodoxy does not fear the difficulties because it believes that the
substance of Christianity is true. Christianity is consistent with itself and consistent with the things signified. No
other system can answer the question, How can a sinner be just before God? If a person withholds belief until all
difficulties are resolved, he will go to his grave in unbelief, for difficulties are only a sign that we are men and not
God. Plato was confined to a cave, while the Christian sees in a mirror dimly. " For our knowledge is imperfect ... "
(I Cor. 13:9) To confuse a system with its difficulties betrays a want of education." (Carnell E.J.*, "The Case for
Orthodox Theology," Westminster Press: Philadelphia PA, 1959, p.92. Emphasis in original)
8/08/2005
"Diprotodontia is a large taxon of about 120 marsupial mammals including the kangaroos, wallabies, possums,
Koala, wombats, and many others. Extinct members include the giant Diprotodon family, and Thylacoleo,
the so-called `marsupial lion'. Diprotodonts are almost all herbivorous: there are a few insectivores and
omnivores, but these seem to be relatively recent adaptations from the mainstream herbivorous mould.
Diprotodonts are restricted to Australasia. There are two key anatomical features that, in combination, identify
the diprotodonts. The first of these is that they are diprotodont: they have a pair of large, procumbent incisors on
the lower jaw. This is a common feature of many early groups of mammals and mammaliforms. The diprotodont
jaw is short, usually with 3 pairs of upper incisors (wombats, like rodents have only one pair), and no lower
canines. Secondly, diprotodonts exhibit syndactyly: they have the second and third digits of the foot fused
together up to the base of the claws, leaving the claws themselves separate." ("Diprotodontia," Wikipedia, 21 July 2005)
8/08/2005
"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 ....
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. ... Daniel 9:25 reads: "And you are to know and understand, from the going forth of the
command ... to restore and ... build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince ... will be ... 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. ... 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" .... 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. .... 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)
9/08/2005
"These categories of stories have been shown to play distinct and important roles throughout the history of
Design-roles that changed hardly at all over the various stages that have been surveyed. For example, the
Darwinian cosmological story is subjected to an equally thorough shredding at each stage-by Denton, Johnson,
Behe, and now Wells. A rare variation in this shredding is Behe's acceptance of common ancestry. The fact that
he provisionally accepts common ancestry and yet remains a star in good standing shows Design's flexibility in
tolerating members' evolutionary beliefs on certain topics." (Woodward T.E.*, "Doubts about Darwin: A History
of Intelligent Design," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 2003, p.199)
10/08/2005
"Some of Darwin's staunchest supporters disagreed with him on key points. For example, the British biologist T
H. Huxley earned the name `Darwin's Bulldog' for his spirited and unrelenting efforts to convince scientists and
members of the lay public alike of the truth of evolution. Huxley wrote one article after another about evolution
and sent them to the leading periodicals of the day. He defended Darwin against criticisms, and replied to
unfavorable reviews of Darwin's book. Yet Huxley's views differed from Darwin's in several different respects. For
example, Darwin attributed evolution to the action of natural selection. Huxley wasn't so sure about this. He
believed that other factors might play a role. He spoke of evolution in `predetermined' directions, an idea that
appeared nowhere in Darwin's writings. And he expressed the opinion that evolution was not always so gradual
a process as Darwin conceived it to be. Huxley was not the only evolutionist who disagreed with Darwin. The
botanist Joseph Hooker, another strong supporter of evolutionary ideas, also took issue with Darwin about the
specifics of the theory. So did the naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, who had discovered the idea of natural
selection independently. All these men argued with Darwin privately in letters and sometimes in print." (Morris,
R.W., "The Evolutionists: The Struggle for Darwin's Soul," W.H. Freeman and Co: New York NY, 2001, pp.viii.-ix)
11/08/2005
"Progressive creation, understood as an alternative to `fiat creation' and theistic evolution that incorporates the
elements of truth in both, is here taken to mean that God's creative action has occurred over long periods of
time through a variety of means. The emphasis on `a variety of means' calls attention to the fact that the
focus of the biblical terminology of creation is on the results of God's action, and the relationship of those results
to the divine purpose, rather than on the details of the processes God used to achieve these results. Fiat
creationism in both its older and more recent forms in American fundamentalism is based on an unnecessary
dichotomy between natural and supernatural processes as possible methods of creation. ... For example, Henry
Morris and Gary Parker, representing the `creation science' point of view (young earth, six-day creation, `flood
geology'), state that `evolution purports to explain the origin of things by natural processes, creation by
preternatural process; and it is semantic confusion to try to equate the two' (Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What
Is Creation Science? [El Cajon, Calif.: Master Books, 7987], p. 300). This would seem to be an example of the
fallacy of the excluded middle: `X must be explained in terms (and only in terms) of either A or B.' Instead it may
be the case that X can be explained by C or D, or by some combination of A, B, C, D and so forth. In the case of
origins, it needs to be recognized that God is free to create through either natural or supernatural means, or
through a combination of both." (Davis J.J., "Is `Progressive Creation' Still a Helpful Concept?," in "The Frontiers of Science & Faith:
Examining Questions from the Big Bang to the End of the Universe," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2002,
pp.126-127.
Emphasis in original)
11/08/2005
"The number of mutations computed by geneticists is extremely high; however, the types of mutants are very
much fewer in number. The source from which arises the evolutionary flow is less important than suggested by
Darwinians. The `infinite creative potential' of DNA is surely not so great as has been claimed. Mutations have a
very limited `constructive capacity'; this is why the formation of hair by mutation of reptilian scales seems to be a
phenomenon of infinitesimal probability; the formation of mammae by mutation of reptilian integumentary glands
is hardly more likely (integuments of reptiles show very few integumentary glands; Gabe and Saint-Girons, 1967),
etc." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973],
Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.97)
12/08/2005
"First, when I say `origin of life,' I refer to the beginnings of cellular life. Cells are, for this purpose, membrane-
bounded self-replicating entities. Other life forms are conceptually possible, as can be vividly seen in the work of
science fiction writers, and the early history of the earth could have involved some self-replicating chemical
reactions outside of cells. But the life we know with certainty is cellular in nature, and that feature also
characterizes the fossil record for as far back as we can take it." (Morowitz H.J., "Cosmic Joy and Local Pain:
Musings of a Mystic Scientist," 1987, p.216)
12/08/2005
"Given the previous series of generalizations as defining contemporary life, we can then go on to ask, What is
the simplest present-day embodiment of these generalizations? What is the simplest living cell, the minimum free-
living organism? ... Since all hereditary information in procaryotes is linearly encoded in DNA genomes, the
modern free-living organism with the smallest genome may be presumed to be the simplest one. Intracellular
parasites like viruses and rickettsiae are excluded because they must use part of the host cell's genetic
information as well as their own. The search for genetic simplicity led to the mycoplasma, a group of procaryotes
lacking a cell wall and of extremely small cell size. Some species have genomes in the neighborhood of 500 million
daltons (molecular weight units). On the average, it requires about 800,000 daltons of DNA to encode a single
functional protein. Therefore, the smallest known mycoplasmas specify about six hundred biochemical
processes. ... Starting from the outside, the mycoplasma cell is surrounded by a plasma membrane made up of a
lipid bilayer, with attached proteins and carbohydrates. Within this membrane is a coiled, closed loop of DNA,
containing the cell's entire genetic information. Also found are a few hundred ribosomes, a few thousand protein
molecules, and a larger number of ATPs and assorted small molecules. Calculating theoretically from the known
generalizations of molecular biology, the smallest, simplest organism that could carry out absolutely necessary
functions of life would require a genome size at least half that of mycoplasma. In other words, the simplest
free-living organisms discovered to date are close to the theoretical limit of simplicity based on the
generalizations of molecular biology. We don't know that mycoplasma are necessarily primitive; they may be
degenerate forms of advanced bacteria. They have, however, achieved great simplicity while retaining the ability
to exist as free-living forms. (Morowitz H.J., "Cosmic Joy and Local Pain: Musings of a Mystic Scientist," 1987,
pp.227-229. Emphasis in original)
12/08/2005
"It is possible to extrapolate from the present structure of molecular biology and move back one step toward
earlier systems. Since there are viruses that encode their genetic information in double-stranded RNA, and since
in principle all known hereditary processes could be carried out using RNA in place of DNA, we can envision an
even simpler cell than the existing ones: a cell that uses no DNA. The apparent limit of simplicity would be a
mycoplasmalike cell containing double-stranded RNA as the coding material. " (Morowitz H.J., "Cosmic Joy and
Local Pain: Musings of a Mystic Scientist," 1987, p.229)
12/08/2005
"Similarly, Oxford University professor of physiology Sir Charles Sherrington, a Nobel Prize winner described as
`a genius who laid the foundations of our knowledge of the functioning of the brain and spinal cord,' [The British
Medical Journal, March 15, 1952] declared five days before his death: `For me now, the only reality is the human
soul.' [Popper K.R. & Eccles J.C., "The Self and Its Brain," Springer-Verlag: New York NY, 1977, p.558] As for his
one-time student John C. Eccles, himself an eminent neurophysiologist and Nobel laureate, his ultimate
conclusion is the same. `I am constrained,' he said, `to believe that there is what we might call a supernatural
origin of my unique self-conscious mind or my unique selfhood or soul.' [Ibid, pp.559-600]" (Strobel L.P., "The
Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Toward God," Zondervan: Grand
Rapids MI, 2004, p.250)
12/08/2005
"The first of the great rationalist philosophers was the Frenchman Rene Descartes (1596-1650). ... Descartes
received his education not at a university but at a Jesuit college. But this proved no detriment, for he was given a
better grounding in mathematics than he could have otherwise got at most universities at the time. Seeking a life
of leisure, Descartes embarked upon a military career. He saw service in several European armies, always careful
to transfer somewhere else when fighting broke out. He went to Sweden at the request of Queen Christina who ...
could only spare the hour of five in the morning for her daily lessons .... Descartes seems to have made a
sustained effort to keep up the appearances of a gentlemanly amateur. He is said to have worked short hours and
read little. He dabbled in various sciences, including medicine. But his main contributions were made in the fields
of geometry and philosophy. In the former he invented co-ordinate geometry. In the latter he pioneered
rationalism and Cartesian doubt. His two chief philosophical works were his Discourse on Method (1637) and his
Meditations (1641). .... As a first principle he resolved `never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly
know to be such' His ideal and method were modelled on mathematics. `The long chains', he went on, `of simple
and easy reasonings by means of which geometers are accustomed to reach the conclusions of their most
difficult demonstrations, had led me to imagine that all things, to the knowledge of which man is competent, are
mutually connected in the same way, and that there is nothing so far removed from us as to be beyond our reach,
or so hidden that we cannot discover it, provided only we abstain from accepting the false for the true, and
always preserve in our thoughts the order necessary for the deduction of one truth from another.' And so were
born Cartesian doubt and rationalism. The former excludes from serious philosophical consideration everything
about which doubt may be entertained. The latter seemed to place within the philosopher's grasp the key that
would not only guarantee modern scientific method, but also unlock the whole of reality. For whereas reliance
upon observation and experience could prove deceptive, rational argument was unshakable. With this in mind he
set about probing the structure of the universe. Giving free rein to his doubts, he granted the possibility that
everything in his mind might be no more than dreams and illusions. How then could he be sure that the world
existed? His answer had three main steps. First of all, he came to the realization that whatever else he could
doubt, there was one thing that it was impossible to doubt - the fact that he was doubting. This, in turn, led him
to his celebrated axiom: Cogito ergo sum (`I think, therefore I am'). The mere fact that he was having
doubts and, therefore, thinking meant that he must exist. The next step in the argument was to show that God
existed. This he attempted to take by a combination of the causal and ontological arguments. On the one hand,
the idea of himself as a finite being implied the existence of an infinite being. On the other hand, the very idea of a
Perfect Being implied its existence. The third and final step was to advance the claim that, since God is perfect, he
would not deceive us. He would not allow us to think that our clear and distinct ideas were true, if they were not.
We can thus rest assured that all our logical deductions about reality are valid.' Descartes has been frequently
taken to task for his philosophical blunders. We have already queried the validity of the ontological argument.
Once this goes, the whole system is bereft of its pivot. The celebrated Cogito ergo sum has also provided
philosophers with ample shooting-practice. Bertrand Russell is among the many who have pointed out its
fallacious character. If Descartes is really wanting to start with doubt, his initial premise should have been `There
are doubts'. He is not entitled to infer from this the existence of a personal self, an `I' with all the qualities we take
for granted in everyday life. The latter is smuggled into the argument unnoticed. On the other hand, the phrase
may well not be a logical deduction of personal existence from the mere fact that there are doubts but simply a
disguised tautology, merely repeating the same thing in different words. In which case the phrase is simply a
reaffirmation of his own existence. But it is also questionable whether even an ultra-sceptic can honestly begin
with nothing but doubt as his primary datum. However difficult it may be to formulate it, we are all profoundly
conscious that we are not alone with our doubts. We live in a milieu, and that milieu is made up of other people,
other things, and God. In short, Cartesian philosophy represents a false start. Descartes is sometimes portrayed
as the first modern philosopher. This is not quite correct. In refurbishing the medieval proofs of the existence of
God he was drawing upon the legacy of the Middle Ages. Like the medieval philosophers he was interested in
metaphysics. To the end of his life Descartes remained a nominal Catholic. But there is a sense in which
Descartes represents a new departure. Descartes was interested in God not for his own sake, but for the world's.
God is invoked as a kind of deus ex machina to guarantee the validity of our thoughts about the world. Apart
from that he remains eternally standing in the wings. It is not surprising that, when later philosophers came along
who shared Descartes's assumptions but not his methods, they could dispose entirely of this unwanted prop. In
one of his more speculative moments Archbishop William Temple was once tempted to ask himself which was
the most disastrous moment in European history. The answer he came up with was the day Descartes shut
himself up in his [room with a] stove. In saying this, Temple was not thinking so much about Descartes's view of
God but about the trend he set in European thought. It epitomized a shift of concern. It symbolized a retreat into
the individual self-consciousness as the one sure starting-point in philosophy. .... The French philosopher
inaugurated a trend followed by many who rejected his actual system. He set up the individual consciousness as
the final criterion of truth. Descartes himself believed that he had firmly grasped objective reality with his
doctrine of clear and distinct ideas which remained unshakable amid the shifting sands of experience. In fact,
neither the Cogito ergo sum, nor the ontological argument, nor his method in general was anything like as
dependable as he led himself to believe. The mere process of thinking thoughts (however logical their sequence)
does not make them true. A thought may be said to be true when it corresponds with its object. This can only be
done by checking it in experience. But this is precisely what Descartes tried to eliminate in philosophy. In effect,
Descartes was driving a wedge between the mind and its thoughts on the one hand and the world and experience
on the other. This approach was strongly (and rightly) opposed by the British empiricists. But on the continent
Descartes set the trend. Rationalism dominated continental, especially German, philosophy almost to the end of
the eighteenth century. And even when rationalism was finally abandoned, there were many down to the present
day who continued to take the individual self-consciousness as their starting-point and even as their sole
reference-point." (Brown C., "Philosophy and the Christian Faith," Tyndale Press: London, 1969, pp.52-53)
13/08/2005
"SINCE THE MANUSCRIPT Wallace mailed from Ternate contained-in complete form-what is today known as
the Darwinian theory of evolution, the date of its arrival at Down House acquires profound historical
significance. A quartet of dates is in the running as the date on which the postrider handed Wallace's
envelope to Parslow. The first of the four - Friday, June 4-is speculative; the second-Tuesday, June 8-is the day
Darwin wrote Hooker that he had suddenly found the missing `keystone' of his theory; the third-Monday, June
14-is suggested by Darwin's `little diary'; and the fourth-Friday, June 18-is the date publicly advanced by Darwin
himself. Wherever the chronological reality may rest, June 1858 clearly marked for Darwin the moment of truth.
The problem is compounded by the disappearance of the Wallace envelope. That envelope, with its postmarks,
which has been searched for in vain at the Linnean Society, the Royal Geographical Society, the British Museum
(Natural History), the University of London, and elsewhere, contained irrefutable evidence of the precise date on
which Darwin broke it open and read its contents. In all probability, it no longer exists. It has either been
misplaced or, more likely, destroyed. The postal history of the period, the survival of a number of other Wallace
letters from Ternate, and a consensus among philatelists is that it would take a letter from Ternate some twelve
weeks to reach Down. According to the evidence found in Wallace's papers, he wrote out his complete theory of
evolution toward the end of February and posted it March 9, when the first available Dutch vessel dropped
anchor at Ternate. This is corroborated by a letter Wallace sent that same day by the same ship to Frederick
Bates, the brother of Henry Walter Bates with whom Wallace had scoured the Amazon for species some years
earlier. H. Lewis McKinney, a member of the University of Kansas faculty, was the first to draw attention to the
Bates letter, which is in the possession of Wallace's grandson, Alfred John Russel Wallace. The letter, mailed
from Ternate, bears the usual series of cancellations, showing its arrival at Singapore and transit to London via
Southampton and then on to Leicester, where Bates lived. It arrived at Leicester June 3 and bears a cancellation
of the Leicester post office for that date. Wallace's letter to Darwin should have arrived the same day as Bates',
June 3, or perhaps a day or two later. `It is only reasonable to assume that Wallace's communication to Darwin
arrived at the same time and was delivered to Darwin at Down House on 3 June 1858, the same day as Bates' letter
arrived in Leicester,' said McKinney. `If this sequence is correct, as it appears to be, we must ask ourselves what
Darwin was doing with Wallace's paper during the two weeks between 4 June and 18 June (when Darwin claimed
he received it).'" (Brackman A.C., "A Delicate Arrangement: The Strange Case of Charles Darwin and Alfred
Russel Wallace," Times Books: New York NY, 1980, pp.16-17)
13/08/2005
"It is often claimed that the answer to the riddle lay on Darwin's shelves, in the uncut pages of the proceedings
of the Brunn Natural History Society where nestled Gregor Mendel's paper on Versuche uber PflanzenHybriden.
Unfortunately this poignant story seems to be an urban myth. The two scholars best placed (at Cambridge and at
Down House) to know what was in Darwin's personal library can find no evidence that he ever subscribed to the
proceedings, nor does it seem likely that he would have done so. They have no idea where the legend of the
'uncut pages' originated. Once originated, however, it is easy to see that its very poignancy might speed its
proliferation. The whole affair would make a nice little project in memetic research, complementing that other
popular urban legend, the agreeable falsehood that Darwin turned down an offer from Marx to dedicate Das
Kapital to him." (Dawkins R., "Introduction," in Darwin C.R., "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to
Sex," [1874], Gibson Square Books: London, Second edition, 2003, reprint, p.xvi)
14/08/2005
"Giard (1905), himself a shrewd scholar but blinded by a foolish anticlericalism, went so far as to abjure
Lamarckism and write, "To account for the wondrous adaptations such as those we observe between orchids
and the insects that fertilize them, we have hardly any choice but the bare alternative hypotheses: the
intervention of a sovereignly intelligent being, and selection." ... Giard's concept, which is that held by many
atheists and freethinkers, gives a singular and belittling idea of God. The Almighty, obliged to remodel and
retouch His own handiwork all the time, is baffled by obstacles His omniscience failed to detect. He is not even a
demigod, but a mere pawn, a vague deity designed for crooked-thinking scientists. Nature has its laws. The
determinism of the things that flow from first causes suffices to explain the phenomena occurring in the material
universe, whether it be made of inert matter or of living things. Let us not invoke God in realities in which He
no longer has to intervene. The single absolute act of creation was enough for Him." (Grasse P.-P.,
"Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New
York NY, 1977, pp.165-166. Emphasis in original)
14/08/2005
"As Theism is the doctrine of an extramundane, personal God, the creator, preserver, and governor of all things,
any doctrine which denies the existence of such a Being is anti-theistic. Not only avowed Atheism, therefore, but
Polytheism, Hylozoism, Materialism, and Pantheism, belong to the class of anti-theistic theories. Atheism does
not call for any separate discussion. It is in itself purely negative. It affirms nothing. It simply denies what Theism
asserts. The proof of Theism is, therefore, the, refutation of Atheism.. Atheist is, however, a term of reproach.
Few men are willing to call themselves, or to allow others to call them by that name. Hume, we know, resented it.
Hence those who are really atheists, according to the etymological and commonly received meaning of the word,
repudiate the term. They claim to be believers in God, although they assign to that word a meaning which is
entirely unauthorized by usage. ... Language, however, has its rights. The meaning of words cannot be changed
at the pleasure of individuals. The word God, and its equivalents in other languages, have a definite meaning,
from which no man is at liberty to depart. If any one says he believes in God, he says he believes in the existence
of a personal, self-conscious being. He does not believe in God, if he only believes in `motion,' in `force,' in
`thought,'' in `moral order,' in `the incomprehensible,' or in any other abstraction. Theists also have their rights.
Theism is a definite form of belief. For the expression of that belief, the word Theism is the established and
universally recognized term. We have the right to retain it; and we have the right to designate as Atheism, all
forms of doctrine which involve the denial of what is universally understood by Theism." (Hodge C., "Systematic Theology," [1892], James Clark & Co:
London, Vol. I, 1960, reprint, pp.241-242)
14/08/2005
"Yes, but you must wager. There is no choice, you are already committed. Which will you choose then? ... Let us
weigh up the gain and the loss involved in calling heads that God exists. Let us assess the two cases: if you win
you win everything, if you lose you lose nothing" (Pascal B., "Pensees," 418, [1670], Krailsheimer A.J., Transl.,
Penguin: London, Revised edition, 1966, p.123)
14/08/2005
"One somewhat curious fact emerges from a survey of biological progress as culminating for the evolutionary
moment in the dominance of Homo sapiens. It could apparently have pursued no other general course
than that which it has historically followed: or, if it be impossible to uphold such a sweeping and universal
negative, we may at least say that among the actual inhabitants of the earth, past and present, no other lines
could have been taken which would have produced speech and conceptual thought, the features that form the
basis for man's biological dominance. Multicellular organization was necessary to achieve the basis for adequate
size: without triploblastic development and a blood-system, elaborate organization and further size would have
been impossible. Among the coelomates, only the vertebrates were eligible as agents for unlimited progress, for
only they were able to achieve the combination of active efficiency, size, and terrestrial existence on which the
later stages of progress were of necessity based. Only in the water have the molluscs achieved any great
advance. The arthropods are not only hampered by their necessity for moulting; but their land representatives,
as was first pointed out by Krogh, are restricted by their tracheal respiration to very small size. They are therefore
also restricted to cold-bloodedness and to a reliance on instinctive behaviour (see discussion in Wells, Huxley
and Wells, 1930, Book 5, chap. 5, § 7). Lungs were one needful precursor of intelligence. Warm blood was
another, since only with a constant internal environment could the brain achieve stability and regularity for its
finer functions. This limits us to birds and mammals as bearers of the torch of progress. But birds were ruled out
by their depriving themselves of potential hands in favour of actual wings, and perhaps also by the restriction of
their size made necessary in the interests of flight. Remain the mammals. During the Tertiary epoch, most
mammalian lines cut themselves off from the possibility of ultimate progress by concentrating on immediate
specialization. A horse or a lion is armoured against progress by the very efficiency of its limbs and teeth and
sense of smell: it is a limited piece of organic machinery. As Elliot Smith has so fully set forth, the penultimate
steps in the development of our human intelligence could never have been taken except in arboreal ancestors, in
whom the forelimb could be converted into a hand, and sight inevitably became the dominant sense in place of
smell. But, for the ultimate step, it was necessary for the anthropoid to descend from the trees before he could
become man. This meant the final liberation of the hand, and also placed the evolving creature in a more varied
environment, in which a higher premium was placed upon intelligence. Further, the foetalization necessary for a
prolonged period of learning could only have occurred in a monotocous species (pp. 525, 555; Haldane, 1932a, p.
124; Spence and Yerkes, 1937). Weidenreich (1941) maintains that the attainment of the erect posture was a
necessary - prerequisite for the final stages in human cerebral evolution. The last step yet taken in evolutionary
progress, and the only one to hold out the promise of unlimited (or indeed of any further) progress in the
evolutionary future, is the degree of intelligence which involves true speech and conceptual thought: and it is
found exclusively in man. This, however, could only arise in a monotocous mammal of terrestrial habit, but
arboreal for most of its mammalian ancestry. All other known groups of animals, except the ancestral line of this
kind of mammal, are ruled out. Conceptual thought is not merely found exclusively in man: it could not have been
evolved on earth except in man." (Huxley J.S., "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis," [1942], George Allen &
Unwin: London, 1945, reprint, p.569-570)
16/08/2005
"J.P. Moreland's `Conceptual Problems and the Scientific Status of Creation Science' argues against the notion
that creationist theories are inherently unscientific. He suggests: (1) there are no good reasons to exclude
postulations of intelligent design or special creative acts of God from science a priori and (2) there is at least one
good reason to allow consideration of such postulations in science - namely, that creationist theories attempt to
solve conceptual problems which, following Laudan, he regards as a primary function of many scientific theories.
Moreland's analysis does not address any of the specific empirical claims that the various creationist theories
(old-earth, young earth, theistic macromutationalist, etc.) make, but instead seeks to counter the claim that such
theories can not (i.e., in principle) be considered scientific because they invoke special divine action as part of
their explanatory framework. Thus, unlike Ruse [Ruse M., "Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution
Controversies," 1982, pp.322-24], Stent [Stent G.S., "Scientific Creationism: Nemesis of Sociobiology," in
Montagu A., ed., "Science and Creationism," 1984, p.137], Gould S.J., "Evolution as Fact and Theory." in
Montagu, 1984, p.118], Grizzle [Grizzle R., "Some Comments on the `Godless' Nature of Darwinian Evolution, and a
Plea to the Philosophers Among Us." PSCF, 44:2, 1993, pp.175-177], Murphy [Murphy N., "Phillip Johnson on
Trial: A Critique of His Critique of Darwin." PSCF, 45:1, 1993, p.33 and others, Moreland does not regard the
possibility of a scientific theory of creation as "self-contradictory nonsense." [Ebert J., et. al., "Science and
Creationism: A View From the National Academy of Science," 1987, pp.8-10; Lewontin R., "Introduction."
Scientists Confront Creationism," in Godfrey L.R., ed., "Scientists Confront Creationism," , 1983, p.xxi] While
Moreland's conclusions no doubt seem quite radical to many practicing scientists and longtime ASA members,
his arguments are, in my opinion, quite sound. Philosophers of science have generally lost patience with
attempts to discredit theories as `unscientific' by using philosophical or methodological litmus tests. Such so-
called `demarcation criteria' `criteria that purport to distinguish true science from pseudo-science, metaphysics
and religion' have inevitably fallen prey to death by a thousand counter examples. Well-established scientific
theories often lack some of the allegedly necessary features of true science (e.g. falsifiability, observability,
repeatability, use of law-like explanation, etc.), while many disreputable or "crank" ideas have often manifested
some of these same features. [Laudan L., "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem," in Ruse M., ed., "But Is It
Science?," 1988, pp.337-350]" (Meyer S.C., "The Use and Abuse of Philosophy of Science: A Response to Moreland," Perspectives in
Science and Christian Faith, Vol. 46, March 1994, pp.19-21)
16/08/2005
"The final authority, the Bible, shows that the earth cannot be billions of years old. Such a belief conflicts with
the biblical data of creation in six ordinary days, recent creation of man on the sixth day, and death of humans
and animals arising from Adam's sin. Science is limited in dealing with the past, so cannot be used to prove or
disprove the Bible. Biblical creationists believe that the only way to conclusively establish the earth's age is the
testimony of the eyewitness account in Genesis. In a court of law, a reliable eyewitness that a suspect was
absent from a crime scene overrules any circumstantial evidence, and there is no eyewitness more reliable than
the all-knowing Creator. Creationists have also pointed out that "scientific" methods are limited in dealing with
the past, because of many assumptions. Therefore, it would be folly to use any of this circumstantial evidence to
overrule the plain meaning of the Bible." (Sarfati J.D.*, "Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientific
Refutation of `Progressive Creationism' (Billions of Years) as Popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross," Master
Books: Green Forest AR, 2004, p.331)
16/08/2005
"In the next few chapters I shall be obliged to oppose the notion that the earth is young. But I shall not
attack it; one does not attack one's own friends. If we must use a military metaphor, I hope my allies will
view me as exhorting them rather than attacking them. I am appealing to them to stop using the strategy and
weapons of a bygone age in our common fight against unbelief.
For recent-creationists are my friends and allies. Let there be no mistake about that. The things we have in
common are much more important than those on which we differ. We share a belief in an inspired Bible. We agree
that Darwin was mistaken, and that God is the Creator of every living thing. Compared with this, the question of
the age of the earth pales into insignificance."
(Hayward A.*, "Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence from Science and the Bible," [1985], Bethany
House: Minneapolis MN, 1995, reprint, p.79. Emphasis in original)
17/08/2005
"The book can be appreciated on many levels. It is by no means only an owner's manual, though it is
indispensably that. For all its sound practical advice, it could only have been written by a professional zoologist,
drawing deeply on theory and scholarship. Many of the facts herein are accurate. The world of dinosaurs has
always been richly provided with wonder and amazement, and Mash's manual only adds to the mixture. As a
theological aside, creationists (now excitingly rebranded as Intelligent Design Theorists) will find it an invaluable
resource in their battle against the preposterous canard that humans and dinosaurs are separated by 65 million
years of geological time." (Dawkins R.; "Foreword," in Mash R., "How to Keep Dinosaurs," Weidenfeld &
Nicolson: London, 2003, p.6)
18/08/2005
"Our study will concentrate on the eye, the genesis of which is a major challenge to evolutionists. ... Charles
Darwin ... recognized the weaknesses of his theory, which are increasingly apparent today. We are not surprised,
then, to read in a letter to his friend the botanist Asa Gray: `To this day the eye makes me shudder, but when I
think of the fine known gradations, my reason tells me I ought to conquer my fear' (Darwin, 1888. p.273, letter to
Asa Gray, February 1860). We fully understand Darwin's fears and wonder what they would have been, had he
been confronted with the anatomical and cytological complexity that is revealed by modern biology; he would
have been even more worried had he known that selection cannot create anything on its own. .... The problem is
to know whether random mutations could have given rise to an organ requiring, because of its complexity, a
considerable number of data for its elaboration. The number of mutations must have been enormous for adequate
ones to occur at a given point, by chance and to enable the organ to function. we need not belabor the diversity
of the transparent parts, on the relationships between the intraocular fluid (aqueous humor) and the venous
system (Schlemm's canal), among others. The complexity of the retina, of the sheaths, etc., need not detain us
either; all this is extremely well known, but we must say that no recent publication inspired by Darwinism even
mentions it. In 1860 Darwin considered only the eye, but today he would have to take into consideration all the
cerebral connections of the organ. The retina is indirectly connected to the striated zone of the occipital lobe of
the cerebral hemispheres: Specialized neurons correspond to each one of its parts-perhaps even to each one of
its photoreceptor cells. The connection between the fibers of the optic nerve and the neurons of the occipital
lobe in the geniculate body is absolutely perfect. The processes of the axons the outgrowths of the dendrites,
and the connections with corresponding elements are so precisely laid out in time and space that as a rule
everything works perfectly. In fact, the picture we have just sketched is even more complex; we did not consider
the molecular structure which shows as many peculiarities of adaptation as the macrostructure (the subtleties of
which were sometimes mistaken for imperfections; see Ivanoff, 1953), and we have neglected entirely the
chemistry of a complex organ capable of multiple adjustments." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms
Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.104-105)
18/08/2005
"Worlds are colliding, people. Your friendly neighborhood message board is not alone in the online community
world any longer. This year we are celebrating the 25th anniversary of the message board. Since that time,
interfaces have improved, email has been integrated, but comparatively little has changed regarding the basic
structure and intent of the message board. However, in the last few years, we've seen the arrival of a new set of
tools and processes that offer additional opportunities for message board-based online communities. The
appearance of weblogs have left many observers, including me, wondering about the differences between the
two technologies and how they will be used inside online communities. Are weblogs really that different from
message boards? How? Note: Below I make assumptions and generalizations about message board and weblog
design. My goal is to discuss what I think are standard practices across the technologies. I realize that the
assumptions below may or may not match with your experiences and I present them as suggestions. .... First, I
believe that weblogs and message boards are different .... Perhaps the most compelling difference in
weblogs and message boards is the locus of control. Weblogs are individual or small group resources- the
control of content and value is driven by a single person or small group. Message Boards are group resources-
the control of content and value is shared equally across all users. ... The locus of control matters most in
defining who can post new topics, which drive the content of the resource. In weblogs, this role is centralized,
with new topics being presented by a defined and focused person or small group. This centralization facilitates
focus and direction on behalf of the webloggers. In many message boards, all members usually have the ability to
create new topics. This decentralization allows for more emergent and unpredictable directions that may reflect
the group's desires as a whole. ... The centralized vs. decentralized nature of the technologies fit nicely into two
distinct intentions. With weblog authorship being centralized inside a community, they can easily become news
sources, where trusted individuals provide accounts of events and information. The decentralized nature of
message boards works well to accumulate group input and facilitate collaboration and group decision making. ...
Weblogs and Message Boards both allow for responses from the community- new topics can be responded-to
by others. Weblog topics have comments and message board topics have replies. This subtle difference in
syntax reveals a difference in the roles. The word comment for weblogs implies that the author does not need
further participation to reach a goal- comment if you want. Reply, on the other hand, implies that participation is
explicitly requested by the poster. A discussion is not a discussion without a reply. ... The order and
presentation of topics across message boards and weblogs relate another difference. Weblogs are consistently
arranged with the most recently posted topics at the top of the page, regardless of new comments. With a
message board, the posting of replies can govern the presentation of the originating topic- topics with new
replies are often presented at the top (but not always, of course). This illustrates the relative importance of replies
in message board discussions. Replies can keep a discussion alive and at the top of the page for months or even
years in some cases. ... Since a weblog depends on a single person or select group, the likelihood of off-topic or
inappropriate topics (or responses) is greatly reduced. Further, as discussed previously, weblogs do not depend
on responses to provide value. So, in situations where spam or flame wars are a problem, weblogs can turn-off
comments and depend on new topics from the webloggers for value. Being group resources, message boards do
not have the luxury to turn off replies, but do prevent problems with moderation of each new topic or response. ...
How topics are archived and organized provides another look at the differences. Often, each new topic in a
weblog is assigned to a category that is used to organize the topics for future reference. A single weblog may
have many categories that archive and organize posts that were originally presented on the weblogs' front page.
Message boards are often presented with multiple starting points for creating a new discussion. The member
chooses the appropriate location to post a new topic, depending on subject matter. In this way, message boards
create multiple "front pages", spreading the presentation of new topics across locations/content buckets in the
community." (LeFever, L., "What are the
Differences Between Message Boards and Weblogs?," Common Craft weblog, August 24, 2004. Emphasis
in original. )
22/08/2005
"We took the eye as an example, but the ear would have been just as instructive. Is not the human brain, the
organ capable of abstraction, an even better example? Even the architecture of the cortex with its 14 billion
neurons is not known with any degree of precision. In mammals, all sense organs evolved almost
simultaneously. If one considers the great number of simultaneous, timely mutations satisfying existing
needs involved in their genesis, one can not fail to be confounded by so much harmony, so many lucky
coincidences, due entirely to omnipotent chance." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms Evidence for a
New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.105)
22/08/2005
"Selection must complete its work on successive generations and must find in them the materials it needs.
Moreover, successive generations reproduce preceding ones, otherwise they have no evolutionary value. We
have already listed the lucky chances required for the slightest evolution to result from mutations (p. 94).
Anyone who endorses the random theory of evolution admits that the eye and the ear, to become what they are,
have required thousands and thousands of lucky chances, synchronized with the needs of their construction.
What probability is there of such wonderfully fortuitous success?" (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms
Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.105-106)
22/08/2005
"Natural selection, if one admits that it is the builder of the living world, can only operate if it possesses the
correct building materials needed for the construction of the organ at the right moment. What is the use of
appropriate mutations if they appear too early or too late in the course of phylogenesis? If the formation of the
crystalline lens and of the retina had not been closely coordinated (the retina is the inducing agent of the anterior
parts of the eye), the eye could not have formed. The necessary mutations could not have occurred
independently. The influence of the organ extends to structures in its immediate vicinity; can one imagine an eye
without eyelids or without lachrymal glands? Moreover, these accessories necessarily formed early in the course
of evolution; the eye is indeed too fragile to be able to do without them. The chronology of phenomena in any
ontogenesis is inflexible. The formation and the subsistence of the living being requires that successive
transformations arise in an orderly manner and that its architecture be equally ordered. Randomness and chance
have no place here." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of
Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.106)
22/08/2005
"Moreover, during phylogenetic organogenesis, natural selection must be capable of foresight. Isn't "choosing"
its prime function? But the choice cannot take place without predicting the future role of the incipient organ.
Without such prescience, the coordination of successive states is incomprehensible. Did Darwin take this into
consideration? Without its predictive powers, selection would not be able to favor an incipient organ which, at
the time, had little or no usefulness. What sort of advantage could result from the starting of an eye, when the
materials forming it were not yet transparent? Of what use was the development of the dentary and the
accompanying regression of the proximal jaw bones in theriodont reptiles, the ancestors of mammals? An answer
can always be invented, but all this merely adds another supposition to the mass of previous suppositions."
(Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic
Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.106-107)
22/08/2005
"We repeatedly hear that chance is all-powerful. Statements are insufficient. Evidence must be produced. I do not
consider the spontaneous appearance of resistance to an antibiotic in a nonresistant population of bacteria as
evidence. Neither structures nor fundamental functions are involved here. This is so true that variations of this
kind, although repeated millions of times, have left bacteria practically unchanged. ... On the border of science,
however, a theoretical system gradually appeared which claimed that chance accounts for the genesis and the
evolution of the biocosm. Its advocates have faith in chance; they are certain that it unfailingly provides the
living being with all that it requires. ... Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence,
which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped. ... To insist, even with
Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition
which I relieve to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms:
Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.107)
23/08/2005
"Additional Note on the long-lived antediluvians. Two problems of interpretation lie on the surface of this
chapter: in simple terms, the period as a whole looks too short, and the individual life-spans too long, to
harmonize with other data. ... a. The total period. Our present knowledge of civilization, e.g. at Jericho, goes back
to at least 7000 BC, and of man himself very much further. When Ussher dated Adam at 4004 BC he assumed that
the generations in this chapter were an unbroken chain: but the chapter neither adds its figures together nor
gives the impression that the men it names overlapped each other's lives to any unusual extent (e.g. that Adam
lived almost to the birth of Noah) . If it has selected ten names (and in 11:10ff. another ten from Noah to
Abraham) as separate landmarks rather than continuous links, it has genealogical custom both within and
without the Bible to support it. Within Scripture, note the stylized scheme of three fourteens in Matthew 1
(involving the omission of three successive kings in Mt. 1:8). Outside it, anthropologists and others have drawn
attention to similar genealogical methods in the Sudan, Arabia, and elsewhere. On this understanding of the
scheme, Seth, for example, produced at 105 either a forbear of Enosh or Enosh himself (cf. Mt. 1:8b, where Joram
'begat' his great-great-grandson); and so on. This leaves the total period undetermined. b. The life-spans.
Reinterpretations of the longevity of these men are less happy. At first sight the fact that a name can mean both
an individual and his tribe (cf. chapter 10) could account for some of the great ages if the first figure in the record
(3,6, etc.) were taken to denote a man's personal life-span, while the second figure (4,7, etc.) gave that of the
family he founded; 2 but Enoch and Noah are fatal exceptions, for they are clearly portrayed as individuals to the
end. The idea that units of time may have changed their meaning is equally unfruitful: apart from creating fresh
difficulties in 12, 15, 21, it breaks down in the detailed chronology between 7:6 and 8:13. As far as we can tell,
then, the life-spans are intended literally. It may be worth pointing out that our familiar rate of growth is not the
only conceivable one; also that various races have traditions of primitive longevity [The Sumerian king-list
names eight or ten antediluvians, reigning on an average some thirty thousand years apiece. Some grain of truth
could lie behind these vast numbers, as truth evidently lies behind the actual names ...] which could stem from
authentic memories. See also on 12:14. But further study of the conventions of ancient genealogy writing may
throw new light on the intention of the chapter." (Kidner D.*, "Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary,"
Tyndale Press: London, 1967, pp.82-83)
23/08/2005
"The proposed longevity of the antediluvians or macrobians presents us with a problem in anthropology. These
men lived up to 900 years, and they did not seem to have children till they were around 100 years old. Three
interpretations have been suggested: A. Some have said that the time element needs reduction. Perhaps Moses
used the Hebrew word year for some Babylonian word. For example we might take the English pound and equate
it with the French franc as both being the unit of money of the two peoples, but to state francs as pounds and
pounds as francs requires some method of reduction of pounds to francs. Babylonian records speak of men
living 30,000 years! We would need a reduction factor of about one to ten to reduce 900 down to about 90. But
such a reduction ratio has not been found which is satisfactory because it ends up with people having children
when they are a year old! Until a feasible system of reduction can be found this method must be rejected. B. We
may assert that these men actually lived 900 years or so, and assert that the flood made a radical difference in
world conditions. A change in climate, a change in sunlight and moonlight, an increase in disease, have been
suggested as cutting down man's life span. In general, expositors have felt that man coming right from the hand
of the Creator was so free from disease that he could live much longer than contemporary man who is the heir of
centuries of disease. There is nothing inherently impossible for man to have lived that long, but certainly
something very unusual was at work if man did live that long. C. A third theory goes back to Bunsen's Bibelwerk
(v. 49) in which Bunsen defends the interpretation that these years are cyclical. They deal with the epochs of the
antediluvians, not their chronological ages. ... John Davis in his Bible dictionary and then in the ISBE
[International Standard Bible Encyclopedia] ("Antediluvian Patriarchs," I, 139-143) defends this theory at length
in the twentieth century. He feels that the names represent the patriarch and his family: The longevity is the
period during which the family had prominence and leadership; the age at the son's birth is the date in the family
history at which a new family originated and ultimately succeeded to the dominant position. This theory would
relieve us of the problem of time reduction, and the problem of such a long span of life for man. One problem is
figuring how Enoch fits into this interpretation for Gen. 5: 21-24 informs us that Enoch walked with God for three
hundred years after the birth of Methuselah. Was a whole tribe taken? Or, are we to make a sharp distinction here
between Enoch the man and Enoch the tribe? Certainly Hebrews 11:5 treats Enoch as a man. Perhaps this
objection is not as formidable as it first appears, but it needs some further treatment to fit into Davis' theory
which we think is perhaps the most satisfactory of the three differed." (Ramm B.L.*, "The Christian View of
Science and Scripture," [1955] Paternoster: Exeter, Devon UK, 1967, reprint, pp.236-237)
23/08/2005
"Antediluvians ... 1. Chronology Uncertain: According to the ordinary interpretation of the genealogical tables in
Gen. 5 the lives of the antediluvians were prolonged to an extreme old age, Methuselah attaining that of 969
years. But before accepting these figures as a basis of interpretation it is important to observe that the Hebrew,
the Samaritan and the Septuagint texts differ so radically in their sums that probably little confidence can be
placed in any of them. The Septuagint adds 100 years to the age of six of the antediluvian patriarchs at the birth
of their eldest sons. This, taken with the great uncertainty connected with the transmission of numbers by the
Hebrew method of notation, makes it unwise to base important conclusions upon the data accessible. The most
probable interpretation of the genealogical table in Gen. 5 is that given by the late Professor William Henry Green,
who maintains that it is not intended to give chronology, and does not give it, but only indicates the line of
descent, as where (1 Chronicles 26:24) we read that `Shebuel the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, was ruler
over the treasures'; whereas, while Gershom was the immediate son of Moses, Shebuel was separated from
Gershom by several generations. According to the interpretation of Professor Green all that we can certainly infer
from the statement in Hebrew that Adam was 130 years old when he begat Seth, is that at that age the line
branched off which culminated in Seth, it being permitted, according to Hebrew usage, to interpolate as many
intermediate generations as other evidence may compel. 2. Meaning of Genealogies: As in the genealogies of
Christ in the Gospels, the object of the tables in Genesis is evidently not to give chronology, but the line of
descent. This conclusion is supported by the fact that no use is made afterward of the chronology, whereas the
line of descent is repeatedly emphasized. This method of interpretation allows all the elasticity to prehistoric
chronology that any archaeologist may require. Some will get further relief from the apparent incredibility of the
figures by the Interpretation of Professor A. Winchell, and T. P. Crawford (Winchell, Pre-adamites, 449 ff.) that
the first number gives the age of actual life of the individual while the second gives that of the ascendancy of his
family, the name being that of dynasties, like Caesar or Pharaoh." (Wright G.F.*, "Antediluvians,"
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)
23/08/2005
"Hebrew genealogical tables are apt to differ in the principles of construction from modern registers of pedigree.
1. Symmetry is often preferred to the exhibition of the unbroken descent from father to son. Hence links were
freely omitted, and the enumeration was otherwise left incomplete. Ten in the genealogy from Adam to Noah, and
ten from Shem to Abraham. Seventy sons of Noah's sons, and seventy souls of the house of Jacob (Gen. xlvi. 27
...). 2. The genealogy may be tribal, rather than personal; and son may denote the inhabitants of a country (Gen.
x. 2-4, 6, 7, 22), a people or tribe (4, 13, 16-18 ...), a town (15), rarely an individual (8-10). Similar phenomena are
found elsewhere (Gen. xxv. 2-4; 1 Chron. ii. 50-55 ...). The words bear and beget and father are used with a
corresponding breadth of meaning; as bear or beget a grandchild (Gen. xlvi. 12 with 15, 18, 25), or great-
grandchild (12, and probably 21, 22), or grandchild's grandchild (Mat. i. 9), or country (Gen. xxv. 2, 3)." (Davis
J.D.*, "A Dictionary of the Bible," [1898], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth edition, 1966, Fifteenth printing, p.253)
23/08/2005
"The long life spans have been a continual curiosity among Bible readers. But if these numbers sound incredible,
the years attributed to the antediluvian Mesopotamian kings make Methuselah seem but an infant. In the
Sumerian king list the shortest reign is 18,600 years, while the longest stretches 43,200. Eight kings compile
241,200 years between them. This text uses the standard Sumerian sexagesimal system. If the notation is read
with decimal values rather than sexagesimal values, the numbers are in the same range as the Biblical numbers,
and the totals of the lists are nearly identical. Have the numbers been misrepresented or misunderstood? Are
they symbolic? Did the antediluvians simply live longer? There have been many attempts to account for the
numbers through mathematical gymnastics, but none of the proposals has been able to provide a solution that
encompasses all of the data. It is impossible to understand the numbers in terms of some thing other than base
ten, both because base ten is the norm for Semitic civilizations (except Sumerian-based Akkadian) as far back as
records are available, and because any other system results in men fathering children at age six or seven years
old. The latter consequence also makes it impossible that a "year" represents a cycle of the moon rather than a
cycle of the sun. If, then, we accept the biblical account at face value, there are reasons one might expect long
lives in the shadow of Eden. Whether one would speculate that the long lives testify to the gradual penetration
of sin (and death) or to the enduring effect of Adam and Eve's temporary (pre-Fall) diet from the tree of life, the
accuracy of these numbers can be defended. Those who are more inclined to take them as symbolic must provide
an explanation of how the numbers are operating on the symbolic level and how genealogies were understood by
the biblical authors that allow us to consider a symbolic view as representing the face value of the text." (Walton
J.H.*, "Genesis," The NIV Application Commentary, Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 2001, pp.281-282)
23/08/2005
"Genesis 5. The problem of the long lives of people before the flood is obvious: Adam lived 930 years (Gen. 5:5);
Methuselah lived 969 years (Gen. 5:27), and the average age of those who lived out their normal lifespan was
over 900 years old. Yet even the Bible recognizes what scientific fact shows, namely, that most people live only
seventy or eighty years before natural death (Ps. 90:10). It is a fact that people do not live that long today. But
this is merely a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one. No scientist has shown that it is impossible for
someone to live that long. In fact, biologically there is no reason humans could not live hundreds of years.
Scientists are more baffled by aging and death than by longevity. Second, the reference in Psalm 90 is to Moses'
time (1400s B.C.) and later, when longevity had decreased to seventy or eighty years for most, though Moses
himself lived 120 years (Deut. 34:7). Third, some have suggested that these `years' are really only months, which
would reduce nine hundred years to the normal life span of eighty years. However, this is implausible. There is
no precedent in the Hebrew Old Testament for taking the word year to mean `month.' And Mahalalel had children
when he was `only' sixty-five (Gen. 5:15), and Cainan had children when he was seventy (Gen. 5:12); this would
mean they were less than six years old-which is not biologically possible. Fourth, others suggest that these
names represent family lines or clans that went on for generations before they died out. However, this does not
make sense. For one thing, some of these names (e.g., Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah) are definitely individuals whose
lives are narrated in the text (Gen. 1-9). For another, family lines do not `beget' family lines by different names.
Neither do family lines `die,' as each of these individuals did (cf. 5:5, 8, 11). Furthermore, the reference to having
`sons and daughters' (5:4) does not fit the clan theory. Fifth, it seems best to take these as years (though they
were lunar years of 12 x 30 = 360 days). The Bible is not alone in speaking of hundreds of years life spans among
ancients. There are also Greek and Egyptian records of humans living hundreds of years. ... Genesis 5, 11. Critics
claim that the Bible makes a scientific error when it dates humankind around 4000 B.C. But the Bible nowhere
gives any such total of years. In fact, there are demonstrable gaps in the biblical genealogies. Hence, it is
impossible to obtain a total of years from Adam to Abraham. The Bible has accurate outline genealogies in which
there are demonstrable gaps (see GENEALOGIES, OPEN OR CLOSED). Genesis 6-9. "(Geisler N.L., "Science and
the Bible," in "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," Baker Books: Grand Rapids MI, 1999, p.695)
23/08/2005
"Genealogies, Open or Closed. From an apologetic standpoint, the problem of "open" or "closed" genealogies is
this: If they are open (have gaps), then why do they appear closed, especially in Genesis 5 and 11 where exact
ages at which the children were born are mentioned? If they are closed, then the creation of mankind is placed
somewhere around 4000 B.C., which flies in the face of all the historical and scientific evidence for a minimum
date for humanity (see GENESIS, DAYS OF). Since they must be either open or closed, there is an apologetic
problem either way with regard to the authenticity of the Genesis record. ... According to the closed chronology
view, there are no gaps in the list in Genesis 5 and 11. They are both complete and provide all the numbers
necessary for determining the age of the human race. Arguments. In favor of the closed chronology view,
different arguments have been offered. The strongest is the prima facie argument. The genealogies appear to be
closed. For not only is the age given at which the son is born, and his son, and so on, but the total age of the
father after he had the son is given. For example, the text says, "When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son ...
and he named him Seth.... Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died. When Seth had lived 105 years, he
became the father of Enos ..." (Gen. 5:3-6). This wording appears to leave no room for gaps. With one exception,
no lists in the Bible supply missing links in this genealogy. There are only two other lists of this early period
covered by Genesis 5 and 11 and both have the same names in them ... 1 Chronicles 1:1-28 ... Luke 3:34-38 ... The
one exception is Cainan (in the Luke 3 list). Otherwise, disregarding the alternate spelling of Salah/Shelah and
Abram's changed name to Abraham, the lists are identical and reveal no gaps. The same names appear in both,
with no missing generations apparent. ... The attempt to explain away Luke 3:36 as no gap seems highly
implausible. There is no real manuscript authority for omitting Cainan from Luke 3:36. That sequence is in all
major, and virtually all minor, manuscripts. There is absolutely no indication in the text that Cainan should be
listed as a brother of Salah. The grammatical construction is the same for all the other names in the list who were
sons. Although the Greek reads "of" or "from" without the word son, the translators rightly supply son since it is
what is implied in every other case in the list. Making this one an exception, when it has the same construction, is
begging the question. There is no precedent in any of the genealogical lists for listing Cainan as anything but the
father of Salah. The only other explanation is that both Genesis 11 and 1 Chronicles are outlines that hit the
significant points in the family tree. They have at least one known gap in their genealogies. Other known gaps.
The genealogy of Christ in Matthew 1 has at least one serious known gap, even though the text reads that
Jehoram was the father of Uzziah (vs. 8), it is known from 1 Chronicles 3 that three missing generations separate
Joram and Uzziah: Matthew 1:8 ... 1 Chronicles 3:11-12 ... Now since there are known gaps in the genealogies,
even from a strictly biblical point of view the genealogies cannot be considered closed. Scientific and historical
evidence. Even if one takes the most conservative interpretation of what constitutes a human remain of "modern
man," the evidence is still strong that there were human beings around well before 4000 B.C. Peoples appear to
have wandered North America since 10,000 B.C. Even if all fossil finds before Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal
peoples were not human, there are numerous complete skeletons of these groups dated before 10,000 B.C. Even if
one discounts all prehistoric precivilization fossils and speaks only of "civilized" humankind, the time extends
several thousand years earlier than 4000 B.C. There was a civilization in Egypt well before this time. Scientific and
historical evidence would seem to rule out a closed genealogy." ... Open genealogies are a better solution to the
problem. ... In another example, a comparison of 1 Chronicles 6:3-14 with Ezra 7:2 reveals that Ezra omits six
generations between Seraiah and Ezra: ..." (Geisler N.L., "Genealogies, Open or Closed," in "Baker Encyclopedia
of Christian Apologetics," Baker Books: Grand Rapids MI, 1999, pp.267-268)
23/08/2005
"There is at least one generation missing even in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogy which appears to be
closed. This demonstrates that whatever the text seems to say, chronology must be interpreted through an open
genealogy. If there are no gaps in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies, implausible examples emerge. For by adding
up the numbers one can determine the following dates of birth and death A.A. (after Adam's creation): ... First,
Adam, the first man (see ADAM, HISTORICITY OF), would have been a contemporary of Noah's father. For
Adam died in the year 930 A.A. (after Adam's creation). Lamech, Noah's father, was born in 874 A.A. This means
they were contemporaries for fifty-six years. Likewise, Abraham only missed being a contemporary of Noah by
two years. But there is no indication that this is the case. It is more implausible to assume that Nahor, the
grandfather of Abraham, died before his great, great, great, great, great, great, grandfather Noah. For Noah died
2006 A.A. and Nahor died in 1997 A.A. Isaac would have been born fifty years before Noah's son Shem died."
(Geisler N.L., "Genealogies, Open or Closed," in "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," Baker Books:
Grand Rapids MI, 1999, pp.268-269. Emphasis in original)
23/08/2005
"Nowhere does the Bible even suggest a summation of the numbers listed in Genesis 5 and 11. No chronological
statement is deduced from these numbers either in Genesis 5 and 11 or anywhere else in Scripture. There is no
total given anywhere in the biblical text of the time that elapsed between creation and Abraham, as there is for the
time in Egypt (Exod. 12:40) and the time from the Exodus to Solomon (1 Kings 6:1). The symmetry of the text
argues against it being complete. Scholars have noted that their symmetrical arrangement of Genesis 5 and 11
into groups of ten argues for their compression. Noah is the tenth name from Adam and Terah the tenth from
Noah. Each ends with a father who had three sons. This is certainly the case in Matthew 1 where there are three
series of fourteen (double-seven, the number of completeness and perfection), for we know three generations are
left out in Matthew 1:8 (cf. 1 Chron. 3:11-12). ... Of objections to the open genealogy view not yet discussed, the
most important one is based on the alleged implausible interpretation of the language of Genesis 5 and 11. It is
objected that not only does it seem stretched to find gaps in Genesis 5 or 11, given the language of the text, but it
seems like isogesis (reading into the text) rather than exegesis (reading out of the text). After all, the name of the
father and son are given as well as their age when they had this son who became the father of the next son at a
certain age. Listing the father's age at the time of the son's birth is without meaning unless he is the immediate
son, and there are no gaps. In response, some important matters must be kept in mind. First, the Bible comes out
of another culture and linguistic setting. Metaphorical imagery can mislead the reader into thinking the Bible is
saying something, when it means something different. In Hebrew, as in English, one can speak of the four
`corners' of the earth (Isa. 41:9; cf. Ezek. 7:2). Is the Bible saying that the world is square? Some critics say so. Yet
the earth is also described as a circle or globe (Isa. 40:22). Is it possible that corners is metaphorical language that
may mean the geography covered by the four `quarters' of the compass, just as it means when we say it? Second,
as noted in the implausible dates above, even within the Bible there is strong evidence of gaps in the
genealogies. Third, there are ways to understand the text of Genesis 11 that do allow for gaps. The formula
phrase `and X lived so many years and begat Y' can mean `and X lived so many years and became the ancestor
of Y' This is not speculation, for in Matthew 1:8 ('Jehoram begat Uzziah') it means precisely this. `Begat' must
mean `became the ancestor of,' since 1 Chronicles 3:11-12 fills in three missing generations between Jehoram and
Uzziah. This would not have been an oversight by Matthew, for the genealogy of the line of David was known
by every Jewish man. ... The evidence supports the view that the Bible does not give us in Genesis 5 and 11 a
closed chronology but an outline genealogy. This is supported by both internal biblical evidence of missing
generation(s), even in Genesis 11, but also by external evidence that humankind dates to long before 4000 B.C.
This being the case, there is no real conflict on this matter between the Bible and science nor between the Bible
and itself. Open genealogy provides an accurate line of descent for lineage purposes, but it does not satisfy our
curiosity about the date of human creation." (Geisler N.L., "Genealogies, Open or Closed," in "Baker
Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," Baker Books: Grand Rapids MI, 1999, p.269-270)
23/08/2005
"James Orr has his own incisive way of putting the matter: `It is not uncommon to hear inspiration spoken of as if
it rendered the subject of it superior to ordinary sources of information, or at least was at hand to supply
supernaturally all gaps or deficiencies in that information. The records of the Bible have only to be studied as
they lie before us to show that this is an entire mistake....In historical matters it is evident that inspiration
is dependent for its knowledge of facts on the ordinary channels of information -on older documents, on oral
tradition, on public registers, on genealogical lists, etc. No sober-minded defender of inspiration would now think
of denying this proposition. One has only to look into the Biblical books to discover the abundant proof of it.
The claim made is that the sources of information are good, trustworthy, not that inspiration lifts the
writer above the need of dependence on them. ... Thus, for the history of David, reference is made to three works
the Book of Samuel the Seer, the Book of Nathan the Prophet, the Book of Gad the Seer. For numerous reigns
extracts are given from `the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel' (or 'of the Kings of Judah' or 'of the
Kings of Israel and Judah'). ... Where sources of information fall, or where, as may sometimes happen, there are
lacunae, or blots, or misreadings of names, or errors of transcription, such as are incidental to the transmission of
all MSS., it is not to be supposed that supernatural information is granted to supply the lack. Where this is
frankly acknowledged, inspiration is cleared from a great many of the difficulties which misapprehension has
attached to it." [Orr J., "Revelation and Inspiration," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, pp. 163-165] ...: Since the
purpose of inspiration is to communicate life in Christ this purpose is reached whether or not the Holy Spirit
corrected the documents from which the Chronicler drew his information. God does all things perfectly, but the
standard of this perfection is the will of God, not the will of man. And one instrument under the will of God is the
inspired Chronicler inspired, that is, to make us wise unto salvation, and not to supply us with an infallible review
of Semitic history." (Carnell E.J.*, "The Case for Orthodox Theology," Westminster Press: Philadelphia PA, 1959,
pp.106-109. Emphasis in original)
23/08/2005
"To us who live in this late day, the second millennium B.C. seems very long ago indeed. We are tempted to think
of it as lying near the dawn of time, when man first struggled upward from savagery into the light of history, and
are prone, therefore, to underestimate its cultural achievements. We are further prone to picture the Hebrew
ancestors, tent-dwelling wanderers that they were, as the most primitive of nomads, cut off by their mode of life
from contact with what culture there was, whose religion was the crudest sort of animism or polydaemonism. So,
in fact, did many of the older handbooks depict them. This, however, is an erroneous notion and a symptom of
want of perspective a carry-over from days when little was known at first hand of the ancient Orient. It is
necessary, therefore, to throw the picture into focus. Horizons have widened amazingly in the past generation.
Whatever one says of Israel's origins must be said with full awareness that these lie nowhere near the dawn of
history. The earliest decipherable inscriptions both in Egypt and in Mesopotamia reach back to the early
centuries of the third millennium B.C.- thus approximately a thousand years before Abraham, fifteen hundred
before Moses. There history, properly speaking, begins. Moreover, in the course of the last few decades
discoveries in all parts of the Bible world, and beyond it, have revealed a succession of yet earlier cultures which
reach back through the fourth millennium, the fifth, and the sixth, to the seventh and, in many instances, farther
still. The Hebrews were in fact late-comers on history's stage. All across the Bible lands, cultures had come to
birth, assumed classical form, and run their course for hundreds and even thousands of years before Abraham
was born, Difficult as it is for us to realize, it is actually farther in time from the beginnings of civilization in the
Near East to the age of Israel's origins than it is from that latter age to our own!" (Bright J., "A History of Israel,"
[1959], SCM Press" London, Third Edition, 1988, pp.23-24)
24/08/2005
"The image of selection sifting through the variants in a given population, sorting out the fit from the unfit, was
expressed long before the nineteenth century by a great many naturalists or philosophers. Aristotle, that
universal precursor, even enunciated the principle of the struggle for life: `The animals are at war with one
another whenever they live in the same places and take the same food. If food is scarce they fight, even when
they belong to the same species.' He even asks, in the `Physics' (Book II, Chapter 8), `whether such fighting may
not have caused the extinction of forms insufficiently adapted to living conditions, and the conservation of those
which are so adapted, whence the apparent finality we observe.' But he at once rejects the idea, seeing
that finality is in nature as the exception and not the rule; moreover, he believes the resources of nature are great
enough to make it impossible for any one of its works to be destroyed. What is more, not all animals fight one
another, some are friends' (Perrier, 1896, p. 16)." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a
New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.108-109. Emphasis in original)
24/08/2005 "Natural selection remains the foundation of Darwinism, which postulates its universality and
makes of it the agent responsible for the evolution of all living organisms. Only viable forms have survived (a
truism), only those systems which perform the function required of them. Instead of the disorder of random
mutations, selection creates order, equilibrium, even harmony. ... If we say selection, we finalize the system. There
can be no selection without a purpose. Whether it is willed by necessity or some other factor matters little; the
causes vary, but are directed nonetheless.." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New
Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.108-109. Emphasis in original)
24/08/2005 "What interests us for the time being is to what extent the losses suffered by any animal or plant
population participate in the evolutionary process. Both animal and plant species suffer enormous losses,
primarily affecting the reproductive systems and the embryo. An exceedingly high fertility rate notwithstanding,
many populations remain numerically stable, every pair replaced in due course by another. This testifies to the
high mortality rate among gametes, embryos, and the young in general. ... The wholesale destruction of eggs,
spermatozoa, seeds, and larvae is not selective. Death does not choose its victims, but strikes blindly. ... During
development of the embryo and in infancy, the elimination of the unfit, and of the pathological, is fully operative;
it safeguards the genotype, but has no guiding influence in evolution. The massive losses caused by natural
cataclysms that destroy huge areas are unselective, whether for animals or for plants. They devastate blindly and
are random as to place and circumstance: tidal waves, floods, forest fires, bush fires respect no one and nothing.
... At any rate it does not call any novel species into being." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living
Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.109-
111. Emphasis in original)
24/08/2005 "Let us not confuse creative evolution with variations in the composition of a population through
circumstances. They are two distinct things, and any attempt to connect them is purely specious." (Grasse P.-P.,
"Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New
York NY, 1977, p.111)
24/08/2005 "Survival of the fittest is the result of action that is essentially suppressive. If it operated fully, natural
single-species populations would tend toward a unified genotype, and multispecies populations would tend
toward monospecificity. But the not-so-good persists, the natural populations remain (genetically speaking) very
highly heterogeneous. ... Although in the vast majority of cases the mutant that is generally "inferior" to the wild
type is eliminated, the mutant persists and finds a niche in the population. ... Demographic studies on
experimental populations of Drosophila have revealed that selective values of genotypes depend upon the
environmental conditions in which they live." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New
Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.111-112)
24/08/2005 "The Hardy-Weinberg law is merely mentioned as demonstrating the gap between theory and reality.
It has been variously stated, and we quote it as follows: `In a large stable population in which matings are
random (panmixia), selection is inoperative, and mutations do not occur, the frequencies of different genes and
genotypes will remain constant in succeeding generations.' This law refers to an ideal state, not to any real
conditions. Hence it is of little interest to the evolutionist, who has to consider concrete reality-what exists, not
what is fictitious." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation,"
[1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.112)
24/08/2005 "Taking now an evolutionist view of the matter, experiments and observations with experimental
populations in a constant environment show the extent to which selection varies in its action, due to many
different causes. Outside the laboratory, in the wild, the complexity of the environment increases considerably in
proportions not easily quantified; both genotypes and selective factors increase in number. It is difficult to tell
what foothold a given characteristic may offer for selection. If the mutation endangers the life of the animal or
plant, its effects on the population concerned are easily known. Of course, no measurement of the advantages or
drawbacks of a given characteristic to its bearer makes sense unless it compares the respective numbers of
offspring in which it is found or not found. In the case of a single characteristic and in homogeneous
populations, we can say that the differences in numbers do relate to the differential characteristic involved. In
heterogeneous populations genic actions and interactions are so complex that it is hard to make such a
statement. Since species differ greatly in respect to the number of genes, any comparison to establish the
selective value of a characteristic is practically meaningless. Demographic inequalities have too many causes for
us to know which one is the more or less important." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for
a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.113-114. Emphasis in original)
24/08/2005 "The advantage or disadvantage resulting from a characteristic whose incidence is small is not easily
assessed. For example, statistical studies on populations of the woodland snail (Cepaea nemoralis), carried out in
France by Lamotte (1951, 1966) and in Britain by Cain and Sheppard (1950, 1952, 1954) and Cain and Currey (1963,
1968a,b) failed to reach the same conclusions. Lamotte considers the presence or absence, and relative size, of
dark bands as nonselective. The English authors disagree with this conclusion and attribute the different
occurrence of individuals with or without bands to selection. Despite the contribution made by Ford (1971), the
debate has reached no definitive, reliable, or satisfactory conclusion. The opposing data are even more
interesting because all the authors are orthodox Darwinians. It must be remembered that Cepaea shells found in
Pleistocene deposits (about 1 million years old) already had dark and pink bands (Diver, 1929). This fact alone
shows how unimportant adornments may be for the survival of the species: Let history be the judge, and its
verdict is unmistakeable-survival or extinction." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a
New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.114)
24/08/2005 "Since evaluation of what is or is not advantageous is impossible in the case of fossil animal
populations, whatever may be said about the selective value of a given characteristic is pure imagination. It is not
because individuals with long spines become more numerous in a population of cidarid sea urchins that the
characteristic `long spine' accounts for their predominance; this might be a very natural effect of growth
continuing with age. Quite another characteristic (resistance to parasites, lower embryonic losses, etc.) may be a
possible cause. Where the imagination is given free rein we must learn to control it." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of
Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977,
p.114)
24/08/2005 "Although the future of an experimental population remains unpredictable, despite all the high quality
of the mathematical tools at the demographer's disposal and his mastery of the environmental parameters, this is
much more the case in a natural population, where the prediction is virtually impossible. The chance of unnoticed
mutations in itself precludes any reliable prediction of the population's outcome. As I say elsewhere in this book,
theory holds true so long as it does not have to face reality, whose complexity is overwhelming." (Grasse P.-P.,
"Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New
York NY, 1977, p.114)
24/08/2005 "Mutability far exceeds, in the light of the latest discoveries of molecular biology, the numbers
regarded as maximal thirty years ago. We could almost say that every gene mutates and does so frequently; but
mutations of very small magnitude (the "neutral mutations" of Goodman and other molecular biologists), and
phenotypically unobservable, are by far the most common, as protein analysis has made us realize (hemoglobin,
etc.). Behind a facade of stability and constancy, the living world is truly, as Montaigne called it, an eternal
seesaw. Stability in variation is the seeming paradox by which all living things are governed. Variability affirms
and emphasizes individuality, endowing every creature with its own particular structure and chemistry. Each
individual has its own proteins, which make up its personality. Fluctuation, because of the tiny errors in
replication found everywhere in the products of the genes, has as a first consequence the `personalization' of
every genotype, every phenotype. The mutations visible by direct observation represent gross copying errors,
and mostly create disturbances of the shape and health of the animal concerned. Such mutations are eliminated at
the boundary where the monstrous and the pathological begin; this should come as no surprise, for life is
incompatible with disorder." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of
Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.114-115)
24/08/2005 "Selection motivated by competition between individuals of the same or different species awards a
survival or reproducibility `bonus' to the best endowed. Take the timeworn examples of wolves hunting deer: the
fastest runners survive because of being the best fed; they are those who capture the most prey. Lucretius used
it first, and Darwin (1859, see 1887, p. 97) took it from him. There is just one snag: it is not true. Like wild dogs,
wolves hunt in packs and run down their prey to exhaustion. The group hunts down the chosen victim, and
all the members of the pack follow the chase and are in at the kill. There are no champions, who alone
appropriate all the food. The solitary hunt is the exception; it is the act of aging males or individuals driven out of
the pack, and it does not interest the reproducers, the dominant males. Social ranking order is much more
important in deciding the fate of the individual, who may be excluded from breeding (psychological castration)."
(Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic
Press: New York NY, 1977, p.115. Emphasis in original)
25/08/2005
"THE GREAT LEAP FORWARD What happened at that magic moment in evolution around 40,000 years ago,
when we suddenly became human? As we saw in Chapter One, our lineage diverged from that of apes millions of
years ago. For most of the time since then, we have remained little more than glorified chimpanzees in the ways
we have made our living. As recently as 40,000 years ago, Western Europe was still occupied by Neanderthals,
primitive beings for whom art and progress scarcely existed. Then there was an abrupt change, as anatomically
modern people appeared in Europe, bringing with them art, musical instruments, lamps, trade, and progress.
Within a short time, the Neanderthals were gone. That Great Leap Forward in Europe was probably the result of a
similar leap that had occurred over the course of the preceding few tens of thousands of years in the Near East
and Africa. Even a few dozen millenia, though, is a trivial fraction (less than one per cent) of our millions of years
of history separate from that of the apes. Insofar as there was any single point in time when we could be said to
have become human, it was at the time of that leap. Only a few more dozen millenia were needed for us to
domesticate animals, develop agriculture and metallurgy, and invent writing. It was then but a short further step
to those monuments of civilization that distinguish humans from animals across what used to seem an
unbridgeable gulf-monuments such as the 'Mona Lisa' and the Eroica Symphony, the Eiffel Tower and
Sputnik, Dachau's ovens and the bombing of Dresden. This chapter will confront the questions posed by our
abrupt rise to humanity. What made it possible, and why was it so sudden?" (Diamond J., "The Rise and Fall of
the Third Chimpanzee," Vintage: London, 1992, p.27)
25/08/2005
"Readers unfamiliar with details of our evolution might be forgiven for assuming that the appearance of Homo
sapiens constituted the Great Leap Forward. Was our meteoric ascent to sapiens status half-a-million years
ago the brilliant climax of Earth's history, when art and sophisticated technology finally burst upon our
previously dull planet? Not at all: the appearance of Homo sapiens was a non-event. Cave paintings,
houses, and bows and arrows still lay hundreds of thousands of years off in the future. Stone tools continued to
be the crude ones that Homo erectus had been making for nearly a million years. The extra brain size of
those early Homo sapiens had no dramatic effect on our way of life. That whole long tenure of Homo
erectus and early Homo sapiens outside Africa was a period of infinitesimally slow cultural change. In
fact, the sole candidate for a major advance was possibly the control of fire, of which caves occupied by Peking
Man provide one of the earliest indications in the form of ash, charcoal, and burnt bones. Even that advance - if
those cave fires really were man-lit rather than natural - would belong to Homo erectus, not Homo
sapiens. Thus, the emergence of Homo sapiens illustrates the paradox discussed in Chapter One: that
our rise to humanity was not directly proportional to the changes in our genes. Early Homo sapiens had
progressed much further in anatomy than in cultural attainments along the road up from chimpanzeehood. Some
crucial ingredients still had to be added before the Third Chimpanzee could conceive of painting the Sistine
Chapel." (Diamond J., "The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee," Vintage: London, 1992, p.31)
25/08/2005
"I mentioned that the Neanderthals of Europe and Western Asia were just one of at least three human
populations occupying different parts of the Old World around 100,000 years ago. A few fossils from Eastern
Asia suffice to show that people there differed from Neanderthals as retell as from us moderns, but too few bones
have been found to describe these Asians in more detail. The best characterized contemporaries of the
Neanderthals are those from Africa, some of whom were virtually modern in their skull anatomy. Does this mean
that, 100,000 years ago it Africa, we have at last arrived at the watershed of human cultural development?
Surprisingly, the answer is still 'no'. The stone tools of these modern looking Africans were very similar to those
of the decidedly unmodern looking Neanderthals, hence we refer to them as 'Middle Stone Age Africans'. They
still lacked standardized bone tools, bows and arrows nets, fishhooks, art, and cultural variation in tools from
place to place. Despite their almost modern bodies, these Africans were still missing that vital something
necessary to endow them with full humanity. Once again, we face the paradox that almost modern bones, and
presumably almost modern genes, are not enough by themselves to produce modern behaviour." (Diamond J.,
"The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee," [1991], Vintage: London, 1992, pp.38-39)
25/08/2005
"Thus, the scene that the human world presented from around 100,000 to somewhat before 50, 000 years ago was
this. Northern Europe, Siberia, Australia, the oceanic islands, and the whole New World were still empty of
people. In Europe and Western Asia lived the Neanderthals; in Africa, people increasingly like us moderns in
their anatomy; and in Eastern Asia, people unlike either the Neanderthals or Africans but known from only a few
bones. All three of these populations were, at least initially, still primitive in their tools, behaviour, and limited
innovativeness. The stage was set for the Great Leap Forward. Which among these three contemporary
populations would take that leap? The evidence for an abrupt rise is clearest in France and Spain, in the Late Ice
Age around 40,000 years ago. Where there had previously been Neanderthals, anatomically fully modern people
(often known as Cro-Magnons, from the French site where their bones were first identified) now appear. Had one
of those gentlemen or ladies strolled down the Champs Elysees in modern attire, he or she would not have stood
out from the Parisian crowds in any way. As dramatic to archaeologists as the Cro-Magnons' skeletons are their
tools, which are far more diverse in form and obvious in function than any in the earlier archaeological record.
The tools suggest that modern anatomy had at last been joined by modern innovative behaviour." (Diamond J.,
"The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee," [1991], Vintage: London, 1992, p.40)
25/08/2005
"It used to be argued that Neanderthals evolved into Cro-Magnons within Europe. That possibility now seems
increasingly unlikely. The last Neanderthal skeletons from around 40,000 years ago were still `full-blown'
Neanderthals, while the first Cro-Magnons appearing in Europe at the same time were already anatomically fully
modern. Since anatomically modern people were already present in Africa and the Near East tens of thousands of
years earlier, it seems much more likely that anatomically modern people invaded Europe from that direction than
that they evolved within Europe. ... Did some invading Cro-Magnon men mate with some Neanderthal women?
No skeletons that could reasonably be considered Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon hybrids are known. If Neanderthal
behaviour was as relatively rudimentary, and Neanderthal anatomy as distinctive, as I suspect, few Cro-Magnons
may have wanted to mate with Neanderthals. Similarly, although humans and chimps continue to coexist today, I
am not aware of any matings. While Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals were not nearly as different, the differences
may still have been a mutual turn-off. And if Neanderthal women were geared for a twelve-month pregnancy, a
hybrid foetus might not have survived. My inclination is to take the negative evidence at face value, to accept
that hybridization occurred rarely if ever, and to doubt that living people of European descent carry any
Neanderthal genes." (Diamond J., "The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee," [1991], Vintage: London, 1992,
pp.42-43)
25/08/2005
"So much for the Great Leap Forward in Western Europe. The replacement of Neanderthals by modern people
occurred somewhat earlier in Eastern Europe, and still earlier in the Near East, where possession of the same area
apparently shifted back and forth between Neanderthals and modern people from 90,000 to 60,000 years ago. The
slowness of the transition in the Near East, compared to its speed in Western Europe, suggests that the
anatomically modern people living around the Near East before 60,000 years ago had not yet developed the
modern behaviour that ultimately let them drive out the Neanderthals." (Diamond J., "The Rise and Fall of the
Third Chimpanzee," [1991], Vintage: London, 1992, pp.45-46)
25/08/2005
"Some groups of humans who lived in Africa and the Near East over 60,000 years ago were quite modern in their
anatomy, as far as can be judged from their skeletons, but they were not modern in their behaviour. They
continued to make Neanderthal-like tools and to lack innovation. The ingredient that produced the Great Leap
Forward does not show up in fossil skeletons. There is another way to restate that puzzle. We share ninety-eight
per cent of our genes with chimpanzees ... The Africans making Neanderthal-like tools just before our sudden rise
to humanity had covered almost all of the remaining genetic distance between us and chimps, to judge from their
skeletons. Perhaps they shared 99.9% of their genes with us. Their brains were as large as ours, and
Neanderthals' brains were even slightly larger. The missing ingredient may have been a change in only 0.1 % of
our genes. What tiny change in genes could have had such enormous consequences? Like some other scientists
who have speculated about this question, I can think of only one plausible answer: the anatomical basis for
spoken complex language." (Diamond J., "The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee," [1991], Vintage: London,
1992, pp.46-47)
25/08/2005
"Given this capability for symbolic communication using sounds, why have apes not gone on to develop much
more complex natural languages of their own? The answer seems to involve the structure of the larynx, tongue,
and associated muscles that give us fine control over spoken sounds. Like a Swiss watch, all of whose many
parts have to be well-designed for the watch to keep time at all, our vocal tract depends on the precise
functioning of many structures and muscles. Chimps are thought to be physically incapable of producing several
of the commonest human vowels. If we too were limited to just a few vowels and consonants, our own
vocabulary would be greatly reduced. For example, take this paragraph, convert all vowels other than `a' or `i' to
either of those two, convert all consonants other than `d' or `m' or `s' to one of those three, and then see how
much of the paragraph you can still understand. Therefore, the missing ingredient may have been some
modifications of the proto-human vocal tract to give us finer control and permit formation of a much greater
variety of sounds. Such fine modifications of muscles need not be detectable in fossil skulls. It is easy to
appreciate how a tiny change in anatomy resulting in capacity for speech would produce a huge change in
behaviour. With language, it takes only a few seconds to communicate the message, `Turn sharp right at the
fourth tree and drive the male antelope towards the reddish boulder, where I'll hide to spear it.' Without language,
that message could be communicated only with difficulty, if at all. Without language, two protohumans could not
brainstorm together about how to devise a better tool, or about what a cave painting might mean. Without
language, even one proto-human would have had difficulty thinking out for himself or herself how to devise a
better tool." (Diamond J., "The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee," [1991], Vintage: London, 1992, pp.47-48)
25/08/2005
"I do not suggest that the Great Leap Forward began as soon as the mutations for altered tongue and larynx
anatomy arose. Given the right anatomy, it must have taken humans thousands of years to perfect the structure
of language as we know it - to arrive at the concepts of word order and case endings and tenses, and to develop
vocabulary. ... But if the missing ingredient did consist of changes in our vocal tract that permitted fine control of
sounds, then the capacity for innovation would follow eventually. It was the spoken word that made us free. ...
Until the Great Leap Forward, human culture had developed at a snail's pace for millions of years. That pace was
dictated by the slow rate of genetic change. After the Leap, cultural development no longer depended on genetic
change. Despite negligible changes in our anatomy, there has been far more cultural evolution in the past 40,000
years than in the millions of years before. Had a visitor from outer space come to the Earth in Neanderthal times,
humans would not have stood out as unique among the world's species. At most, the visitor might have
mentioned humans along with beavers, bowerbirds, and army ants as examples of species with curious
behaviour. Would the visitor have foreseen the change that would soon make us the first species, in the history
of life on Earth, capable of destroying all life?" (Diamond J., "The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee," [1991],
Vintage: London, 1992, p.48)
25/08/2005
"The first indications that our ancestors were in any respect unusual among animals were our extremely crude
stone tools that began to appear in Africa by around two-and-a-half million years ago. The quantities of tools
suggest that they were beginning to play a regular, significant role in our livelihood. Among our closest relatives,
in contrast, the pygmy chimpanzee and gorilla do not use tools, while the common chimpanzee occasionally
makes some rudimentary ones but hardly depends on them for its existence. Nevertheless, those crude tools of
ours did not trigger any quantum Jump in our success as a species. For another million-and-a-half years, we
remained confined to Africa. Around a million years ago we did manage to spread to warm areas of Europe and
Asia, thereby becoming the most widespread of the three chimpanzee species but still much less widespread than
lions. Our tools progressed only at an infinitely slow rate, from extremely crude to very crude. By a hundred
thousand years ago, at least the human populations of Europe and western Asia, the Neanderthals were regularly
using fire, but in other respects we continued to rate as just another species of big mammal. We had developed
not a trace of art agriculture, or high technology. It is unknown whether we had developed language, drug
addiction, or our strange modern sexual habits and life-cycle, but Neanderthals rarely lived beyond the age of
forty and hence may not yet have evolved female menopause. Clear evidence of a Great Leap Forward in our
behaviour appear suddenly in Europe around 40,000 years ago, coincident with the arrival of anatomically
modern Homo sapiens from Africa via the Near East. At that point, we began displaying art, technology
based on specialized tools, cultural differences from place to place, and cultural innovation with time. This leap in
behavior undoubtedly been developing outside Europe, but the development must have been rapid, since the
anatomically modern Homo sapiens populations living in southern Africa 100,000 years ago were still just
glorified chimpanzees, judging by the debris in their cave sites. Whatever caused the leap it must have involved
only a tiny fraction of our genes, because we still differ from chimps in only 1.6% of our genes, and most of that
difference had already developed long before our leap in behaviour. The best guess I can make is that the leap
was triggered by the perfection of our modern capacity for language." (Diamond J., "The Rise and Fall of the
Third Chimpanzee," Vintage: London, 1992, pp.328-329
29/08/2005
"Yet the trained body of physiologists under the influence of the ideas germane to their successful methodology
entirely ignore the whole mass of adverse evidence. We have here a colossal example of anti-empirical dogmatism
arising from a successful methodology. Evidence which lies outside the method simply does not count. We are,
of course, reminded that the neglect of this evidence arises from the fact that it lies outside the scope of the
methodology of the science. That method consists in tracing the persistence of the physical and chemical
principles throughout physiological operations. The brilliant success of this method is admitted. But you cannot
limit a problem by reason of a method of attack. The problem is to understand the operations of an animal body.
There is clear evidence that certain operations of certain animal bodies depend upon the foresight of an end and
the purpose to attain it. It is no solution of the problem to ignore this evidence because other operations have
been explained in terms of physical and chemical laws. The existence of a problem is not even acknowledged. It is
vehemently denied. Many a scientist has patiently designed experiments for the purpose of substantiating his
belief that animal operations are motivated by no purposes. He has perhaps spent his spare time in writing
articles to prove that human beings are as other animals so that `purpose' is a category irrelevant for the
explanation of their bodily activities, his own activities included. Scientists animated by the purpose of proving
that they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." (Whitehead A.N., "The Function of Reason," Louis Clark
Vanuxem Foundation Lectures, Princeton University, March 1929, p.16)
29/08/2005
"Design theory-also called design or the design argument-is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having
been designed by a preexisting intelligence. It has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient
Greece. The most famous version of the design argument can be found in the work of theologian William Paley,
who in 1802 proposed his `watchmaker' thesis ... Paley argued that we can draw the same conclusion about many
natural objects, such as the eye. Just as a watch's parts are all perfectly adapted for the purpose of telling time,
the parts of an eye are all perfectly adapted for the purpose of seeing. In each case, Paley argued, we discern the
marks of an intelligent designer. Although Paley's basic notion was sound, and influenced thinkers for decades,
Paley never provided a rigorous standard for detecting design in nature. Detecting design depended on such
vague standards as being able to discern an object's `purpose.' Moreover, Paley and other `natural theologians'
tried to reason from the facts of nature to the existence of a wise and benevolent God. All of these things made
design an easy target for Charles Darwin when he proposed his theory of evolution. Whereas Paley saw a finely-
balanced world attesting to a kind and just God, Darwin pointed to nature's imperfections and brutishness. ...
Following the triumph of Darwin's theory, design theory was all but banished from biology. Since the 1980s,
however, advances in biology have convinced a new generation of scholars that Darwin's theory was inadequate
to account for the sheer complexity of living things. These scholars-chemists, biologists, mathematicians and
philosophers of science-began to reconsider design theory. They formulated a new view of design that avoids
the pitfalls of previous versions. Called intelligent design (ID), to distinguish it from earlier versions of design
theory (as well as from the naturalistic use of the term design), this new approach is more modest than its
predecessors. Rather than trying to infer God's existence or character from the natural world, it simply claims `that
intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these
causes are empirically detectable' [Dembski W.A., "Intelligent Design," InterVarsity: Downer's Grove IL, 1999,
p.106]." (Hartwig M.*, "What is
Intelligent Design?," Frequently Asked Questions about Intelligent Design, Access Research Network,
2003.)
31/08/2005 "In some environments and for some species it takes a great deal of imagination to discover selection
at work. One example comes to mind: among bush babies or galagos (small lemurlike primates), mainly forest
dwellers, there is no trace of competition. The insects they consume in vast numbers, and all year round, are so
plentiful that they have no difficulty in eating their fill. In the case of fruits, things are very different. Their
scarcity is due not to overpopulation but to the seasonal cycle of their growth. In some months there may
happen to be not a single tree bearing fruit. Galago elegantulus is fond of the gums that ooze down the trunks of
forest trees, and the supply runs out only for a few weeks in the dry season. Actually, there is never any
shortage for these omnivorous lemurs. Predators, chiefly viverrids and birds of prey, eliminate only a small
number of individuals. Such elimination is largely unselective, but, as with other predators (e.g., otters), it is
doubtless mainly older and sickly individuals that are eaten." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms:
Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.115-116)
31/08/2005
"Many cases of selection are age-old but never modify the species. Darwin's example of the wolf and the deer is a
case in point; the differences in speed among the individuals making up the population are never eliminated.
Among migrating salmon there is a group too weak to negotiate the rapids or to hurdle the barriers across the
rivers up which they have to swim in order to spawn. In both examples the individuals eliminated are born of
progenitors who overcame these same obstacles, since only by so doing were they able to breed. The deficient
individuals possibly owe their inferiority to the unfavorable conditions in which they developed. In fact, what is
eliminated are acquired, not inherited, characteristics. This illustrates the complexity of phenomena concerning
the equilibrium of populations and the limited power of selection." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms:
Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.116)
September [top]
1/09/2005
"`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.' -- Charles Darwin, in
The Origin of Species To Darwin, the cell was a `black box' -- its inner workings were utterly mysterious to
him. Now, the black box has been opened up and we know how it works. Applying Darwin's test to the ultra-
complex world of molecular machinery and cellular systems that have been discovered over the past 40 years, we
can say that Darwin's theory has `absolutely broken down.' -- Michael Behe, biochemist and author of
Darwin's Black Box" (Woodward T.*, "Meeting Darwin's Wager," Part 1 of 3,
Christianity Today, Vol. 41, No. 5, April 28, 1997, p.14)
1/09/2005
"Black box is a whimsical term for a device that does something but whose inner workings are mysterious-
sometimes because the workings can't be seen, and sometimes because they just aren't comprehensible.
Computers are a good example of a black box. Most of us use these marvelous machines without the vaguest
idea of how they work, processing words or plotting graphs or playing games in contented ignorance of what is
going on underneath the outer case. Even if we were to remove the cover, though, few of us could make heads or
tails of the jumble of pieces inside. There is no simple, observable connection between the parts of the computer
and the things that it does. ... In ancient times all of biology was a black box, because no one understood
on even the broadest level how living things worked. The ancients who gaped at a plant or animal and wondered
just how the thing worked were in the presence of unfathomable technology. They were truly in the dark. ...
Biology advanced rapidly in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as scientists combined Aristotle's and
Harvey's examples of attentive observation and clever reasoning. Yet even the strictest attention and cleverest
reasoning will take you only so far if important parts of a system aren't visible. Although the human eye can
resolve objects as small as one-tenth of a millimeter, a lot of the action in life occurs on a micro level, a Lilliputian
scale. So biology reached a plateau: One black box, the gross structure of organisms, was opened only to reveal
the black box of the finer levels of life. In order to proceed further biology needed a series of technological
breakthroughs. The first was the microscope. ... The cell theory of life was finally put forward in the early
nineteenth century by Matthias Schleiden and Theodor Schwann. ... To Darwin, then, as to every other scientist
of the time, the cell was a black box. ... Meanwhile, the cellular black box was steadily explored. The investigation
of the cell pushed the microscope to its limits ... The black box of the cell could not be opened without further
technological improvements. ... after World War II electron microscopy came into its own. New subcellular
structures were discovered: Holes were seen in the nucleus, and double membranes detected around
mitochondria (a cell's power plants). The same cell that looked so simple under a light microscope now looked
much different. The same wonder that the early light microscopists felt when they saw the detailed structure of
insects was again felt by twentieth-century scientists when they saw the complexities of the cell. This level of
discovery began to allow biologists to approach the greatest black box of all. The question of how life
works was not one that Darwin or his contemporaries could answer. They knew that eyes were for seeing -
but how, exactly, do they see? How does blood clot? How does the body fight disease? The complex structures
revealed by the electron microscope were themselves made of smaller components. What were those
components? What did they look like? How did they work? ... In the late twentieth century we are in the flood
tide of research on life, and the end is in sight. The last remaining black box was the cell, which was opened to
reveal molecules-the bedrock of nature. Lower we cannot go. Moreover, the work that has already been done on
enzymes, other proteins, and nucleic acids has illuminated the principles at work at the round level of life. Many
details remain to be filled in, and some surprises undoubtedly remain. But unlike earlier scientists, who looked at
fish or a heart or a cell and wondered what it was and what made it work, modern scientists are satisfied that the
actions of proteins and other molecules are sufficient explanations for the basis of life. From Aristotle to modern
biochemistry, one layer after another has been peeled away until the cell-Darwin's black box-stands open. ... With
the advent of modern biochemistry we are now able to look a the rock-bottom level of life. We can now make an
informed evaluation of whether the putative small steps required to produce large evolutionary changes can ever
get small enough. You will see in this book that the canyons separating everyday life forms have their
counterparts in the canyons that separate biological systems on a microscopic scale. Like a fractal pattern in
mathematics, where a motif is repeated even as you look at smaller and smaller scales, unbridgeable chasms occur
even at the tiniest level of life. ... Biochemistry has pushed Darwin's theory to the limit. It has done so by opening
the ultimate black box, the cell, thereby making possible our understanding of how life works. It is the
astonishing complexity of subcellular organic structures that has forced the question, How could all this have
evolved? " (Behe M.J.*, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution", Free Press: New York
NY, 1996, pp.6-10,13,15. Emphasis original)
1/09/2005
"It is often said that science must avoid any conclusions which smack of the supernatural. But this seems to me
to be both bad logic and bad science. Science is not a game in which arbitrary rules are used to decide what
explanations are to be permitted. Rather, it is an effort to make true statements about physical reality. It was only
about sixty years ago that the expansion of the universe was first observed. This fact immediately suggested a
singular event-that at some time in the distant past the universe began expanding from an extremely small size. To
many people this inference was loaded with overtones of a supernatural event-the creation, the beginning of the
universe. The prominent physicist A.S. Eddington probably spoke for many physicists in voicing his disgust
with such a notion: `Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature is
repugnant to me, as I think it must be to most; and even those who would welcome a proof of the intervention of
a Creator will probably consider that a single winding-up at some remote epoch is not really the kind of relation
between God and his world that brings satisfaction to the mind.' [Eddington A.S., in Jaki S.L., "Cosmos and
Creator," Gateway Editions: Chicago IL, 1980, p.56] Nonetheless, the Big Bang hypothesis was embraced by
physics and over the years has proven to be a very fruitful paradigm. The point here is that physics followed the
data where it seemed to lead, even though some thought the model gave aid and comfort to religion. In the
present day, as biochemistry multiplies examples of fantastically complex molecular systems, systems which
discourage even an attempt to explain how they may have arisen, we should take a lesson from physics. The
conclusion of design flows naturally from the data; we should not shrink from it; we should embrace it and build
on it." (Behe M.J.*, "Molecular Machines:
Experimental Support for the Design Inference," C.S. Lewis Society, Cambridge University: Cambridge UK,
September 24, 1994)
1/09/2005
"Dr. Asa Gray, in the excellent essay already cited [Gray A., "Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural
Theology," Trubner & Co. London 1861, p.55], has pointed out that there is no tendency in the doctrine of
Variation and Natural Selection to weaken the foundations of Natural Theology, for, consistently with the
derivative hypothesis of species, we may hold any of the popular views respecting the manner in which the
changes of the natural world are brought about. We may imagine ` that events and operations in general go on in
virtue simply of forces communicated at the first; and without any subsequent interference, or we may hold that
now and then, and -only now and then, there is a direct interposition of the Deity; or, lastly, we may suppose that
all the changes are carried on by the immediate orderly and constant, however infinitely diversified, action of the
intelligent, efficient Cause.' They who maintain that the origin of an individual, as well as the origin of a species
or a genus, can be explained only by the direct action of the creative cause, may retain their favourite theory
compatibly with the doctrine of transmutation." (Lyell C., "The Antiquity of Man," Everyman's Library, J.M Dent
& Sons: London, Third edition, 1863, reprint, 1927, p.393)
1/09/2005
"The whole course of nature may be the material embodiment of a preconcerted arrangement; and if the
succession of events be explained by transmutation, the perpetual adaptation of the organic world to new
conditions leaves the argument in favour of design, and therefore of a designer, as valid as ever; `for to do any
work by an instrument must require, and therefore presuppose, the exertion rather of more than of less power,
than to do it directly [Gray A., "Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology," Trubner & Co.
London 1861, p.55].'" (Lyell C., "The Antiquity of Man," Everyman's Library, J.M Dent & Sons: London, Third
edition, 1863, reprint, 1927, pp.393-394)
1/09/2005
"Dennett's letter has a peculiar rhetorical quality in that he is constantly referring to some devastating argument
against me that he never actually states. The crushing argument is always just offstage, in some review he or
somebody else wrote or some book he published years ago, but he can't quite be bothered to state the argument
now. When I go back and look at the arguments he refers to, I don't find them very impressive." (Searle J.R., "The
Mystery of Consciousness: and Exchanges with Daniel C. Dennett and David J. Chalmers," [1997], Granta
Publications: London, 1998, p.127)
1/09/2005
"Charles Darwin knew about the eye, too. In The Origin of Species Darwin dealt with many objections to his
theory of evolution by natural selection. He discussed the problem of the eye in a section of the book
appropriately entitled "Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication." In Darwin's thinking, evolution could
not build a complex organ in one step or a few steps; radical innovations such as the eye would require
generations of organisms to slowly accumulate beneficial changes in a gradual process. He realized that if in one
generation an organ as complex as the eye suddenly appeared, it would be tantamount to a miracle.
Unfortunately, gradual development of the human eye appeared to be impossible, since its many sophisticated
features: seemed to be interdependent. Somehow, for evolution to be believable, Darwin had to convince the
public that complex organs could be formed in a step-by-step process. He succeeded brilliantly. Cleverly, Darwin
didn't try to discover a real pathway that evolution might have used to make the eye. Rather, he pointed to
modern animals with different kinds of eyes (ranging from the simple to the complex) and suggested that the
evolution of the human eye might have involved similar organs as intermediates ... Here is a paraphrase of
Darwin's argument: Although humans have complex camera-type eyes, many animals get by with less. Some tiny
creatures have just a simple group of pigmented cellsnot much more than a light-sensitive spot. That simple
arrangement can hardly be said to confer vision, but it can sense light and dark, and so it meets the creature's
needs. ... Using reasoning like this, Darwin convinced many of his readers that an evolutionary pathway leads
from the simplest light-sensitive spot to the sophisticated camera-eye of man. But the question of how vision
began remained unanswered. Darwin persuaded much of the world that a modern eye evolved gradually from a
simpler structure, but he did not even try to explain where his starting point-the relatively simple light-sensitive
spot-came from. On the contrary, Darwin dismissed the question of the eye's ultimate origin: How a nerve comes
to be sensitive to light hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated." [Darwin C., "Origin of Species",
6th ed., 1872, New York University Press: New York, 1988, p.151]. He had an excellent reason for declining the
question: it was completely beyond nineteenth-century science. How the eye works that is, what happens when
a photon of light first hits the retina-simply could not be answered at that time. (Behe M.J.*, "Darwin's Black Box:
The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free Press: New York NY, 1996, pp.16-18)
2/09/2005
"Why did "Darwinism" succeed despite the mass of objections raised against natural selection-and to what
extent did it succeed only because Darwin's basic message could be distorted to fit contemporary expectations?
The event that best symbolizes the conventional view of Darwin's triumph is T. H. Huxley's defeat of Bishop
"Soapy Sam" Wilberforce at the 1860 meeting of the British Association. Huxley was the knight in shining armor
whose superior intellectual weapons destroyed the dragon of theological conservatism. It is now widely
recognized by historians that the image of conflict is itself misleading, since many scientists had strong religious
feelings and some theologians welcomed evolution (Turner 1974; Moore 1979). Even Huxley's encounter with
Wilberforce has had to be reinterpreted (Lucas 1979). There were many in the audience at the British Association
meeting who were by no means sure that Huxley had demolished Wilberforce's objections. Hooker, who also
spoke at the meeting, may have done more to promote the Darwinian cause. The next chapter will show that
Huxley is now seen more as a pseudo-Darwinian who had little real sympathy for natural selection or the
Darwinian approach to the history of life." (Bowler P.J., "The Non-Darwinian Revolution: Reinterpreting a
Historical Myth," The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore MD, 1988, p.68)
2/09/2005
"Huxley was an important figure not because he forced through the arguments for a Darwinian view of evolution
but because his maneuvering behind the scenes ensured that the evolutionists who regarded Darwin as their
figurehead were able to take over the British scientific community. It was through persuasion and through
success in the politics of science that Darwinism came to dominate British biology. There are some scientists
today who resent the claim that skills in the area of public relations help a theory to gain acceptance. They feel
that objective evidence in favor of the theory must be the dominant factor. Yet sociologists who study the
acceptance of new ideas within the modern scientific community have shown that it is to some extent a social
process (Gilbert and Mulkay 1984). David Hull (1978) has suggested that the image presented to the world by the
supporters of a new theory may be very important, especially when there are apparently valid arguments both for
and against the theory. The advantage will be gained by the side that presents its case most effectively,
stressing the positive aspects of its own position and undermining the influence of its opponents. The
successful group will evade objections or deflect them by making concessions that do not threaten its basic
principles. Its members will present a united front, never falling out in public even when they have disagreements
over how the theory should be applied. Biologists loyal to the Darwinian symbol gained the day because they
employed these tactics and thereby outmaneuvered both the anti-evolutionists and those who wanted to found
rival schools of evolutionism. Their PR skills were helped by the ineptness of their opponents, who were in any
case handicapped by the need to rethink their position in response to the Darwinian threat." (Bowler P.J., "The
Non-Darwinian Revolution: Reinterpreting a Historical Myth," The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore
MD, 1988, pp.68-69)
2/09/2005
"To succeed in the game of scientific politics, Darwin had to play his cards very carefully. He had to present his
theory in a way that would minimize the shock felt by more orthodox scientists. He also had to build up a nucleus
of supporters who would rally to his side as soon as the theory came out into the open. This was particularly
important, since Darwin's illness meant that he would have to rely heavily on these shock troops to carry the day
in both public and private debates. It is now widely recognized that Darwin worked hard on the presentation of
his theory to ensure that he would be able to communicate his new ideas. Edward Manier (1978, 1980) argued that
he had to create a whole language of metaphors that would help to convey his insights to a scientific community
that was not conditioned to think along such lines. Robert Young (1971) stressed the way in which the metaphor
of selection itself seems to have been chosen to allow religious thinkers to retain their belief that nature is guided
by a superintending power. John Beatty (1985) argued that Darwin deliberately refrained from formulating a new
definition of species because he knew that fellow naturalists would not be ready for so drastic an assault on the
traditional concept. Darwin also tried to present his theory in a way that would encourage biologists to believe
that it was compatible with accepted views of the scientific method, as expounded by authorities such as William
Whewell and Sir J. F. W. Herschel (Ruse 1975b, 1979). In all of these ways he was adapting his own ideas to the
potentially hostile cultural values of the environment in which they would be evaluated. " (Bowler P.J., "The
Non-Darwinian Revolution: Reinterpreting a Historical Myth," The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore
MD, 1988, p.69)
2/09/2005
"It has long been known that Huxley had problems with the selection theory. Much to Darwin's disappointment,
he argued that the effectiveness of the mechanism would not be proved until a new species had been produced
by artificial selection .... Originally, historians assumed that this was a minor quibble from a scientist whose
commitment to naturalism ensured a real interest in Darwin's mechanism. ... It now appears that Huxley was
interested in selection only as a possible mechanism of evolution, a hypothesis that allowed the general
idea of descent to become respectable." (Bowler P.J., "The Non-Darwinian Revolution: Reinterpreting a Historical
Myth," The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore MD, 1988, p.76. Emphasis original)
2/09/2005
"Huxley conceded that selection would not be proved as a valid evolutionary mechanism until an experimental
test with artificial breeding had produced a totally new species. He also criticized Darwin's commitment to gradual
evolution and suggested instead that large mutations sometimes might produce new forms directly." (Bowler P.J.,
"Evolution: The History of an Idea," [1983], University of California Press: Berkeley CA, Revised edition, 1989,
p.195)
3/09/2005
"International action to cut greenhouse gases is on the way, a leading British expert on the environment believes.
Sir Crispin Tickell, a former diplomat and government adviser, says urgent action is needed because climate
change is more serious even than terrorism. ... In a speech in Cambridge Sir Crispin says he thinks the world will
finally act together to confront the threat. ... Speaking in the first of a series of lectures entitled Environment on
the Edge, he says the Earth is in an unparalleled situation, because several problems are reaching a critical point
simultaneously. The lectures are organised by the United Nations Environment Programme ... Our problems are
taking us into `a no-analogue state', Sir Crispin says, and our ability to influence other species `has given us a
profound conceit of ourselves'. The six main threats he believes are pushing the environment to the edge are:
population increase; land degradation and waste; water pollution and supply; climate change; energy production
and use; and the destruction of biodiversity. ... Sir Crispin argues for the creation of a World Environment
Organisation `to balance - and be a partner of - the World Trade Organisation'. ... To bring about change, he
says, `we need three things: leadership from above; public pressure from below; and - usually - some instructive
disasters to jerk us out of our inertia." ("World 'will
act on climate gases'," BBC, 4 November, 2004)
3/09/2005
"Survival of the luckiest. Perhaps the most far-reaching effect of this revival of catastrophist thinking has been
the dawning realization that mass extinction makes a nonsense of natural selection as a 'creative' force. David
Raup of Chicago's Field Museum has calculated that in the half-dozen major extinctions, up to ninety-six per
cent of all life forms were destroyed. [Raup D.M., "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology," ," Bulletin
of the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago IL, Vol. 50, January 1979] Now if only four per cent of living
things managed to survive such cataclysms, the question of fitness is largely irrelevant. It is much more a
question of chance. Instead of survival of the fittest, you get the survival of the luckiest. The worst catastrophe,
everyone agrees, was at the end of the Permian period some 225 million years ago. It established the ancestry of
most of today's life forms, for since then there has been little change in the basic pattern of types. But as Stephen
Gould has observed, it wasn't necessarily the best-adapted Permian plants and creatures that lived through the
disaster: `If anywhere near 96 per cent of species died, leaving as few as two thousand forms to propagate all of
later life, then some groups probably died and others survived for no particular reason at all. There are few
defences against a catastrophe of such magnitude, and survivors may simply be among the lucky four per
cent...our current panoply of major designs may not represent a set of best adaptations, but fortunate survivors.'
[Gould S.J., "The chance that shapes our ends," New Scientist, 5 February 1981, p. 349]" (Hitching F., "The Neck
of the Giraffe: Or Where Darwin Went Wrong," Pan: London UK, 1982, pp.166,170. Emphasis original)
3/09/2005
"The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle
aesthetic and mathematical judgement, is overwhelming. The belief that there is `something behind it all' is one
that I personally share with, I suspect, a majority of physicists. This rather diffuse feeling could, I suppose, be
termed theism in its widest sense." (Davies P., "The Christian perspective of a scientist," Review of, "The way
the world is," by John Polkinghorne, New Scientist, Vol. 98, 2 June 1983, pp.638-639, p.638)
3/09/2005
"Although humans and chimpanzees have rather similar chromosome numbers, 46 and 48, respectively, the
arrangement of genes on chimpanzee chromosomes differs from that on human chromosomes. Only a small
proportion of the chromosomes have identical banding patterns in the two species. The banding studies indicate
that at least 10 large inversions and translocations and one chromosomal fusion have occurred since the two
lineages diverged."(King M.-C. & Wilson A.C., "Evolution at Two Levels in Humans and Chimpanzees", Science,
11 April 1975, Vol. 188, pp.107-116, p.114)
4/09/2005
"However, Darwin saw also-and again much more clearly than any of his contemporaries-that not all selection
leads to improved adaptation, as this term is currently understood. An individual might contribute more genes to
the next generation not through physiological efficiency or any other component of viability, but simply through
being more successful in reproduction. This kind of selection Darwin called sexual selection. He further
realized that there was a potential conflict between these two kinds of selection, the natural one for improved
fitness (in the vernacular meaning of this word) and the sexual one for mere reproductive success of individuals.
A purely egotistical selection for reproductive success might favor the evolution of traits that do not add to
fitness (as traditionally understood) but might actually make the species more vulnerable. It leads to the
gorgeous plumes of the birds of paradise, the extraordinary tail of the peacock, and the gigantic size of the
elephant seal bulls. Darwin devoted almost two thirds of the text of his The Descent of Man (1871) to the
discussion of sexual selection. Yet this important process was largely ignored during the ensuing 200 years ...
The existence of selfish selection for reproductive success poses a dilemma for the evolutionary biologist.
Classical natural selection ordinarily resulted in genotypes that were adaptively superior. This was so obvious
that it was even suggested to define an adaptation as anything that was a "product of selection. " However, this
definition does not fit sexual selection at all. Is the gigantic size of the elephant seal bulls of adaptive value for
this species? Is the survival of birds of paradise enhanced by the brilliant plumes of the adult males? Surely not.
On the contrary, it is quite possible that an excessive development of certain characters favored by sexual
selection contributed to the extinction of some species." (Mayr E.W., "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology:
Observations of an Evolutionist," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1988, pp.104-105. Emphasis in
original)
4/09/2005
"But the problem goes still deeper. Even if there is such a process as sexual selection (which is arguable) and
even if it produces the structures and behavior in question (which is very doubtful), what it has really brought
forth is a monumental challenge to natural selection, the keystone of the whole Darwinian theory. In the peacock
and the Argus pheasant (favorite subjects of discussion in this field), we have conspicuous and appetizing
animals that cannot run, fly, fight, or hide. As Sir Julian Huxley says: "... the display-characters may even be
clearly disadvantageous to the individual in all aspects of existence other than the reproductive, as in the train of
the peacock, the wings of the argus pheasant, or the plumes of some birds of paradise." [Huxley J.S., "Evolution:
The Modern Synthesis," Allen & Unwin: London, 1942, p.427] By all reasonable standards (and who can really
cleave to the doctrine that we should not set up standards or assume to judge fitness?) natural selection should
never have allowed such animals to come into existence. But they have not only come into existence, they have
stayed there and have not become extinct. Have the birds, through their patterns of sexual choice, established a
system in which the race is not to the swift and the battle is not to the strong? If so, they have shaken the whole
structure of Darwinism. ...Thus we may have understated the case when we said that sexual selection has been a
disappointment. It has not only failed to solve the problems to which Darwin applied it; it has called attention to
a glaring weakness in natural selection. It has emphasized the existence of things which, under a reasonable view
of that theory, simply cannot be."(Macbeth N., "Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason," Gambit: Boston MA,
1971, pp.84-85)
4/09/2005
"In his second classic, The Descent of Man, Darwin came close to repudiating the theory of natural
selection as he had stated in The Origin of Species: `A very large yet undefined extension may safely be
given to the direct and indirect results of natural selection; but I now admit...that in the earlier editions of my
`Origin of Species' I probably attributed too much to the action of natural selection or the survival of the fittest. ...
I had not formerly sufficiently considered the existence of many structures which appear to be, as far as we can
judge, neither beneficial nor injurious; and this I believe to be one of the greatest oversights as yet detected in
my work. I may be permitted to say as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view, firstly, to show that
species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change,
though largely aided by the inherited effects of habit, and slightly by the direct action of the surrounding
conditions. Nevertheless, I was not able to annul the influence of my former belief, then widely prevalent, that
each species had been purposely created; and this led to my tacitly assuming that every detail of structure,
excepting rudiments, was of some special, though unrecognized, service.... If I have erred in giving to natural
selection great power, which I am far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself
probable, I have at least as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.
[Darwin C.R., "The Descent of Man," London, 1871, First edition, Vol. I, pp.152-153] ... Darwin's explanation for
having exaggerated the importance of natural selection is particularly intriguing, because he had no lingering
attachment to creationism in 1859, and any overstatement would have been motivated by a desire to make the
case against creation as powerful as possible. The passage almost implies that natural selection was a rhetorical
device, important mainly for building the case against creationism, which could be re-evaluated and downgraded
once its purpose had been served." (Johnson P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove
IL, Second Edition, 1993, p.178)
4/09/2005
"Authors naturally hope that their books will have lasting rather than ephemeral impact. But any advocate, in
addition to putting the timeless part of his case, must also respond to contemporary advocates of opposing, or
apparently opposing, points of view. There is a risk that some of these arguments, however hotly they may rage
today, will seem terribly dated in decades to come. The paradox has often been noted that the first edition of The
Origin of Species makes a better case than the sixth. This is because Darwin felt obliged, in his later editions, to
respond to contemporary criticisms of the first edition, criticisms which now seem so dated that the replies to
them merely get in the way, and in places even mislead." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin:
London, 1991, reprint, p.xvi)
5/09/2005
"One of your books, The Blind Watchmaker, argues the case for the cumulative power of natural selection
in the adaptation of organisms. Tell us about the metaphorical title of that book. The `watchmaker' comes from
William Paley, the eighteenth-and early nineteenth-century theologian who was one of the most famous
exponents of the argument of design. Paley famously said that if you are wandering along and stumble upon a
watch and you pick it up and open it, you realize that the internal mechanism-the way in which it's all meshed
together-is detailed perfection. Add this to the fact that the watch mechanism has a purpose-namely, telling the
time-then this compels you to conclude that the watch had to have a designer. Paley then went on throughout
his book giving example after example of detailed structure of living organisms-eyes, heart, bowels, joints, and
everything about animals-showing how beautifully designed they apparently are, how well they work, how
intricately the parts mesh together, just like the cog wheels of a watch. And if the watch had to have a
watchmaker, then of course these biological structures also had to have a designer. My reason for beginning
The Blind Watchmaker was Paley. He really saw the magnitude of the problem of adaptation when most
people just didn't see how elegant, how beautiful, apparent design in life is. Paley saw that, and Darwin saw that.
And Darwin was introduced to it at least partly by Paley. All undergraduates at Cambridge had to read William
Paley. He at least put the question right. So the only thing Paley got wrong, which is quite a big thing, was the
answer to the question. And nobody got the right answer until Charles Darwin in the nineteenth century."
(Dawkins R., "Mechanisms of Evolution," in Campbell N.A., Reece J.B. & Mitchell L.G., "Biology," [1987],
Benjamin/Cummings: Menlo Park CA, Fifth Edition, 1999, p.412)
5/09/2005
"Over the past four decades modern biochemistry has uncovered the secrets of the cell. The progress has been
hard won. It has required tens of thousands of people to dedicate the better parts of their lives to the tedious
work of the laboratory. Graduate students in untied tennis shoes scraping around the lab late on Saturday night;
postdoctoral associates working fourteen hours a day seven days a week; professors ignoring their children in
order to polish and repolish grant proposals, hoping to shake a little money loose from politicians with larger
constituencies to feed-these are the people that make scientific research move forward. The knowledge we now
have of life at the molecular level has been stitched together from innumerable experiments in which proteins
were purified, genes cloned, electron micrographs taken, cells cultured, structures determined, sequences
compared, parameters varied, and controls done. Papers were published, results checked, reviews written, blind
alleys searched, and new leads fleshed out. The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell-to
investigate life at the molecular level-is a loud, clear, piercing cry of "design!" The result is so unambiguous and
so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The discovery,
rivals those of Newton and Einstein, Lavoisier and Schrodinger, Pasteur, and Darwin. The observation of the
intelligent design of life is as momentous as the observation that the earth goes around the sun or that disease is
caused by bacteria or that radiation is emitted in quanta. The magnitude of the victory, gained at such great cost
through sustained effort over the course of decades, would be expected to send champagne corks flying in labs
around the world. This triumph of science should evoke cries of "Eureka! " from ten thousand throats, should
occasion much hand-slapping and high-fiving, and perhaps even be an excuse to take a day off. But no bottles
have been uncorked, no hands slapped. Instead, a curious, embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity
of the cell. When the subject comes up in public, feet start to shuffle, and breathing gets a bit labored. In private
people are a bit more relaxed; many explicitly admit the obvious but then stare at the ground, shake their heads,
and let it go at that. Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling discovery? Why is the
observation of design handled with intellectual gloves? The dilemma is that while one side of the elephant is
labeled intelligent design, the other side might be labeled God." (Behe M.J.*, "Darwin's Black Box: The
Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free Press: New York NY, 1996, pp.232-233)
7/09/2005
"There is a further consequence of the theory of evolution, which is independent of the particular mechanism
suggested by Darwin. If men and animals have a common ancestry, and if men developed by such slow stages
that there were creatures which we should not know whether to classify as human or not, the question arises: at
what stage in evolution did men, or their semi- human ancestors begin to be all equal? Would
Pithecanthropus erectus, if he had been properly educated, have done work as good as Newton's? Would
the Piltdown Man have written Shakespeare's poetry if there had been anybody to convict him of poaching? A
resolute egalitarian who answers these questions in the affirmative will find himself forced to regard apes as the
equals of human beings. And why stop with apes? I do not see how he is to resist an argument in favour of
Votes for Oysters. An adherent of evolution should maintain that not only the doctrine of the equality of all men,
but also that of the rights of man, must be condemned as unbiological since it makes too emphatic a distinction
between men and other animals." (Russell B., "History of Western Philosophy," George Allen & Unwin: London,
1961, pp.697-698)
7/09/2005
"The actinistian crossopterygians remained unchanged from the upper Devonian to the Jurassic. They were
much too conservative and specialized, judging from the modern Latimeria, to have played a part in the genesis
of tetrapods, the "conquerors" of terrestrial environments. This role was presumably played by the rhipidistian
crossopterygians which, like the tetrapods, possessed internal nares (choanae). The earliest known amphibians,
the ichthyostegalian stegocephalians, appeared in the upper Devonian (Old Red Limestone of eastern
Greenland); they are unquestionably similar to the rhipidistians, especially to the Osteolepiformes, but they show
characteristic tetrapod limbs (called autopodia) [The characteristic limb of walking Vertebrates (tetrapods) which
is composed of successive articulating segments; forelimb: upper arm (humerus), forearm (radius and ulna), wrist
(carous), palm (metacarpus), and digits;. hind limb: thigh (femur), lower leg (tibia and fibula), ankle (tarsus), sole
of the foot (metatarsus), and toes. The basic number of digits and toes is five per limb.], attached to the trunk by
characteristic bony girdles. The intermediate links between the crossopterygian fin and the tetrapod limb are
missing. Anatomists have been trying to identify in the fin the bones which formed the autopodium. Their task is
not an easy one. Each lobed pectoral fin of a crossopterygian is composed of a proximal bony element,
homologous to the tetrapod humerus, followed by two bony elements to which are attached rows of ossicles.
The fin articulates with a girdle consisting of five bones, different from that of other fishes. The anterior, scapular
girdle is attached to the head on either side by two bones, whereas that of amphibians is free. In spite of the wide
differences between the lobed fin and the autopodium, it is most likely that the latter was derived from the former.
Ichthyostega bore a heterocercal caudal fin, constructed somewhat like that of crossopterygians. The
skull arches of the osteolopiforms and ichthyostegalians do not have the same structure but the cheek bones are
practically the same in both forms. Thus, the ichthyostegalians share too many characters with the
crossopterygians for the latter not to belong to their ancestry; the crossopterygians are not, however, direct
ancestors of stegocephalians, but are apparently very close to them. Ichthyostega,
Ichthystegopsis, and Acanthostega have been considered a side branch of the crossopterygian-
amphibian stock which, after a rapid evolution, withered away without any offspring. In order to measure fully
the relationships between these archaic groups, one would have to know which specific transformations of the
respiratory and circulatory systems made terrestrial life possible, but no known facts provide any clues." (Grasse
P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press:
New York NY, 1977, pp.73-74)
7/09/2005
"But what did Concestor 17 look like: the ancestor that amphibians share with reptiles and ourselves? Certainly
more like an amphibian than an amniote, and more like a salamander than a frog - but probably not much like
either. The best fossils are in Greenland which, during the Devonian Period, was on the equator. These possibly
transitional fossils have been much studied, among them Acanthostega, which seems to have been
wholly aquatic (showing that `legs' originally evolved for movement in water, not on land), and
Ichthyostega. Concestor 17 might have been something like Ichthyostega or Acanthostega,
although both were larger than we normally expect grand ancestors to be. ... The fish group from which the
amphibians sprang is the one known as the lobefins. The only surviving lobefins are the lungfish and the
coelacanths ... In Devonian times, lobefins were much more prominent in both the marine and freshwater faunas.
The tetrapods probably evolved from an otherwise extinct group of lobefins called the osteolepiforms. Among
osteolepiforms are Eusthenopteron and Panderichthys, both dating from the late Devonian, about the time when
the first tetrapods were starting to emerge onto the land. Why did fish first develop the changes that permitted
the move out of water onto the land? Lungs, for example? And fins that you could walk on rather than, or as well
as, swim with? It wasn't that they were trying to initiate the next big chapter in evolution! For years, the favoured
answer to the question was one that the eminent American palaeontologist Alfred Sherwood Romer derived from
the geologist Joseph Barrell. The idea was that if these fish were trying to do anything it was to get back to
water. In times of drought, fish can easily become stranded in drying pools. Individuals capable of walking and of
breathing air have the enormous advantage that they can forsake a doomed, drying pond and set out for a deeper
one elsewhere. This admirable theory has become unfashionable but not, I think, for uniformly good reasons.
Unfortunately, Romer quoted the prevailing belief of his day that the Devonian was a time of drought, a belief
that has more recently been called into question. But I don't think Romer needed his Devonian desiccated. Even
at times of no particular drought, there will always be some ponds shallow enough to be in danger of becoming
too shallow for some particular kind of fish. If ponds three feet deep would have been at risk under severe
drought conditions, mild drought conditions will render ponds one foot deep at risk. It is sufficient for the Romer
hypothesis that there are some ponds that dry up, and therefore some fish that could save their lives by
migrating. Even if the world of the late Devonian was positively waterlogged, one could say this simply increases
the number of ponds available to dry up, thereby increasing opportunities for saving the life of walking fish and
the Romer theory. Nevertheless, it is my duty to record that the theory is now unfashionable. A further point
against the theory is that modern fish that venture onto land do so in humid, wet areas - that is, when conditions
on land are `good' for water animals, not poor as in the Romer hypothesis. And, to be sure, there are plenty of
other good reasons for a fish to emerge, temporarily or permanently, onto land. Streams and ponds can become
unusable for reasons other than drying up. They can become choked with weeds, in which case, again, a fish that
can migrate over land to deeper water might benefit. If, as has been suggested contra Romer, we are talking
Devonian swamps rather than Devonian droughts, swamps provide plenty of opportunities for a fish to benefit
by walking, or slithering or flip-flopping or otherwise travelling through the marshy vegetation, in search of deep
water or, indeed, food. This still retains the essential Romer idea that our ancestors left the water, not at first to
colonise land, but to return to water. The group of lobefins from which we tetrapods are derived, are today
reduced to a pitiful four genera, but they once dominated the seas almost as the teleost fish do today." (Dawkins
R., "The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 2004,
pp.297-299)
8/09/2005
Matthew 24:1-14 (NIV) "[1] Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call
his attention to its buildings. [2] `Do you see all these things?' he asked. `I tell you the truth, not one stone here
will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.' [3] As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the
disciples came to him privately. `Tell us,' they said, `when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your
coming and of the end of the age?' [4] Jesus answered: `Watch out that no one deceives you. [5] For many will
come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. [6] You will hear of wars and rumors of wars,
but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. [7] Nation will rise
against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. [8] All
these are the beginning of birth pains. [9] `Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and
you will be hated by all nations because of me. [10] At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray
and hate each other, [11] and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. [12] Because of the
increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, [13] but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. [14]
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the
end will come.''
8/09/2005
"[Matthew] 24:1-25:46 The Last Things ... A few points are worthy of special notice ... The prophetic material
found in this sixth discourse has reference not only to events near at hand (see, for example, verse 16) but also to
those stretching far into the future, as is clear from 24:14, 29-31; 25:6, 31-46. Cf. Luke 21:24. ... By the process of
prophetic foreshortening, by means of which before one's eyes the widely separated mountain peaks of historic
events merge and are seen as one, as has been explained in connection with 10:23 and 16:28, two momentous
events are here intertwined, namely, a. the judgment upon Jerusalem (its fall in the year A.D. 70), and b. the final
judgment at the close of the world's history. Our Lord predicts the city's approaching catastrophe as a
type of the tribulation at the end of the dispensation. Or, putting it differently, in describing the brief period
of great tribulation at the close of history, ending with the final judgment, Jesus is painting in colors borrowed
from the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. ... It is not claimed, of course, that any exegete is able
completely to untangle what is here intertwined, so as to indicate accurately for each individual passage just how
much refers to Jerusalem's fall, and how much to the great tribulation and second coming. ... The main emphasis
in both chapters is on the necessity of always being on the alert, active for the Master, faithful to him."
(Hendriksen W., "The Gospel of Matthew: New Testament Commentary:," [1973], The Banner of Truth Trust,
1982, reprint, pp.846-848. Emphasis original)
8/09/2005
"An intellectual bombshell dropped last week when British professor Antony Flew, for decades one of the
world's leading philosophers of atheism, publicly announced that he now affirms the existence of a deity. To be
sure, Mr. Flew has not become an adherent of any creed. He simply believes that science points to the existence
of some sort of intelligent designer of the universe. He says evidence from DNA research convinces him that the
genetic structure of biological life is too complex to have evolved entirely on its own. Though the 81-year-old
philosopher believes Darwinian theory explains a lot, he contends that it cannot account for how life initially
began. We found this conversion interesting in light of last year's controversy regarding proposed revisions to
the state's high school biology textbooks. Our view then was that while religion must be kept out of science
classes, intellectual honesty demands that when science produces reliable data challenging the prevailing
orthodoxies, students should be taught them. We were bothered by Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin's
statement that for scientists, materialism must be `absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.' That's
called stacking the deck. Mr. Flew may be dead wrong, but it's refreshing to see that an academic of his stature is
unafraid to let new facts change his mind. The philosopher told The Associated Press that if admirers are upset
with his about-face, then `that's too bad. My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates:
Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.' If the scientific data are compelling enough to cause an atheist academic
of Antony Flew's reputation to recant much of his life's work, why shouldn't Texas schoolchildren be taught the
controversy?" (Editorial, "An Atheist's Apostasy," The Dallas Morning News, December 15, 2004)
9/09/2005
"Scientists have always written books that do real honest-to-goodness scientific work. Evolutionary biology is
perhaps the very best example. The field was essentially founded by Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. The long-awaited
book sold out on the first day of publication: November 24, 1859. Books have always proven to be important
turning points fulcra in evolutionary history. The `modern synthesis' in evolutionary biology owed its genesis in
no small part to seminal founding documents-books-by many of its most important contributors: Ronald Fisher's
The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (1930), Theodosius Dobzhansky's Genetics and the Origin of Species
(1937), Ernst Mayr's Systematics and the Origin of Species (1942), and George Gaylord Simpson's Tempo and
Mode in Evolution (1944) come quickly to mind. Nor has the pattern changed in the post-1959 era that- is the
focus of this present work. Ultra-Darwinism has been developed and promulgated heavily in book format,
beginning with George Williams's Adaptation and Natural Selection (1966) and certainly including Richard
Dawkins's highly popular The Selfish Gene (1976), to mention but two of the many books published by ultra-
Darwinians in the past 30 years. Nor have we naturalists shied away from book writing, as readers of Stephen Jay
Gould's works will readily attest. I also have written a number of books-all devoted, in one way or another, to the
task of developing and explicating the naturalistic perspective on evolutionary biology." (Eldredge N.,
"Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," Phoenix: London, 1996, pp.x-xi)
9/09/2005
"Rifkin shows no understanding of the norms and procedures of science: he displays little comprehension of
what science is and how scientists work. He consistently misses the essential distinction between fact (claims
about the world's empirical content) and theory (ideas that explain and interpret facts)-using arguments from one
realm to refute the other. Against Darwinism (a theory of evolutionary mechanisms) he cites the British
physiologist Gerald Kerkut's Implications of Evolution, a book written to refute the factual claim that all living
creatures have a common ancestry, and to argue instead that life may have arisen several times from chemical
precursors-an issue not addressed by Darwinism. (Creationist lawyers challenged me with the same
misunderstanding during my cross-examination at the Arkansas `equal time' trial five years ago.) Rifkin then
suggests that the entire field of evolution may be pseudo science because the great French zoologist Pierre-Paul
Grasse is so critical of Darwinism (the theory of natural selection might be wrong, but Grasse devoted his entire
life to studying the facts of evolution). Science is a pluralistic enterprise, validly pursued in many modes. But
Rifkin ignores its richness by stating that direct manipulation by repeatable experiment provides the only
acceptable method for reaching a scientific conclusion. Since evolution treats historically unique events that
occurred millions of years ago, it cannot pass muster. Rifkin doesn't seem to realize that he is throwing out half of
science-nearly all of geology and most of astronomy, for instance-with his evolutionary bath water. Historical
science is a valid pursuit, but uses methods different from the controlled experiment of Rifkin's all-encompassing
caricature-search for an underlying pattern among unique events, and retrodiction (predicting the yet
undiscovered results of past events), for example." (Gould S.J., "Integrity and Mr. Rifkin," in "An Urchin in the
Storm: Essays about Books and Ideas," [1987], Penguin: London, 1990, reprint, p.234)
9/09/2005
"More recently, another book critical of Darwin's theory was published in France, by Dr. Pierre P. Grasse. The
book, Evolution of Living Organisms, greatly intensified the debate at hand because of the eminence of
the source. Dr. Grasse is one of the world's greatest living biologists. In his review of the book, Theodosius
Dobzhansky, a member of the old guard and a staunch defender of Darwinist theory, had to admit that Grasse's
observations were impossible to ignore simply because of his vast research experience. Grasse is the editor of the
twenty-eight volumes of Traite' de Zoologie and ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences. According to
Dobzhansky, "His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic." [Dobzhansky T.G., "Darwinian or 'Oriented'
Evolution?," Evolution, Vol. 29, 1975, p.376]. After decades of careful scholarship, Grasse concluded simply:
`Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory
doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in
conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved.' [Grasse P-P., "Evolution of Living
Organisms," Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.202]." (Rifkin J., "Algeny," Viking Press: New York NY, 1983,
pp.116-117)
9/09/2005
"Much to the consternation of his colleagues, Grasse ends up by issuing the single most devastating indictment
that can ever be leveled against a field that professes to be scientific. `Through use and abuse of hidden
postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the
very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the
accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case.' [Grasse P-P., "Evolution of
Living Organisms," Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.6] "(Rifkin J., "Algeny," Viking Press: New York NY,
1983, p.117)
9/09/2005
"Dr. Grasse poses the question this way: "How does the Darwinian mutational interpretation of evolution
account for the fact that the species that have been the most stable-some of them for the last hundreds of
millions of years-have mutated as much as the others do?" Grasse concludes: "Once one has noticed
microvariations (on the one hand) and specific stability (on the other), it seems very difficult to conclude that the
former (microvariation) comes into play in the evolutionary process." Grasse says that the evidence forces us "to
deny any evolutionary value whatever to the mutations we observe in the existing fauna and flora." [Grasse P-P.,
"Evolution of Living Organisms," Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.202]" (Rifkin J., "Algeny," Viking
Press: New York NY, 1983, p.132)
9/09/2005
"According to Grasse, mutations are "merely hereditary fluctuations around a medium position; a swing to the
right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect ... they modify what pre-exists." [Grasse P-P., "Evolution
of Living Organisms," Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.87] Whereas Darwin thought that variations led to
new species, the evidence proves the contrary: namely, that variation improves the ability of the species to
maintain itself "against" radical change." (Rifkin J., "Algeny," Viking Press: New York NY, 1983, p.133)
9/09/2005
"The problem, says Grasse, is that `some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk
about evolution.' This conclusion, says Grasse, `does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they
may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.' [Grasse P-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms,"
Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.88]" (Rifkin J., "Algeny," Viking Press: New York NY, 1983, pp.134-135)
9/09/2005
"The French biologist Pierre Grasse has laid out a detailed presentation of the new approach to the
conceptualization of nature, using the language of cybernetics. Grasse begins by framing all of life in cybernetic
terms: `Information forms and animates the living organism. Evolution is, in the end, the process by which the
creature modifies its information and acquires other information.' [Grasse P-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms,"
Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.223] Grasse then goes on to develop a cybernetic model of a living
organism. He starts with the strands of DNA that make up the genetic code. According to Grasse, the code
represents the intelligence of the species. Grasse is willing to concede that DNA is `... the depository and
distributor of the information ...,' but he takes exception to James Watson, Francis Crick, and many of the
surviving neo-Darwinists who contend that it is also the `sole creator.' [Ibid, p.224] Grasse compares the genetic
code of an organism to a library and argues that neither one fabricates information; they are merely repositories
of information received from the outside. Both DNA and the library classify and store. It is at this point that
Grasse applies the principle of `feedback' to living systems. `DNA has to receive messages either from other parts
of the cell or from organs ... or from the outside world (sense stimuli, pheromones, etc.). Of itself, by what miracle
could it generate information adequate to performance of a given function?' [Ibid, p.224]" (Rifkin J., "Algeny,"
Viking Press: New York NY, 1983, pp.209-210)
9/09/2005
"To hammer his point home, Grasse feels compelled to use the computer as an appropriate reference point. `The
computer is limited in its operations by the program controlling it and the units of information fed into it. To
enlarge its possibilities, its contents have to be enriched. What is new comes from outside.' Grasse P-P.,
"Evolution of Living Organisms," Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.225] Grasse concludes that the living
organism, like the computer, has "to be programmed and fed with external information in order for novelties to
emerge." [Ibid, p.226] The picture he sketches is a cybernetic model of life; a circular process in which the genes,
the organism, and the environment continually feed information back and forth, allowing the organism to regulate
itself in response to changing external cues. After cataloguing all the ways that external factors influence the
genes and vice versa, Grasse acknowledges the role that cybernetics has played in helping to redefine the very
operational design of life itself. He concludes that `the cybernetic model, of which philosophy has not yet fully
taken advantage, is applicable to all kinds of biological systems ...' [Ibid, p.225]" (Rifkin J., "Algeny," Viking
Press: New York NY, 1983, p.210)
9/09/2005
"What artificial selection actually shows is that there are definite limits to the amount of variation that even the
most highly skilled breeders can achieve. Breeding of domestic animals has produced no new species, in the
commonly accepted sense of new breeding communities that are infertile when crossed with the parent group. ...
The eminent French zoologist Pierre Grasse concluded that the results of artificial selection provide powerful
testimony against Darwin's theory: `In spite of the intense pressure generated by artificial selection (eliminating
any parent not answering the criteria of choice) over whole millennia, no new species are born. A comparative
study of sera hemoglobins, blood proteins, interfertility, etc., proves that the strains remain within the same
specific definition. This is not a matter of opinion or subjective classification, but a measurable reality. The fact is
that selection gives tangible form to and gathers together all the varieties a genome is capable of producing, but
does not constitute an innovative evolutionary process.' [Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms,"
Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.124-25] In other words, the reason that dogs don't become as big a
elephants, much less change into elephants, is not that we just haven't been breeding them long enough. Dogs
do not have the genetic capacity for that degree of change, and they stop getting bigger when the genetic limit is
reached." (Johnson P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993,
p.18)
9/09/2005
"The time available unquestionably has to be taken into account in evaluating the results of breeding
experiments, but it is also possible that the greater time available to nature may be more than counterbalanced by
the power of intelligent purpose which is brought to bear in artificial selection. With respect to the famous fruitfly
experiments, for example, Grasse noted that "the fruitfly (drosophila melanogaster) the favorite pet insect of the
geneticists, whose geographical, biotropical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to
have changed since the remotest times." [Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms," Academic Press: New
York NY, 1977, p.130] Nature has had plenty of time, but it just hasn't been doing what the experimenters have
been doing. Lack of time would be a reasonable excuse if there were no other known factor limiting the change
that can be produced by selection, but in fact selective change is limited by the inherent variability in the gene
pool. After a number of generations the capacity for variation runs out. It might conceivably be renewed by
mutation, but whether (and how often) this happens is not known. Whether selection has ever accomplished
speciation (i.e. the production of a new species) is not the point. A biological species is simply a group capable
of interbreeding. Success in dividing a fruitfly population into two or more separate populations that cannot
interbreed would not constitute evidence that a similar process could in time produce a fruitfly from a bacterium.
If breeders one day did succeed in producing a group of dogs that can reproduce with each other but not with
other dogs, they would still have made only the tiniest step towards proving Darwinism's important claims."
(Johnson P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, pp.19-20)
9/09/2005
"None of the `proofs' provides any persuasive reason for believing that natural selection can produce new
species, new organs, or other major changes, or even minor changes that are permanent. The sickle-cell anemia
case, for example, merely shows that in special circumstances an apparently disadvantageous trait may not be
eliminated from the population. That larger birds have an advantage over smaller birds in high winds or droughts
has no tendency whatever to prove that similar factors caused birds to come into existence in the first place. Very
likely smaller birds have the advantage in other circumstances, which explains why birds are not continually
becoming larger. Pierre Grasse was as unimpressed by this kind of evidence as I am, and he summarized his
conclusions at the end of his chapter on evolution and natural selection: `The `evolution in action' of J. Huxley
and other biologists is simply the observation of demographic facts, local fluctuations of genotypes,
geographical distributions. Often the species concerned have remained practically unchanged for hundreds of
centuries! Fluctuation as a result of circumstances, with prior modification of the genome, does not imply
evolution, and we have tangible proof of this in many panchronic species [i.e. living fossils that remain
unchanged for millions of years]....' [Grasse P.P., "Evolution of Living Organisms," Academic Press: New York
NY, 1977, p130)." (Johnson P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second
Edition, 1993, p.27)
10/09/2005
"Grasse denied emphatically that mutation and selection have the power to create new complex organs or body
plans, explaining that the intra-species variation that results from DNA copying errors is mere fluctuation, which
never leads to any important innovation. Dobzhansky's famous work with fruitflies was a case in point.
According to Grasse, `The genic differences noted between separate populations of the same species that are so
often presented as evidence of ongoing evolution are, above all, a case of the adjustment of a population to its
habitat and of the effects of genetic drift. The fruitfly (drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the
geneticists, whose geographical, biotropical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to
have changed since the remotest times.' [Grasse P.-P., "The Evolution of Living Organisms," Academic Press:
New York NY, 1977, p.130]." (Johnson P.E.*, "Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning," in
Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?", Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson
TX, 1994, p.6)
10/09/2005
"Grasse insisted that the defining quality of life is the intelligence encoded in its biochemical systems, an
intelligence that cannot be understood solely in terms of its material embodiment. The minerals that form a great
cathedral do not differ essentially from the same materials in the rocks and quarries of the world; the difference is
human intelligence, which adapted them for a given purpose. Similarly, `Any living being possesses an enormous
amount of `intelligence,' very much more than is necessary to build the most magnificent of cathedrals. Today,
this `intelligence' is called information, but it is still the same thing. It is not programmed as in a computer, but
rather it is condensed on molecular scale in the chromosomal DNA or in that of every other organelle in each cell.
This `intelligence' is the sine qua non of life. Where does it come from? ...This is a problem that concerns
both biologists and philosophers, and, at present science seems incapable of solving it.... If to determine the
origin of information in a computer is not a false problem, why should the search for the information contained in
cellular nuclei be one?' [Grasse P.-P., "The Evolution of Living Organisms," Academic Press: New York NY, 1977,
p.2]." (Johnson P.E.*, "Darwinism's
Rules of Reasoning," in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?", Foundation for
Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, 1994, pp.6-7)
10/09/2005
"Grasse was an evolutionist, but his dissent from Darwinism could hardly have been more radical if he had been a
creationist. It is not merely that he built a detailed empirical case against the neo-Darwinian picture of evolution.
At the philosophical level, he challenged the crucial doctrine of uniformitarianism, which holds that processes
detectable by our present-day science were also responsible for the great transformations that occurred in the
remote past. According to Grasse, evolving species acquire a new store of genetic information through `a
phenomenon whose equivalent cannot be seen in the creatures living at the present time (either because it is not
there or because we are unable to see it).' [Grasse P.-P., "The Evolution of Living Organisms," Academic Press:
New York NY, 1977, p.208]. ... See also p. 71: "We are certain that it [evolution] does not operate today as it did in
the remote past. Something has changed.... The structural plans no longer undergo complete reorganization;
novelties are no longer plentiful. Evolution, after its last enormous effort to form the mammalian orders and man,
seems to be out of breath and drowsing off." (Johnson P.E.*, "Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning," in
Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?", Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson
TX, 1994, pp.8,19)
10/09/2005
"Grasse acknowledged that such speculation `arouses the suspicions of many biologists... [because] it conjures
up visions of the ghost of vitalism or of some mystical power which guides the destiny of living things...' He
defended himself from these charges by arguing that the evidence of genetics, zoology, and paleontology refutes
the Darwinian theory that random mutation and natural selection were important sources of evolutionary
innovation. Given the state of the empirical evidence, to acknowledge the existence of some as yet undiscovered
orienting force that guided evolution was merely to face the facts. Grasse even turned the charges of mysticism
against his opponents, commenting sarcastically that nothing could be more mystical than the Darwinian view
that `nature acts blindly, unintelligently, but by an infinitely benevolent good fortune builds mechanisms so
intricate that we have not even finished with analysis of their structure and have not the slightest insight of the
physical principles and functioning of some of them." [Grasse P.-P., "The Evolution of Living Organisms,"
Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.168] "(Johnson P.E., "Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning," in
Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?", Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson
TX, 1994, p.8)
10/09/2005
"By `scientific methodology' or `attitude' in this case, I mean a commitment to the idea of the world being law-
bound-that is, subject to unbroken regularity-and to the belief that there are no powers, seen or unseen, that
interfere with or otherwise make inexplicable the normal workings of material objects. I am not trying here for a
trick definition, and I include such things as gravity and electricity in the material world. ... I take it that my
position excludes certain sorts of miracles-for instance, Jesus turning the water into wine (taken in a literal sense).
On the other hand, if your miracle does not interfere with the workings of nature, and if you do not make any
scientific claims for your beliefs, I have nothing to say, qua my commitment to science. ... Is my position
reasonable, provable, irrational, or just a philosophical preference? It is certainly not provable in the sense that
the theorem of Pythagoras is provable. It is not provable in the sense that one can prove that the earth goes
around the sun; it is the presupposition of that particular claim! On the other hand, I deny that it is merely an
irrational prejudice, or even `just' a philosophical preference." (Ruse M.E., "Darwinism: Philosophical Preference,
Scientific Inference, and Good Research Strategy," in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or
Philosophy?", Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, 1994, pp.21-22)
10/09/2005
"The systematically similar structures of fossilized organisms and their modern day counterparts (if not extinct)
are described by Grasse: `Biologists find it hard to admit that, in their basic structure, present living beings differ
[hardly] at all from those of the past. To begin with, such a supposition seems contrary to the scientific spirit. But
facts are facts; no new broad organizational plan has appeared for several hundred million years, and for an
equally long time numerous species, animal as well as plant, have ceased evolving.' [Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of
Living Organisms," Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.84]" (Bird W.R.*, "The Origin of Species Revisited,"
Regency: Nashville TN, 1991, Vol. I, pp.65-66)
10/09/2005
"Grasse similarly concludes that mutations have `no final evolutionary effect" because of genetic limits on the
scope of viable ones. Mutations instead are merely hereditary fluctuations around a medium position; a swing to
the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect...they modify what pre-exists. ... No matter how
numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.' [Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living
Organisms," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.87-88]" (Bird W.R.*, "The Origin of Species
Revisited," Regency: Nashville TN, 1991, Vol. I, pp.86-87)
10/09/2005
"Many anti-Darwinians find no explanation satisfactory for macroevolution ... For example, Grasse ... reached the
following anti-Darwinian conclusion: `Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists
notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth
criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems
involved.'[Grasse P.-P., "The Evolution of Living Organisms," Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.202]" (Bird
W. R., "The Origin of Species Revisited," Regency: Nashville TN, 1991, Vol. I, p.151)
10/09/2005
"Many non-Darwinians also reject extrapolation and denounce `the faith ... that macroevolution can be
accounted for in principle by the same factors that bring about microevolution,' ... Grasse echoes the view of
many scientists: `How does the Darwinian mutational interpretation of evolution account for the fact that the
species that have been the most stable-some of them for the last hundreds of millions of years-have mutated as
much as the others do? ... Once one has noticed microvariations (on the one hand) and specific stability (on the
other), it seems very difficult to conclude that the former (microvariation) comes into play in the evolutionary
process.' [Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms," Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.87-88]" (Bird
W.R.*, "The Origin of Species Revisited," Regency: Nashville TN, 1991, Vol. I, p.158)
10/09/2005
The role assigned to natural selection in establishing adaptation, while speciously probable, is based on not
one single sure datum. Paleontology .. does not support it; direct observation here and now of the genesis of
a hereditary adaptation is nonexistent, except, as we have stated, in the case of bacteria and insects preadapted
to resist viruses or drugs. ... The role of natural selection in the present world of living things is concerned with
the balance of populations; it is primarily of demographic interest. To assert that population dynamics gives a
picture of evolution in action is an unfounded opinion, or rather a postulate, that relies on not a single proved
fact ... Circumstances occasionally award a given mutation a selectivity bonus, but for a variable time, as witness
the heterogeneity of populations due to the abundance of alleles of a single gene and their composition over
time. Studies on natural populations in their own proper environment show that the composition of genes is
changeable and that dominant species vary over time. ... The gene composition of populations changes
continually by the occurrence of mutants. For tens of millions of years, populations of Drosophila have
undergone millions of mutations. What is left of them? The insignificant modifications discovered by laborious
analysis ... These tiny, disorderly fluctuations of genes start no new line; they are apparently unconnected with
the great process that has given birth to types and subtypes of organization. ... No experiment justifies
the assimilation of demographic changes of population to a slice of evolution as an innovative, creative
process." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973],
Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.170-171. Emphasis original)
10/09/2005
"Other biologists carry the point further to deny that natural selection is supported by any evidence at all,
whether at the macroevolutionary or even microevolutionary level. Grasse, whose `knowledge of the living world
is encyclopedic' according to Dobzhansky, simply finds `not one single sure datum': `The role assigned to natural
selection in establishing adaptation, while speciously probable, is based on not one single sure datum.
Paleontology (cf. the case of the transformation of the mandibular skeleton Off the theriodont reptiles) does not
support it- direct observation here and now of the genesis of a hereditary adaptation is nonexistent, except, as we
have stated, in the case of bacteria and insects preadapted to resist viruses or drugs." [Grasse P.-P., "Evolution
of Living Organisms," Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.170. Emphasis original]" (Bird W.R.*, "The Origin
of Species Revisited," Regency: Nashville TN, 1991, Vol. I, p161)
10/09/2005
"One particularly eminent scientist of the mid-twentieth century who concluded that it [Darwin's theory] had
absolutely broken down was the German-American geneticist, Professor Richard Goldschmidt of the University
of California at Berkeley. Goldschmidt issued a famous challenge to the neo-Darwinists, listing series of complex
structures from mammalian hair to hemoglobin that he thought could not have been produced by the
accumulation and selection of small mutations. Like Pierre Grasse, Goldschmidt concluded that Darwinian
evolution could account for no more than variations within the species boundary; unlike Grasse, he thought that
evolution beyond that point must have occurred in single jumps through macromutations. He conceded that
large-scale mutations would in almost all cases produce hopelessly maladapted monsters, but he thought that on
rare occasions a lucky accident might produce a "hopeful monster," a member of a new species with the capacity
to survive and propagate (but with what mate?). The Darwinists met this fantastic suggestion with savage
ridicule. As Goldschmidt put it, `This time I was not only crazy but almost a criminal.' Gould has even compared
the treatment accorded to Goldschmidt in Darwinist circles with the daily `Two Minute Hate' directed at
"Emmanuel Goldstein, enemy of the people" in George Orwell's novel 1984. [Gould S.J., "The Panda's Thumb,"
1980, p.155] " (Johnson P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], Second Edition, InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL,
1993, p.37)
11/09/2005
"The `most famous, strongly documented case' of natural selection is that of `the replacement of light-colored by
dark-colored moths in industrial areas of England after trees were coated with soot,' so that birds picked off the
more visible light-colored moths and caused the dark-colored moths to become more prevalent. Grasse and
others note that this is not macroevolution but only `insignificant' microevolution: `At best, present evolutionary
phenomena are simply slight change:, genotypes within populations, or substitution of an allele by a new one.
For example, the mutant carbonaria of the birch moth, Biston betularia, replaces the regular butterfly in polluted
industrial areas (Haldane, 1956; Ford, 1971) ... Some biologists maintain that they cannot only observe it but also
describe it in action; the facts that they describe, however, either have nothing to do with evolution or are
insignificant.' [Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms," Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.84" (Bird
W.R.*, "The Origin of Species Revisited," Regency: Nashville TN, 1991, Vol. I, pp.162-163)
11/09/2005
"While there is no question that mutations occur, one problem is the insignificant scope of nonharmful
mutations, which Grasse finds to prevent any contribution to macroevolution: `In sum, the mutations of bacteria
and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left,
but no final evolutionary effect. ... No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of
evolution.' [Grasse P-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms," Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.87-88]" (Bird
W.R., "The Origin of Species Revisited," Regency: Nashville TN, 1991, Vol. I, p.165)
11/09/2005
"The Western world has yet to make its peace with Darwin and the implications of evolutionary theory. The
hippocampus debate merely illustrates, in light relief, the greatest impediment to this reconciliation-our
unwillingness to accept continuity between ourselves and nature, our ardent search for a criterion to assert our
uniqueness. ... Chimps and gorillas have long been the battleground of our search for uniqueness; for if we could
establish an unambiguous distinction-of kind rather than of degree-between ourselves and our closest relatives,
we might gain the justification long sought for our cosmic arrogance. The battle shifted long ago from a simple
debate about evolution: educated people now accept the evolutionary continuity between humans and apes. But
we are so tied to our philosophical and religious heritage that we still seek a criterion for strict division between
our abilities and those of chimpanzees. For, as the psalmist sang: `What is man, that thou art mindful of him?...For
thou has made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor.' Many criteria have
been tried, and one by one they have failed. The only honest alternative is to admit the strict continuity in kind
between ourselves and chimpanzees. And what do we lose thereby? Only an antiquated concept of soul to gain
a more humble, even exalting vision of our oneness with nature." (Gould S.J., "A Matter of Degree," in "Ever
Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History," [1978], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, pp.50-51)
11/09/2005
"[MATTHEW 24:]21,22 ... `for then there shall be great tribulation, such as there has never been since the
beginning of the world until now, and as there shall never be again. And if those days were not cut short no one
would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days shall be cut short.' ... Jesus is here speaking about a
tribulation that will characterize `those days,' a tribulation such as has never been and never again shall be, a
very brief period of dire distress that shall occur immediately before his return (see verses 29-31). It is the
period mentioned also in Rev. 11:7-9; 20:3b, 7-9a. For the sake of God's chosen ones-see ... on Eph. 1:4-in order
that not all might have to die a violent death, the days of this final tribulation shall be cut short. Herein, too, the
love of God is made manifest. It should hardly be necessary to add that justice is not done to the concept of this
tribulation, which immediately precedes `the end' of the world's history and which surpasses any other distress in
its intensity, if it is referred solely to the sorrows experienced during the fall of Jerusalem." (Hendriksen W., "The
Gospel of Matthew: New Testament Commentary:," [1973], The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982, reprint, pp.859-860.
Emphasis original)
11/09/2005
"And when we look at the adaptations that have been evolved in plants we find them quite as remarkable as
anything found in the animal kingdom. Let us consider only a few cases. `The orchids are among the most
wonderful flowers ever evolved.... In many cases the development is such that the flower and insect [which
fertilizes it] fit each other like glove and hand. In some Cases the device is so ingenious that the bee or other
insect is attracted by the fragrance and nectar into a chamber from which there is only one way of escape, and in
escaping the insect must first touch the stigma and then the stamen, and as it passes to the next flower it carries
the pollen to the next stigma. But the devices are almost endless. There are; over seven thousand different
species [of orchids] known, and it is very remarkable that this, the most specialized group of the flowering plants,
should have more species than any other family except thy the Compositae.' [Broom R., "The Coming of Man:
Was it Accident or Design?," H.F. & G. Witherby: London, 1933] Broom then notes that `the devices found
among plants for scattering the seeds are as ingenious as those for effecting cross-fertilization,' and he provides
examples. Then he continues: `Now it seems to me difficult to avoid the conclusion that behind the various
devices for cross-fertilization in flowers, and the various arrangements for seed dispersal, there is intelligence
somewhere. Fortuitous mutation or variation seems too far-fetched. But the question is whether the intelligence
is in the plant or outside. To fit a flower to the structure of a bee, or a nectary tube to the proboscis of a moth or
butterfly, seems to imply some knowledge of the insects, and we can hardly believe that flowers can study
insects. Then the development of burrs would seem to imply some knowledge of mammalian fur, and whatever
agency invented the spear grass would seem to have had some knowledge of the structure of the mammalian
skin.... [Ibid] To suggest the possibility of a spiritual agency in evolution will of course evoke a vigorous protest
from most scientists; but if physicists and philosophers are considering the possibility of a spiritual view of the
physical universe a biologist may perhaps be excused for considering whether some spiritual agency or agencies
may not be largely concerned in the processes of evolution. When we have a very definite effect we may claim
the right to consider all possible causes even though at first sight they may appear improbable. Even those who
believe in mutations great or small have to admit that they know nothing of what may have produced them; and
Darwin had to admit that what was behind variations was quite unknown." (Fix W.R., "The Bone Peddlers:
Selling Evolution," Macmillan: New York NY, 1984, pp.239-240)
12/09/2005
"The intricate fish of Lampsilis is a classic illustration of a deep dilemma in Darwinism. Can we possibly
devise an adaptive significance for the incipient stages of this useful structure? The general principle advanced
by modern evolutionists to solve this dilemma calls upon a concept with the unfortunate name of `preadaptation.'
(I say unfortunate because the term implies that species adapt in advance to impending events in their
evolutionary history, when exactly the opposite meaning is intended.) The success of a scientific hypothesis
often involves an element of surprise. Solutions often arise from a subtle reformulation of the question, not from
the diligent collection of new information in an old framework. With preadaptation, we cut through the dilemma of
a function for incipient stages by accepting the standard objection and admitting that intermediate forms did not
work in the same way as their perfected descendants. We avoid the excellent question, What good is 5 percent of
an eye? by arguing that the possessor of such an incipient structure did not use it for sight." (Gould S.J., "The
Problem of Perfection," in "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History," [1978], Penguin: London, 1991,
reprint, p.107)
12/09/2005
"To invoke a standard example, the first fishes did not have jaws. How could such an intricate device, consisting
of several interlocking bones, ever evolve from scratch? `From scratch' turns out to be a red herring. The bones
were present in ancestors, but they were doing something else-they were supporting a gill arch located just
behind the mouth. They were well designed for their respiratory role; they had been selected for this alone and
`knew' nothing of any future function. In hindsight, the bones were admirably preadapted to become jaws. The
intricate device was already assembled, but it was being used for breathing, not eating." (Gould S.J., "The
Problem of Perfection," in "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History," [1978], Penguin: London, 1991,
reprint, pp.107-108)
12/09/2005
"Similarly, how could a fish's fin ever become a terrestrial limb? Most fishes build their fins from slender parallel
rays that could not support an animal's weight on land. But one peculiar group of freshwater, bottom-dwelling
fishes-our ancestors-evolved a fin with a strong central axis and only a few radiating projections. It was
admirably preadapted to become a terrestrial leg, but it had evolved purely for its own purposes in water-
presumably for scuttling along the bottom by sharp rotation of the central axis against the substrate. In short, the
principle of preadaptation simply asserts that a structure can change its function radically without altering its
form as much. We can bridge the limbo of intermediate stages by arguing for a retention of old functions while
new ones are developing." (Gould S.J., "The Problem of Perfection," in "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural
History," [1978], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.108)
12/09/2005
"The genesis of control systems with no intervention by the organism is difficult to imagine and postulates
Himalayas of chance occurrences that, moreover, could not have happened for lack of time and a sufficient
number of generations. Take, for example, regulation of the coagulation of blood, a highly complex phenomenon
to which biologists seem to have given little thought. Its normal cause is the opening of a vein, artery, or
capillaries; the blood brought into contact with the lip of the wound (damaged tissues) becomes the site of chain
reactions ending in the formation of a clot. This is only possible because there preexist in the blood
reaction agents or their precursors whose end effect is to coagulate certain proteins of the blood plasma. The
organism, ready for all eventualities, bears within itself in the latent state its own protective system. Genes
control the elaboration of coagulants, proteins, and enzymes. Such a process forms a single whole; a lack of a
substance arises, an enzyme is affected, and the system will not work. One does not see how it can have been
formed by successive chance effects supplying a protein or an enzyme in any random order. Besides, we know
that the effects of mutations on the system are disastrous and form the lengthiest chapter in blood pathology.
The system has become functional only when all its components have come together and adjusted
themselves to one another. The Darwinian hypothesis compels us to postulate a preparatory period during which
selection acts upon something that does not, physiologically speaking, yet exist. Under the necessary conditions
of the postulate, the action can only have been prophetic!" (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms:
Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.151-152. Emphasis in
original)
12/09/2005
"Blood behaves in a peculiar way. When a container of liquid like a carton of milk, or a tank truck filled with
gasoline-springs a leak, the fluid drains out. The rate of flow can depend on the thickness of the liquid (for
example, maple syrup will leak more slowly than alcohol, but eventually it all comes out. No active process resists
it. In contrast, when a person suffers a cut it ordinarily bleeds for only a short time before a clot stops the flow;
the clot eventually hardens, and the cut heals over. Blood clot formation seems so familiar to us that most people
don't give it much thought. Biochemical investigation, however, has shown that blood clotting is a very complex,
intricately woven system consisting of a score of interdependent protein parts. The absence of, or significant
defects in, any one of a number of the components causes the system to fail: blood does not clot at the proper
time or at the proper place. Blood clotting ... requires extreme precision. When a pressurized blood circulation
system is punctured, a clot must form quickly or the animal will bleed to death. If blood congeals at the wrong
time or place, though, then the clot may block circulation as it does in heart attacks and strokes. Furthermore, a
clot has to stop bleeding all along the length of the cut, sealing it completely. Yet blood clotting must be
confined to the cut or the entire blood system of the animal might solidify, killing it. Consequently, the clotting of
blood must be tightly controlled so that the clot forms only when and where it is required." (Behe M.J.*,
"Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free Press: New York NY, 1996, pp.78-79)
12/09/2005
"About 2 to 3 percent of the protein in blood plasma (the part that's left after the red blood cells are removed)
consists of a protein complex called fibrinogen. ... [which] makes `fibers' that form the clot. Yet fibrinogen is only
the potential clot material. .... Almost all of the other proteins involved in blood clotting control the timing and
placement of the clot. ... Fibrinogen is a composite of six protein chains, containing twin pairs of three different
proteins. Electron microscopy has shown that fibrinogen is a rod-shaped molecule, with two round bumps on
each end of the rod and a single round bump in the middle. So fibrinogen resembles a set of barbells with an extra
set of weights in the middle of the bar. Normally fibrinogen is dissolved in plasma, like salt is dissolved in ocean
water. It floats around, peacefully minding its own business, until a cut or injury causes bleeding. Then another
protein, called thrombin, slices off several small pieces from two of the three pairs of protein chains in fibrinogen.
The trimmed protein-now called fibrin-has sticky patches exposed on its surface that had been covered by the
pieces that were cut off. The sticky patches are precisely complementary to portions of other fibrin molecules.
The complementary shapes allow large numbers of fibrins to aggregate with each other ... Because of the shape
of the fibrin molecule, long threads form, cross over each other, and (much as a fisherman's net traps fish) make a
pretty protein meshwork that entraps blood cells. This is the initial clot (Figure 4-2). The meshwork covers a large
area with a minimum of protein; if it simply formed a lump, much more protein would be required to clog up an
area. Thrombin, which cuts off the pieces from fibrinogen, is like [a] saw ... thrombin sets in motion the final step
of a controlled process. ... if the only proteins involved in blood coagulation were thrombin and fibrinogen, the
process would be uncontrolled. Thrombin would quickly clip all of the fibrinogen to make fibrin; a massive clot
would form throughout the animal's circulatory system, solidifying it. ... animals would rapidly perish. To avoid
such an unhappy ending an organism must control the activity of thrombin. ... The body commonly stores
enzymes (proteins that catalyze a chemical reaction. like the cleavage of fibrinogen) in an inactive form for later
use. The inactive forms are called proenzymes. When a signal is received that a certain enzyme is needed, the
corresponding proenzyme is activated to give the mature enzyme. As with the conversion of fibrinogen to fibrin,
proenzymes are often activated by cutting off a piece of the proenzyme that is blocking a critical area. ...
Thrombin initially exists as the inactive form, prothrombin. Because it is inactive, prothrombin can't cleave
fibrinogen, and the animal is saved from death by massive, inappropriate clotting. Still, the dilemma of control
remains. ... If fibrinogen and prothrombin were the only proteins in the blood-clotting pathway, again our animal
would be in bad shape. When the animal was cut, prothrombin would just float helplessly by the fibrinogen as
the animal bled to death. Because prothrombin cannot cleave fibrinogen to fibrin, something is needed to activate
prothrombin. ... the blood-clotting system is called a cascade-a system where one component activates another
component, which activates a third component, and so on. ... Figure 4-3. A protein called Stuart factor cleaves
prothrombin, turning it into active thrombin that can then cleave fibrinogen to fibrin to form the blood clot.
Unfortunately, as you may have guessed, if Stuart factor, prothrombin, and fibrinogen were the only blood-
clotting proteins, then Stuart factor would rapidly trigger the cascade, congealing all localize, or remove blood
clots. the blood of the organism so Stuart factor also exists in an inactive form that must first be activated. At this
point there's a little twist to our developing chicken-and-egg scenario. Even activated Stuart factor can't turn on
prothrombin. Stuart factor and prothrombin can be mixed in a test tube for longer than it would take a large animal
to bleed to death without any noticeable production of thrombin. It turns out that another protein, called
accelerin, is needed to increase the activity of Stuart factor. The dynamic duo-accelerin and activated Stuart
factor- cleave prothrombin fast enough to do the bleeding animal some good so in this step we need two
separate proteins to activate one proenzyme. Yes, accelerin also initially exists in an inactive form, called
proaccelerin .... And what activates it? Thrombin! But thrombin, as we have seen, is further down the regulatory
cascade than proaccelerin. So thrombin regulating the production of accelerin is like having the granddaughter
regulate production of the grandmother Nonetheless, due to a very low rate of cleavage of prothrombin by Stuart
factor, it seems there is always a trace of thrombin in the bloodstream Blood clotting is therefore auto-catalytic,
because proteins in the cascade accelerate the production of more of the same proteins. We need to back up a
little at this point because, as it turns out prothrombin as it is initially made by the can't be transformed into
thrombin, even in the presence of activated Stuart factor and accelerin. Prothrombin must first be modified ... by
having ten specific amino acid residues, called glutamate (Glu) residues, changed to y-carboxyglutamate (Gla)
residues. The modification can be compared to placing a lower jaw onto the upper jaw of a skull. The completed
structure can bite and hang on to the bitten object; without the lower jaw, the skull couldn't hang on. In the case
of prothrombin, Gla residues `bite' (or bind) calcium, allowing prothrombin to stick to the surfaces of cells. Only
the intact, modified calcium-prothrombin complex, bound to a cell membrane, can be cleaved by activated Stuart
factor and accelerin to give thrombin. The modification of prothrombin does not happen by accident. Like
virtually all biochemical reactions, it requires catalysis by a specific enzyme. In addition to the enzyme, however,
the conversion of Glu to Gla needs another component: vitamin K. Vitamin K is not a protein; rather, it is a small
molecule ... Like a gun that needs bullets, the enzyme that changes Glu to Gla needs vitamin K to work ... now we
have to go back and ask what activates Stuart factor. It turns out that it can be activated by two different routes,
called the intrinsic and the extrinsic pathways. In the intrinsic pathway, all the proteins required for clotting are
contained in the blood plasma; in the extrinsic pathway, some clotting proteins occur on cells. Let's first examine
the intrinsic pathway. ... When an animal is cut, a protein called Hageman factor sticks to the surface of cells near
the wound. Bound Hageman factor is then cleaved by a protein called HMK to yield activated Hageman factor.
Immediately the activated Hageman factor converts another protein, called prekallikrein, to its active form,
kallikrein. Kallikrein helps HMK speed up the conversion of more Hageman factor to its active forms. Activated
Hageman factor and HMK then together transform another protein, called PTA, to its active forms. Activated
PTA in turn, together with the activated form of another protein (discussed below) called convertin, switch a
protein called Christmas factor to its active form. Finally, activated Christmas factor, together with antihemophilic
factor (which is itself activated by thrombin in a manner similar to that of proaccelerin) changes Stuart factor to
its active forms. Like the intrinsic pathway, the extrinsic pathway is also a cascade. The extrinsic pathway begins
when a protein called proconvertin is turned into convertin by activated Hageman factor and thrombin. In the
presence of another protein, tissue factor, convertin changes Stuart factor to its active form. Tissue factor,
however, only appears on the outside of cells that are usually not in contact with blood. Therefore, only when an
injury brings tissue into contact with blood will the extrinsic pathway be initiated. (A cut ... is the initiating event-
something outside of the cascade mechanism itself) The intrinsic and extrinsic pathways cross over at several
points. Hageman factor, activated by the intrinsic pathway, can switch on proconvertin of the extrinsic pathway.
Convertin can then feed back into the intrinsic pathway to help activated PTA activate Christmas factor.
Thrombin itself can trigger both branches of the clotting cascade by activating antihemophilic factor, which is
required to help activated Christmas factor in the conversion of Stuart factor to its active form, and also by
activating proconvertin. ... Once clotting has begun, what stops it from continuing until all the blood in the
animal has solidified? Clotting is confined to the site of injury in several ways. ... First, a plasma protein called
antithrombin binds to the active (but not the inactive) forms of most clotting proteins and inactivates them.
Antithrombin is itself relatively inactive, however, unless it binds to a substance called heparin. Heparin occurs
inside cells and undamaged blood vessels. A second way in which clots are localized is through the action of
protein C. After activation by thrombin, protein C destroys accelerin and activated antihemophilic factor. Finally,
a protein called thrombomodulin lines the surfaces of the cells on the inside of blood vessels. Thrombomodulin
binds thrombin, making it less able to cut fibrinogen and simultaneously increasing its ability to activate protein
C. When a clot initially forms, it is quite fragile: if the injured area is bumped the clot can easily be disrupted, and
bleeding starts again. To prevent this, the body has a method to strengthen a clot once it has formed.
Aggregated fibrin is "tied together" by an activated protein called FSF (for `fibrin stabilizing factor'), which forms
chemical crosslinks between different fibrin molecules. Eventually, however, the blood clot must be removed after
wound healing has progressed. A protein called plasmin acts as a scissors specifically to cut up fibrin clots.
Fortunately, plasmin does not work on fibrinogen. Plasmin cannot act too quickly, however, or the wound
wouldn't have sufficient time to heal completely. It therefore occurs initially in an inactive form called
plasminogen. Conversion of plasminogen to plasmin is catalyzed by a protein called tPA. There are also other
proteins that control clot dissolution, including a2-antiplasmin, which binds to plasmin, preventing it from
destroying fibrin clots." (Behe M.J.*, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free Press:
New York NY, 1996, pp.79-85, 87-88)
12/09/2005
"... the blood-clotting system fits the definition of irreducible complexity. That is, it is a single system composed
of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts
causes the system effectively to cease functioning. The function of the blood clotting system is to form a solid
barrier at the right time and place that is able to stop blood flow out of an injured vessel. The components of the
system ... are fibrinogen, prothrombin, Stuart factor, and proaccelerin. ... none of the cascade proteins are used
for anything except controlling the formation of a blood clot. Yet in the absence of any one of the components,
blood does not clot, and the system fails. There are other ways to stop blood flow from wounds, but those ways
are not step-by-step precursors to the clotting cascade. For example, the body can constrict blood vessels near a
cut to help stanch blood flow. Also, blood cells called platelets stick to the area around a cut, helping to plug
small wounds. But those systems cannot be transformed gradually into the blood-clotting system any more than
a glue trap can be transformed into a mechanical mousetrap. The simplest blood-clotting system imaginable might
be just a single protein that randomly aggregated when the organism was cut. ... [but] the simplistic clotting
system would be triggered inappropriately, causing random damage and wasting resources. ... [It] is not the final
activity ... clot formation ... that is the problem-rather, it is the control system. One could imagine a blood-clotting
system that was somewhat simpler than the real one-where, say, Stuart factor, after activation by the rest of the
cascade, directly cuts fibrinogen to form fibrin, bypassing thrombin. Leaving aside for the moment issues of
control and timing of clot formation, upon reflection we can quickly see that even such a slightly simplified
system cannot change gradually into the more complex, intact system. If a new protein were inserted into the
thrombin-less system it would either tum the system on immediately-resulting in rapid death-or it would do
nothing, and so have no reason to be selected. Because of the nature of a cascade, a new protein would
immediately have to be regulated From the beginning, a new step in the cascade would require both a proenzyme
and also an activating enzyme to switch on the proenzyme at the correct time and place. Since each step
necessarily requires several parts, not only is the entire blood-clotting system irreducibly complex, but so is each
step in the pathway." (Behe M.J.*, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free Press:
New York NY, 1996, pp.86-87)
12/09/2005
"Yet the objections raised so far are not the most serious. The most serious, and perhaps the most obvious,
concerns irreducible complexity. I emphasize that natural selection, the engine of Darwinian evolution, only
works if there is something to select-something that is useful right now, not in the future. Even if we accept his
scenario for purposes of discussion, however, by Doolittle's own account no blood clotting appears until at least
the third step. The formation of tissue factor at the first step is unexplained, since it would then be sitting around
with nothing to do. In the next step (prothrombin popping up already endowed with the ability to bind tissue
factor, which somehow activates it) the poor proto prothrombin would also be twiddling its thumbs with nothing
to do until, at last, a hypothetical thrombin receptor appears at the third step and fibrinogen falls from heaven at
step four. Plasminogen appears in one step, but its activator (TPA) doesn't appear until two steps later. Stuart
factor is introduced in one step, but whiles away its time doing nothing until its activator (proconvertin) appears
in the next step and somehow tissue factor decides that this is the complex it wants to bind. Virtually every step
of the suggested pathway faces similar problems. Simple words like `the activator doesn't appear until two steps
later' may not seem impressive until you ponder the implications. Since two proteins-the proenzyme and its
activator-are both required for one step in the pathway, then the odds of getting both the proteins together are
roughly the square of the odds of getting one protein. We calculated the odds of getting TPA alone to be one-
tenth to the eighteenth power; the odds of getting TPA and its activator together would be about one-tenth to
the thirty-sixth power! That is a horrendously large number. Such an event would not be expected to happen
even if the universe's ten-billion year life were compressed into a single second and relived every second for ten
billion years. But the situation is actually much worse: if a protein appeared in one step 10 with nothing to do,
then mutation and natural selection would tend to eliminate it. Since it is doing nothing critical, its loss would not
be detrimental, and production of the gene and protein would cost energy that other animals aren't spending. So
producing the useless protein would, at least to some marginal degree, be detrimental. Darwin's mechanism of
natural selection would actually hinder the formation of irreducibly complex systems such as the clotting
cascade. ... The bottom line is that clusters of proteins have to be inserted all at once into the cascade. This can
be done only by postulating a `hopeful monster' who luckily gets all of the proteins at once, or by the guidance
of an intelligent agent." (Behe M.J.*, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free Press:
New York NY, 1996, pp.95-96. Emphasis original)
13/09/2005
"Through certain vagaries of history, some of which I have alluded to here, we have managed to conflate two
quite distinct questions: What makes a belief well founded (or heuristically fertile)? And what makes a belief
scientific? The first set of questions is philosophically interesting and possibly even tractable, the second
question is both uninteresting and, judging by its checkered past, intractable. If we would stand up and be
counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like `pseudoscience' and `unscientific' from our
vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us. As such, they are more suited to
the rhetoric of politicians and Scottish sociologists of knowledge than to that of empirical researchers. Insofar as
our concern is to protect ourselves and our fellows from the cardinal sin of believing what we wish were so rather
than what there is substantial evidence for (and surely that is what most forms of `quackery' come down to), then
our focus should be squarely on the empirical and conceptual credentials for claims about the world. The
`scientific' status of those claims is altogether irrelevant." (Laudan L., "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem,"
in Ruse M., ed., "But is it Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy,"
Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1996, p.349)
14/09/2005
"Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinism theory search for results that will be in
agreement with their theories and consequently orient their research in a given direction ... This intrusion of
theories has unfortunate results: it deprives observations and experiments of their objectivity, makes them
biased, and, moreover, creates false problems. ... Darwinians have seldom taken fossils into consideration, or, and
this is more serious, they have applied the laws of genetics to them without making a critical analysis ....
Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that
they should confirm it: the premises imply the conclusions. The error in method is obvious. ... The deceit
is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook
reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of
Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973],Academic Press: New York NY, 1977,
pp.7-8. Emphasis in original)
14/09/2005
"For millions or even billions of years, bacteria have not transgressed the structural frame within which they have
always fluctuated and still do. It is a fact that microbiologists can see in their cultures species of bacteria
oscillating around an intermediate form, but this does not mean that two phenomena, which are quite distinct,
should be confused; the variation of the genetic code because of a DNA copy error, and evolution. To vary
and to evolve are two different things; this can never be sufficiently emphasized, and we will try to prove
that this proposition is correct later in the book. Bacteria, which are both the first and the most simple living
beings to have appeared, are excellent subject material for genetic and biochemical study, but they are of little
evolutionary value." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of
Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.6. Emphasis in original)
15/09/2005
"It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the
slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently and
insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in
relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life." (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.840)
15/09/2005
"Mayr refers to natural selection and maintains that selection pressure was strong in the various forms of
theriodonts. How does he know? His conclusion does not rely on any demographic data (we have no knowledge
of population densities, ecological factors, etc.), nor on ecological or climatic data. We know little about the
environments in which theriodonts lived. How could natural selection give rise to the single mammalian structure
while it acted upon populations living in very different environments (Asia, South Africa, South America)?
Environmental conditions change from one continent to the other, and the climates were already characterized
both in the Triassic and in the Jurassic. How could natural selection, in the midst of such diversity, manage to
favor the same forms everywhere, without being inconsistent with the neo-Darwinian principle that `each
environment has its own privileged genotype which, by chance, is better preadapted to it'? We wonder." (Grasse
P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973] Academic Press:
New York NY, 1977, pp.56-57)
15/09/2005
"It must be understood that to discard oriented evolution means discarding simultaneously progressive,
regressive, or coordinated evolution. How could the wings of insects and birds have formed without going
through initial imperfect forms? The least we can say is that the idea that they could have appeared at random
and have been functional from the outset is preposterous. "(Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms:
Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.102)
16/09/2005
"Seen in retrospect, to have produced some of the building blocks of life in experiments of the Urey-Miller type
was of no relevance to the origin of life, especially as some of the materials used in the experiments were already
biological in origin, since no one doubts that life can give rise to life. The building blocks of life are
commonplace. It is the structures to which they can give rise that are remarkable, and where the problem of the
origin of life really lies. Not to have realized this in 1952-3 was understandable, but not to realize it today is
inexcusable. Not to realize it today amounts to overt deception, at least on the part of research scientists who
have ample time and opportunity to study the matter in depth. Students, on the other hand, can be excused, yet
likely enough it will be from students that a general realization of the deceit will first come. The deceit has strong
motivation. It is to avoid the question of whether the situation, as facts have uncovered it to be, can sensibly be
regarded as accidental. Is it reasonable to suppose that the commonest elements should by chance alone have
such a range of properties as have been determined from biochemical studies, as for instance in the properties of
enzymes? Or is there a teleological component, a purposive component, even in the properties of the chemical
elements, let alone in the origin and development of life? If so, we are instantly thrown into very deep waters
indeed. The creationist exclaims forcibly, to the point of shouting, that there is indeed a purposive component,
while the soi-disant respectable scientist shows, not by shouting but by tricks, that of course it is not so.
A typical trick is the so-called anthropic principle - that if the situation is not exactly the way we find it we would
not be here to discuss it. Therefore, remarkable as the accidents may look at first sight, our presence is a
guarantee that they occurred. But our presence could just as well be a guarantee that life is purposive, planned.
The situation is decidedly unproven, with the anthropic principle no more than a tautology." (Hoyle F. &
Wickramasinghe C., "Our Place in the Cosmos: The Unfinished Revolution," [1993], Phoenix: London, 1996,
reprint, pp.32-33)
17/09/2005
"Hull's review [of Darwin on Trial] did not present any scientific evidence on the crucial point at issue, which is
whether the blind watchmaker really has the power to do all the necessary creating. Such evidence is
unnecessary, according to Hull's implicit logic, because an explanation of the blind watchmaker type is the only
possibility acceptable to science. Even if the Darwinian theory of today is imperfect, as Hull concedes it to be, it
is nonetheless the best naturalistic theory currently available and therefore, by definition, the closest
approximation to truth which is available to us. Criticism of the kind provided in Darwin on Trial is thus inherently
beside the point, and need not be taken seriously. Hull's line of reasoning can be labeled for convenience as `the
argument from scientific methodology.' It is thoroughly dissected in my book -especially in Chapter Nine, which
is titled `The Rules of Science.' I won't go over the same ground again here, except to point out that the argument
from scientific methodology does not really address the question whether Darwinism is true. We may concede
that scientists have professional reasons for seeking naturalistic explanations for phenomena, but it does not
follow that the best naturalistic explanations they can imagine are necessarily true. Even if we may not talk about
God, we can still talk about the possibility that the blind watchmaker thesis is unsubstantiated. Perhaps the blind
watchmaker cannot create complex wonders of biology, and therefore the true answer to the mystery of creation
is unknown to the science of our day. Why exclude that possibility from consideration? Of course, evolutionary
biologists do not in fact omit references to God from their professional writings. On the contrary, Richard
Dawkins, Douglas Futuyma, George Gaylord Simpson, and David Hull himself are absolutely typical in that they
address the subject of God explicitly and repeatedly, for the purpose of justifying their assumption that a Creator
does not exist. They could hardly do otherwise. If God exists, and is able and willing to do the job of creating,
then it would be foolish to assume that He remained inactive in deference to the wishes of naturalistic
philosophers of science. Because there is no positive evidence that the blind watchmaker can create complex
biological systems, the defenders of Darwinism must establish that no other possibility needs to be considered.
And so David Hull like all the others dives straight into theology, and comes up with some well known
arguments against the existence of God." (Johnson P.E., "Disestablishing Naturalism," 1992 Founder's
Lectures, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Revised, February 17, 1992)
17/09/2005
"When we ask what the New Testament teaches about the sign of tribulation, we must, look first of all at the so-
called `Olivet Discourse'-Jesus' eschatological discourse found in Matthew 24:3-51, Mark 13:3-37, and Luke 21:5-
36. This is, however, a very difficult passage to interpret. What makes it so difficult is that some parts of the
discourse obviously refer to the destruction of Jerusalem which lies in the near future, whereas other parts of it
refer to the events which will accompany the Parousia at the end of the age. The setting for the discourse is as
follows: when the disciples pointed out to Jesus the buildings of the temple, Jesus replied, `I say to you, there
will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down' (Matt. 24:2). When Jesus had seated
himself on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him and said, `Tell us, when will this be, and what will be
the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?' (v. 3). Note that ... the question of the disciples concerns
two topics: (1) when will this be? (literally, these things; Greek, tauta)-an obvious reference
to the destruction of the temple Jesus had just predicted; and (2) what will be the sign of your coming
(Greek, parousia) and of the close of the age?-a reference to Christ's Second Coming. We may properly
conclude, therefore, that the discourse will deal with both of these topics. As we read the discourse, however, we
find that aspects of these two topics are intermingled; matters concerning the destruction of Jerusalem
(epitomized by the destruction of the temple) are mingled together with matters which concern the end of the
world-so much so that it is sometimes hard to determine whether Jesus is referring to the one or the other or
perhaps to both. Obviously the method of teaching used here by Jesus is that of prophetic foreshortening, in
which events far removed in time and events in the near future are spoken of as if they were very close together.
The phenomenon has been compared to what happens when one looks at distant mountains; peaks which are
many miles apart may be seen as if they are close together. ... In the Olivet Discourse, therefore, Jesus is
proclaiming events in the distant future in close connection with events in the near future'. The destruction of
Jerusalem which lies in the near future is a type. of the end of the world; hence the intermingling. The passage,
therefore, 'deals neither exclusively with the destruction of Jerusalem nor exclusively with the end of the world; it
deals with both-sometimes with the latter in terms of the former. ... Though the, tribulation, persecution, suffering,
and trials here predicted are described in terms which concern Palestine and the Jews, they must not be
interpreted as having to do only with the Jews. Jesus was describing future events in terms which would be
understandable to his hearers, in terms which had local ethnic and geographic color. We are not warranted,
however, in applying these predictions only to the Jews, or in restricting their occurrence only to Palestine."
(Hoekema A.A., "The Bible and the Future," [1978], Paternoster Press: Exeter, Devon UK, 1979, pp.148-149.
Emphasis in original)
17/09/2005
"In the Olivet Discourse Jesus speaks of tribulation as a sign of the times which is to be expected by his people
throughout the period between his first and second coming. So, for example, he says in Matthew 24:9-10, `Then
they will deliver you up to tribulation, and put you to death; and you will be hated by all nations for my name's
sake. And then many will fall away, and betray one another, and hate one another.' Since in the immediate context
(v. 14) Jesus predicts that-the gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world-a preaching
which continues until the end-it is obvious that the tribulation spoken of earlier is not limited to the period just
before the Parousia. Other statements by Jesus indicate that he foresaw suffering and tribulation in store for his
people in the future. ... But we also find Jesus in the Olivet Discourse speaking of a final tribulation which is in
store for his people-a tribulation of which the sufferings which would accompany the destruction of Jerusalem
would be only an anticipation. Note the intensity of the following description: `For then there will be great
tribulation (thlipsis megale), such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will
be. And if those days had not been shortened, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect
those days will be shortened' (Matt. 24:21-22). Though the setting of these words has a distinctly Jewish and
Judean flavor ('Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a sabbath,' v. 20), the words `no, and never will be'
and the reference to the shortening of the days for the elect's sake indicate that Jesus is predicting a tribulation
so great that it will surpass any similar tribulation which may have preceded it. In other words, Jesus is here
looking beyond the tribulation in store for the Jews at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem to a final
tribulation which will occur at the end of this age. For according to verses 29 and 30 Jesus goes on to indicate
that this `great tribulation' will immediately precede his Second Coming: `Immediately after the tribulation of those
days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the
powers of the heavens will be shaken; then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the
tribes of the earth, will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and
great glory.' ... On the basis of Jesus' words in Matthew 24:21-30, however, it would appear that there will also be
a final, climactic tribulation just before Christ returns. This tribulation will not be basically different from earlier
tribulations which God's people have had to suffer, but will be an intensified form of those . earlier tribulations."
(Hoekema A.A., "The Bible and the Future," [1978], Paternoster Press: Exeter, Devon UK, 1979, pp.149-151.
Emphasis in original)
17/09/2005
"JANUARY 29, 2004 - New science standards proposed by the Georgia Department of Education eliminate all
references to `evolution' and instead use the term `biological changes over time,' in order to avoid public protest
over the lack of thoroughness in how evolution is presented. `This is just absurd. Georgia needs to teach more
about evolution, not less,' said Rob Crowther, spokesman for Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture.
`They need to be presenting the scientific evidence both for and against Darwin’s theory. There is a growing
controversy among scientists about the ability of natural selection or chemistry alone to explain the complexity of
life. Ignoring the word evolution won't make the controversy go away.'" ("Georgia Schools Should Teach More About Evolution Not Less," Discovery Institute, January 29,
2004)
17/09/2005
"We know absolutely nothing about the evolution of the eye of the vertebrate and embryology is of little help.
The problem is to know whether random mutations could have given rise to an organ requiring, because of its
complexity, a considerable number of data for its elaboration. The number of mutations must have been
enormous for adequate ones to occur at a given point, by chance and to enable the organ to function. ... If one
considers the great number of simultaneous, timely mutations satisfying existing needs involved in their genesis,
one can not fail to be confounded by so much harmony, so many lucky coincidences, due entirely to omnipotent
chance." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973],
Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.105)
18/09/2005
"Darwin and Wallace (1858) were really the first to arrive at the idea of attributing to the struggle for existence a
selective function in bringing about the evolution of living species. In their joint explanation of the mechanism of
evolution, by far the most original idea is that survival is only for the individuals who are fittest to fight their
fellows to stand up to their enemies of all kinds, to the rigors of the climate, to find food and resist infectious
diseases, and so on. They found the inspiration for their idea, and arguments in favor of it, in the physiocrat
Malthus' (1798) Essay on the principle of population (cf. Wallace, 1908), which drew attention to the existing
imbalance between the population growth and the available food supply and to the causes of depopulation."
(Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic
Press: New York NY, 1977, p.108)
19/09/2005
"THE FALLACY OF SPECIAL PLEADING To commit the fallacy of special pleading is to apply a double
standard: one for ourselves (because we are special) and another (a stricter one) for everyone else. ... To engage
in special pleading is to be partial and inconsistent. It is to regard one's own situation as privileged while failing
to apply to others the standard we set for ourselves (or, conversely, to fail to apply to ourselves those standards
we apply to others) ..." (Engel S.M., "With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies," St. Martin's
Press: New York NY, Fourth edition, 1990, pp.144-146. Emphasis original)
19/09/2005
"Special Pleading: `having it both ways' ... One-sided pleading becomes special pleading when you `have it both
ways.' You find the reasons where your advantage lies, but refuse to apply the same principle to yourself that
you apply to others. Salesmen, lawyers, debaters are not the only people ever guilty of rationalizing in this way.
Scientists, educators, statesmen -in fact anybody who has something to gain or who has merely warmed to his
argument-can be found on occasion ignoring or twisting the facts to his own advantage." (Fearnside, W.W. &
Holther, W.B., "Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument," Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs NJ, 1959, Eleventh Printing,
p.108)
19/09/2005
"There is a common fault in argument arising from the influence of prejudice which may be employed deliberately
as a dishonest trick, but which more usually is the result of the speaker being himself blinded by his prejudices.
This is the use in one context of an argument which would not be admitted in another context where it would lead
to the opposite conclusion. This is 'special pleading'." (Thouless, R.H., "Straight and Crooked Thinking," [1930],
Pan: London, Revised Edition, 1973, 15th printing, pp.156-157)
20/09/2005
"Morris and Gish use many quotations from evolutionist sources in their presentations. In fact, they never quote
anyone but evolutionists. They always inform their audiences that the person being quoted is an evolutionist.
They always give the source or reference for the quotation so that a person may check it out for himself. They go
to great lengths to state that the person would not agree with the creationist position. Their reason for quoting
only evolutionists is twofold. First, there is a very mistaken but pervasive idea in the scientific community that
one cannot be a good scientist if he believes in creation. Thus, to quote a creationist--no matter how scientific
and accurate he may be-does not carry any clout. It is sad but true that people will accept the words of an
evolutionist on almost any subject, but will question the authority of a creationist even in the area of his
specialty. This is prejudice with a vengeance! Thus, Morris and Gish quote evolutionist authorities regarding the
facts of science- be it thermodynamics or the fossil record-because they know that these people will be accepted
as authorities." (Lubenow M.L.*, "From Fish To Gish: The Exciting Drama of a Decade of Creation-Evolution
Debates," CLP Publishers: San Diego CA, 1983, p.62)
20/09/2005
"A second reason is a bit more subtle. In a court of law, if a witness for the prosecution testifies of some fact
which aids the defendant, that person's testimony is especially important -and may even be decisive. The fact
that the witness is not in sympathy with the defendant would remove any possibility of prejudice or partiality
toward him. It would also remove the possibility of perjury and establish instead a high probability of
truthfulness as to the facts of the case Thus, lawyers try very hard to get an opposition witness to testify to
something that will aid their case. This type of testimony is considered to be of the very highest quality."
(Lubenow M.L.*, "From Fish To Gish: The Exciting Drama of a Decade of Creation-Evolution Debates," CLP
Publishers: San Diego CA, 1983, p.62)
20/09/2005
"The key idea which runs through his [St. Paul's] Christology and binds it to his soteriology is that of solidarity
or representation. Jesus became one with man in order to put an end to sinful man in order that a new man
might come into being. He became what man is in order that by his death and resurrection man might become
what he is . The most sustained expositions of Jesus' representative significance come in Rom. 5:12-21 and I
Cor. 15:20 ff., 45-9. In both instances Jesus is compared and contrasted with Adam. The point of the comparison
and contrast lies in the representative significance of the two men. Adam means "man", "mankind". Paul speaks
about Adam as a way of speaking about mankind. Adam represents what man might have been and what man
now is. Adam is man made for fellowship with God become slave of selfishness and pride. Adam is sinful man.
Jesus too is representative man. He represents a new kind of man - man who not only dies but lives again. The
first Adam represents physical man ... man given over to death; the last Adam represents pneumatic man ... man
alive from the dead. Now it is clear from the I Corinthians passage that Jesus only takes up his distinctively last
Adam/man role as from the resurrection; only in and through resurrection does he become life-giving Spirit. How
then can we characterize his representative function in his life and death? The answer seems to be that for Paul
the earthly Jesus represents fallen man, man who though he lives again is first subject to death. Adam
represents what man might have been and by his sin what man is. Jesus represents what man now is and by his
obedience what man might become. " (Dunn J.D.G., "Paul's Understanding of the Death of Jesus," in Banks R.,
ed., "Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L.L. Morris
on His 60th Birthday," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1974, pp.126-127. Emphasis in original)
21/09/2005
"In 1975 the late Jurassic bird Archaeopteryx was an earthbound, predatory, feathered dinosaur that
could not fly. According to the dogma of the time, hot-blooded dinosaurs developed feathers to trap heat, and
their wing feathers elongated as insect traps. Since then, however, the evidence for hot-blooded dinosaurs has
been dismantled and Archaeopteryx has been shown to be a bird in the modern sense, with fully
developed elliptical wings similar to modern woodland birds, and asymmetric flight feathers that form individual
airfoils, a flight scapula/coracoid arrangement, and a reserved hallux, found only in perching birds, and known in
no dinosaur. Too, as new specimens emerged, the creature has been shown to be more and more birdlike. As
cladistic evidence for a dinosaurian origin of birds increased, other feathered dinosaurs (artistic inventions) have
emerged, including feathered Coelophysis, Deinonychus, and more recently Unenlagia
and Velociraptor; however, there has never been any evidence for these assertions. Most recently,
feathered dinosaurs began to emerge from China. First was the downy dinosaur Sinosauropteryx, a rather
typical compsognathoid with a line of filaform structures on the middorsal line. Of concern, however, is that
down is a secondary adaptation in modern neonate birds and would be maladaptive in a terrestrial dinosaur;
downy baby ostriches, when wet, will die from hypothermia unless they seek the shelter of the mother's wings.
Today there is no doubt that these structures are not down or feathers but collagen fibers that support a frill or
skin flap running along the back. However, after Sinosauropteryx, an article in Nature [Ji, Q.,
Currie, P.J., Norell, M.A. & Ji, S-A., "Two feathered dinosaurs from northeastern China, Nature, 25 June 1998, Vol.
393, p.753] announced the discovery of two additional feathered dinosaurs from China, named
Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx. A cladistic analysis using some 90 anatomical features
showed these creatures to be more primitive than Archaeopteryx and therefore feathered dinosaurs.
However, the specimens are some 15 to 30 million years younger than Archaeopteryx; half of the
characters are primitive and should therefore not have been used, and half of the characters are not present in the
fossils, thus leaving two to three skull characters that cannot be ascertained in the crushed specimen.
Interestingly, the entire cladogram is rooted in the latest Cretaceous Velociraptor, which occurs some 80
million years after the earliest known bird. Indeed, Caudipteryx shows a suite of features that show it to
be a secondarily flightless bird, a Mesozoic kiwi, including a protopygostyle (fused tail vertebrae), an avian
occiput, reduced fibula, wing feathers attached as in archaic birds, etc. Finally, there are now excellent specimens
of theropod skin, one even showing muscle fibers, and not one shows signs of anything but typical thick
tuberculated reptilian skin. Feathered dinosaurs remain a myth." (Feduccia A., "1,2,3 = 2,3,4: Accommodating the cladogram,"
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 96, Issue 9, 4740-4742, April 27, 1999)
23/09/2005
"Perhaps the most difficult genetic data for an integrative approach are the histocompatibility loci (HLA) found in
all vertebrates. These genes encode peptide presentation proteins, proteins that have the task of presenting
possible foreign proteins (called antigens) to the immune system for inspection. They are among the most
diverse loci (genes) in the genome, loci with more than 150 very diverse alleles (different versions of the gene). It
is thought that heterozygous individuals (with two different versions of the gene) are better protected against
disease (fitter) than homozygotes (with two identical versions of the gene). This higher fitness for heterozygotes
is termed `over dominance' and is considered to be the cause that maintains the very high levels of diversity in
these loci. The evolutionary question raised by this diversity is (a) whether this diversity has been maintained
over millions of years and thus passed on from parent species to daughter species; or (b) whether this diversity
was generated rapidly - by point mutation, recombination, and gene conversion - after a species' origin. As usual,
there are two schools of thought. One thinks the data show that scores of human alleles are most close to
matching chimpanzee alleles. The other school thinks there are only ten to fifteen such truly ancient lineages.
The former postulate an effective Pleistocene population size of ancestral humans of over 100,000; the latter,
under 10,000. The logic is this: only a few ancient lineages are likely to exist in a population with a recent
bottleneck. In fact, if the population was much larger prior to the bottleneck, a few very divergent alleles could
come through. However, if the issue is a single couple as source for the human species, both positions
pose serious difficulties for Adam's identity. For example, consider the specific histocompatability gene `HLA-
DRB1:' Even the `few alleles' school of thought holds that there are fifteen or so very old alternative allelic
lineages, lineages with a coalescence point of 5- 10 million years. Whether Adam and Eve were created by
providence through descent from a hominid lineage or are an original pair created without ancestors, they can
have only 4 DRB1 alleles between them. If one human pair is the sole ancestor of all living people, all the human
HLA alleles must be descended from those four `adamic' alleles. All the diversity must have been produced by
modifying those four versions of the HLA-DRB1 gene since Adam and Eve were created. Yet a 5-10 million year
coalescence would apparently make Adam a `monkey's uncle' (ancestral to at least chimps, gorillas, and
humans)." (Wilcox D.L., "Finding Adam: The Genetics of Human Origins," in Miller K.B., ed., "Perspectives on an
Evolving Creation," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 2003, pp.250-252. Emphasis original)
23/09/2005
"We see the fall of man as an event that happens in both prehistory (Urgeschichte) and universal history. The
tale in Genesis concerns not only a first fall and first man but a universal fall and universal man. Adam is not so
much a private person as the head of the human race. He is generic as well as first man. He is Everyman and
therefore Representative Man. He is the representative of both our original parents and of all humankind, and
Paul sometimes combines these two motifs. [It is quite clear that Paul, who here reflects his Rabbinic training,
uses Adam as a pedagogical example or teaching model. In 1 Corinthians 15:22 Adam is depicted as both the first
man and representative man. In Romans 5:12 ff. it is essential to Paul's argument that Adam be the first sinner,
though Genesis pictures Eve as the first sinner. In 1 Timothy 2:14 Paul argues that Eve and not Adam was the
first sinner again in order to make a pedagogical point.] It is human nature which sins in the Genesis narrative and
not simply the first man. ... Yet this does not mean that the story of Adam and Eve as presented in Genesis is
itself exact, literal history. ... James Orr suggests that the Genesis narrative is `old tradition clothed in oriental
allegorical dress,' but he insists in line with the older orthodoxy that it refers to a fall from an original state of
purity.' [Orr J., "The Christian View of God and the World," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1948, p.185]" (Bloesch
D.G., "Essentials of Evangelical Theology," HarperCollins: San Francisco CA, 1982, Vol. 1, reprint, pp.106-107)
23/09/2005
"Christianity is not a static entity; rather, it is like a growing plant . Although grounded in the Bible, the Christian
theological tradition has always been mindful of the need to interpret its foundational text in the most authentic
way possible. This has led to debates within the church over how best to interpret certain passages. In the first
500 years of Christianity, a number of basic principles emerged. One of these was to interpret the Bible in such a
way that allowed a creative interaction with the best natural science of the day. The most influential theologian of
this era was Augustine of Hippo (354-430), who is of especial importance in relation to the exploration of the
relationship between biblical interpretation and the sciences. Augustine stressed the importance of respecting
the conclusions of the sciences in relation to biblical exegesis. As Augustine observed in his commentary on
Genesis, certain of its passages were genuinely open to diverse interpretations. It was therefore important to
allow further scientific research to assist in the determination of which was the most appropriate mode of
interpretation for a given passage: `In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy
Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have
received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further
progress in the search for truth justly undermines our position, we too fall with it. We should not battle for our
own interpretation but for the teaching of the Holy Scripture. We should not wish to conform the meaning of
Holy Scripture to our interpretation, but our interpretation to the meaning of Holy Scripture.' Augustine therefore
urged that biblical interpretation should take due account of what could reasonably be regarded as established
facts. This approach to biblical interpretation aimed to ensure that Christian theology never became trapped in a
pre-scientific worldview. This has always been the dominant theme in Western biblical interpretation. Yet it does
not preclude debates over what is the best approach. And these debates often involved trial and error,
determining the best way of interpreting a biblical passage by an extended period of discussion and exploration."
(McGrath A.E., "Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life," Blackwell: Malden MA, 2005, pp.69-70)
24/09/2005
"[Romans 5:18-21] ... The historicity and death of Adam. It is fashionable nowadays to regard the biblical story of
Adam and Eve as 'myth' (whose truth is theological but not historical), rather than 'significant event' (whose truth
is both). Many people assume that evolution has disproved and discarded the Genesis story as having no basis
in history. Since 'Adam' is the Hebrew word for 'man', they consider that the author of Genesis was deliberately
giving a mythical account of human origins, evil and death. We should certainly be open to the probability that
there are symbolical elements in the Bible's first three chapters. The narrative itself warrants no dogmatism about
the six days of creation, since its form and style suggest that it is meant as literary art, not scientific description.
As for the identity of the snake and the trees in the garden, since 'that old serpent' and 'the tree of life' reappear in
the book of Revelation, where they are evidently symbolic [Rev. 12:9; 22:2ff], it seems likely that they are meant
to be understood symbolically in Genesis as well. But the case with Adam and Eve is different. Scripture clearly
intends us to accept their historicity as the original human pair. For the biblical genealogies trace the human race
back to Adam [Gn. 5:3ff; 1 Chr. 1:1ff. Lk. 3:38]; Jesus himself taught that 'at the beginning the Creator `made them
male and female'' and then instituted marriage [Mt. 19:4ff, quoting Gn. 1:27]; Paul told the Athenian philosophers
that God had made every nation 'from one man' [Acts 17:26]; and in particular Paul's carefully constructed
analogy between Adam and Christ depends for its validity on the equal historicity of both. He affirmed that
Adam's disobedience led to condemnation foray as Christ's obedience led to justification for all (5:18) [cf. 1 Cor.
15:22,45ff]. Moreover, nothing in modern science contradicts this. Rather the reverse. All human beings share the
same anatomy, physiology and chemistry, and the same genes. Although we belong to different so-called 'races'
(Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid and Australoid), each of which has adjusted to its own physical environment,
we nevertheless constitute a single species, and people of different races can intermarry and interbreed. This
homogeneity of the human species is best explained by positing our descent from a common ancestor. 'Genetic
evidence indicates', writes Dr Christopher Stringer of London's Natural History Museum, 'that all living people
are closely related and share a recent common ancestor.' He goes on to express the view that this common
ancestor 'probably lived in Africa' (though this is not proved) and that from this ancestral group 'all the living
peoples of the world originated' [Stringer C., in Jones S., Martin R. & Pilbeam D., "The Cambridge Encyclopedia
of Human Evolution," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1992, p. 249]. But how 'recent' was our
'common ancestor'? The evidence of Genesis 2 - 4 is that Adam was a Neolithic farmer. The New Stone Age ran
from about 10000 to 6000 BC, and its beginning was marked by the introduction of agriculture, the original 'green
revolution' which seems to have begun in the region of Eastern Turkey, near the head waters of the Euphrates
and Tigris rivers (cf. Gn. 2:10, 14), and which has been described as the most important cultural development in all
human history. So Adam cultivated the garden of Eden [Gn. 2:15], and he and Eve made clothing for themselves
[Gn. 3:7; cf. 21]. Then the next generations, we read, domesticated and reared stock, as well as working the soil
and cultivating crops [Gn. 4:2ff.]; built a protected settlement, which Genesis graces with the word 'city' [Gn. 4:17]
made and played musical Instruments [Gn 4:21]; and 'forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron' [Gn. 4:22].
But surely the human fossil and skeleton record indicates that the genus homo existed hundreds of
thousands of years before the New Stone Age? Yes. Homo sapiens (modern) is usually traced back to
about 100,000 years ago, and homo sapiens (archaic) to about half a million years ago, homo
erectus to about 1.8 million years ago, and homo habilis even to two million years ago. Moreover,
homo habilis was already making stone tools in East and South Africa; homo erectus was making
wooden tools as well and living in caves and camps, while homo sapiens (especially the European Stone
Age sub-species Neanderthal man), although still a hunter-gatherer, was beginning to paint, carve and sculpt,
and even to care for the sick and bury the dead. But were these species of homo 'human' in the
biblical sense, created in the image of God, endowed with rational moral and spiritual faculties which
enabled them to know and love their Creator? Ancient skeletons cannot answer this question; the evidence they
supply is anatomical rather than behavioural. Even signs of cultural development do not prove that those
involved were authentically human, that is, God-like. The likelihood is that they were all pre-Adamic hominids,
still homo sapiens and not yet homo divinus, if we may so style Adam. Adam, then, was a special
creation of God, whether God formed him literally 'from the dust of the ground' and then 'breathed into his nostrils
the breath of life' [Gn. 2:7], or whether this is the biblical way of saying that he was created out of an already
existing hominid. The vital truth we cannot surrender is that, though our bodies are related to the primates, we
ourselves in our fundamental identity are related to God. What then about those pre-Adamic hominids which had
survived natural calamity and disaster (as large numbers did not), had dispersed to other continents, and were
now Adam's contemporaries? How did Adam's special creation and subsequent fall relate to them? Derek Kidner
suggests that, once it became clear that there was 'no natural bridge from animal to man, God may have now
conferred his image on Adam's collaterals, to bring them into the same realm of being. Adam's `federal' headship
of humanity extended, if that was the case, outwards to his contemporaries as well as onwards to his offspring,
and his disobedience disinherited both alike'' [Kidner D., `Genesis,' Inter-Varsity Press, 1967, p. 29]. Having
thought about Adam's creation and fall, we are ready to ask about his death. 'Adam...died' [Gn. 5:5]. Why did he
die? What was the origin of death? Was it there from the beginning? Certainly vegetable death was. God created
'seed-bearing plants...that bear fruit with seed in it' [Gn. 1:11ff.]. That is, the cycle of blossom, fruit, seed death
and new life was established in the created order. Animal death existed too, for many fossils of predators have
been found with their prey in their stomach. But what about human beings? Paul wrote that death entered the
world through sin (5:12). Does that mean that, if he had not sinned, he would not have died? Many ridicule this
notion. 'Obviously', writes C.H. Dodd with great self-confidence, 'we cannot accept such a speculation as an
account of the origin of death, which is a natural process inseparable from organic existence in the world we
know ...' [Dodd, p. 81] We have already agreed that death is 'a natural process' in the vegetable and animal
kingdoms. But we must not think of human beings as merely rather superior animals, who on that account die like
animals. On the contrary, it is because we are not animals that Scripture regards human death as unnatural, an
alien intrusion, the penalty for sin, and not God's original intention for his human creation. Only if Adam
disobeyed, God warned him, would he 'surely die'. [Gn. 2:17] Since, however, he did not immediately die, some
conclude that it was spiritual death, or separation from God, which was meant. But when God later pronounced
his judgment on Adam, he said to him, 'Dust you are, and to dust you will return.' [Gn. 3:19] so physical death
was included in the curse, and Adam became mortal when he disobeyed. Certainly the Rabbis understood
Genesis in this way. For example, 'God created man for incorruption, and made him an image of his own proper
being, but by the envy of the devil death entered into the world ...' [Wisdom 2:23f.]. This is why the biblical
authors lament death, and are outraged by it. They see it as demoting us, levelling us down to the animal
creation, so that we (God's special creation) have become 'like the beasts that perish' [Ps. 49:12]. The author of
Ecclesiastes feels the indignity of it too: 'Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As
one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal' [Ec. 3:19]. It
appears, therefore, that for his unique image-bearers God originally had something better in mind, something less
degrading and squalid than death, decay and decomposition, something which acknowledged that human beings
are not animals. Perhaps he would have 'translated' them like Enoch and Elijah [Gn. 5:24; 2 Ki. 2:11], without the
necessity of death. Perhaps he would have 'changed' them 'in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye', like those
believers who will be alive when Jesus comes [1 Cor. 15:51f.]. Perhaps too we should think of the transfiguration
of Jesus in this light. His face shone, his clothing became dazzling white, and his body translucent like the
resurrection body he would later have [Mk. 9:2ff., 9]. Because he had no sin, he did not need to die. He could
have stepped straight into heaven without dying. But he deliberately came back in order of his own free and
loving will to die for us. All this evidence confirms the straightforward statement of the apostle Paul: ...sin
entered the world through one man, and death through sin... (5:12)." (Stott J.R.W.*, "The Message of
Romans: God's Good News for the World," [1994], Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, 1999, pp.162-166. Emphasis
original)
26/09/2005
"In recent years, however, a much more important argument has gradually surfaced against this anthropocentric
world view. It is concerned with the tremendous amount of time it took after the Big Bang for humans to appear
and to rise to any degree of significance on this planet. In the words of Bertrand Russell, `If the purpose of the
Cosmos is to evolve mind, we must regard it as rather incompetent in having produced so little in such a long
time.' [Russell B., `Religion and Science,' Oxford University Press: New York, 1968, p 216] However, with the
tremendous increase in our cosmological understanding in recent years, a devastating anthropocentric rebuttal
to this objection has suddenly made itself known: carbon-based life forms intrinsically require a universe
as big and as old as our own in order to exist, because they are physiologically dependent on an adequate
supply of carbon and other heavy elements, which weren't in existence in any appreciable quantities immediately
following the Big Bang. Instead, they had to be `cooked' for billions of years in the interiors of dying red giant
stars, and then subsequently released into the cosmos via colossal supernova explosions. When this striking
fact is taken into consideration (along with the other temporal stipulations on planetary and organic evolution), it
turns out that ours is the youngest possible universe that could have evolved carbon-based life forms
through natural evolutionary pathways. [Barrow J.D. & Tipler F.J., `The Anthropic Cosmological Principle,'
Oxford University Press: New York, 1986, p.385] Furthermore, given the fact that the universe is expanding, ours
is also the smallest possible universe that could have evolved life through these same natural pathways.
[Ibid] Thus, it would take a universe as big and as old as the present one just to evolve a single race of
intelligent beings. Accordingly, as long as we accept the stipulation that life must evolve through natural
evolutionary pathways, the vast size and age of our universe is perfectly compatible with an anthropocentric
world view." (Corey M.A.*, "Back to Darwin: The Scientific Case for Deistic Evolution," University Press of
America: Lanham MD, 1994, pp.368-369. Emphasis original)
26/09/2005
"For example, the mass density of the universe determines how efficiently nuclear fusion operates in the cosmos.
... if the mass density were too great, too much deuterium (a heavy isotope of hydrogen with one proton and one
neutron in the nucleus) would be made in the first few minutes of the universe's existence. This extra deuterium
will cause all the stars to burn much too quickly and erratically for any of them to support a planet with life upon
it. On the other hand, if the mass density were too small, so little deuterium and helium would be made in the first
few minutes that the heavier elements necessary for life would never form in the stars. What this means is that
the approximately 100 billion trillion stars we observe in the universe, no more and no fewer, are needed for life to
be possible in the universe. Evidently God cared so much for living creatures that he constructed 100 billion
trillion stars and carefully crafted them throughout the age of the universe so that at this brief moment in the
history of the cosmos humans could exist and have a pleasant place to live." (Ross H.N.*, "Astronomical
Evidences for a Personal, Transcendent God," in Moreland J.P.*, ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific
Evidence for an Intelligent Designer," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1994, p.164)
26/09/2005
"All This for Us. Hawking also rejects the anthropic principle, which is the observation that the universe has all
the necessary and narrowly defined characteristics to make human life possible. Hawking apparently finds it
impossible to believe that "this whole 'vast construction [the universe] exists simply for our sake." [Hawking
S.W., "A Brief History of Time," [1988] Bantam: New York, 1991, reprint, p.126] As support for his incredulity, he
says that "there does not seem to be any need for all those other galaxies, nor for the universe to be so uniform
and similar in every direction on the large scale." [Ibid, p.133] But, he ignores a growing body of research. The
uniformity, homogeneity, and mass density of the universe all must be precisely as they are for human life to be
possible at any time in the universe's history [Ross H.N., "The Fingerprint of God," [1989], Promise Publishing
Co: Orange CA, Second edition, 1991, pp.124-128]" (Ross H.N., "The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest
Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God," [1993], NavPress: Colorado Springs CO, 1994, Third printing,
p.86)
26/09/2005
"The mass density determines how efficiently nuclear fusion operates in the cosmos. The mass density we
measure translates into about a hundred-billion-trillion stars for the presently observable universe. As table 14.1
indicates (page 112), if the mass density is too great, too much deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen with one
proton and one neutron in the nucleus) is made in the first few minutes of the universe's existence. This extra
deuterium will cause the stars to burn much too quickly and erratically for any of them to support a planet with
life. On the other hand, if the mass-density is too small, so little deuterium and helium are made in the first few
minutes that the heavier elements necessary for life will never form in stars. What this means is that the
approximately hundred-billion-trillion stars we observe in the universe -no more and no less- are needed for life to
be possible in the universe." (Ross H.N.*, "The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest Scientific Discoveries
of the Century Reveal God," [1993], NavPress: Colorado Springs CO, 1994, Third printing, p.118)
26/09/2005
"The Size of The Universe ... In several other places we have used the fact of the Universe's size as a striking
example of how the Weak Anthropic Principle connects aspects of the Universe that appear, at first sight, totally
unrelated. The meaning of the Universe's large size has provided a focus of attention for philosophers over the
centuries. We find a typical discussion in Paradise Lost where Milton evokes Adam's dilemma: why should the
Universe serve the Earth with such a vast number of stars ... if life and mind are important, or unique, why does
their appearance on a single minor planet require a further 1022 stars as a supporting cast? ...
However, the modern picture of the expanding universe that we have just introduced renders such a line of
argument, at best, irrelevant to the question of Design. ... The size of the observable universe, ... is inextricably
bound-up with its age ... These relations display explicitly the connection between the size, mass and age of an
expanding universe. If our Universe were to contain just a single galaxy like the Milky Way, containing
1011 stars, instead of 1012 such galaxies, we might regard this a sensible cosmic
economy with little consequence for life. But, a universe of mass 1011 [solar masses] ... would ...
have expanded for only about a month. No observers could have evolved to witness such an economy-sized
universe. ... A minimum time is necessary to evolve astronomers by natural evolutionary pathways and stars
require billions of years ... to transform primordial hydrogen and helium into the heavier elements of which
astronomers are principally constructed. Thus, only in a universe that is sufficiently mature, and hence
sufficiently large, can `observers' evolve. In answer to Adam's question we would have to respond that the
vastness of `Heaven's wide circuit' is necessary for his existence on Earth. (Barrow J.D. & Tipler F.J., "The
Anthropic Cosmological Principle," [1986], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 1996, reprint, pp.384-385.
Emphasis original)
27/09/2005
"The lynx feeds on hares and is a fierce predator; both high and low figures apply to both populations, the
hunter and the hunted. The struggle is unremitting, as the statistics prove. The evolutionary effect is
nonexistent. Morphologically and physiologically, both hare and lynx remain unchanged." (Grasse P.-P.,
"Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New
York NY, 1977, pp.118-119)
27/09/2005
"Selection tends to eliminate the causes of a population's heterogeneity and thus to produce a uniform genotype.
It acts more to conserve the inheritance of the species than to transform it. Thus, these are largely
theoretical speculations, for natural populations are highly heterogeneous, being mainly or entirely composed of
heterozygotic individuals. It may be added that uniform external appearances often mask a deep-rooted
heterogeneity. The presence, in the same population, of numerous heterozygotic genotypes is attributable either
to the weakness of selection, or the neutral or indifferent state of the characteristics determined by the various
alleles. Both possible causes often act together and they insure the persistence of the diverse genotypes. There
is no need to resort to calculations. The reason why natural populations prove on examination to be so highly
heterozygotic is that selection works efficiently only against extremely harmful, pathogenic genes." (Grasse P.-P.,
"Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New
York NY, 1977, pp.119-120. Emphasis original)
28/09/2005
"Natural selection acts as regulator of the genotype, performing a function of genetic hygiene. As to its role as
effective agent of evolution, this is not certain. In fact, if it had the full power attributed to it, it would soon stop
evolution. Every noncarrier of the environmentally adjusted genotype would be eliminated. In the event of a
change of environment there would be no preadapted genotype to cope with the altered conditions. Thus,
natural selection is possible for a population only if it is not too severe." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living
Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.121)
28/09/2005
"Cultivation of useful or ornamental plants, and domestication of birds and mammals, are a perfect in-depth test
of the mutability of the species concerned. Do they thus represent an example of man-controlled evolution? From
the surrounding flora, man chooses, isolates, and promotes for his own personal use a few plants in which he
discovers properties that suit his needs-high yield of grains, or fruit that is edible. From the fauna he likewise
chooses a small number of animals for their docility and the quantity of meat they supply. In an attempt to
improve on nature, he has tried everything to enhance the properties of his crops and domestic livestock. ... The
difference between natural and artificial selection is in the end purpose. Natural selection operates for the
greatest good of the species, artificial selection for that of man. They work upon the same raw material:
mutations. ... Artificial selection creates nothing by itself. The same is true for natural selection. It sorts out or
gathers together broodstock (in the case of multiple genes or alleles scattered through a population). In this
manner it has increased the butterfat content of cow's milk, the saccharose content of the sugar beet, the length
of the cotton fiber, the length and softness of sheep's fleece, and so on. Several major mutations in the dog, the
pigeon, the ox, the sheep, the rabbit, the silkworm, the bee, wheat, barley, maize, fruit trees, roses, snapdragons,
tobacco plants, etc., have been exploited on a grand scale. ... According to Darwinian teachings, domestication is
a speeded-up evolution controlled by man. Speeded-up, because mutants considered to be worthwhile are
immediately retained and are thus have an advantage with respect to wild types. They correspond to the carriers
of the privileged genotype in natural selection. The products of domestication deviate more or less from those
found in free nature and sometimes border on monstrosity. It is hard to visualize how lapdogs, Yorkshire terriers,
or Pekinese could survive in the wild. Certainly they would not last long in the woodlands or pastures of our
temperate zone. The albino rat, albino angora rabbit, and how many other domesticated animals would, if set free
in the countryside, perish in only a few days." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New
Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.121-122. Emphasis original)
28/09/2005
"A thorough analysis of the site of Australia's oldest human remains may settle the long and acrimonious debate
over how long ago humans first colonised the continent. Experts have been arguing for decades about the age of
the skeleton, dubbed Mungo Man. Now its discoverer says he has confirmed that it is 40,000 years old. ... In
1976, Bowler and his colleague Alan Thorne estimated the remains to be 30,000 years old. But in 1999, Thorne
and his team at Australian National University in Canberra published a sensational new paper claiming Mungo
Man was 62,000 years old. ... Now researchers at four separate laboratories, including Bowler and a member of
Thorne's original team, claim that the burial of Mungo Man took place 40,000 years ago. The new dates were
derived using optically stimulated luminescence (OSL), similar but more reliable than thermoluminescence.
Crucially, the researchers sampled sand from the exact burial sites, whereas it has emerged that Thorne's team
had sampled sand 400 metres away. They have also dated stone tools - the earliest evidence of human
occupation at the site - to 50,000 years ago."(Young E., "New arrival date for earliest
Australians," 18 February 2003)
29/09/2005
"Everyone would agree that some religious people do some very disturbing things. But the introduction of that
little word `some' to Dawkins' argument immediately dilutes its impact. For it forces a series of critical questions.
How many? Under what circumstances? How often? It also forces a comparative question: how many people
with antireligious views also do some very disturbing things? And once we start to ask that question, we
move away from cheap and easy sniping at our intellectual opponents, and have to confront some dark and
troubling aspects of human nature. Let's explore this one. I used to be anti-religious. In my teens, I was quite
convinced that religion was the enemy of humanity, for reasons very similar to those that Dawkins sets out in his
popular writings. But not now. And one of the reasons is my dreadful discovery of the dark side of atheism. Let
me explain. In my innocence, I assumed that atheism would spread through the sheer genius of its ideas, the
compelling nature of its arguments, its liberation from the oppression of religion, and the dazzling brilliance of the
world it commended. Who needed to be coerced into such beliefs, when they were so obviously right? Now,
things seem very different. Atheism is not `proved' in any sense by any science, evolutionary biology included.
Dawkins thinks it is, but offers arguments which are far from compelling. And yes, atheism liberated people from
religious oppression, especially in France in the 1780s. But when atheism ceased to be a private matter and
became a state ideology, things suddenly became rather different. The liberator turned oppressor. To the surprise
of some, religion became the new liberator from atheist oppression. Unsurprisingly, these developments tend to
be airbrushed out of Dawkins' rather selective reading of history. But they need to be taken with immense
seriousness if the full story is to be told. The final opening of the Soviet archives in the 1990s led to revelations
that ended any notion that atheism was quite as gracious, gentle, and generous a worldview as some of its more
idealistic supporters believed. The Black Book of Communism, based on those archives [Courtois S., `The Black
Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,' Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1999], created a
sensation when first published in France in 1997, not least because it implied that French communism - still a
potent force in national life-was irreducibly tainted with the crimes and excesses of Lenin and Stalin. Where,
many of its irate readers asked, were the `Nuremberg Trials of Communism'? Communism was a `tragedy of
planetary dimensions' with a grand total of victims variously estimated by contributors to the volume at between
85 million and 100 million - far in excess of the excesses committed under Nazism. Now, one must be cautious
about such statistics, and equally cautious about rushing to quick and easy conclusions on their basis. Yet the
basic point cannot really be overlooked. One of the greatest ironies of the twentieth century is that many of the
most deplorable acts of murder, intolerance, and repression were carried out by those who thought that religion
was murderous, intolerant, and repressive - and thus sought to remove it from the face of the planet as a
humanitarian act. Even his most uncritical readers should be left wondering why Dawkins has curiously failed to
mention, let alone engage with, the blood-spattered trail of atheism in the twentieth century - one of the reasons,
incidentally, that I eventually concluded that I could -no longer be an atheist." (McGrath A.E.*, "Dawkins' God:
Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life," Blackwell: Malden MA, 2005, pp.112-114. Emphasis original)
29/09/2005
"The Pax-6 story tells us that there has been just one origin and one evolutionary line of progression, from the
earliest patches of light-sensitive cells to the variety of advanced eye-forms around us. This unavoidable
conclusion, Charles, goes against a hundred years of insistence that the widely different structures and
operations of eyes (eye cup, pinhole, camera-type with single lens, mirror and compound) arose independently,
at least forty and maybe up to sixty-five times. Our old friend Richard Dawkins devoted a chapter in one of his
books to 'the forty-fold path to enlightenment', emphasizing the repetitive ease with which natural selection could
produce an eye, and so relieving you of the 'cold shudder' you experienced whenever you grappled with this
problem." (Dover G.A., "Dear Mr Darwin: Letters on the Evolution of Life and Human Nature," [1999], University
of California Press: Berkeley CA, 2000, reprint, p.172)
30/09/2005
"The Nobel laureate Percy Bridgman aptly described the scientific method as follows: `The scientific method, as
far as it is a method, is nothing more than doing one's damnedest with one's mind, no holds barred.' [Bridgman P.,
"Reflections of a Physicist," Philosophical Library: New York, Second edition, 1955, p.535]."
(Dembski W.A.*, "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology," InterVarsity Press: Downers
Grove IL, 1999, p.259)
30/09/2005
"Text of Statement Read to Students. `The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about
Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because
Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact.
Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that
unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from
Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be
interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. With respect to any theory,
students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to
individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing
students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.'" "Biology Curriculum Update, Dover Area
School District News, February 2005, p.1.
http://www.dover.k12.pa.us/doversd/lib/doversd/DASD_Biology_Update_2-05.pdf)
30/09/2005
"Methodological Naturalism is True By Definition. So why must a scientist proceed in accordance with
methodological naturalism? Michael Ruse suggests that methodological naturalism or at any rate part of it is
true by definition: `Furthermore, even if Scientific Creationism were totally successful in making its case
as science, it would not yield a scientific explanation of origins. Rather, at most, it could prove that
science shows that there can be no scientific explanation of origins. The Creationists believe that the world
started miraculously. But miracles lie outside of science, which by definition deals only with the natural, the
repeatable, that which is governed by law.' [Ruse M., "Darwinism Defended," Addison-Wesley: Reading MA,
1982, p.322. Emphasis original] By definition of the term 'science' one supposes; Ruse apparently holds there is a
correct definition of 'science', such that from the definition it follows that science deals only with what is natural,
repeatable, and governed by law. ... [A] ... puzzling thing about Ruse's claim: it is hard to see how anything like a
reasonably serious dispute about what is and isn't science could be settled just by appealing to a definition. One
thinks this would work only if the original query were really a verbal question -- a question like: Is the English
word 'science' properly applicable to a hypothesis that makes reference to God? But that wasn't the question.
The question is instead: Could a hypothesis that makes reference to God be part of science? That
question can't be answered just by citing a definition." (Plantinga A.*, "Methodological Naturalism? Part 2,"
1997. Origins & Design 18:2, Access Research Network, January 1, 1998.
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/methnat182.htm. Emphasis original]
30/09/2005
"Natural selection is the central concept of Darwinian theory-the fittest survive and spread their favored traits
through populations. Natural selection is defined by Spencer's phrase `survival of the fittest,' but what does this
famous bit of jargon really mean? Who are the fittest? And how is `fitness' defined? We often read that fitness
involves no more than `differential reproductive success'-the production of more surviving offspring than other
competing members of the population. Whoa! cries Bethell, as many others have before him. This formulation
defines fitness in terms of survival only. The crucial phrase of natural selection means no more than `the survival
of those who survive'-a vacuous tautology. (A tautology is a phrase-like `my father is a man' -containing no
information in the predicate ('a man') not inherent in the subject ('my father'). Tautologies are fine as definitions,
but not as testable scientific statements-there can be nothing to test in a statement true by definition.)" (Gould
S.J., "Darwin's Untimely Burial," in "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History," [1978], Penguin: London,
1991, reprint, p.40)
30/09/2005
"Third, Emilio has to learn that `science' as defined in our culture has a philosophical bias that needs to be
exposed. On the one hand, science is empirical. This means that scientists rely on experiments observations and
calculations to develop theories and test them. On the other hand, contemporary science is naturalistic and
materialistic in philosophy. What this means is that materialist explanations for all phenomena are assumed to
exist. And what that means is that the NABT's definition of evolution as an unsupervised process is simply true
by definition-regardless of the evidence! It is a waste of time to argue about the evidence if one side has already
won the argument by defining the terms." (Johnson P.E.*, "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds,"
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1997, p.21)
30/09/2005
"Darwin's theory of evolution was originally stated in risky form. It predicted, for example, that fossil hunters
would eventually find a great many transitional intermediates between the major groups (they didn't) and that
animal breeders would succeed in creating distinct species (they didn't). Today the theory is usually stated in
risk-free form. Naturalistic evolution is identified with science itself, and any alternative is automatically
disqualified as `religion.' This makes it impossible to hold a scientific debate over whether the theory is true (it's
virtually true by definition), which explains why Darwinists tend to think that anyone who wants such a debate
to occur must have a `hidden agenda.' In other words, critics couldn't seriously be questioning whether the
theory is true, so they must have some dishonest purpose in raising the question." (Johnson P.E.*, "Defeating
Darwinism by Opening Minds," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1997, pp.43-44)
30/09/2005
"The admission that Darwin's theory of natural selection was tautological did not greatly bother the evolutionary
theorists, however, because they had already taken the precaution of redefining natural selection to mean
something quite different from what Darwin had in mind. Like the philosophical debate of the past decade, this
remarkable development went largely unnoticed. In its new form, natural selection meant nothing more than that
some organisms have more offspring than others: in the argot, differential reproduction. This indeed was an
empirical fact about the world, not just something true by definition, as was the case that the fittest survive. The
bold act of redefining selection was made by the British statistician and geneticist R. A. Fisher in a widely
heralded book called The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Moreover, by making certain
assumptions about birth and death rates, and combining them with Mendelian genetics, Fisher was able to
quantify the resulting rates at which population ratios changed. This was called population genetics, and it
brought great happiness to the hearts of many biologists, because the mathematical formulae looked so
deliciously scientific and seemed to enhance the status of biology, making it more like physics. But here is what
Waddington recently said about this development: `The theory of neo-Darwinism is a theory of the
evolution of the population in respect to leaving offspring and not in respect to anything, else.... Everybody has
it in the back of his mind that the animals that leave the largest number of offspring are going to be those best
adapted also for eating peculiar vegetation, or something of this sort, but this is not explicit in the theory.... There
you do come to what is, in effect, a vacuous statement: Natural selection is that some things leave more offspring
than others; and, you ask, which leave more offspring than others; and it is those that leave more offspring, and
there is nothing more to it than that. The whole real guts of evolution- which is how do you come to have horses
and tigers and things-is outside the mathematical theory.' [Waddington, C.H., in Moorhead, P.S. & Kaplan, M.M.,
ed., "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution:," The Wistar Institute Press:
Philadelphia PA, 1967, p.14] Here, then, was the problem. Darwin's theory was supposed to have answered this
question about horses and tigers. They had gradually developed, bit by bit, as it were, over the eons, through
the good offices of an agency called natural selection. But now, in its new incarnation, natural selection was only
able to explain how horses and tigers became more (or less) numerous-that is, by `differential reproduction.' This
failed to solve the question of how they came into existence in the first place." (Bethell, T.*, "Darwin's Mistake,"
in "The Electric Windmill: An Inadvertent Autobiography," Regnery Gateway: Washington DC, 1988, pp.188-189.
Emphasis original)
* Authors with an asterisk against their name are believed not to be evolutionists. However, lack of
an asterisk does not necessarily mean that an author is an evolutionist.
[top]
Copyright © 2005-2008, 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 but the Internet, without my written permission. If used on the Internet, a link back to
this
page would be appreciated.
Created: 24 July, 2005. Updated: 11 July, 2008.