[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [Quotes, Unclassified, Classified]
The following are unclassified quotes posted in my email messages in January-June, 2004.
The
date format is dd/mm/yy. See copyright conditions at end.
[Index: Jan-Mar] [Apr-Jun] [Jul-Sep] [Oct, Nov, Dec]
October
[top] 1/10/2004
"Lamarck, Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de (1744-1829) French natural historian. In 1778
he published a flora of France, which included a dichotomous identification key, and later worked on the
classification of invertebrates, published in a seven-volume natural history (1815-22). In 1809 he put forward
a theory of evolution that has become known as Lamarckism (later rejected in favour of Darwinism).
Lamarckism One of the earliest superficially plausible theories of inheritance proposed by Jean-Baptiste de
Lamarck in 1809. He suggested that changes in an individual are acquired during its lifetime, chiefly by
increased use or disuse of organs in response to `a need that continues to make itself felt', and that these
changes are inherited by its offspring. Thus the long neck and limbs of a giraffe are explained as having
evolved by the animal stretching its neck to browse on the foliage of trees. This so-called inheritance of
acquired characteristics has never unquestionably been demonstrated to occur and the theory was largely
displaced by the genetic theories of Mendel and his successors (see Mendelism). See also Lysenkoism."
(Martin E. & Hine R.S. eds., "Oxford Dictionary of Biology," [1985], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK,
Fourth Edition, 2000, pp.338-339)
1/10/2004
"Lysenko claimed to be a Darwinist, which was the 'official line' in the purging of Bukharin. Prezent, an ally
of Lysenko, accused Bukharin of erroneous and anti-Darwinian theories" and also said that bandits" had
annihilated instruction of students in Darwinism in the Leningrad State University (Medvedev Z.A., "The
Rise and Fall of T.D. Lysenko," Columbia University Press: New York NY, 1969). Dunin said: `the enemy of
the people, Bukharin, fought Darwinism ...' Lysenko wrote a polemic `Of the distorting mirror and some anti-
Darwinians' grouping them with his hated Morganist-Mendelists. Lysenko said that Darwinism was part of
Marxism. He also said `[Prezent] showed me that the roots of the work I am doing lie in Darwin. And I,
comrades, must confess here straightforwardly in the presence of Iosif Vissarionovich [Stalin] that to my
shame I have not studied Darwin properly'. Evidently Lysenko tried to justify his nonsense by calling on
Darwin." (Jukes T.H., "Darwinist Lysenko?" Nature, Vol 373, 16 February 1995, p.554)
1/10/2004
"From the facts alluded to in the first chapter, I think there can be no doubt that use in our domestic
animals has strengthened and enlarged certain parts, and disuse diminished them; and that such
modifications are inherited. Under free nature, we have no standard of comparison by which to judge of
the effects of long-continued use or disuse, for we know not the parent-forms; but many animals
possess structures which can be best explained by the effects of disuse." (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.130. My emphasis)
1/10/2004
"On the whole, we may conclude that habit, or use and disuse, have, in some cases, played a
considerable part in the modification of the constitution and structure; but that the effects have often been
largely combined with, and sometimes overmastered by, the natural selection of innate variations." (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.136. My emphasis)
1/10/2004
"When discussing special cases, Mr. Mivart passes over the effects of the increased use and disuse of
parts, which I have always maintained to be highly important, and have treated in my Variation under
Domestication at greater length than, as I believe, any other writer." (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.201. My emphasis)
1/10/2004
"The giraffe, by its lofty stature, much-elongated neck, forelegs, head and tongue, has its whole frame
beautifully adapted for browsing on the higher branches of trees. It can thus obtain food beyond the reach
of the other Ungulata or hoofed animals inhabiting the same country; and this must be a great advantage to
it during dearths." (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.201)
1/10/2004
"Variability is governed by many complex laws,-by correlated growth, compensation, the increased use
and disuse of parts, and the definite action of the surrounding conditions. There is much difficulty in
ascertaining how largely our domestic productions have been modified; but we may safely infer that the
amount has been large, and that modifications can be inherited for long periods." (Darwin C.R., "The Origin
of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th
Edition, 1928, reprint, p.443. My emphasis)
1/10/2004
"I have now recapitulated the facts and considerations which have thoroughly convinced me that species
have been modified, during a long course of descent. This has been effected chiefly through the natural
selection of numerous successive, slight, favourable variations; aided in an important manner by the
inherited effects of the use and disuse of parts; and in an unimportant manner, that is in relation to
adaptive structures, whether past or present, by the direct action of external conditions, and by variations
which seem to us in our ignorance to arise spontaneously. It appears that I formerly underrated the
frequency and value of these latter forms of variation, as leading to permanent modifications of structure
independently of natural selection. But as my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has
been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to
remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position-
namely, at the close of the Introduction-the following words: `I am convinced that natural selection has been
the main but not the exclusive means of modification.' This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady
misrepresentation; but the history of science shows that fortunately this power does not long endure."
(Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection," [1859], John Murray: London, Sixth
edition, 1872, Reprinted, 1882, p.421. My emphasis)
1/10/04
"It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing
on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to
reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each
other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the
largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction;
Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse: a Ratio of
Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing
Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from
famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the
higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been
originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling
on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural
Selection," [1859], John Murray: London, Sixth edition, 1872, Reprinted, 1882, p.429. My emphasis)
1/10/2004
"It is interesting to observe the result of habit in the peculiar shape and size of the giraffe (camelo-pardalis):
this animal, the largest of mammals, is known to live in the interior of Africa in places where the soil is nearly
always arid and barren, so that it is obliged to browse on the leaves of trees and to make constant efforts to
reach them. From this habit long maintained in all its race, it has resulted that the animal's fore-legs have
become longer than its hind legs, and that its neck is lengthened to such a degree that the giraffe, without
standing up on its hind legs, attains a height of six metres. [Lamarck J.-B., "Zoological Philosophy," Elliot H.,
transl., Macmillan: London, 1914, p.122]" (Lovtrup S., "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth," Croom Helm:
London, 1987, p.54)
2/10/2004
"My purpose is to examine the scientific evidence on its own terms, being careful to distinguish the
evidence itself from any religious or philosophical bias that might distort our interpretation of that evidence.
I assume that the creation-scientists are biased by their precommitment to Biblical fundamentalism, and I will
have very little to say about their position. The question I want to investigate is whether Darwinism is based
upon a fair assessment of the scientific evidence, or whether it is another kind of fundamentalism." (Johnson,
P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, p.14)
2/10/2004
"Scientific American, the bastion of the scientific-materialism project--and the same magazine that is calling
for a boycott of Kansas high school students to punish the school board--published an article [September
1999] in which Ed Larson and Larry Witham commented on this "neutrality" position. The authors noted
that when you measure opinion among elite scientists, that is, members of the National Academy of
Sciences, less than 5 per cent believe in God. They gave a number of quotations to show that this disbelief
really derived from the conviction that science itself had discredited belief in God. Against that background,
Larson and Witham quote the National Academy's official booklet on how to teach evolution: before
launching its broadside of scientific arguments against religious objections to teaching evolution, the
booklet asserts that whether or not God exists is a question about which science is neutral. The irony is
remarkable. A group of specialists almost all of whom are non-believers-- that is, scientific materialists, either
atheist or agnostic--and who believe that science compels such a conclusion say to the public that science
is neutral on the God question. This has been figured out, I can assure you, by the people in Kansas and
lots of other people. They consider that the scientific elite is simply lying through its teeth about this issue."
(Johnson, P.E.*, "Evolution and the Curriculum: A Conversation with Phillip Johnson and Gregg
Easterbrook," Ethics and Public Policy Center, February 2000, No. 4)
3/10/2004
"The Day One/Day Four Problem. One exegetical marker suggesting a figurative meaning for the days is that
the creation of the luminaries on Day 4 is a temporal recapitulation of the creation of daylight on Day 1.
Duncan and Hall respond without any exegesis, asserting only that this argument `calls into question God's
capacity to work with or without, above or against, second causes.' But how? Our argument is that Genesis
2:5-6 informs us that the mode of divine providence during the creation period was ordinary rather than
extraordinary. This rules out the possibility that the daylight was caused by a supernatural or nonsolar light
source for the first three days, thus forcing us to view the fourth day as a temporal recapitulation and the
days in general as being nonsequential. Observe, how, ever, that this possibility is not ruled out on a priori,
but exegetical, grounds. Certainly God has the capacity to work without, above, or against second causes,
but the text reveals that God employed ordinary means in His providential sustaining of His creatures during
the creation period. To argue that the framework interpretation calls God's omnipotence into question begs
the question and betrays an inadequate familiarity with the published arguments. Duncan and Hall have not
wrestled sufficiently with the problem of the relationship between the first and fourth days. When
attempting to explain how there could be a literal evening and morning during the first three days, they
hypothesize that God `may have employed nonsolar sources of light before creating the sun.' But what
internal, exegetical justification can they provide for this arbitrary speculation? On the contrary, the text
makes clear that when God created daylight on the first day, He created the physical reality with which
Moses' audience was familiar; namely, a normal day divided into alternating periods of light and darkness
(Gen. 1:5). Doesn't the plain meaning of Genesis 1:3-5 contradict Duncan and Hall's hypothetical nonsolar
light source? And shouldn't this fact suggest that the fourth day is not to be taken sequentially and so is
separated from the first day? Doesn't this fact strongly suggest instead that the author of Genesis presents
us with a two-triad framework in which each triad is headed by a parallel (nonsequential) treatment of the
creation of light/ luminaries?" (Irons L.* & Kline M.G.*, "The 24-Hour View: The Framework Response," in
Hagopian D.G., ed., "The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation," Crux Press: Mission Viejo
CA, 2001, p.86)
3/10/2004
"The Luminaries and the Fourth Day. The second major area where the attempt to find maximal harmony
with science leads to untenable exegesis is the approach Ross and Archer take to the statements in Genesis
1:14-19 concerning the luminaries of the fourth day. In their attempt to make the textual sequence harmonize
with the scientific sequence, Ross and Archer do violence to the language of the fourth day. The text
describes the events as the creation of the luminaries on that day. Because Ross and Archer believe that the
luminaries were created during day-age one or before, they are forced to conclude that the events recorded
on the fourth day do not describe the creation of the luminaries; rather, they describe the luminaries
becoming visible to an earthbound observer by reason of the "transformation of the atmosphere from
perpetually translucent to occasionally transparent." But the text explicitly says that God "made" (v. 16) the
luminaries on Day 4 and employs the same fiat-fulfillment language employed on the other five days for acts
of creation. If Genesis 1 were intended to provide astounding predictions of future scientific discoveries as
Ross and Archer maintain, why didn't the Holy Spirit simply say that the luminaries "became visible" on Day
4? The attempt to find exact sequential harmony between Genesis 1 and science, which is essential to the
day-age interpretation, founders on the insoluble difficulties raised by the fourth day." (Irons L.* & Kline
M.G.*, "The Framework Response," in Hagopian D.G., ed., "The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days
of Creation," Crux Press: Mission Viejo CA, 2001, p.185)
3/10/2004
"The second defining element of the framework interpretation is the conviction that the eight historical
creative works of God have been arranged according to other than strictly sequential considerations. An
outstanding instance of this nonsequential ordering is found in the relation of Days 1 and 4, where the
narrative order does not coincide with the historical sequence. The framework interpretation maintains that
the creation of the luminaries, and in particular the solar system, on Day 4 actually coincides with the
creation of daylight on Day 1. Thus, the text is narrated in a topical rather than a purely sequential order.
However, we cannot conclude that nothing in the text has been arranged sequentially. The Sabbath of the
seventh day, for example, must follow the previous six days of creation, and man is created last due to his
position of delegated dominion over all creation. In these cases the narrative sequence and the actual
historical sequence are the same. But the order of narration alone is not sufficient in itself to determine the
historical sequence; other considerations, such as theological concerns and general revelation, must be
factored in as well. In most cases, the text's predominantly topical nature will preclude detailed conclusions
regarding sequence." (Irons L.* & Kline M.G.*, "The Framework View," in Hagopian D.G., ed., "The Genesis
Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation," Crux Press: Mission Viejo CA, 2001, p.220)
3/10/2004
"Indeed the six days now to be described can be viewed as the positive counterpart of the twin negatives
'without form and void' matching them with form in and fullness. They may be set out as follows:
Form Fullness
Day 1 Light and Dark Day 4 Lights of Day and Night
Day 2 Sea and Sky Day 5 Creatures of Water and Air
Day 3 Fertile Earth Day 6 Creatures of the Land"
(Kidner D.*, "Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale Press: London, 1967, p.45.
Emphasis original)
3/10/2004
"It is noteworthy that in the Hebrew of verse 2 the adjectives `formless' and `empty' seem to be the key to
the literary structure of the chapter. The record of the first three days refers to the heaven and earth
receiving their `form,' and the record of the last three days to the filling-up of their `emptiness.' An outline
will show this clearly:
"FORMLESS" "EMPTY"
First Day. Light. Fourth Day. Lights.
{Air {Fowls
Second Day. {Water Fifth Day. {Fish
{Land. {Animals.
Third Day. {Plants. Sixth Day. {Man.
Thus, the first and fourth days correspond, the second and fifth, and the third and sixth.
First comes `form,' and then `fulness.' the literary structure of the chapter is clear, and is one of many proofs
of Hebrew parallelism and love of parallelistic structure. ..." (Griffith Thomas W.H.*, "Genesis: A Devotional
Commentary," [1953], Wm. B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1979, Eleventh Printing, pp.28-29)
3/10/2004
"Taking the chapter [Genesis 1], however, just as it stands, without any such break, we read it through, and
are at once impressed with two things: (1) There is only one species mentioned in the entire chapter, "And
God created great whales" (ver. 21). Everything else is generic. Why this exceptional reference? Why are
these "water monsters" singled out in this way? Is it possible that we have here a hint of the writer's
purpose? Was he striking at the root of some ancient worship of sacred animals? Is it impossible that if the
materials for the composition of Genesis were associated with Egypt this has reference to the worship of
some sacred animal like the crocodile? ... Then in verse 16 special reference is made to the creation of the
sun and moon. Is it possible that we have here another blow to a prevalent form of Eastern worship of the
heavenly bodies? These two hints at any rate possibly suggest the religious purpose of the writer. ... Are we
not right, then, in thinking that this chapter was intended as an account of creation from the religious point
of view, and written for the instruction of mankind in all ages? ...What is its Relation to Science?-It is
inevitable that this question should be asked since on the assumption that religion and science both come
from God there should be at least some general agreement or points of contact between them. At the same
time the truest method of comparison is not between this chapter and the results of modern science, but
rather between this chapter and all other ancient Cosmogonies. It is when Genesis is compared with such
other ancient accounts of creation that its immeasurable superiority is seen. ... Is the chapter written in
sufficiently elastic and pliant language to admit of the inclusion of continuous scientific discoveries? It must
be obvious to every thoughtful reader that this early chapter could not be expected to be in exact agreement
with the latest details of scientific research, since science is continually changing and is ever incomplete. If
it had been written in strict scientific language it would, of course, have been unintelligible for centuries. ...
Yet there are indications that the very language of Genesis is pliant enough to allow of not a little scientific
discovery being inserted. Thus there are two words used for creation. One, Bara, is used three times
only in the chapter-(1) at the beginning (ver. 1); (2) at the commencement of life (ver. 21); (3) at the creation
of man (ver. 27). "Bara is thus reserved for marking the first introduction of each of the three great
spheres of creation-the world of matter, the world of life, and the spiritual world represented by man"
(Green). The other word, Asah, is found throughout the rest of the chapter, and is used of God
making or moulding from already created materials. Surely in this we have at least a hint of the modern
scientific ideas of primal creation and mediate creation." (Griffith Thomas W.H.*, "Genesis: A Devotional
Commentary," [1953], Wm. B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1979, Eleventh Printing, pp.29-31)
5/10/2004
"In a similar way, Johnson cut through the conflicting claims of a vast variety of positions on origins by
showing the crucial role played by initial philosophical commitments: Either nature is all that exists, and
science is permitted to consider only naturalistic theories-in which case science is little more than applied
naturalism - or there is something that transcends nature, and we must define science in terms that allow it to
follow the evidence wherever it leads....One of the beauties of Johnson's approach is that it has the potential
to unite Christians across a broad spectrum. They might disagree over such details as the age of the
universe, but all orthodox Christians can concur in rejecting a blind, mindless, materialistic mechanism for
the origin and development of life. Johnson's approach is sometimes described as a middle ground or
compromise position, but that's a misunderstanding. In fact, what he has proposed is not one more
competing position at all; he has offered a logical analysis of the foundational ideas that unite all Christians,
regardless of the details of their positions. Having united on these defining principles, Christians may well
discover a new spirit of unity and charity for taking up the old contentious issues once again. They can now
treat the questions that once divided them as the subjects of friendly in-house debates. They can engage in
amicable discussions over the interpretation of Genesis, the age of the universe, the range and limits of
microevolution and common descent, and so on. Such lively debate is what science is all about. Indeed, it's
not too much to say that the Intelligent Design Movement has largely achieved this unity. It has become a
"big tent" drawing together Christians across a wide range of disciplines and positions, from strict young-
earth creationists to theistic evolutionists (at least those among the latter who acknowledge a role for divine
direction). "(Pearcey N.R.*, "Foreword," in "The Right Questions: Truth, Meaning & Public Debate,"
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2002, pp.10-11)
5/10/2004
"Lamarck, Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet (1744-1829) French naturalist best known for his theory of
the inheritance of acquired characters (see LAMARCKISM). Whilst this theory is now generally
discredited, Lamarck deserves recognition for popularizing the word 'biology' and being effectively the
founder of modern invertebrate zoology. He was one of the first true scientists to give real consideration to
the evolutionary development of life. Lamarckism, n. the theory of inheritance Of ACQUIRED
CHARACTERS, which suggests that the structures developed during the lifetime of all organism, through
use, are passed on as inherited characters to the next generation. Evolutionary change might thus be
achieved through the transmission of these acquired characters. This theory, proposed by Jean Baptiste de
LAMARCK, is now generally discounted in favour of DARWINISM, where favoured characters of use to a
particular organism are maintained by selection, whereas unfavourable characters are selected against.
Thus, Lamarck might have claimed that blacksmith's sons were brawny because of their father's profession,
whereas Darwin would say that the reason the father was a blacksmith was because he was brawny and
brawny men tend to have brawny offspring. LYSENKO attempted unsuccessfully to apply Lamarckian
theory to the development of crop plants in the USSR in the 1930s." (Hale W.G. & Margham J.P., "Collins
Reference Dictionary of Biology," Collins: London, 1988, Tenth printing, p.312)
5/10/2004
"Patrick Matthew was not the only individual to be treated by Darwin to this double standard of deference
in public statements and denigration in his private letters. Lamarck, as one might perhaps expect, also
received this treatment. In the Origin, Lamarck is referred to as a justly-celebrated naturalist' but in
his private letters, as for instance in the letter to Hooker (LLD Vol 2, 23, 1844), we can read about 'Lamarck
nonsense' and several misinterpretations. Through the medium of the widely-read Collected Letters,
succeeding generations were to meet the 'obscure writer on forest trees' and 'Lamarck nonsense' more
frequently than Darwin's public statements. In the Origin, wherever possible, Darwin would omit
names such as Lamarck. In the course of reading the proofs of the Origin, Lyell was astonished to
read, '... the most eminent naturalists have rejected the view of mutability.' He wrote to Darwin, 'You do not
mean to ignore G. St Hilaire and Lamarck?' But this was certainly Darwin's intention since the above
sentence was altered to '... eminent living naturalists'! Even this was wrong because the distinguished
Robert Grant and associated radicals had canvassed Lamarckian ideas since 1828." (Dempster W.J., "Natural
Selection and Patrick Matthew: Evolutionary Concepts in the Nineteenth Century," Pentland Press:
Edinburgh, 1996, pp.34-35)
8/10/2004
"The characteristic tool kit of the Neanderthals, the Mousterian culture, used flakes, scrapers and carefully
shaped hand axes produced by the Levallois, technique (a prepared core off which predictable flakes could
be struck). It appeared around 100,000 years ago, and remained basically uniform across Europe for 65,000
years. In this cultural stasis Neanderthal populations clearly resembled H. erectus rather than the
Cro-Magnon people (anatomically modern) which followed them. Cro-Magnon culture changed
continuously from one technique to another (Mellars, 1989). In less than half the tenure of the Neanderthals,
they were walking on the moon!" (Wilcox D.L.*, "The Creation: Spoken in Eternity, Unfolded in Time,"
Unpublished manuscript, Eastern College: St. Davids PA, 1990, Chapter 7, p.12)
11/10/2004
"An array of new instruments is allowing researchers their closest-ever look at biomolecules' inner
workings.This new view focuses all the way down to the atomic level. And the sights that meet
biophysicists eyes are awe-inspiring, to say the least. A group of Japanese scientists exploring the crystal
structure of the F1-ATPase enzyme discovered nature's own rotary engine - no bigger than ten billionths by
ten billionths by eight billionths of a meter. [Noji H., Yasuda R., Yoshida M., and Kinosita K., "Direct
Observation of the Rotation of F1- ATPase," Nature, 386, 1997, pp. 299-302] The tiny motor includes the
equivalent of an engine block, a drive shaft, and three pistons. It runs at speeds between 0.5 and 4.0
revolutions per second. This motor not only ranks as the smallest ever seen, it also represents the smallest
motor that the laws of physics and chemistry will allow. In Germany, a research team used the new
instruments to examine an enormous molecule, the yeast 26S proteasome. [Groll M., et al, "Structure of 20S
Proteasome from Yeast at 2.4 A° Resolution," Nature, 386 (1997), pp. 463-471] Though not the largest
molecule in existence, the yeast 26S proteasome contains over two million protons and neutrons and is the
largest non-symmetrical molecule mapped to date. This molecule can only be described as a `wonder.' It
serves as an intracellular waste- disposal and recycling system. Tiny molecules within the proteasome
attach markers (called ubiquitin) to waste material (apparently the cell's command center informs the marker
molecules which proteins are ready for disposal). Since these ready-for-disposal proteins resemble tangled
balls of yarn, the first job of the 26S proteasome, after identifying a tagged protein, is to unfold, untwist, and
unravel it. This function is performed by an apparatus at each end of the proteasome. Once the targeted
protein is straightened out, the proteasome drags it into its core and cuts the protein into segments. These
segments are precisely measured by a `ruler' inside the proteasome. The cut-up pieces are then ejected from
the proteasome, and a `sanitation' fleet (other proteins) drives by to pick them up and sort them, separating
the stuff that can be reused from the stuff that cannot. The complexity of such systems - and these are just
two of many - within both the tiny enzyme and the huge yeast reflect a mind-boggling quantity, not to
mention quality, of information. Where did that information come from? Who structured these molecules
and taught them to perform their functions? Did blind chance and random process? Are they simply self-
programmed? Does anything in reality self-program without intelligent input? I see these discoveries as a
formidable challenge to the assumption that life arose on its own over a few million years.Perhaps at least
some scientists will be prompted by the new data to reconsider their conclusion, to accept the possibility-
more accurately, the probability-that living molecules and all living creatures evidence the matchless
brilliance and power of a Supreme Creator." (Ross H.N.*, "Small-Scale Evidence of Grand-Scale Design,"
Facts & Faith, Second Quarter, 1997)
14/10/2004
"Patrick Matthew saw no reason to change these views during the rest of his life. His theory was a formal
expression of rational experience. Darwin, on the other hand, chopped and changed his ideas between 1859
and 1872 so much it is now rather difficult to decide what is Darwinism and what is Lamarckism. ... Darwin
had claimed the theory of Natural Selection as his own but this gradually became transformed into a theory
of evolution which seemed little more than Lamarckian evolution. It became more and more difficult to detect
any subtle difference because Darwin persisted in ridiculing Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck and disclaiming
any influence of these writers on his own work. " (Dempster W.J., "Natural Selection and Patrick Matthew:
Evolutionary Concepts in the Nineteenth Century," Pentland Press: Edinburgh, 1996, pp.94-95)
15/10/2004
"Events began in 1995, when the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued national standards calling for
`dramatic changes' in the way public schools teach science. The Kansas Commissioner of Education and the
Board of Education appointed a committee to bring state guidelines into conformity with the standards, as
many other states had already done. The new guidelines greatly increased classroom coverage of evolution,
even elevating it from a theory to a `Unifying Concept' of science (along with such things as `measurement'
and `evidence'). That was too much for some members of the state board of education. They were willing to
increase the teaching of microevolution--testable, observable variations caused by adaptation, natural
selection, and genetic drift. But macroevolution--the `particles-to-people' variety--they regarded as
speculative. The board voted to remove macroevolution from state tests, giving local school districts the
freedom to set their own standards for teaching the subject. In short, the board did not forbid the teaching
of anything. On the contrary, it actually increased coverage of topics related to evolution, though it did not
go as far as the scientific establishment wished." (Pearcey N.*, "We're Not in Kansas Anymore,"
Christianity Today, May 22, 2000, Vol. 44, No. 6, p.42)
15/10/2004
"Wizard of Oz jokes are in vogue as the news media scramble to ridicule Kansas for downplaying,
eliminating, or even banning evolution in its public schools. But the people who are writing such stuff
apparently haven't read the Kansas Science Education Standards. The truth is that the August 11 School
Board decision actually increased public school emphasis on evolution. The old science standards, in effect
since 1995, devoted about 70 words to biological evolution. Standards proposed to the Board earlier this
year by a 27- member Science Education Standards Writing Committee would have increased this to about
640 words. The standards actually adopted by the Board on August 11 include about 390 words on the
subject. So the Kansas State School Board, asked to approve a ninefold increase in the standards for
evolution, approved a fivefold increase instead." (Wells J.*, "Ridiculing Kansas school board easy, but it's
not good journalism," The Daily Republic, Mitchell SD, October 14, 1999)
15/10/2004
"Among chimpanzees we see more elaborate examples of cultural behavior in the form of tool use. ...
Chimpanzees insert twigs and grass blades into termite mounds in a practice called "termite fishing". When
termites seize the twig, the chimpanzee withdraws it and eats the attached insects. Chimpanzees modify
some of their stems and twigs by stripping the leaves-in effect, manufacturing a tool from the natural
material. To some extent, chimpanzees even alter objects to a "regular and set pattern" and have been
observed preparing objects for later use at another location (Goodall, 1986, p. 535). For example, a
chimpanzee will very carefully select a piece of vine, bark, twig, or palm frond and modify it by removing
leaves or other extraneous material, then break off portions until it is the proper length. Chimpanzees have
also been seen making these tools even before the termite mound is in sight. All this preparation has several
implications. First, the chimpanzees are engaged in an activity that prepares them for a future (not
immediate) task at a somewhat distant location, and this action implies planning and forethought. Second,
attention to the shape and size of the raw material indicates that chimpanzee toolmakers have a
preconceived idea of what the finished product needs to be in order to be useful. To produce a tool, even a
simple tool, based on a concept is an extremely complex behavior. ... Chimpanzees in numerous West
African study groups use hammerstones with platform stones to crack nuts and hard- shelled fruits (Boesch
et al., 1994). However, it is important to note that neither the hammerstone nor the platform stone was
deliberately manufactured.* ... Quite clearly, the use of sticks in termite fishing and hammerstones to crack
nuts is hardly comparable to modern human technology. However, modern human technology had its
beginnings in these very types of behaviors we observe in other primates." (Jurmain R., Kilgore L,
Trevathan W.R. & Nelson H., "Essentials of Physical Anthropology," Fifth Edition, Wadsworth/Thomson:
Belmont CA, 2004, pp.143-146)
15/10/2004
"One of the most important fossil gaps is that between the questionable, one-celled microorganisms found
in Precambrian strata and the abundant complex marine invertebrate life of the Cambrian, as well as the
strange `Ediacaran' fossils of the Precambrian. `The introduction of a variety of organisms in the early
Cambrian, including such complex forms of the arthropods as the trilobites, is surprising.... The introduction
of abundant organisms in the record would not be so surprising if they were simple. Why should such
complex organic forms be in rocks about six hundred million years old and be absent or unrecognized in the
records of the preceding two billion years? ... If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite
fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling." [Kay M. & Colbert E.H., "Stratigraphy and Life
History," John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1965, p.102.] `One of the major unsolved problems of geology and
evolution is the occurrence of diversified multicellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks and
their absence in rocks of greater age. These early Cambrian fossils included porifera, coelenterates,
brachiopods, mollusca, echinoids, and arthropods. Their high degree of organization clearly indicates that a
long period of evolution preceded their appearance in the record. However, when we turn to examine the
pre-Cambrian rocks for the forerunners of these Early Cambrian fossils, they are nowhere to be found.'
[Axelrod D.L, "Early Cambrian Marine Fauna," Science, Vol. 128, 1958, p.7] `Granted an evolutionary origin
of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a
single member of any of the phyla in the Precambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as
it was to Darwin.' [George T.N., "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, Vol. 48, January
1960, p.5]. There is obviously a tremendous gap between one-celled microorganisms and the high
complexity and variety of the many invertebrate phyla of the Cambrian. If the former evolved into the latter,
it seems impossible that no transitional forms between any of them would ever be preserved or found. "
(Morris H.M.*, ed., "Scientific Creationism (General Edition)," [1974], Master Books: El Cajon CA, Second
Edition, 1985, pp.80-81)
15/10/2004
"Metazoans, that is, highly complex multi-cellular creatures with specialized organs, abruptly appear fully
formed in the fossil record. Them are no intermediates available from the fossil record that link single-celled
organisms to the complex invertebrates that supposedly arose from them. The first abundant fossil record of
complex invertebrates appears in rocks of the so-called Cambrian Period. It is assumed by evolutionists that
the sediments which formed the rocks of the Cambrian began to be deposited about 530 million years ago
and that the time involved in their deposition stretched over about five to ten million years. In Cambrian
rocks are found fossils of clams, snails, trilobites, sponges, brachiopods, worms, jellyfish sea urchins, sea
cucumbers, swimming crustaceans, sea lilies, and other complex invertebrates. The appearance of this great
variety of complex creatures is so startlingly sudden that it is commonly referred to as the `Cambrian
explosion' in geological literature. Sedimentary rocks that are believed to have formed prior to the Cambrian
Period are assigned to a rather nebulous period called the Precambrian. Rocks of the Precambrian generally
underlie (although not always) Cambrian rocks and are believed to have been laid down during several
hundreds of millions of years preceding the Cambrian. There are now many reports in the scientific literature
of the discovery in Precambrian rocks of fossils of microscopic, single-celled, soft-bodied creatures, such as
bacteria and algae. On the basis of these claim , evolutionists are asserting that life arose on earth more than
three billion years ago, perhaps as much as 3.5 billion years ago. ... In any case, if single-celled creatures
gave rise to the vast army of complex invertebrates which abruptly burst upon the scene, and nearly three
billion years intervened between the origin of life and this `Cambrian explosion' of complicated invertebrates,
we must find the record of that evolution somewhere in the rocks of the Precambrian. Ever since Darwin the
rocks have been intensely searched for this record, but to evolutionists the results have been agonizingly
disappointing. Nowhere on this earth-neither on my continent nor on the bottom of my ocean-have we been
able to find the intermediates between single-celled organisms and the complex invertebrates. Wherever or
whenever we find them, right from the start jellyfish are jellyfish, trilobites are trilobites, and sea urchins are
sea urchins. Concerning this, Axelrod has `One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is
the occurrence of diversified, multi-cellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all the
continents and their absence in rocks of greater age' ... However, when we turn to examine the Precambrian
rocks for the forerunners of these early Cambrian fossils, they are nowhere to be found. Many thick (over
5,000 feet) sections of sedimentary rock are now known to lie in unbroken succession below strata
containing the earliest Cambrian fossils. These sediments apparently were suitable for the preservation of
fossils because they are often identical with overlying rocks which are fossiliferous, yet no fossils are found
in them.' [Axelrod D.L, "Early Cambrian Marine Fauna," Science, Vol. 128, 1958, p.7]." (Gish D.T.*,
"Evolution: The Fossils Still Say NO!," [1985], Institute for Creation Research: El Cajon CA, 1995, pp.54-55)
15/10/2004
"The single greatest problem which the fossil record poses for Darwinism is the 'Cambrian explosion' of
around 600 million years ago. Nearly all the animal phyla appear in the rocks of this period without a trace of
the evolutionary ancestors that Darwinists require. As Richard Dawkins puts it, `It is as though they were
just planted there, without any evolutionary history.' [Dawkins R., `The Blind Watchmaker,' [1986], Penguin:
London, 1991, reprint, p.229] In Darwin's time there was no evidence for the existence of pre-Cambrian life,
and he conceded in The Origin of Species that `The case at present must remain inexplicable, and
may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.' [Darwin C.R., `The Origin of
Species,' 1872, 6th Edition, p.316] If his theory was true, Darwin wrote, the pre-Cambrian world must have
`swarmed with living creatures.' [Darwin C.R., `The Origin of Species,' 1872, 6th Edition, p.315] In recent
years evidence of bacteria and algae has been found some of the earth's oldest rocks, and it is generally
accepted today that these single-celled forms of life may have first appeared as long ago as four billion
years. Bacteria and algae are `prokaryotes' which means each creature consists of a single cell without a
nucleus and related organelles. More complex `eukaryote' cells (with nucleus) appeared later, and then
dozens of independent groups multicellular animals appeared without any visible process of evolutionary
development. Darwinist theory requires that there have been very lengthy sets of intermediate forms
between unicellular organisms and animals like insects, worms, and clams. The evidence that these existed is
missing, however, and with no good excuse." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press:
Downers Grove IL, 1993, Second edition, pp.54-55)
15/10/2004
"On the sudden Appearance of Groups of allied Species in the lowest known fossiliferous Strata There is
another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging
to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous
rocks. Most of the arguments which have convinced me that all the existing species of the same group are
descended from a single progenitor, apply with equal force to the earliest known species. For instance, it
cannot be doubted that all the Cambrian and Silurian trilobites are descended from some one crustaceans
which must have lived long before the Cambrian age, and which probably differed greatly from any known
animal. Some of the most ancient animals, as the Nautilus, Lingula, etc., do not differ much from living
species; and it cannot on our theory be supposed, that these old species were the progenitors of all the
species belonging to the same groups which have subsequently appeared, for they are not in any degree
intermediate in character. Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest
Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole
interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed
with living creatures. ... To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these
assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer." (Darwin C.R.,
"The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons:
London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, pp.314-315)
17/10/2004
"This is not to say that the whole mystery has been plumbed to its core or even that it ever will be. The
ultimate mystery is beyond the reach of scientific investigation, and probably of the human mind. There is
neither need nor excuse for postulation of nonmaterial intervention in the origin of life, the rise of man, or
any other part of the long history of the material cosmos. Yet the origin of that cosmos and the causal
principles of its history remain unexplained and inaccessible to science. Here is hidden the First Cause
sought by theology and philosophy. The First Cause is not known and I suspect that it never will be known
to living man. We may, if we are so inclined, worship it in our own ways, but we certainly do not
comprehend it." (Simpson G.G., "The Meaning of Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of its
Significance for Man," [1949], Yale University Press: New Haven CT, 1960, reprint, p.278)
17/10/2004
"More importantly, paleontologists have documented a fairly rich record of benthic tracks and trails (but no
body fossils) that could not have been made by the sessile or planktonic Ediacaran organisms and have, by
consensus of all experts, been regarded as bilaterian in origin. But-and here's the rub these trackways are
very small, measuring 5 mm in diameter at a maximum, with most only 1 mm. or so in width (see Valentine and
Collins, 2000). More over, these tracks and trails do not extend deeply into Precambrian time. Hughes (2000,
p. 64) states: "Traces made by bilaterians extend back to about 550 million years at least, but earlier
sediments are famous for their undisturbed sedimentary lamination. The rise of animals able to mine organic
resources in sediments in complex ways officially defines the base of the Cambrian. Thus, positive evidence
indicates only a late Precambrian origin for bilaterians of any kind. The same data imply that all Precambrian
bilaterians ranged in size from the microscopic to the barely visible, and that the Cambrian boundary marks a
real and geologically sudden appearance of both large complex bilaterian body fossils, and a major change
in the size and complexity of their tracks and trails (Knoll and Carroll, 1999)." (Gould S.J., "The Structure of
Evolutionary Theory," Belknap: Cambridge MA, 2002, Fifth printing, p.1158)
18/10/2004
"Peking H. erectus, like that from Java, possesses typical H. erectus features, including the supraorbital.
torus in front and the nuchal torus behind; also, the skull is keeled by a sagittal ridge, the face protrudes, the
incisors are shoveled, and, like the Javanese forms, the skull shows the greatest breadth near the bottom.
CULTURAL REMAINS More than 100,000 artifacts have been recovered from this vast site that was
occupied intermittently for almost 250,000 years. According to the Chinese (Wu and Lin, 1983, p.86),
Zhoukoudian "is one of the sites with the longest history of habitation by man or his ancestors." The
occupation of the site has been divided into three cultural stages. Earliest Stage (460,000-420,000 y.a.)* The
tools are large, close to a pound in weight, and made of soft stone such as sandstone. Middle Stage
(370,000-350,000 y.a.) Tools become smaller and lighter (under a pound), and these smaller tools comprise
approximately two-thirds of the sample. Final Stage (300,000-230,000 y.a.) Tools are still small, and the tool
materials are of better quality. The coarse quartz of the earlier periods is replaced by a finer quartz,
sandstone tools have almost disappeared. and flint tools increase in frequency by as much as 30 percent.
As you can see, the early tools are crude and shapeless but become more refined over time. ... Did H. erectus
at Zhoukoudian use language? If by language we mean articulate speech, it is unlikely." * These dates
should be considered tentative until more precise chronometric techniques are available." (Jurmain R.,
Kilgore L., Trevathan W.R. & Nelson H., "Essentials of Physical Anthropology," Wadsworth/Thomson:
Belmont CA, Fifth edition, 2004, pp.228-229)
18/10/2004
"From his notebooks and his correspondence, and less distinctly in his publications, it appears that
Darwin's primary goal was to oppose Creationism. According to this creed, current at the time, the living
world is the work of God who frequently, perhaps incessantly supervises and interferes with this creation of
his. The antithesis of Creationism is Evolutionism, that is, a theory which asserts that life had arisen on this
planet as the result of a series of natural processes, without the involvement of any metaphysical agents.
Thus, Creationism, is opposed by a theory asserting that evolution has taken place, or in my terminology,
the theory on the reality of evolution or Lamarck's first theory on evolution. Darwin did not have to concern
himself with the conception and statement of this theory, since it had been advanced by Lamarck almost 40
years before he began to consider the problem, and half-a-century before he published On the Origin of
Species." (Lovtrup S., "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth," Croom Helm: London, 1987, pP.402-403)
18/10/2004
"Charles Darwin's hostile preoccupation with the belief that God had separately and individually created
each of the animal and plant species in the world is one of the most intriguing but neglected features of the
Origin of Species. Historians have disagreed about what to make of it. ... Some have accused Darwin
of setting up a straw man in order to improve the appearance of his own case. Lastly, there are those who
believe, correctly I think, that Darwin's rejection of special creation was part of the transformation of biology
into a positive science, one committed to thoroughly naturalistic explanations based on material causes and
the uniformity of the laws of nature, a change to which the Origin was a signally important
contribution. ... Consequently, it was not a harmless straw man, but a traditional bias found among scientists
and laymen alike and one that stood in the path of any novel way of viewing the problem of species. Darwin,
then, was not engaged in anachronistic shadowboxing, but had selected his target well and knew exactly
what he was doing. His attack on special creation was a response to the crisis and an attempt to resolve it
by helping to promote the restructuring of biology along positivist lines. The critique of special creation in
the Origin was systematically organized to that end. ... There were then, in 1859, a minority of
naturalists, some of them influential, who believed in miraculous creation; others, of shifting number, who
believed in direct divine intervention in some mysterious but lawful manner to create each new species; a
third group, a small minority, who had accepted the descent theory; a fourth, larger group who were moving
away from a belief in direct divine intervention in favor of a natural cause, but who were either skeptical of
its being found or who were engaged in a quest for laws rather than true causes; and, lastly, a group that
busied itself with practical work and renounced theory altogether. All of these save the third combined
willy-nilly to create a genuine obstacle in the path of the project Charles Darwin had undertaken." (Gillespie
N.C., "Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, 1979, pp.19-
20,39)
19/10/2004
"`In other words,' I said, `if you want to create life, on top of the challenge of somehow generating the
cellular components out of non-living chemicals, you would have an even bigger problem in trying to it the
ingredients together in the right way.' `Exactly! In my illustration, the cell is dead, and you can't put
HumptyDumpty back together again. So even if you could accomplish the thousands of steps between the
amino acids in the Miller tar-which probably didn't exist in the real world anyway-and the components you
need for a living cell-all the enzymes, the DNA, and so forth-you're still immeasurably far from life.' `But,' I
protested, `the first cell was probably a lot more primitive than even the simplest single-cell organism today.'
`Granted,' he said. `But my point remains the same-the problem of assembling the right parts in the right way
at the right time and at the right place, while keeping out the wrong material, is simply insurmountable.'"
(Wells J.* & Strobel L.P.*, "Doubts about Darwinism," in Strobel L.P., "The Case for a Creator: A Journalist
Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Toward God." Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 2004, p.39)
19/10/2004
"Glancing up at the stars and full moon, I felt anew that ancient sense of wonder at the improbability of life.
This was not exactly news to me. As a science journalist, I knew that scientists don't have a clue how our
universe came into being, or why it took this particular form out of an infinitude of possibilities, including
nonexistence. Nor does anyone know how inanimate matter on our little planet coalesced into living
creatures, let alone creatures that could invent reality TV. Science, you might say, has discovered that our
existence is infinitely improbable, and hence a miracle." (Horgan J., "A Holiday Made for Believing," The
New York Times, December 25, 2002, p.A23)
21/10/2004
"Allan Rex Sandage, the greatest observational cosmologist in the world- who has deciphered the secrets of
the stars, plumbed the mysteries of quasars, revealed the age of globular clusters, pinpointed the distances
of remote galaxies, and quantified the universe's expansion through his work at the Mount Wilson and
Palomar observatories - prepared to step onto the platform at a conference in Dallas. Few scientists are as
widely respected as this one-time protege to legendary astronomer Edwin Hubble. Sandage has been
showered with prestigious honors from the American Astronomical Society, the Swiss Physical Society, the
Royal Astronomical Society, and the Swedish Academy of Sciences, receiving astronomy's equivalent of
the Nobel Prize. The New York Times dubbed him the `Grand Old Man of Cosmology.' As he approached the
stage at this 1985 conference on science and religion, there seemed to be little doubt where he would sit.
The discussion would be about the origin of the universe, and the panel would be divided among those
scientists who believed in God and those who didn't, with each viewpoint having its own side of the stage.
Many of the attendees probably knew that the ethnically Jewish Sandage had been a virtual atheist even as
a child. Many others undoubtedly believed that a scientist of his stature must surely be skeptical about
God. As Newsweek put it, `The more deeply scientists see into the secrets of the universe, you'd expect, the
more God would fade away from their hearts and minds.' [Begley S., "Science Finds God," Newsweek, July 20,
1998. http://www.ssq.net/Media/newsweek.html] So Sandage's seat among the doubters was a given. Then
the unexpected happened. Sandage set the room abuzz by turning and taking a chair among the theists.
Even more dazzling, in the context of a talk about the Big Bang and its philosophical implications, he
disclosed publicly that he had decided to become a Christian at age fifty. The Big Bang, he told the rapt
audience, was a supernatural event that cannot be explained within the realm of physics as we know it.
Science had taken us to the First Event, but it can't take us further to the First Cause. The sudden emergence
of matter, space, time, and energy pointed to the need for some kind of transcendence. `It was my science
that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science,'
he would later tell a reporter. `It was only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of
existence .' [Ibid.]" (Strobel L.P.*, "The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that
Points Toward God." Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 2004, pp.69-70)
22/10/2004
"The evolution of photoreceptors like those involved in the human visual system is only one step in the
development of a true visual sense. Less advanced animals, whose photoreceptors are clustered together in
an eyespot, can perceive light but cannot `see.' The eyespot, however, can be used to perceive the direction
from which light is arriving. True image- forming eyes probably evolved from such comparatively simple
structures. Eyes may have evolved independently numerous times among different groups of animals. The
members of four phyla-annelids, mollusks, arthropods, and vertebrates-have each evolved well-developed
image-forming eyes. Interestingly, all of them use the same visual pigment, suggesting that not many
alternative pigments are able to play this role." (Raven P.H. & Johnson G.B., "Biology," [1986], Wm. C.
Brown: Dubuque IA, Third Edition, 1995, p.955)
22/10/2004
"Interestingly, eyes have evolved independently in three [four] different lines of animals-[annelids,]
mollusks, insects, and vertebrates. These animals have no common evolutionary ancestor equipped with
eyes, yet the eyes of each of them have the same compound, retinal, involved in the process of light
reception. That retinal is present in each of these types of eyes is the result of some unique fitness of this
kind of molecule for the process of light reception." (Solomon E.P., Berg L.R., Martin D.W. & Villee C.A.,
"Biology," [1985], Harcourt Brace: Orlando FL, Third Edition, 1993, p.59)
23/10/2004
"Regardless of one's point of view, it's actually quite easy to see that Darwinism is not in the same league as
the hard sciences. For instance, Darwinists will often compare their theory favorably to Einsteinian physics,
claiming that Darwinism is just as well established as general relativity. Yet how many physicists, while
arguing for the truth of Einsteinian physics, will claim that general relativity is as well established as
Darwin's theory? Zero." (Dembski W.A.*, "Introduction: The Myths of Darwinism," in Dembski W.A., ed.,
"Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing," ISI Books: Wilmington DE, 2004,
p.xxi)
23/10/2004
"The theory of evolution in biology was already an old, even a discredited one. Darwin, in later editions of
The Origin, listed over thirty predecessors and was still accused of lack of generosity. Greek thinkers had
held the view that life had developed gradually out of a primeval slime. Diderot, Buffon and Maupertuis in
the eighteenth century had held evolutionary views, as had Darwin's own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin,
whose evolutionary ideas were expressed partly in verse: `First, forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass. These, as successive generations bloom New powers acquire
and larger limbs assume. ["The Temple of Nature" (1802)] ... All the same, Darwin's predecessors had made
some telling points. There were the improvements made in some domesticated animal and plant species by
artificial selection - of which Darwin himself was to see the full significance. There were embryonic changes -
the development of tadpole into frog and larva into butterfly - and the way in which the embryonic forms of
widely diverse species resembled each other in their earlier stages. There were vestigial organs - noted by
Erasmus Darwin - which seemed once to have served a purpose but now served none, suggesting that the
modern species might be radically different from the ancestral one to which such an organ, or in the case of
rudimentary organs, a more developed form of it, had been useful. Erasmus had also mentioned the struggle
for existence and the competition for females which his grandson was to christen 'sexual selection' as among
the factors promoting evolution. And of course there was the fossil record, indisputable evidence of the
extinction of species." (Burrow J.W., "Editor's Introduction," in Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by
Means of Natural Selection," [1859], First Edition, Penguin: London, 1985, reprint, pp.27-28)
23/10/2004
"Nelson and Reynolds state that the `curse of Genesis 3:14-19 profoundly affected every aspect of the
natural economy.' According to their understanding, there was no animal death in the world before the sin of
Adam. This point of view is based on a certain interpretation of texts such as Romans 5:12, `sin entered the
world through one man [Adam], and death through sin.' It is not necessary to understand the text in this
way, however. The rest of this verse makes it clear that the apostle Paul is concerned with human
death as a punishment for sin, not biological death in general: `In this way death came to all men,
because all sinned [in Adam]' (Rom. 5:12b). A proper understanding of this verse does not require us
to deny the massive evidence of animal death attested by the fossil remains in the lower sedimentary strata
long before the appearance of man." (Davis J.J.*, "Response to Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds," in
Moreland J.P. & Reynolds J.M., eds., "Three Views on Creation and Evolution," Zondervan: Grand Rapids
MI, 1999, pp.83-84. Emphasis original)
24/10/2004
"Furthermore, there is scientific evidence that many creatures, from before the time of men, ate other animals.
The evidence says there was animal death before Adam. Although this disagrees with a popular
scriptural theory, it is not in disagreement with Scripture itself. Scripture gives no reason why
animals couldn't have died before Adam's sin. Adam was told that he would die as a result of his own sin.
Paul points out that men who lived between Adam and Moses also died as a result of Adam's sin; but
nowhere does the Bible say that animals die as a consequence of human sin. (Of course those
particular animals which were sacrificed as a sin offering are excepted.) In support of Argument #6, young-
earth creationists often cite Romans 5:12: ...just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-... - EMPHASIS ADDED
When young-earth creationists read that `death' entered through sin, they interpret this as `all death' even
though this verse specifically names all men as its target. Human death certainly entered
through Adam's sin but this verse doesn't specifically address animal or plant death. Even where the Bible
actually uses the word `all' we must be careful; as we saw back in Argument #1, the statement that Eve
would become the mother of `all the living' does not mean she would become the mother of animals.
We certainly should not insist on adding an `all' to God's Word. Because Paul specifically said death came
to `all men,' it is unreasonable to insist that he intended more than that." (Stoner D.W.*, "A New Look at an
Old Earth," [1985], Harvest House Publishers: Eugene OR, 1997, reprint, pp.50-51. Emphasis original)
24/10/2004
"But other proteins serve basic mechanical functions. Some push pull, some act as cords or struts, and parts
of some molecules make excellent bearings. The machinery of muscle, for instance, has gangs of proteins
that reach, grab a `rope' (also made of protein), pull it, then reach out again for a fresh grip; whenever you
move, you use these machines. Amoebas and human cells move and change shape by using fibers and rods
that act as molecular muscles and bones. A reversible, variable-speed motor drives bacteria through water
by turning a corkscrew-shaped propeller. If a hobbyist could build tiny cars around such motors, several
billions of billions would fit in a pocket, and 150lane freeways could be built through your finest capillaries.
Simple molecular devices combine to form systems resembling industrial machines. In the 1950s engineers
developed machine tools that cut metal under the control of a punched paper tape. A century and a half
earlier, Joseph-Marie Jacquard had built a loom that wove complex patterns under the control of a chain of
punched cards. Yet over three billion years before Jacquard, cells had developed the machinery of the
ribosome. Ribosomes are proof that nanomachines built of protein and RNA can be programmed to build
complex molecules." (Drexler K.E., "Engines of Creation," [1990], Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1992, p.8)
26/10/2004
"The conflict requires careful explanation, because the terms are confusing. The concept of creation in itself
does not imply opposition to evolution, if evolution means only a gradual process by which one kind of
living creature changes into something different. A Creator might well have employed such a gradual
process as a means of creation. `Evolution' contradicts `creation' only when it explicitly or tacitly defined as
fully naturalistic evolution-meaning evolution that is not directed by any purposeful intelligence. Similarly,
`creation' contradicts evolution only when it means sudden creation, rather than creation by progressive
development. ... Clearing up confusion requires a careful and consistent use of terms. In this book `creation-
science' refers to young-earth, six- day special creation. `Creationism' means belief in creation in a more
general sense. Persons who believe that the earth is billions of years old and that simple forms of life
evolved gradually to become more complex forms including humans, are `creationists' if they believe that a
supernatural Creator not only initiated the process but in some meaningful sense controls it in furtherance
of a purpose. As we shall see evolution' (in contemporary scientific usage) excludes not just creation-
science but creationism in the broad sense. By `Darwinism I mean fully naturalistic evolution, involving
chance mechanisms guided by natural selection." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity
Press: Downers Grove IL., Second Edition, 1993, pp.3-4)
26/10/2004
"Was the Creator in a jocular mood when he made Psilopa petrolei for California oil fields and
species of Drosophila to live exclusively on some body-parts of certain land crabs on only certain
islands in the Caribbean? The organic diversity becomes, however, reasonable and understandable if the
Creator has created the living world not by caprice but by evolution propelled by natural selection. It is
wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist and an
evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in
4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way" (Dobzhansky, T.G.,
"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," The American Biology Teacher, March
1973, Vol. 35, pp.125-129)
26/10/2004
"Of course theists can think of evolution as God-guided whether naturalistic Darwinists like it or not. The
trouble with having a private definition for theists, however, is that the scientific naturalists have the power
to decide what evolution means in public discourse, including science classes in the public schools. If
theistic evolutionists broadcast the message that evolution as the understand it is harmless to theistic
religion, they are misleading their constituents-unless they add a clear warning that the version of evolution
advocated by the entire body of mainstream science is something else altogether. That warning is never
clearly delivered, because the main point of theistic evolution is to preserve peace with the mainstream
scientific community. Theistic evolutionists therefore unwittingly serve the purposes of scientific
naturalists, by helping persuade the religious community to lower its guard against the incursion of
naturalism." (Johnson, P.E.*, "What is Darwinism?," in "Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on
Evolution, Law & Culture," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1998, p.31)
26/10/2004
"Nerve cells have a long tail, which carries an electronic impulse. The tail can be several feet long, and its
signal might stimulate a muscle to action to control a gland, or report a sensation to the brain. Like a cable
containing thousands of different telephone wires, nerve cells are often bundled together to form a nerve.
Early researchers considered that perhaps the electronic impulse traveled along the nerve cell tail like
electricity in a wire. But they soon realized that the signal in nerve cells is too weak to travel very far. The
nerve cell would need to boost the signal along the way for it to travel along the tail. After years of research
it was discovered that the signal is boosted by membrane proteins. First, there is a membrane protein that
simultaneously pumps potassium ions into the cell and sodium ions out of the cell. This sets up a chemical
gradient across the membrane. There is more potassium inside the cell than outside, and there is more
sodium outside than inside. Also, there are more negatively charged ions inside the cell, so there is a
voltage drop (50-100 millivolts) across the membrane. In addition to the sodium -potassium pump, there are
sodium channels and potassium channels. These membrane proteins allow sodium and potassium,
respectively, to pass through the membrane. They are normally closed, but when the electronic impulse
travels along the nerve cell tail, it causes the sodium channels to quickly open. Sodium ions outside the cell
then come streaming into the cell down the electrochemical gradient. As a result, the voltage drop is
reversed and the decaying electronic impulse, which caused the sodium channels to open, is boosted as it
continues on its way along the nerve cell tail. When the voltage goes from negative to positive inside the
cell, the sodium channels slowly close and the potassium channels open. Hence, the sodium channels are
open only momentarily, and now with the potassium channels open, the potassium ions concentrated inside
the cell come streaming out down their electrochemical gradient. As a result, the original voltage drop is
reestablished. This process repeats itself along the length of the nerve cell until the impulse finally reaches
the end of the cell. ... the process depends on the intricate workings of the three membrane proteins. The
sodium -potassium pump helps set up the electrochemical gradient, the electronic impulse is strong enough
to activate the sodium channel, and then the sodium and potassium channels open and close with precise
timing. How, for example, are the channels designed to be ion-selective? Sodium is about 40 percent smaller
than potassium, so the sodium channel can exclude potassium if it is just big enough for sodium. Random
mutations must have struck on an amino acid sequence that would fold up just right to provide the right
channel size. The potassium channel, on the other hand, is large enough for both potassium and sodium, yet
it is highly efficient. It somehow excludes sodium almost perfectly (the potassium -to -sodium ratio is about
10,000), yet allows potassium to pass through almost as if there were nothing in the way. The solution
seems to be in the particular amino acids that line the channel and their precise orientation. For potassium,
moving through the channel is as easy as moving through water, but sodium rattles around-it fits in the
channel, but it makes less favorable interactions with the amino acids. ... Nerve cells are constantly firing off
in your body. They control your eyes as you read these words, and they send back the images you see on
this page to your brain. They, along with chemical signals, control a multitude of processes in our bodies.
For example, our cardiovascular system runs twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week without our giving
it a conscious thought. Our nerves control muscle motion that expands our lungs to draw in outside air and
pump blood through the heart.... Biology is full of incredibly elaborate, complex machines. If you are
beginning to suspect that Darwinism has no compelling explanation for them, you're right. Aside from vague
hypotheses that have more speculation than hard fact, evolutionists have no idea how such machines could
have come about by the unguided forces of nature." (Hunter G.C.*, "Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of
Religion Over Science," Brazos Press: Grand Rapids MI, 2003, pp.30-34)
26/10/2004
"Unfortunately, this much-too-easy solution [evolution is the science that studies how God created] to the
problem rests on a misunderstanding of what contemporary scientists mean by that word evolution.
If they meant only a gradual process of God-guided creation, then Emilio might be on the right track. A God-
guided process is not what modern science educators mean by `evolution,' however. They are
absolutely insistent that evolution is an unguided and mindless process, and that our existence is
therefore a fluke rather than a planned outcome. For example, the 1995 official Position Statement of the
American National Association of Biology Teachers (hereafter NABT) accurately states the general
understanding of major science organizations and educators: `The diversity of life on earth is the outcome
of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with
genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing
environments.' Or, in the words of the famous evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson, `Man is the result of a
purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.' ... the biologists insist that evolution must
be unsupervised and why God's purposes are not listed among the things that might have affected
evolution. [And] ... this claim is not one they can afford to abandon, because their whole approach is
founded on naturalism , which is the doctrine that `nature is all there is.' If nature is all there is, then
nature had to have the ability to do its own creating. Darwinian evolution is a theory about how nature
might have done this, without assistance from a supernatural Creator. That is why `evolution' in the
Darwinian sense is by definition mindless and godless. Pretending otherwise is an evasion of the conflict,
not a resolution of it. Yet many Christian theologians and educators take this evasive approach because
they are hoping to find an easy way to avoid coming to grips with a very difficult problem." (Johnson, P.E.*,
"Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1997, pp.15-16. Emphasis
in original)
26/10/2004
"Darwin's independence of other people's ideas led him (and his admirers) to think of himself as a man of
ideas. It led him to copy out the observations from his predecessor's writings while ignoring their theories.
His own methods nourished his own illusions. He began more and more to grudge praise to those who had
in fact paved the way for him. ... Darwin damned Lamarck and also his grandfather for being very ill-dressed
fellows at the same moment that he was engaged on stealing their clothes. ... In his attitude to his
grandfather, it has been said, there is perhaps a personal problem. It would not greatly concern us if it had
not led to the strangest episode in his personal story. As we have seen he learnt about evolution from his
grandfather's writings. As a youth he may have had some misgivings about his grandfather's irreligious
views and un-Victorian conduct. ... It led him, however, to give an opinion about his grandfather which has
now deceived three generations. And it was not made good by his mild account of the private life of his
grandfather which he used as an 'introduction' to the mild account of his scientific life by a German admirer.
For the one point that we are all interested in about the two men is what the grandson owed to the
grandfather and that is the one point that the grandson does not choose to enlarge upon. Whatever the
cause of Darwin's ambiguity on the subject of his grandfather, historically and strategically it was of great
effect. For the suppression of Erasmus Darwin by his family ran parallel to the suppression of Lawrence by
the government and the suppression of Chambers by the academic world. They ran parallel and their actions
were supplementary. The total effect so far as Charles Darwin was concerned seems to have been as
complete and thorough as the suppression of ideas by any professedly absolute government" (Darlington
C.D., "Darwin's Place in History," Basil Blackwell: Oxford, 1959, pp.62-63)
27/10/2004
"It was a news dispatch from the front lines of the scientific investigation of human consciousness.
Published by the journal Resuscitation and presented to scientists at the California Institute of Technology
in 2001, the year-long British study provided evidence that consciousness continues after a person's brain
has stopped functioning and he or she has been declared clinically dead. It was dramatic new evidence that
the brain and mind are not the same, but they're distinct entities. `The research,' said Reuters journalist Sarah
Tippit, `resurrects the debate over whether there is life after death and whether there is such a thing as the
human soul.' In their journal article, physician Sam Parnia and Peter Fenwick, a neuropsychiatrist at the
Institute of Psychiatry in London, describe their study of sixty-three heart attack victims who were declared
clinically dead but were later revived and interviewed. About ten percent reported having well-structured,
lucid thought processes, with memory formation and reasoning, during the time that their brains were not
functioning. The effects of oxygen starvation or drugs-objections commonly offered by skeptics-were ruled
out as factors. Later, the researchers found numerous cases that were similar. While large- scale studies are
still needed, the once-skeptical Parma said the scientific findings so far `would support the view that mind,
'consciousness,' or the 'soul' is a separate entity from the brain.' He speculated that the brain might serve as
a mechanism to manifest the mind, much in the same way a television set manifests pictures and sounds
from waves in the air. If an injury to the brain causes a person to lose some aspects of his mind or
personality, this doesn't necessarily prove that the brain was the source of the mind. `All it shows is that the
apparatus is damaged,' he said." (Strobel L.P.*, "The Evidence of Consciousness: The Enigma of the Mind
," in "The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Toward God,"
Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 2004, pp.250-251)
28/10/2004
"NASA today released the best `baby picture' of the Universe ever taken, which contains such stunning
detail that it may be one of the most important scientific results of recent years. The new cosmic portrait -
capturing the afterglow of the Big Bang, called the cosmic microwave background - was captured by
scientists using NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) during a sweeping 12-month
observation of the entire sky. `We've captured the infant Universe in sharp focus, and from this portrait we
can now describe the Universe with unprecedented accuracy,' said Dr. Charles L. Bennett of the Goddard
Space Flight Center, Greenbelt Md., and the WMAP Principal Investigator. `The data are solid, a real gold
mine.' One of the biggest surprises revealed in the data is that the first generation of stars to shine in the
Universe first ignited only 200 million years after the Big Bang, much earlier than many scientists had
expected. In addition, the new portrait precisely pegs the age of the Universe at 13.7 billion years old, with a
remarkably small one percent margin of error." (Steigerwald, B., "New Image of Infant Universe Reveals Era
of First Stars, Age of Cosmos, and More," NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, February 11, 2003)
28/10/2004
"What relationship does the man establish with the animals? He names them. Thus he indicates the right
that he has over them, as the pharaoh will show his suzerainty over his vassal by changing his name from
Eliakim to Jehoiakim (2 Ki. 23:34) and Nebuchadnezzar will show his over Mattaniah whose name was
changed to Zedekiah (2 Ki. 24:17). But the bestowal of names undoubtedly reveals at the same time the
insight of knowledge. The man must in fact study the character of the animals which pass before him, in
order to see whether any one of the birds or animals can bring him the company he desires. The name he
gives summarizes his conclusion, and if the text adds, 'and whatever the man called every living creature,
that was its name' (Gn. 2:19), can that be only to confirm his authority? Does it not wish to praise his
precision and his judgment? The picturesque, almost humorous, scene suggests a rudimentary kind of
science, the means of man's domination over nature. ... By naming, the man demonstrates his power of
distinguishing things immediately, and makes thought about the real world possible by the mental
combination of symbols instead of the impossible manipulation of objects. We may therefore see in Genesis
2:19f. the first exercise of human intelligence ... " (Blocher H.*, "In The Beginning: The Opening Chapters of
Genesis," InterVarsity Press: Leicester UK, 1984, p.91. Emphasis original)
28/10/2004
"Romans 5:12 says, `Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death
came to all men, because all sinned.' Some have interpreted this verse as implying no death of any kind for
any creature existed before Adam's sin and, therefore, only a brief time could have transpired between the
creation of the first life-forms and Adam's sin. The proponents of such a view fail to realize that the absence
of physical death would pose just as great a problem for three twenty-four-hour days as it would for three
billion years. Many species of life cannot survive for even three hours without food, and the mere ingestion
of food by animals requires death of at least plants or plant parts. ... Are birds and mammals condemned to
`death through sin'? Of all life on the earth, only humans have earned the title sinner.' Only humans can
experience `death through sin.' Note that the death Adam experienced is carefully qualified the text as being
visited on `all men'-not on plants and animals, just on human beings (Romans 5:12,18-19). ... 1 Corinthians
15:21 ('since death came through a man') ... As the following two verses in 1 Corinthians explain, `For as in
Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. .. My point is that only human beings, spiritual beings, are
`made alive in Christ.' First Corinthians 15 refers only to those creatures who experience sin and desire to be
delivered from sin. This excludes all species of life on the earth except humans. Therefore, just as in Romans
5, no reason is found to deny physical death for nonhuman life previous to Adam's sin." (Ross H.N.,
"Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation- Date Controversy," NavPress:
Colorado Springs CO, 1994, pp.60-62)
29/10/2004
"But what is consciousness, and what function does it serve? Why should not an unconscious machine do
everything that we can do? Is consciousness just froth sitting on top of the brain's electronics? Is it a
powerless epiphenomenon, to use the language of the philosophers? Almost certainly not. ...
Consciousness gives us a power and flexibility not possessed by those who do not have it. None of this of
course explains consciousness as such, the reason for and nature of "sentience," as we might call it. Why
should a bunch of atoms have thinking ability? Why should I, even as I write now, be able to reflect on what
I am doing, and why should you, even as you read now, be able to ponder my points, agreeing or
disagreeing, With pleasure or with pain, deciding to refute me or deciding that I am just not worth the effort?
No one, certainly not the Darwinian as such, seems to have any answer to this. ... The point is that there is
no scientific answer." (Ruse M., "Can a Darwinian Be a Christian?: The Relationship Between Science and
Religion," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 2001, pp.72-73)
31/10/2004
"By the end of the Lower Cambrian, all the major phyla had appeared, as had most classes among the marine
groups. No new phyla have appeared in the succeeding 500 million years. (Groups as distinct as flying
insects and terrestrial vertebrates evolved later, but these are not designated as new phyla since they
retained the basic body plans of phyla that had diverged in the Cambrian.) Never again did life radiate into
as many different adaptive patterns, even after the most catastrophic extinctions. The Cambrian radiation
was clearly a unique event in the history of life. it can be attributed to the combination of at least three major
phenomena that were themselves unique: a substantial increase in the amount of atmospheric oxygen, the
elaboration of Hox and other genes that enabled the development of complex organisms, and an Earth nearly
devoid of other organisms with a comparable level of complexity. Knoll (1996b, p. 6) summarized the
Ediacaran-Cambrian diversification of animals as reflecting `the interaction of genetic possibility with
environmental opportunity.'" (Carroll R.L., "Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution," Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge UK, 1997, p.348)
November [top] 1/11/2004
"The precise relationship between dinosaurs and birds is a highly controversial issue. Signs of early
feathers on a newly discovered Chinese dinosaur have been rejected by many, who prefer the interpretation
that the downy outlines of the fossils are simply fibres from the skin that can fray when reptile skin surface
is damaged. Ironically the specimen in question, a 120-million-year-old Sinosauropteryx, a theropod, has
been brought to virtual life only to deliver a blow to its excavators, who sit within the 'dinosaurs-are-birds'
camp. The fine silt from an ancient lake had preserved the soft structures of Sinosauropteryx, including a
clear silhouette of the lungs. John Ruben, a respiratory expert from Oregon State University, took one look
at the 'lungs' and knew what he was dealing with. He had seen this lung arrangement before - in crocodiles.
Immediately he constructed his virtual, living dinosaur, with the same compartmentalisation of lungs, liver
and intestines that one would find in a crocodile, and not in a bird. This virtual dinosaur was incapable of
the high rates of gas exchange needed for warm- bloodedness. So it contained cold blood, like the crocodile.
Also, its bellows-like lungs could not have conceivably evolved into the high- performance lungs of modern
birds. But still this evidence, that birds were not descendants of dinosaurs, is far from conclusive. As new
fossils are unearthed and analysed with the lives of modern animals in mind, the building of a virtual
dinosaur continues. (Parker A.R., "In the Blink of an Eye," Perseus: Cambridge MA, 2003, pp.73-74)
1/11/2004
"When John Ruben first laid eyes on a high-quality photo of the socalled `feathered' dinosaur from China
last year, he was stunned. It wasn't the featherlike structures that riveted his attention-he dismissed them as
collagen fibers (see sidebar)-but the theropod dinosaur's innards, which were outlined in the slab of stone.
`My eyes popped out,' recalls Ruben, a respiratory physiology expert at Oregon State University in
Corvallis. `I realized that here was the first evidence in the soft tissue that theropods had the same kind of
compartmentalization of lungs, liver, and intestines that you could find in a crocodile'-and not in a bird. To
prove that notion, Ruben and his graduate students sectioned crocodiles and other reptiles and found that
their lung structures resembled the images of several flattened fossil dinosaurs from China. On page 1267,
Ruben uses this lung evidence to argue not only that dinosaurs were incapable of the high rates of gas
exchange needed for warmbloodedness, but also that their bellowslike lungs could not have evolved into
the high-performance lungs of modern birds. Thus, he challenges two of the reigning hypotheses
concerning dinosaurs: that they were warmblooded and that they gave rise to birds. ... To test whether
dinosaurs were really endotherms-warm-blooded animals able to generate their own heat-Ruben and
graduate students Terry Jones and Nick Geist have sought to identify the signatures of endothermy, such
as a scroll-like structure in the nose, in the bones of living animals. They have argued that dinosaurs lack
such structures (Science, 30 August 1996, p. 1204). But what they really needed was improbable-a look at a
dinosaur's lungs to see if they were efficient enough to power a warm-blooded animal. The improbable
happened last year, photos of several specimens of Sinosauropteryx, a small, meat-eating dinosaur from the
120-million-year- old Yixian formation in northeastern China. The fine silt from an ancient lake preserved the
animals' soft structures, including a clear `silhouette of the lungs' of one dinosaur, says paleontologist Larry
Martin of the University of Kansas. Lawrence, who has seen the fossils. When Ruben looked at the photos
it was `immediately apparent' to him that the dinosaur's lungs were arranged in a way that closely matched
that of crocodiles. The theropods had two major cavities-the thoracic cavity containing the lungs, liver, and
heart; and the abdominal cavity containing intestines and other organs. These were completely separated
from each other by the diaphragm as is the case in crocodiles. Birds have no such separation." (Gibbons, A.,
"Lung Fossils Suggest Dinos Breathed in Cold Blood," Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, pp.1229-1230)
10/11/2004
"Dr. Michael Ruse, professor of Philosophy at the University of Guelph, in Ontario, Canada, testified
concerning the nature of science, particularly biology. Ruse defined science as consisting of four essentials.
First, science must explain events by means of natural law, or `unguided natural regularities.' Also, science
must be `explanatory,' `testable,' and `tentative.' Ruse said `explanatory' means that science must predict and
confirm events, so that science is self-generating, it is constantly moving into new areas. To say that
science must be `testable,' or `falsifiable,' means there must be at least potential for evidence against a
scientific belief. As an example, Ruse cited the theory of evolution. Evolution is thought to be unidirectional,
that is evolution is thought to continually lead to more and more complex forms of life. If scientists were to
find evidence that evolution sometimes proceeded in the direction of less complexity, this aspect of the
theory would be falsified. The fourth essential of science is that it be `tentative.' This means that a scientist
must always be willing to modify his understanding of the data. ... On recross examination, Williams asked,
`is evolution a fact?' Ruse replied in the affirmative. Williams asked, `How then is it tentative?'" (Geisler N.L.,
"The Creator in the Courtroom `Scopes II': The 1981 Arkansas Creation-Evolution Trial," Mott Media:
Milford MI, 1982, pp.68,72
16/11/2004
"Although the factors that govern the rate of evolution can be discussed in a general way, they cannot be
analyzed precisely enough to explain why some groups change more quickly than others. Even closely
related vertebrates show wide variation in the pace at which they evolve. Among the bony fishes, the
actinopterygians have progressed rapidly from paleoniscoid to holostean to teleostean grade, proliferating
numerous genera at each level. None of the lobe-finned forms produced such a rapid succession of forms.
The rhipidistian lobe-fins gave rise to the first amphibians late in the Devonian but then faded away without
undergoing great diversification. The coelacanths and lungfishes have been conservative in their evolution
for most of their history. Neither has produced many more than two dozen known genera or has changed
much in the 350 million years that have elapsed since the end of the Devonian period. Among the
vertebrates they are the best examples of forms whose evolution has been extremely slow or bradytelic. ... It
is possible to demonstrate without going beyond the higher fishes that the rate of evolution within a line is
not directly related to its survival. The coelacanths and lungfishes have outlived many forms that during
their existence differentiated more rapidly. It is true that lungfishes escaped vigorous competition with
marine ray-fins by retreating to fresh water early in their history, but the coelacanths endured the contest for
eons before leaving open waters for the protection of the deeper sea. The progress of these forms hardly
augured their future: had paleontologists been set down in the Carboniferous period to survey the extant
fishes, they would not have marked for longevity two retrograde types that were even then showing
evidence of skeletal degeneration and specialization." (Stahl B.J., "Vertebrate History: Problems in
Evolution," [1974], Dover: New York NY, Revised Edition, 1985, pp.132-133)
24/11/2004
"Our mode of locomotion is indeed extraordinary, involving, as it does, a unique kind of activity in which
"the body, step by step, teeters on the edge of catastrophe" (Napier, 1967, p. 56). The problem is to maintain
balance on the "stance" leg while the "swing" leg is off the ground. In fact, during normal walking, both feet
are simultaneously on the ground only about 25 percent of the time, and as speed of locomotion increases,
this figure becomes even smaller. Maintaining a stable center of balance in this complex form of locomotion
necessitates many drastic structural and functional changes in the basic primate quadrupedal pattern.
Functionally, the foot must be altered to act as a stable sup port instead of a grasping limb. When we walk,
our foot is used like a prop, landing on the heel and pushing off on the toes, particularly the big toe. In
addition, the leg must be elongated to increase the length of the stride. The lower limb must also be
remodeled to allow full extension of the knee and to allow the legs to be kept close together during walking,
thereby maintaining the center of support directly under the body. Finally, significant changes must occur in
the pelvis to permit stable weight transmission from the upper body to the legs and to maintain balance
through pelvic rotation and altered proportions and orientations of several key muscles. The major
structural changes that are required for bipedalism are all seen in the earliest hominids from East and South
Africa. ... In the pelvis, the blade (ilium-upper bone of the pelvis) is shortened top to bottom, which permits
more stable weight support in the erect position by lowering the center of gravity .... In addition, the ilium is
bent backward and downward, thus altering the position of the muscles that attach along the bone. Most
important, these muscles increase in size and act to stabilize the hip. One of these muscles (the gluteus
maximus) also becomes important as an extensor, to pull the thigh back during running, jumping, and
climbing. Other structural changes shown by even the earliest definitively hominid postcranial evidence
further confirm the morphological pattern seen in the pelvis. For example, the vertebral column, known from
beautifully preserved specimens from South and East Africa, shows the same forward curvature as in
modern hominids, bringing the center of support forward. In addition, the lower limb is elongated and is
apparently proportionately about as long as in modern humans. Fossil evidence of a knee fragment from
South Africa and pieces from East Africa also shows that full extension of this joint was possible, thus
allowing the leg to be completely straightened, as when a field goal kicker follows through. Fossil evidence
of early hominid foot structure has come from two sites in South Africa, and especially important are some
recently announced new fossils coming from the same individual as the mostly complete skeleton currently
being excavated ... (Clarke and Tobias, 1995). These foot specimens, consisting of four articulating elements
from the ankle and big toe, indicate that the heel and longitudinal arch were both well adapted for a bipedal
gait." (Jurmain R., Kilgore L., Trevathan W.R. & Nelson H., "Essentials of Physical Anthropology,"
Wadsworth/Thomson: Belmont CA, Fifth edition, 2004, pp.182-183)
25/11/2004
"... Stern and Sussman fall into the trap of describing Lucy's adaptations as transitional as being on the way
to the next stage in the story. The fact is that Lucy's mode of locomotion-a mixture of arboreality and
terrestriality-was a perfectly good adaptation which might well have persisted for millions of years longer
than it apparently did. It just didn't, as things turned out; that's all. There was nothing inevitable about the
emergence of fully committed bipedalism in the evolution of large primates. Stern and Sussman are by no
means alone in the teleological trap, by the way: they have the company of virtually every
paleoanthropologist who has put pen to paper on the subject of human origins." (Lewin R., Bones of
Contention: Controversies in the Search for Human Origins", Simon & Shuster: New York, 1987, p.40)
25/11/2004
"It was difficult to represent Lucy's rather clumsy bipedalism as the consequence of anything, since it
preceded all the other datable changes, both physiological and ecological. It was a great temptation to see it
instead as a harbinger of something-as a preparation, as a preadaptation, a halfway stage to something
wonderful: to the free-striding, weapon-toting Homo who roamed the grassy plains a couple of million years
later. Roger Lewin in 1987 described this kind of thinking as 'the teleological trap', the idea that features
could begin to evolve because they would-when perfected-be adaptive at some future time in conditions
that had not yet arisen. The first apes to practise habitual bipedal walking were envisaged, however
subconsciously, as having an end in view, a goal that would not be achieved in their lifetime. Lewin
included in the list of those who fell into this teleological trap 'virtually every paleoanthropologist who has
put pen to paper on the subject of human origins'." [Lewin R., "Bones of Contention: Controversies in the
Search for Human Origins," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1987, p.40] (Morgan E., "The Aquatic Ape
Hypothesis," [1997], Souvenir Press: London, 2001, Reprint, p.47)
25/11/2004
"Since Earth formed more than 5 billion years ago, sunlight has been an extremely potent selective force in
the evolution of living organisms. Most organisms respond to light in some way. Photoreceptors transduce
photons of light into electrical signals that can be interpreted by the nervous system. Photoreceptive
organs-typically called eyes-have evolved in many shapes and sizes and with many distinct designs.
Interestingly, although the physical structure of eyes varies greatly among species, visual transduction is
based on highly conserved protein molecules that capture photons reaching the photoreceptors. This
conservation of visual molecules suggests that once suitable biochemical means had evolved to solve the
problem of capturing light energy, the sequences were conserved, even though they became packaged into
organs with highly diverse structures. The opsins, discussed earlier in this chapter, are a component of
visual pigment molecules. Each opsin molecule includes seven transmembrane helices ... placing this protein
in the same family as many neurotransmitter and hormonal receptors. Opsin molecules are coupled to a
particular lightabsorbing organic molecule, retinal, producing visual pigments called rhodopsins. " (Randall
D.J., Burggren W.W. & French K., "Eckert Animal Physiology: Mechanisms and Adaptations," [1978], W.
H. Freeman and Company: New York NY, 2001, Fifth edition, 2002, Second printing, pp.252-253)
25/11/2004
"The evolution of eyes has proceeded in two stages. Virtually all major animal groups have evolved simple
eyespots consisting of a few receptors in an open cup of screening pigment cells. Biologists estimate that
such photon detectors have evolved independently between 40 and 65 times. Eyespots provide information
about the surrounding distribution of light and dark, but they do not provide enough information to allow
an animal to distinguish either predators or prey. For pattern recognition or for controlling locomotion,
animals need eyes with an optical system that can restrict the light acceptance angle of individual receptors
and form some kind of image. This stage of optical evolution has happened less frequently. Image-forming
eyes are found in only 6 of the 33 metazoan phyla (Cnidaria, Mollusca, Annelida, Onychophora,
Arthropoda, and Chordata). However, these phyla account for about 96% of all extant species, so it is
tempting to speculate that the possession of image-forming eyes confers significant selective benefits."
(Randall D.J., Burggren W.W. & French K., "Eckert Animal Physiology: Mechanisms and Adaptations,"
[1978], W. H. Freeman and Company: New York NY, 2001, Fifth edition, 2002, Second printing, p.253)
25/11/2004
"The biotic message is the sum of the unifying and non-naturalistic messages. The Unifying Message: `This
system of living objects was constructed by a single source (e.g., a common designer).'" The unifying
message can be sent by making all the objects very similar, such that they look like they were made by the
same source." (ReMine W.J., "The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message Theory," St. Paul Science:
Saint Paul MN, 1993, p.22)
26/11/2004
"Even in the first edition Darwin had a chapter dealing with the difficulties of his theory. It begins like this:
`Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him.
Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree
staggered; but, to the best of my judgement, the greater number are only apparent, and those
that are real are not, I think, fatal to the theory.' (My italics) Darwin's admirer's, then and now,
have praised him for the honesty and candour he thus displayed. I am not so sure that this attitude is
justified. If a theory has too many `difficulties' it should not be published, but rejected; indeed, I believe this
is the procedure adopted by most scientists." (Lovtrup S., "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth," Croom
Helm: London, 1987, p.126)
26/11/2004
"Darwin goes on: `These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads: - First, why,
if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable
transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well
defined? Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could
have been formed by the modification of some other animal with widely-different habits and structure? Can
we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, an organ of trifling importance, such as
the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly flapper, and, on the other hand, an organ as wonderful as the eye?
... The two first heads will here be discussed ... Darwin begins the discussion in this way: `As natural
selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-
stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent-form and other
less- favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection go hand
in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some unknown form, both the parent and
all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of the formation and
perfection of the new form.' (My italics) Apart from the wording, this statement is a perfectly correct account
of progressive evolution. I like in particular the emphasised sentence, for in fact elimination is all that natural
selection can accomplish." (Lovtrup S., "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth," Croom Helm: London, 1987,
pp.126-127)
26/11/2004
"In the following section Darwin discusses 'Special Difficulties of the Theory of Natural Selection' and
concludes: ... `Why, on the theory of Creation, should there be so much variety and so little real novelty?
Why should all the parts and organs of many independent beings, each supposed to have been separately
created for its proper place in nature, be so commonly linked together by graduated steps? Why should not
Nature take a sudden leap from structure to structure? On the theory of natural selection, we can clearly
understand why she should not; for natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive
variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow
steps. ... As to Darwin's three questions, I propose the following answers: Why not? Any observation can
be made compatible with a theory of Creation. Why not? Even the Creator may use a good device more than
once. Yes, why not, indeed? Darwin's arguments against this possibility are postulates, unfounded by any
evidence." (Lovtrup S., "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth," Croom Helm: London, 1987, pp.131-132)
27/11/2004
"Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible
observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus `outside of empirical science' but
not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a
few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond
their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our
training." (Birch L.C. & Ehrlich P.R., "Evolutionary History and Population Biology," Nature, Vol. 214, 22
April 1967, p.352)
27/11/2004
"Turning to science, or, more precisely, to claims that are made in the name of science, Popper and his
sympathizers make short shrift of many areas of the social sciences. Freudian psychoanalytic theory is
dismissed as incontrovertibly and irreparably unfalsifiable. But then moving on to biology, coming up
against Darwinism, they feel compelled to make the same judgment: Darwinian evolutionary theory is
unfalsifiable. Hence, the critical evaluation given at the beginning of this section: "I have come to the
conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme-a
possible framework for testable scientific theories" (Popper, 1974, p. 134, his italics). Since making this claim,
Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does
not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable." (Ruse, M.E., "Darwinism
Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies," [1982], Addison-Wesley: Reading MA, 1983, Third
Printing, p.133)
27/11/2004
"One of the major obstacles within the biological community in the way of any widespread acceptance of
the idea of directed mutation is the very deeply held belief in the so-called spontaneity of mutation.
According to the authorities Dobzhansky, Ayala, Stebbins, and Valentine, writing in a standard text on
evolution, `Mutations are accidental, undirected, random or chance events in still another sense very
important for evolution; namely if that they are unorientated with respect to adaptation.' [Dobzhansky T.G.,
et al., `Evolution,' W.H. Freeman: San Francisco CA, 1977, p.65]. The idea of the spontaneity of mutation is
taken as a proven fact by a great many biologists today. And this is the fundamental assumption upon
which the whole Darwinian model of nature is based. If it could be shown that some mutations, even a small
proportion, are occurring by direction or are adaptive in some sense, then quite literally the whole
contingent biology collapses at once. What is very remarkable about this whole issue is that, as is typical of
any `unquestioned article of faith,' evidence for the doctrine of the spontaneity of mutation is hardly ever
presented. Its truth is nearly always assumed. In nearly all the texts on genetics and evolution published
over the past four decades, whenever the author attempts to justify the doctrine of the spontaneity of
mutation, he refers back to a series of crucial experiments carried out in the late forties and early fifties on the
bacterium E. coli that were associated with the names of Salvador Luria, Max Delbruck, and Joshua
Lederberg. [Dobzhansky, et al., 1977, p.65]. These experiments were based on the very simple observation
that when bacterial cells are suddenly subjected to a particular selection pressure (for example, the addition
to a culture of cells of an antibiotic which is lethal to wild-type cells) invariably a small proportion of cells
survive because they contain a mutation that confers resistance to the antibiotic. Ingenious tests were
carried out which proved conclusively that the mutations were present in the surviving cells before the
antibiotic was added to the culture. It was concluded that the mutations were spontaneous events. But the
fact that some mutations in bacteria are spontaneous does not necessarily mean that all mutations in all
organisms throughout the entire course of 4 billion years of evolution have all been entirely spontaneous.
... During the course of the past 4 billion years of evolution, countless trillions of changes have occurred in
the DNA sequences of living organisms. There is simply no experimental means of demonstrating that they
were all spontaneous." (Denton, M.J., "Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the
Universe," Free Press: New York NY, 1998, pp.285-286. Emphasis original)
29/11/2004
"Why, in a body of such exquisite design, are there a thousand flaws and frailties that make us vulnerable to
disease? If evolution by natural selection can shape sophisticated mechanisms such as the eye, heart, and
brain, why hasn't it shaped ways to prevent nearsightedness, heart attacks, and Alzheimer's disease? If our
immune system can recognize and attack a million foreign proteins, why do we still get pneumonia? If a coil
of DNA can reliably encode plans for an adult organism with ten trillion specialized cells, each in its proper
place, why can't we grow a replacement for a damaged finger? If we can live a hundred years, why not two
hundred? We know more and more about why individuals get specific diseases but still understand little
about why diseases exist at all. We know that a highfat diet causes heart disease and sun exposure causes
skin cancer, but why do we crave fat and sunshine despite their dangers? Why can't our bodies repair
clogged arteries and sun-damaged skin? Why does sunburn hurt? Why does anything hurt? And why are
we, after millions of years, still prone to streptococcal infection? The great mystery of medicine is the
presence, in a machine of exquisite design, of what seem to be flaws, frailties, and makeshift mechanisms
that give rise to most disease. An evolutionary approach transforms this mystery into a series of answerable
questions: Why hasn't the Darwinian process of natural selection steadily eliminated the genes that make us
susceptible to disease? Why hasn't it selected for genes that would perfect our ability to resist damage and
enhance repairs so as to eliminate aging? The common answer-that natural selection just isn't powerful
enough-is usually wrong. Instead, as we will see, the body is a bundle of careful compromises." The body's
simplest structures reveal exquisite designs unmatched by any human creations. Take bones. Their tubular
form maximizes strength and flexibility while minimizing weight. Pound for pound, they are stronger than
solid steel bars. Specific bones are masterfully shaped to serve their functions--thick at the vulnerable ends,
studded with surface protrusions where they increase muscle leverage, and grooved to provide safe
pathways for delicate nerves and arteries. The thickness of individual bones increases wherever strength is
needed. Wherever they bend, more bone is deposited. Even the hollow space inside the bones is useful: it
provides a safe nursery for new blood cells. Physiology is still more impressive. Consider the artificial
kidney machine, bulky as a refrigerator yet still a poor substitute that performs only a few of the functions of
its natural counterpart. Or take the best man-made heart valves. They last only a few years and crush some
red blood cells with each closure, while natural valves gently open and close two and a half billion times
over a lifetime. Or consider our brains, with their capacity to encode the smallest details of life that, decades
later, can be recalled in a fraction of a second. No computer can come close. The body's regulatory systems
are equally admirable. Take, for instance, the scores of hormones that coordinate every aspect of life, from
appetite to childbirth. Controlled by level upon level of feedback loops, they are far more complex than any
man-made chemical factory. Or consider the intricate wiring of the sensorimotor system. An image falls onto
the retina; each cell transmits its signal via the optic nerve to a brain center that decodes shape, color, and
movement, then to other brain centers that link with memory banks to determine that the image is that of a
snake, then to fear centers and decision centers that motivate and initiate action, then to motor nerves that
contract exactly the right muscles to jerk the hand awayall this in a fraction of a second. Bones, physiology,
the nervous system-the body has thousands of consummate designs that elicit our wonder and admiration.
By contrast, however, many aspects of the body seem amazingly crude. For instance, the tube that carries
food to the stomach crosses the tube that carries air to the lungs, so that every time we swallow, the airway
must be closed off lest we choke: Or consider nearsightedness. If you are one of the unlucky 25 percent who
have the genes for it, you are almost certain to become nearsighted and thus unlikely to recognize a tiger
until you are nearly its dinner. Why haven't these genes been eliminated? Or take atherosclerosis. An
intricate network of arteries carries just the right amount of blood to every part of the body. Yet many of us
develop cholesterol deposits on the walls of our arteries, and the resulting blockage in blood flow causes
heart attacks and strokes. It is as if a Mercedes-Benz designer specified a plastic soda straw for the fuel line!
Dozens of other bodily designs seem equally inept. Each may be considered a medical mystery. Why do so
many of us have allergies? The immune system is useful, of course, but why can't it leave pollen alone? For
that matter, why does the immune system sometimes attack our own tissues to cause multiple sclerosis,
rheumatic fever, arthritis, diabetes, and lupus erythematosus? And then there is nausea in pregnancy. How
incomprehensible that nausea and vomiting should so often plague future mothers at the very time when
they are assuming the burden of nourishing their developing babies! And how are we to understand aging,
the ultimate example of a universal occurrence that seems functionally incomprehensible? Even our behavior
and emotions seem to have been shaped by a prankster. Why do we crave the very foods that are bad for us
but have less desire for pure grains and vegetables? Why do we keep eating when we know we are too fat?
And why is our willpower so weak in its attempts to restrain our desires? Why are male and female sexual
responses so uncoordinated, instead of being shaped for maximum mutual satisfaction? Why are so many of
us constantly anxious, spending our lives, as Mark Twain said, "suffering from tragedies that never occur"?
Finally, why do we find happiness so elusive, with the achievement of each long-pursued goal yielding not
contentment, but only a new desire for something still less attainable? The design of our bodies is
simultaneously extraordinarily precise and unbelievably slipshod. It is as if the best engineers in the
universe took every seventh day off and turned the work over to bumbling amateurs." (Nesse R.M. &
Williams G.C., "Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine," [1995], Vintage: New York NY,
1996, Reprint, pp.3-5)
29/11/2004
"Near-optimum form is often thought to be equally predictable from the always-perfecting process of natural
selection and the optimum design of an intelligent Creator. Stephen Jay Gould, on the other hand, has
suggested that the theories are distinguishable by imperfections. [Gould S.J., "The Panda's Thumb," Norton:
New York, 1980, pp.19-26). As he reasons, the evolutionary process, being blind to purpose, limited in
resources and constrained by history, might be expected to produce less-than-optimal designs. These
"suboptimal improvisations" of evolution would be expected in an evolutionary process, but not in the
design of an intelligent Creator. Gould's showcase example is the panda, which, because of the constraints
of being descended from five-fingered bears, lacks an opposable thumb. Yet the inefficient, blind process of
evolution provided the panda with a "second-best" solution: an extension of the radial sesamoid bone in the
wrist which can function as an immovable "thumb." This thumb is used by the panda to strip leaves off
bamboo shoots for food. Such a less- thanoptimal design is evidence, Gould claims, for evolution and not
intelligent design. There are ... reasons to doubt that suboptimal improvisations are truly suboptimal. First of
all, we are far from understanding the complexity of individual organisms, let alone the entire ecosystem in
which that organism lives. What appears to be less than optimal design to us with our limited knowledge
may actually be an optimal design when the entire system is considered. Consider the thickness of armor
plating on the side of a warship. Since the purpose of such plating is to protect the ship from the puncture
of an incoming warhead, it is advantageous to make the plating as thick as possible. Yet the plating on
actual warships is much thinner than it could be made. The reason is, of course, that an increase in plating
thickness makes the ship heavier, and thus slower. A less mobile ship is more likely to get hit more often and
less likely to get to where it is needed when it is needed. The actual thickness of the armor on a warship is a
tradeoff-not so thin as to make the ship too easily sinkable, and not so thick as to make the ship too slow.
We know too little about the complexity of organisms and the environment in which they live to conclude
that any one particular feature is actually less than optimal." (Wise K.P., "The Origin of Life's Major
Groups," in Moreland J.P., ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer,"
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1994, pp.221-222)
29/11/2004
"Yet for philosopher Alvin Plantinga, whom Time magazine called one of the world's `leading philosophers
of God,' the origin of human intelligence in natural history is the paramount puzzle. It might also be a
profound proof of God. A dualist and evolutionist, Plantinga has argued that only if there is a God can the
mind be trustworthy under Darwinian tenets. Purely naturalistic evolution (not backed up by God) would
produce an unreliable brain in terms of intellectual beliefs, because survival value is the Darwinian
explanation for everything, and brains ignorant of mathematics or philosophy could just as well have
permitted human survival. If natural selection cared less about beliefs, and only about physical survival, `it
would be unlikely that most of our beliefs are true, and unlikely that our cognitive faculties are for the most
part reliable.' Since we find them mostly true and reliable, it is more logical to think that God designed them
to be so than to believe that natural selection produced that reliability. ... The idea that the physical three-
pound brain emerged by evolution is not being contested by Plantinga ... How it did so, and from what it
derives its powers, is the mind-boggling question that divides brain theorists and philosophers alike. ...
Plantinga, the philosopher of God, is not the first to ask the embarrassing question he has brought to the
forefront. In a letter written soon before he died, Darwin himself expressed angst over how a mind produced
by natural selection could be trusted: `With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of
man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in
such a mind?' [Darwin C.R., letter to W. Graham, July 3rd, 1881, in Darwin F., ed., `The Life of Charles
Darwin,' [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64] Similarly, the British evolutionist, J. B. S. Haldane
phrased the conundrum in terms of physics: `If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions
of the atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason
for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.' [Haldane J.B.S., `When I Am Dead,' in `Possible Worlds:
And Other Essays,' [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209] Strict naturalists have
proposed a solution, and the answer proposed by neurophilosopher Patricia Churchland-who rejects
`spooky stuff'-is illustrative. Abstract knowledge of the universe was not required for Darwinian survival,
but luckily it evolved nevertheless. `The brain did not evolve to know the nature of the sun as it is known
by a physicist, nor to know itself as it is known by a neurophysiologist,' Churchland explains. `But, in the
right circumstances, it can come to know them anyhow.' She says that science, though generated by this
kind of trial and error, has become the highest form of reliable knowledge. For Plantinga this is materialism's
vicious circle, an explanation no better than a `God of the gaps' explanation. With philosophy's favorite
method of thought experiments, he has attempted to show that all manner of false beliefs and outlandish
fantasies could help in biological survival: `Natural selection doesn't care what you believe. . .. Darwinian
evolution doesn't select for belief except when belief is appropriately related to behavior.' Therefore the
human ability to discover reliable knowledge can be reconciled more logically with belief in a Creator who
gave human minds the ability to apprehend it. Evolution and God can explain the reliable human mind,
Plantinga argues, `but the conjunction of naturalism with evolution is self- defeating. Things don't look
hopeful for Darwinian naturalists." (Witham L., "By Design: Science and the Search for God," Encounter
Books: San Francisco CA, 2003, pp.211-212)
29/11/2004
"TOWARD the end of 1961 America's well-known painter of primitives, Grandma Moses, died. She had
begun her career of painting rather late in life, when she was almost 80. Nevertheless, she enjoyed many
years in this profession, for she died at the matriarchal age of 101. I mention this because in this book on the
intricacies of the human body I have laid some emphasis on the numerous ailments and disorders that can
afflict it. Perhaps I ought to emphasize the reverse for a moment. The automobile, despite its being one of
mankind's most polished machines, is ancient if it lasts ten years. The human body, far more fragile, far less
amenable to repair (a car's engine can be replaced; a human heart cannot), in capable of being shut down for
an overhaul, and subject to far greater and more continuous difficulties, can last a hundred. Nor need we
compare the human body to inanimate objects only. How many living things that greeted the day and
responded to the changing environment at the moment of Grandma Moses' birth in 1860, were still doing so
on the day of her death in 1961? The list is tiny. Some trees can live centuries, and even millennia. Some
giant tortoises can live up to 200 years or so. No other creatures aside from man, however, are known to top
the century mark. (To be sure, there are popular stories concerning the long life span of such creatures as
swam and parrots, but none of them have actually been observed to live long enough even to approach the
century mark.) When Grandma Moses died, then, the world of life of 1860 had as its representative a few
trees, a very few tortoises-and a few ancient men and women. Now consider that trees live slowly, remain
rooted, and stolidly stand against the buffeting of the environment. They buy longevity at the price of
passivity. The giant tortoise moves - but just barely. He too buys longevity at a price: that of cold-blooded
slow motion. Man is warm blooded, however, and is as fast- moving and as deft as any creature alive. He
races through life and yet manages to outlive all organisms that, like him, race, and almost all organisms that,
unlike him, crawl or are motionless. Let us restrict ourselves to the land representatives of the order to which
man belongs, Mammalia. Here we can best make comparisons. for all its members are warm-blooded and all
are built about the same body plan, differing only in rather minor variations. Here it turns out that longevity
is strongly correlated with size: the larger the mammal, the longer-lived. Thus, the smallest mammal, the
shrew, may live 1½ years and a rat may live 4 or 5 years. A rabbit may live up to 15 years, a dog up to 18, a
pig up to 20, a horse up to 40, and an elephant up to 70. To be sure, the smaller the animal the more rapidly it
lives-the faster its heartbeat and breathing rate, the quicker its motions relative to its size, the more it must
eat, the higher its metabolism per unit mass. For that reason, longevity becomes a more constant thing when
it is measured by heartbeat rather than by year. A shrew with a heartbeat of 1000 per minute can be matched
against an elephant with a heartbeat of 20 per minute and it would seem that a day in the life of a shrew sees
as many heartbeats as seven weeks in the life of the elephant. In fact, mammals in general seem to live, at
best, as long as it takes their hearts to beat about one billion times. The rule is not absolute. There are
exceptions, and the most astonishing exception is Man is considerably smaller than a horse and far smaller
than an elephant, yet he lives (or can live) to be more than 100. Nor is this the effect of modern medicine;
even in days when medicine was a collection of witch doctor's superstitions, an occasional human being
attained great age. On the other hand, animals, receiving the best of domestic care and medicine, wear out
much more quickly than man. Nor is this longevity the result of a metabolism that is unusually slow for a
mammal. Man's heartbeat of about 72 per minute is just what is to be expected of a mammal of his size. It is
faster than that of a horse and slower than that of a dog. In 70 years, which is the average life expectancy of
man in the technologically advanced areas of the world, the human heart beats 2½ billion times. As for
Grandma Moses' heart, that beat over 3½ billion times be fore she died. Considering that trees have no
hearts and that tortoises (and cold-blooded creatures generally) have only very slowly beating ones, it is
safe to say that the human heart outperforms all others. Certainly it outperforms other mammalian hearts by
a ratio of 2% or even 3½ to 1. Nor can man's closest relatives, evolutionarily speaking, match him. The
chimpanzee, somewhat smaller than a man, is a dotard in the late thirties. The gorilla, considerably larger
than a man, is a dotard in the late forties. In terms of heartbeat they fit much more closely into the mammalian
scheme than does man. The human body, therefore, in all modesty, and from a completely objective
viewpoint, is the most marvelous structure we know of. It may not have the grace of a cat or the sleek power
of a horse or the tremendous strength of an elephant. It may not have the swimming ability of the seal, or the
racing ability of the cheetah, or the flying ability of the bat, but it is put together for endurance and it out
lives and outproduces them all." (Asimov I., "The Human Body: Its Structure and Operation," Mentor: New
York NY, 1963, pp.304-306)
29/11/2004
"Many primates and most other mammals can make their own vitamin C, but we humans cannot. Our
ancestral shift to a high-fruit diet, rich in vitamin C, had the incidental consequence about forty million years
ago of allowing the degeneration of the biochemical machinery for making this vitamin. Our frugivorous
close relatives share our requirement for dietary vitamin C. All animals need particular organic substances
(vitamins) in their food, but different groups have different requirements." (Nesse R.M. & Williams G.C.,
"Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine," [1995], Vintage: New York NY, 1996, Reprint,
p.130)
29/11/2004
"The greatest expression of contingency-my nomination as the holotype of the genre-comes near the end of
Frank Capra's masterpiece, it's a Wonderful Life (1946). George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) has led a life of self-
abnegation because his basic decency made him defer personal dreams to offer support for family and town.
His precarious building and loan association has been driven to bankruptcy and charged with fraud through
the scheming of the town skinflint and robber baron, Mr. Potter (Lionel Barrymore). George, in despair,
decides to drown himself, but Clarence Odbody, his guardian angel, intervenes by throwing himself into the
water first, knowing that George's decency will demand another's rescue in preference to immediate suicide.
Clarence then tries to cheer George up by the direct route: `You just don't know all that you've done'; but
George replies: `If it hadn't been for me, everybody'd be a lot better off.... I suppose it would have been
better if I'd never been born at all.' Clarence, in a flash of inspiration, grants George his wish and shows him
an alternative version of life in his town of Bedford Falls, replayed in his complete absence. 'This
magnificent ten-minute scene is both a highlight of cinematic history and the finest illustration that I have
ever encountered for the basic principle of contingency-a replay of the tape yielding an entirely different but
equally sensible outcome; small and apparently insignificant changes, George's absence among others, lead
to cascades of accumulating difference. Everything in the replay without George makes perfect sense in
terms of personalities and economic forces, but this alternative world is bleak and cynical, even cruel, while
George, by his own apparently insignificant life, had imbued his surroundings with kindness and attendant
success for his beneficiaries. Bedford Falls, his idyllic piece of small-town America, is now filled with bars,
pool halls, and gambling joints; it has been renamed Pottersville, because the Bailey Building and Loan
failed in George's absence and his unscrupulous rival took over the property and changed the town s name.
A graveyard now occupies the community of small homes that George had financed at low interest and with
endless forgiveness of debts. George's uncle, in despair at bankruptcy, is in an insane asylum; his mother,
hard and cold, runs a poor boarding house; his wife is an aging spinster working in the town library; a
hundred men lay dead on a sunken transport, because his brother drowned without George to rescue him,
and never grew up to save the ship and win the Medal of Honor. The wily angel, clinching his case, then
pronounces the doctrine of contingency: `Strange, isn't it? Each man's life touches so many other lives, and
when he isn't around he leaves an awful hole, doesn't he? ... You see, George, you really had a wonderful
life." (Gould S.J., "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History," [1989], Penguin: London,
1991, reprint, pp.287-288)
30/11/2004
"Chinese Water Torture. As its name implies, this involves getting your way by a persistence reminiscent of
the drip, drip, drip of the fabled Chinese torture. Children are the acknowledged past masters of this
technique and every parent will shamefacedly admit to having given in as a result of persistent and
apparently never-ending nagging. No amount of patient reasoning will prevail against the child who whines
incessantly, 'But I want an ice cream!' However, adults do it too. Most grown-up people find it a little
undignified to go on and on trying to get their own way in the face of determined opposition. But it is just
this squeamishness that makes Chinese Waver Torture such a devastatingly effective technique. Those
who adopt it have the single-mindedness not to care: what other people think of them. All they want is to
win the argument. Nothing else matters and nothing will deflect them from their one aim. ... The Chinese
Water Torture, as used by adults, has a number of distinct variations. One involves a single marathon
argument in which you try simply to outlast your opponent. There is more than one way to do this. In the
first you follow the advice of Robert Owen (the Welsh educational and social reformer): 'Never argue, just
repeat your assertion'. This, however, may become tedious and look as if you lack invention. The second,
more difficult method is to filibuster until your opponent gets fed up. This requires considerable powers art
oratory and a sound knowledge of your subject. There is a third way that has enjoyed considerable success.
In this you do not try to argue with your opponent over the issues that actually divide you. Instead you
digress endlessly and talk about a whole range of subjects, the duller the better, that have little or nothing to
do with the subject under discussion. With luck your opponent eventually gives up and leaves you
victorious. The Chinese Water Torture is by far the most devastatingly effective. If you were to be limited to
mastering only one tactic this would. without doubt, be the one. However, it is not as easy as it sounds. In
order to outlast your opponent you must cultivate a degree of sheer bloody-mindedness that will not come
naturally to you. The moment you think to yourself, 'Who cares?' you will have lost the argument. There is
one other point to remember in connection with this technique. It only works if there is no time limit imposed
upon the argument. If, for example, you are arguing on a public platform, or in a television studio, there will
be an arbitrary limit to how long you can go on. Also, though you may try to hog the argument and prevent
your opponent from getting a proper say,- there may well be some third party, a chairperson for example,
who sees to it that a fair balance is maintained. The Chinese Water Torture will not prevail in swift
encounters that depend on quick wits or keenly argued logic." (Allen R., "How To Win Arguments: The
Complete Guide To Coming Out On Top," Thorsons: London, 1996, pp.46-49)
30/11/2004
"Know-all ... Thus we come to another powerful winning technique: knowing your stuff. If you listen to
many arguments you will quickly notice how many people have very little grasp of the facts. They depend
mainly on their own prejudices and inclinations. To these they will add selectively from bits and pieces they
have read, or television and radio programmes they have listened to. However, you can safely bet that their
knowledge of the facts is sketchy at best, and probably most of their socalled facts are downright wrong.
Someone who has the patience to commit facts, figures, names and dates to memory is in a very powerful
position to win arguments. ... You must be sure of your facts. Nothing, but nothing, is more destructive to
your case than to be caught out in an error of fact. If you want to be taken seriously you must have the facts
straight. What is more, you must be able to quote the source of your facts. ... For the technique to work you
must have genuine information. .... The glaring disadvantage of playing Know all is that it really is a lot of
hard work. If you are going to do it regularly you need to put in a lot of study time and have an excellent
memory for details. Not everyone can do this. ... Your next task is to marshal your facts in an orderly fashion.
Your argument must flow logically from one point to another and arrive, without digression, at your chosen
destination. .... Be ruthless with yourself in cutting out anything that smacks of digression. ... It is very
important to distinguish between fact and opinion. This may seem straightforward but it is often a source of
confusion. There is nothing wrong with stating an opinion in an argument as long as you are quite clear
what you are doing. If you have some special expertise in the field about which you are talking then your
opinion may very well carry weight with your opponent. However, if you are merely parroting something
you have heard elsewhere that confirms your own prejudices, the force of your argument will be much less.
Statements that begin, 'Everybody knows...' are opinion, not facts. What everybody knows, or what they
believe they know, is apt to change from time to time and may have little to do with fact. .... A fact is only a
fact when it can be backed up by hard evidence." (Allen R., "How To Win Arguments: The Complete Guide
To Coming Out On Top," Thorsons: London, 1996, pp.49-52)
30/11/2004
"This emergence has begun to produce a separation in the creationist movement-an upper and lower tier, so
to speak. I think that what ultimately separates the two tiers is different levels of respect for accuracy and
completeness of detail, and different levels of awareness that a theory's looking good in vague and general
form is an enormously unreliable predictor of whether in the long run the theory will be disemboweled by
recalcitrant technical details. That appreciation is something that typically comes only with a legitimate
scientific education, which some of the creationist popularizers and many in their audiences lack." (Ratzsch
D.L.*, "The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate,"
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1996, p.82)
December [top] 1/12/2004
"However, in the midst of editorial denunciation, two important pieces of dissent appeared in prominent
newspapers: `The Church of Darwin" by Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson in the Wall Street Journal
and `Teach Evolution and Ask Hard Questions' by Lehigh biochemist Michael Behe in the New York Times.
These opinion pieces argued that there are legitimate concerns about the dogmatic teaching of evolution
that motivated the Kansas Board. Johnson and Behe proposed a rhetorically clever but scientifically
heretical solution: Instead of teaching less evolution, schools should teach `far more about
evolution." That is, schools should continue teaching about macroevolution, but they should add a
crucial new segment to such teaching-the legitimate scientific controversy over Darwinism. In his Wall
Street Journal piece, Johnson wrote, `So one reason the science educators panic at the first sign of public
rebellion is that they fear exposure of the implicit religious content in what they are teaching. An even more
compelling reason for keeping the lid on public discussion is that the official neo-Darwinian theory is having
serious trouble with the evidence." Johnson proceeded to cite a litany of evidentiary problems for the
theory." Likewise, Behe's opinion column advised Kansas to `teach Darwin's elegant theory" but not stop
there. He added, `Discuss where it also has real problems accounting for the data, where data are severely
limited, where scientists might be engaged in wishful thinking, and where alternative even 'heretical'
explanations are possible.' These closing words of Behe's column serve as the symbolic quintessence of the
deepening rhetorical challenge which evolutionists now face." (Woodward, T.E.*, "Doubts about Darwin: A
History of Intelligent Design," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 2003, p.14. Emphasis original)
2/12/2004
"The following email correspondence was never completed and now, sadly, it never can be. 9 December
2001 Stephen Jay Gould Harvard Dear Steve Recently I received an email from Phillip Johnson, founder of
the so-called 'Intelligent Design' school of creationists, crowing in triumph because one of his colleagues,
Jonathan Wells, had been invited to take part in a debate at Harvard. ... under the headline `Wells Hits a
Home Run at Harvard'. ... the `Home Run' was simply and solely the matter of being invited by Harvard in the
first place. These people have no hope of convincing reputable scientists by their ridiculous arguments.
Instead, what they seek is the oxygen of respectability. We give them this oxygen by the mere act of
ENGAGING with them at all. They don't mind being beaten in argument. What matters is that we give them
recognition by bothering to argue with them in public. You convinced me of this years ago when I phoned
you up (you have probably forgotten this) to ask your advice when I was invited to debate Duane P Gish. [It
is "Duane T. Gish" actually- SEJ] Ever since that phone call, I have repeatedly cited you and refused
to debate these people, not because I am afraid of `losing' the debate, but because, as you said, just to
appear on a platform with them is to lend them the respectability they crave. Whatever might be the outcome
of the debate, the mere fact that it is staged at all suggests to ignorant bystanders that there must be
something worth debating, on something like equal terms. First, I am interested to know whether you still
hold to this view, as I do. Second, I am proposing that you might consider uniting with me (no need to
involve others) in signing a short letter, say to the New York Review of Books, explaining publicly why we
do not debate creationists (including the `Intelligent Design' euphemism for creationists) and encouraging
other evolutionary biologists to follow suit. Such a letter would have great impact precisely because there
have been widely publicised differences, and even animosities, between us (differences which creationists,
with extreme intellectual dishonesty, have not hesitated to exploit). And I would not suggest writing a long
disquisition on the technical differences which remain between us. That would only confuse the issue, make
it harder to agree on a final draft, and lessen the impact. I wouldn't even mention our differences. I suggest a
brief letter to the editor, explaining why we do not engage with `intelligent design' or any other species of
creationists, and offering our letter as a model for others to cite in refusing such invitations in the future. We
both have better things to do with our time than give it over to such nonsense. ... All best wishes Richard.
11 December 2001 Dear Richard, Excellent idea - I'd be delighted to join you (and I agree it should just be
you and me as signatories). Will you try a draft and send it to me? ... Steve. ... Unfortunately, Steve never
got around to revising the letter ..." (Dawkins R. & Gould S.J., "Unfinished Correspondence with a
Darwinian Heavyweight," in Dawkins R. "A Devil's Chaplain: Selected Essays by Richard Dawkins," [2003],
Menon L., ed., Phoenix: London, 2004, reprint, pp.256-257, 260)
5/12/2004
"Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of
the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing
creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten
thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason
to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of
common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular
reason to doubt it." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free Press:
New York NY, 1996, pp.5-6)
5/12/2004
"We could also have considered another powerful argument for evolution. No sensible alternative is known.
Our two alternatives, separate creation and transformism, are not really coherent. They merely suppose that
species are created somehow; but they fail to specify a mechanism. As we shall see, there is a mechanism to
explain evolution. It is called natural selection, and is utterly inconsistent with separate creation, if not
transformism. Natural selection created species by modifying existing ones, not by creating them from
nothing. The absence of any coherent alternative to natural selection as a mechanism of creating species is
by itself a powerful reason for accepting evolution. Our first problem of evolution, I believe, is solved. The
accumulation of facts and arguments on the side of evolution is so great that it can no longer be considered
an open question. It is best that our beliefs should be rationally based: it is well worth knowing what the
case for evolution is. But once the case has been examined, it is not really possible for anyone (who is not a
fanatic) to doubt what the conclusion must be." (Ridley M., "The Problems of Evolution", Oxford University
Press: Oxford UK, 1985, pp.13-14)
5/12/2004
"WE have already noticed that a statement of the form `All Xs are Y' is very rarely true and is very easily
disproved. It is easily disproved for the obvious reason that a single instance of an X that is not Y is
sufficient to overthrow it. ... This suggests that, in an argument, a man who maintains an extreme position
(such as `All Xs are Y') is in a very unfavourable position for successful controversy. Many people
consciously or unconsciously adopt a trick based on this principle. This is the trick of driving their
opponents to defend a more extreme position than is really necessary for their purpose. Against an
incautious opponent this can often be done simply by contradicting his more moderate assertions until in
the heat of controversy he boldly puts forward more and more extreme ones. ... A person cautious in
argument will not, however, be so easily led to court defeat. He will constantly reaffirm the moderate and
defensible position with which he started, and the extreme statements of his opponent will be rebutted by
evidence instead of leading him on to equally extreme statements on the other side. ... Let us call this device
the 'extension' of one's opponent's proposition. It can be used either by luring him on to extend it himself in
the heat of argument or, more impudently, by misrepresenting what he said. It is a very common trick, often
done involuntarily. The remedy is always to refuse to accept any extension, but to reaffirm what one
originally said." (Thouless R.H., "Straight and Crooked Thinking," [1930], Pan: London, Revised Edition,
1973, 15th Printing, pp.35-37)
5/12/2004
"THE SETTING WAS ONE OF THOSE NOTORIOUSLY COLORFUL DEBATES over evolution that
scientists hate but the public loves. The combatants in this case were anthropologist Vincent Sarich and
creationist Duane Gish. Eventually Sarich turned to Gish in exasperation and denounced the debate as an
exercise in redundancy. After all, he said, the same debate was conducted a hundred years ago, and "you
guys lost" (Dembski n.d, 2) . In other words, Sarich was saying, creation was discredited in the nineteenth
century by Darwin, so why are you resurrecting a dead issue? It is commonly assumed that the battle over
Darwinism was waged in the nineteenth century and that Darwin won the day because his theory was
supported by the scientific evidence. To cite just two examples, zoologist Ernst Mayr asserts that "Darwin
solved the problem of teleology, a problem that had occupied the best minds for the 2000 years since
Aristotle" (Mayr 1964, xviii) . Douglas Futuyma writes that "by coupling undirected, purposeless variation
to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the
life processes superfluous" (Futuyma 1986, 3). In the modern world Darwin's theory tends to be accepted by
each new generation for the simple reason that it is part of the outlook in which we are reared and educated.
Yet I suggest that there are good reasons for returning to the site of battle and asking whether it was won
fair and square. I propose to show that the battle was not won by Darwin in the sense normally intended: I
will argue that Darwin was a turning point in biology not so much because the empirical evidence was
persuasive but primarily because his theory proved useful in advancing a particular philosophy-a
philosophy of science first of all and in many cases a general metaphysical position as well." (Pearcey, N.R.*,
"You Guys Lost: Is Design a Closed Issue?" in Dembski W.A., ed., "Mere Creation: Science, Faith &
Intelligent Design," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 1998, pp.73- 74. Emphasis original)
6/12/2004
"In its treatment of design, this book focuses not so much on whether the universe as a whole is designed
but on whether we are able to detect design within an already given universe. The universe provides a well-
defined causal backdrop (physicists these days think of it as a field characterized by field equations).
Although one can ask whether that causal backdrop is itself designed, one can as well ask whether events
and objects occurring within that backdrop are designed. At issue here are two types of design: (1) the
design of the universe as a whole and (2) instances of design within the universe. An analogy illustrates the
difference. Consider an oil painting. An oil painting is typically painted on a canvas. One can therefore ask
whether the canvas is designed. Alternatively one can ask whether some configuration of paint on the
canvas is designed. The design of the canvas corresponds to the design of the universe as a whole. The
design of some configuration of paint corresponds to an instance of design within the universe. Though not
perfect, this analogy is useful. The universe is a canvas on which is depicted natural history. One can ask
whether that canvas itself is designed. On the other hand, one can ask whether features of natural history
depicted on that canvas are designed. In biology, for instance, one can ask whether Michael Behe's
irreducibly complex biochemical machines are designed. Although design remains an important issue in
cosmology, the focus of the intelligent design movement is on biology. That's where the action is. It was
Darwin's expulsion of design from biology that made possible the triumph of naturalism in Western culture.
So, too, it will be intelligent design's reinstatement of design within biology that will be the undoing of
naturalism in Western culture." (Dembski, W.A.*, "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and
Theology," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1999, pp.13-14)
6/12/2004
"Lagrangian point ... in astronomy, a point in space at which a small body, under the gravitational influence
of two large ones, will remain approximately at rest relative to them. The existence of such points was
deduced by the French mathematician and astronomer Joseph-Louis Lagrange in 1772. In 1906 the first
examples were discovered: these were minor planets moving in Jupiter's orbit, under the influence of Jupiter
and the Sun. (See also Trojan planets.) In each system of two heavy bodies (e.g., Sun-Jupiter, or Earth-
Moon) there exist five theoretical Lagrangian points, but only two are stable-i.e., will tend to retain small
bodies despite slight perturbations by outside gravitational influences. Each stable point forms one tip of an
equilateral triangle having the two massive bodies at the other vertices." ("Lagrangian point,"
Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, 2004. Emphasis original)
6/12/2004
"Lagrangian points Five locations in space where a small body can maintain a stable orbit despite the
gravitational influence of two much more massive bodies, orbiting about a common centre of mass. They are
named after the French mathematician J.L. Lagrange who first suggested their' existence in 1772. A
Lagrangian point 60° ahead of Jupiter in its orbit around the sun, and another 60° behind Jupiter, are the
average locations of members of the * Trojan group of asteroids; these points are denoted L4 and L5. The
three other Lagrangian points in the sun-Jupiter gravitational field do not permit stable asteroid orbits owing
to the perturbing influence of the other planets. In any system these three points lie on the line joining the
centres of mass of the two massive bodies and are denoted L1 (the inner Lagrangian point) and L2 and L3
(the outer Lagrangian points); small bodies here would be in unstable equilibrium (see equipotential
surfaces)." (Illingworth V., ed., "Collins Dictionary of Astronomy," [1979], HarperCollins: Glasgow UK, 1994,
p.245. Emphasis original)
7/12/2004
"The Moon Miracle The solution to this mystery apparently lies with Earth's moon. Most moons in our
solar system are formed from the same solar disk material that generated the planets. As such, they are
relatively small compared to their planets. A few moons orbiting the outer planets are foreign bodies that
have been captured. Earth's moon, however, is the exception. It orbits a planet that is close to the sun, and it
is huge compared to its planet. The moon is younger than Earth. According to the Apollo lunar rock
samples, it is only 4.25 billion years old, compared to Earth's 4.59 billion years. The same lunar rocks
gathered by Apollo astronauts tell us that the moon's crust is chemically distinct from Earth's. Its distinct
chemical makeup and its younger age establish that the moon and Earth did not form together. Astronomers
have seen and measured the moon's slow and steady spiraling away from Earth 9 and the slowing of Earth's
rotation. Their calculations suggest that the moon was in contact or near contact with Earth about 4.25
billion years ago. This implies some kind of collision or near collision at that time. Only one collision
scenario fits all the observed Earth-moon parameters and dynamics: a body at least the size of Mars (nine
times the mass of the moon and one- ninth the mass of Earth), possibly twice as large, made a nearly head-
on hit and was absorbed, for the most part, into Earth's core. Such a collision would have blasted almost all
of Earth's original atmosphere into outer space. The shell, or cloud of debris, arising from the collision would
orbit Earth and eventually coalesce to form our moon. This remarkable event, if it occurred as the evidence
indicates, delivered Earth from a life-suffocating atmosphere and produced a replacement atmosphere thin
enough and of the right chemical composition to permit the passage of light to Earth's surface It increased
the mass and density of Earth enough to retain (by gravity a large quantity of water vapor (molecular weight
18) for billions of years, but not so high as to keep lifethreatening quantities of ammonia (molecular weight,
17) and methane (molecular weight, 16). It so elevated the iron content of Earth's crust as to permit a huge
abundance of ocean life (the quantity of iron, a critical nutrient, determines the abundance and diversity of
marine algae, which form the base of the food chain for all ocean life), which in turn permits advanced land
life. It played a significant role in salting Earth's crust with a huge abundance of radioisotopes, the heat from
which drives most of Earth's exceptionally high rates of tectonics and vulcanism. (Heavy elements from the
body colliding with Earth were largely transferred to Earth whereas the light elements were either dissipated
to the interplanetary medium or transferred to the cloud that would eventually form the moon.) It gradually
slowed Earth's rotation rate so that a wide variety of lower life-forms could survive long enough to sustain
the existence of advanced life-forms, which required still slower rotation rates. It stabilized the tilt of Earth's
rotation axis, protecting the planet from lifeextinguishing climatic extremes. In summary, this amazing
collision, for which we have an abundance of circumstantial evidence, appears to have been perfectly timed
and designed to transform Earth from a formless and empty" place into a site where life could survive and
thrive. In fact, the number of conditions that must be fine-tuned-and the degree of finetuning needed for
each of these conditions-for life to possibly survive that is manifested in this single event argues powerfully
on its own for a divine Creator. Even if the universe contains as many as 10 billion trillion (10^22) planets, we
would not expect even ones by natural processes alone. to end up with the surface gravity, surface
temperature, atmospheric composition, atmospheric pressure, crustal iron abundance, tectonics, vulcanism,
rotation rate, rate of decline in rotation rate, and stable rotation axis tilt necessary for the support of life. To
those who express the desire to see a miracle, we can assure them they are looking at one whenever they
gaze up at the moon." (Ross H.N.*, "The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of
Genesis," NavPress: Colorado Springs CO, 1998, pp.31-33. Emphasis original)
7/12/2004
"Why not ask God to do something truly flamboyant? Norwood Russell Hanson, philosopher of science
extraordinaire at Yale until his premature death, did just this when he described the conditions under which
he would become a theist: `I'm not a stubborn guy. I would be a theist under some conditions. I'm open-
minded.... Okay. Okay. The conditions are these: Suppose, next Tuesday morning, just after breakfast, all of
us in this one world are knocked to our knees by a percussive and ear-shattering thunderclap. Snow swirls,
leaves drop from trees, the earth heaves and buckles, buildings topple and towers tumble- The sky is ablaze
with an eerie silvery light, and just then, as all of the people of this world lookup, the heavens open, and the
clouds pull apart, revealing an unbelievably radiant and immense Zeus-like figure towering over us like a
hundred Everests. He frowns darkly as lightning plays over the features of his Michelangeloid face, and
then he points down, at me, and explains for every man, woman and child to hear: `I've had quite enough of
your too- clever logic chopping and word-watching in matters of theology. Be assured, Norwood Russell
Hanson, that I do most certainly exist!' [Gordon B.L., "God, Woody Allen and the Moral Structure of the
Universe: Some Thoughts on Pain, Suffering and the 'Hiddenness' of God," unpublished typescript, 1992,
p.78]. Would that do it? I suggest that a prodigy of the sort described might not elicit the faith Hanson
seems to think mandatory. Flamboyance has its price. There is the theological price: no God of any
respectable theology would engage in the sort of magic show that Hanson desires to see. But even if we
leave theological scruples aside, there is the question about how best to explain the prodigy Hanson
describes. Certainly there are other explanations besides the appeal to God. Hallucinations, dreams, smoke
and mirrors, and holographic simulations are just a few of the alternative explanations that spring to mind.
Flamboyant miracles, precisely because they involve a large-scale disruption of the normal course of events,
instead of producing faith might actually work against faith by causing us to question our normally-taken-
for-granted sensory experience. For God to do things that are too bizarre might cause us to question our
own sanity and therefore our capacity to assess whether God exists." (Dembski W.A.*, "On the Very
Possibility of Intelligent Design," in Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an
Intelligent Designer", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1994, pp.117-118)
8/12/2004
"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
caricaturesearch 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, p.234)
8/12/2004 'This is the problem that Darwin faced, for his creationist opponents did view each species as
unaltered from its initial formation. How did Darwin prove that modern species are the products of history?
We might suppose that he looked toward the most impressive results of evolution, the complex and
perfected adaptations of organisms to their environments: the butterfly passing for a dead leaf, the bittern
for a branch, the superb engineering of a gull aloft or a tuna in the sea. Paradoxically, he did just the
opposite. He searched for oddities and imperfections. The gull may be a marvel of design; if one believes in
evolution beforehand, then the engineering of its wing reflects the shaping power of natural selection. But
you cannot demonstrate evolution with perfection because perfection need not have a history. After all,
perfection of organic design had long been the favorite argument of creationists, who saw in consummate
engineering the direct hand of a divine architect. A bird's wing, as an aerodynamic marvel, might have been
created exactly as we find it today. But, Darwin reasoned, if organisms have a history, then ancestral stages
should leave remnants behind. Remnants of the past that don't make sense in present terms-the useless, the
odd, the peculiar, the incongruous-are the signs of history. They supply proof that the world was not made
in its present form. ... No evidence for evolution pleased Darwin more than the presence in nearly all
organisms of rudimentary or vestigial structures, `parts in this strange condition, bearing the stamp of
unutility,' as he put it. `On my view of descent with modification, the origin of rudimentary organs is simple,'
he continued. They are bits of useless anatomy, preserved as remnants of functional parts in ancestors."
(Gould S.J., "Senseless Signs of History," in "The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History,"
[1980], Penguin: London, 1990, reprint, p.27)
9/12/2004 Rom 1:18-32 (NIV) [18] The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the
godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, [19] since what may be
known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20] For since the creation of the
world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood
from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. [21] For although they knew God, they neither
glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were
darkened. 22] Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23] and exchanged the glory of the
immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. [24Therefore God
gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with
one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather
than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen. [26] Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.
Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27] In the same way the men also
abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed
indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. [28]
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a
depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness,
evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, [30]
slanderers, Godhaters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their
parents; [31] they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. [32] Although they know God's righteous
decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but
also approve of those who practice them.
9/12/2004
"Until comparatively recently, botany and probably most biologists agreed with Darwin that the problem of
the origin of life was not yet amenable to scientific study. Now, however, almost all biologists agree that the
problem can be attacked scientifically. The consensus is that life did arise naturally from the nonliving and
that even the first living things were not specially created. The conclusion has, indeed, really become
inescapable, for the first steps in that process have already been repeated in several laboratories. There is
concerted study from geochemical, biochemical, and microbiological approaches. At a recent meeting in
Chicago, a highly distinguished international panel of experts was polled. All considered the experimental
production of life in the laboratory imminent, and one maintained that this has already been done-his
opinion was not based on a disagreement about the facts but on a definition as to just where, in a
continuous sequence, life can be said to begin." (Simpson G.G., "The World into Which Darwin Led Us,"
Science, Vol. 131, No. 3405, 1 April 1960, pp.966-974, p.969)
9/12/2004
"In like manner, even if it were possible in a laboratory today to create life and man, this would not prove
that it happened in the past. It would prove that it is possible for intelligence to bring about such results,
but it would not prove that the nonintelligent brought about evolution in the past. It would, it is true, render
it quite reasonable that an intelligent being could have done it in the past. But certainly it would not prove
that evolution was the product of matter in motion." (Clark R.T. & Bales J.*, "Why Scientists Accept
Evolution", [1966], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1967, Second printing, pp.95)
9/12/2004 Luke 16:19-31 (NIV) "[19] "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and
lived in luxury every day. [20] At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores [21] and
longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. [22] "The time
came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was
buried. [23] In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his
side. [24] So he called to him, `Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger
in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' [25] "But Abraham replied, `Son, remember
that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is
comforted here and you are in agony. [26] And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been
fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
[27] "He answered, `Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, [28] for I have five brothers.
Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' [29] "Abraham replied, `They
have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' [30] " `No, father Abraham,' he said, `but if someone
from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' [31] "He said to him, `If they do not listen to Moses and the
Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "
9/12/2004
"Although teaching evolution in public schools has been controversial, it is rare for the controversy to
surface in presidential politics. One of those rare occasions was 11 August 1999, when the Kansas Board of
Education voted to deemphasize the teaching of biological `macroevolution,' or large- scale morphological
change over time, in the public schools throughout the state. The board's decision, which narrowly passed
(six to four), avoided any hint of a ban on the teaching of Darwin's view of origins. Rather, the decision was
to leave it to local school boards to decide how to structure their biology curriculum and also whether and
how much each district would teach on macroevolution. The board mandated the continued teaching of the
more limited process of `microevolution' the development of sister species within a given type. ... Reactions
to the Kansas Board vote within editorial pages throughout the United States and many foreign countries
were opposite those of the politicians. Recoiling with horror, the writers poured forth a cascade of
condemnatory editorials and guest columns. Some attacks on the Kansas Board were shrill and frantic. John
Rennie, editor in chief of Scientific American, went so far as to propose that college admissions officers
write the Kansas Board, warning them that high school applicants from Kansas will need to have their
qualifications scrutinized with extra care from now on `in light of the newly lowered education standards.'
[Rennie J., "A Total Eclipse of Reason," Scientific American, October 1999] In one of the more
restrained attacks, Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman wrote, `Retrieving evolution from a required
science curriculum is a bit like removing verbs from the English curriculum.' She wove into her column a brief
refresher in biology, asserting that there is `no serious scientific dispute about the fact of evolution. It's
supported by anatomy, fossils, carbon-dating, genetic evidence, the ages of rocks if not the rock of ages.'
Referring more than once in her article to the fundamentalist agendas of Genesis literalists, Goodman
invoked images of the Scopes `Monkey Trial.' [Goodman E., "Those ever-evolving creationists," The
Boston Globe, August 19, 1999, p.A19] However, in the midst of editorial denunciation, two important
pieces of dissent appeared in prominent newspapers: `The Church of Darwin' by Berkeley law professor
Phillip E. Johnson in the Wall Street Journal and `Teach Evolution - and Ask Hard Questions' by
Lehigh biochemist Michael Behe in the New York Times. These opinion pieces argued that there are
legitimate concerns about the dogmatic teaching of evolution that motivated the Kansas Board. Johnson
and Behe proposed a rhetorically clever but scientifically heretical solution: Instead of teaching less
evolution, schools should teach `far more about evolution.' That is, schools should continue teaching
about macroevolution, but they should add a crucial new segment to such teaching-the legitimate scientific
controversy over Darwinism." (Woodward, T.E.*, "Doubts about Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design,"
Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 2003, pp.13-14. Emphasis original)
10/12/2004
"In speaking of the fear of religion, I don't mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain
established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social
policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with
superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper-
namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want
atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed
people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right
in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be
like that." (Nagel T., "The Last Word," Oxford University Press: New York NY, 1997, p.130)
10/12/2004
"atheism (from Greek a-, 'not', and theos, 'god'), the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense
denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief
that there is no God; this use has become the standard one. In the Apology Socrates is accused of atheism
for not believing in the official Athenian gods. Some distinguish between theoretical atheism and
practical atheism. A theoretical atheist is one who self-consciously denies the existence of a supreme
being, whereas a practical atheist may believe that a supreme being exists but lives as though there were no
god." (Pojman L.P., "atheism," in Audi R., ed., "The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy," [1995],
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1996, reprint, pp.51-52)
10/12/2004
"But the evidential situation of natural (as opposed to revealed) theology has been transformed in the more
than fifty years since Watson and Crick won the Nobel Prize for their discovery of the double helix structure
of DNA. It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory
of the evolution of that first reproducing organism." (Flew, A., "Darwinism and Theology," Philosophy Now,
Issue 47, August/September, 2004)
10/12/2004
1Cor 15:12-20 NIV: "[15] But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can
some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? [13] If there is no resurrection of the dead, then
not even Christ has been raised. [14] And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is
your faith. [16] For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. [17] And if Christ has
not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. [20] But Christ has indeed been raised from the
dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep."
10/12/2004
"Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that the Stratonician
atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus. For it seems that the
cosmologists are providing a scientific proof of what St. Thomas contended could not be proved
philosophically; namely, that the universe had a beginning. So long as the universe can be comfortably
thought of as being not only without end but also without beginning, it remains easy to urge that its brute
existence, and whatever are found to be its most fundamental features, should be accepted as the
explanatory ultimates. Although I believe that it remains still correct, it certainly is neither easy nor
comfortable to maintain this position in the face of the Big Bang story. For, apparently, our cognitive
predicament is as Lewis describes it in his original paper: "Some amazingly long time ago, things came to be
and shaped themselves into the universe we know, including ourselves. This just happened, out of nothing,
a total void. First there was nothing, not even presumably time and then there began a world or worlds ...
and processes about which we now have learned a great deal". This, Lewis continues, "is a notion we just
cannot accept.... Ex nihilo nihil fit was said long ago, and seems as unavoidable for us as for those who
pondered these things earlier". But what Hume called "that impious maxim of ancient philosophy" is no
logically necessary truth. Our warrant for accepting it either as a methodological maxim or as an a posteriori
truism is, and can only be, our experience of and within the universe. It is, surely, the weight of all this
experience which makes even those of us who see no need to postulate a sustaining cause for the universe
so uneasy about saying that its initial Big Bang had either an unknown cause or no cause at all." (Flew A.,
"Response to [H.D.] Lewis," in Margenau H. & Varghese R.A., eds., "Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists
Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe Life, and Homo Sapiens," [1992], Open Court: La
Salle IL, 1993, Second Printing, p.241)
11/12/2004
"At any street corner we may meet a man who utters the frantic and blasphemous statement that he may be
wrong. Every day one comes across somebody who says that of course his view may not be the right one.
Of course his view must be the right one, or it is not his view. We are on the road to producing a race of men
too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table. We are in danger of seeing philosophers who
doubt the law of gravity as being a mere fancy of their own. Scoffers of old time were too proud to be
convinced: but these are too humble to be convinced. The meek do inherit the earth; but the modern
sceptics are too meek even to claim their inheritance." (Chesterton G.K., "Orthodoxy," [1908], Fontana:
London, 1961, reprint, p.32)
11/12/2004
"According to Fox and Dose, not only did the Miller-Urey experiment start with the wrong gas mixture, but
also it did `not satisfactorily represent early geological reality because no provisions [were] made to remove
hydrogen from the system.' [Fox S.W. & Dose K., "Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life," Marcel
Dekker: New York, 1977, pp.43, 74-76] During a Miller-Urey experiment hydrogen gas accumulates, becoming
up to 76 percent of the mixture, but on the early Earth it would have escaped into space. Fox and Dose
concluded: `The inference that Miller's synthesis does not have a geological relevance has become
increasingly widespread.' Since 1977 this view has become a near-consensus among geochemists. As Jon
Cohen wrote in Science in 1995, many origin-of- life researchers now dismiss the 1953 experiment because
`the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation.' [Cohen J., "Novel Center Seeks to
Add Spark to Origins of Life," Science 270, 1995, pp.1925-1926] So what? Maybe a water vapor-carbon
dioxide-nitrogen atmosphere would still support a Miller-Urey-type synthesis (as long as oxygen is
excluded). But Fox and Dose reported in 1977 that no amino acids are produced by sparking such a mixture,
and Heinrich Holland noted in 1984 that the `yields and the variety of organic compounds produced in these
experiments decrease considerably' as methane and ammonia are removed from the starting mixtures.
[Holland H.D., "The Chemical Evolution of the Atmosphere and Oceans," Princeton University Press:
Princeton, 1984, pp. 99-10] According to Holland, mixtures of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water yielded no
amino acids at all. In 1983 Miller reported that he and a colleague were able to produce a small amount of the
simplest amino acid, glycine, by sparking an atmosphere containing carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide
instead of methane, as long as free hydrogen was present. But he conceded that glycine was about the best
they could do in the absence of methane. As John Horgan wrote in Scientific American in 1991, an
atmosphere of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor `would not have been conducive to the synthesis
of amino acids.' [Horgan J., "In the Beginning...," Scientific American, February 1991, pp.116-126] The
conclusion is clear: if the Miller-Urey experiment is repeated using a realistic simulation of the Earth's
primitive atmosphere, it doesn't work." (Wells J.*, "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of
What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong," Regnery: Washington DC, 2000, pp.21-22)
11/12/2004
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a
hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and
interpret facts. Fact do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them. Einstein's
theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the
outcome." (Gould S.J., "Evolution as Fact and Theory," in "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes," [1983], Penguin:
London, 1984 reprint, p.254)
11/12/2004
"Evolution Is Mere Theory-Not Fact. Creationists here trade on a distinction between mere speculative
conjecture on the one hand and established truth on the other. But although the term theory does
refer to mere speculation in some contexts, that is not its primary meaning in connection with science. As
discussed in the previous chapter, when scientists refer to the theory of evolution (or gravity or other
scientific theory), theory refers to the structure of evolutionary (or gravitational) principles and the
role those principles play in various scientific processes, such as explanation. It has nothing whatever to do
with whether the theory in question is true, confirmed, scientifically accepted or anything of that
sort. There is thus nothing whatever in the mere concept of theory that prevents a theory, whether
gravitational or evolutionary or atomic, from being true. Nothing detrimental to evolution's status with
respect to being science, truth or knowledge can be derived merely from typical references to the `theory of
evolution.' That it is obviously a theory in the `explanatory structure' sense does not in any way show that it
is a theory in the `mere speculative conjecture' sense. It might be, but establishing that would require a
further case." (Ratzsch D.L.*, "The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-
Evolution Debate," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 1996, p.138. Emphasis original)
12/12/2004
"Two regions differentiate nerve cells from other cell types: axons and dendrites. The axon is the transmitter.
Some 20 microns in diameter and reaching as long as a meter, the axon is the extension of the cell that carries
the nerve's message as a bioelectrical signal, known as an action potential, to the target organ. The end of
an axon may divide into a bush of terminals, allowing it to stimulate whole groups of targets simultaneously.
This plays a central role when signaling a multitude of muscle fibers to come into action. The dendrite
portion of a nerve is the receiver of the axon's message. Fingerlike extensions of the dendrite increase its
surface area, allowing it to receive multiple signals simultaneously. In some cases as many as one hundred
thousand axon terminals reach a single dendrite. The nerve will sum these individual signals and decide if
the total input message is strong enough, that is, exceeds a threshold voltage, to warrant the passing of this
information on to another nerve. ... In a sensory nerve, such as those of a fingertip that feel touch,
dendritelike extensions respond to stimulation of the skin and send a pulse along that nerve's axon toward
the central nervous system, be it brain or spinal cord. Motor nerves then transmit signals received from the
central nervous system to the muscles being called into action. Synaptic terminals by the thousands,
coming from other nerves, cover the nerve cell's dendrites, each bringing its own electrochemical output The
resulting signal is converted into the bioelectric action potential at the axon hillock. The action potential
then races down the axon to the synaptic terminals, where waiting chemical neurotransmitters will be
released, sending the signal on to other nerves or muscle fibers. Axon length can reach a meter when
transmitting signals from the tip of a finger or toe to the central nervous system. Signal transmission by a
neuron is totally dependent upon differences in voltage along the axon and across the neuron cell
membrane. Our every thought and deed at some point reduces to a bioelectric signal. The voltage potential
is induced by differences in concentrations primarily of sodium, potassium, and chlorine ions. ... The
concentration of sodium ions inside the cell is approximately ten times less than its concentration in the
extracellular fluid just outside the cell membrane. The pattern for potassium is the opposite, being ten times
more concentrated within the cell relative to the extracellular fluid. These inequalities are maintained by
pumps that operate across the cell's membrane. We house an alarmingly sophisticated technology of
molecular dimensions. The differences in ion concentrations produce a negative voltage within each cell of
about minus 70 millivolts. Every cell in your body stands ready to give off a biological spark. Large amounts
of sodium can enter the cell only if the cell receives a signal to open voltage-gated channels that span the
cell membrane. And that is the key to all neural signal transmission. Upon stimulation, these channels open
and sodium ions flood into the cell. Via a positive feedback loop, the initial sudden increase in sodium
stimulates more sodium channels to open. In a few thousandths of a second, an ionic avalanche of sodium
raises the cell's interior from the original minus 70 millivolts to a potential of plus 50 millivolts. At this
voltage, the cell is poised to fire. Assume a nerve's dendrites have picked up a signal sufficiently strong to
warrant its propagation to a further nerve or muscle. The neuron is primed for response. Try to imagine in
this discussion how the synchronized, intertwined complexity about to be described could have evolved
from inert and unthinking rocks and water, for that is what preceded life on the originally sterile earth. An
adjacent axon has signaled to the neuron that it is to generate a signal, the bioelectric action potential.
Perhaps you've touched something too hot for comfort. The heat stimulates the sensitive endings of the
nerve, inducing it to send the message to its target receivers, in this case rapidly to the spinal cord and
slightly less rapidly to the brain. The signal, a cascade of ions, travels from the receiving dendrite, past the
cell body, and on toward the axonlike extension. At this point the action potential is generated that, as a
wave, transmits the signal the length of the axon to the synaptic terminals at its end. Since the axon terminal
does not actually attach to the target neuron's dendrite, nature had to invent a method of getting the
message across the gap measuring approximately 20 billionths of a meter (20 nanometers) that separates
axon terminal from target dendrite. Nature was up to the task. The nerve accomplishes it by having the
electrical action potential within the axon stimulate the release of chemical neurotransmitters into the
synaptic gap. The electrical signal has become a chemical signal. These neurotransmitters have been
"conveniently" stored in organelles called Golgi apparatus near the axon's synaptic terminals. The Golgi are
budlike globular beauties of nature that package the neurotransmitters at their point of manufacture in the
cell body and then, with the help of motor proteins, transport them and other essential molecules from within
the cell body, down the axon, to the location of use near the cell membrane. The Golgi, upon command,
release the neurotransmitter into the synapse, where it diffuses across the opening, attaches to the target
dendrite, and in doing so triggers a secondary neural signal to start on its way. Consider the implications of
just one aspect of this event. Somehow the Golgi apparatus was positioned at the terminal by nature. Way
back at the cell body, near the start of the axon-which in some cases is a meter distant from the terminal-a
signal had been given to the DNA. to provide the pattern to make messenger RNA, mRNA, which, with the
help of transfer RNA, tRNA, and a few other cellular microorganelles, would churn out copies of the one
specific type of a wide range of potential neurotransmitters needed for this one type of stimulus, package it
in Golgi buds, and via motor proteins that literally walk molecular step by molecular step along microtubule
tracks the length of the axon, carry the Golgi loaded with neurotransmitters to the axon terminal area, there to
wait patiently in the wings until called upon by the axon's electrical signal- the action potential-to move into
action. The trip from the cell body where the Golgi and neurotransmitter are made to axon terminal takes
about two days when traveling via motor protein. If nature had relied on diffusion to make the trip, the
journey would have taken about two years. When called into action, the Golgi move within a millisecond.
The Golgi bud fuses with the inner surface of the axon synaptic membrane, and then, in a process known as
exocytosis, bursts through on the outside, into the 20-nanometer-wide synaptic gap. The electric signal of
the axon has been converted into the chemical signal of the neurotransmitter. ... For neurotransmitters, Golgi
concentrate them at two hundred times greater than would be possible if these molecules were just free
floating at the synapse terminal. It's all so clever. None of this wisdom is even hinted at when we view life
from the outside. The insights of molecular biology have revealed a complexity at every stage of life's
processes such that, if we were forced to rely on random mutations to produce them step by step, in the
words of Nobel laureate de Duve, `eternity would not suffice.'" (Schroeder G.L.*, "The Hidden Face of God:
How Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth," The Free Press: New York NY, 2001, pp.94-99)
12/12/2004
"Bridge is a card game played by four players with a deck of fifty-two cards. including thirteen each of
spades, hearts, diamonds, and clubs. The cards are shuffled and dealt around the table one by one. Suppose
you are one of the players and you pick up all thirteen spades. Without doubt, you would speak of a
fantastic stroke of luck. You would be right. The odds of being dealt all thirteen spades are one in 635
billion. Let armies of bridge players play day and night for centuries and the thirteen spades may never turn
up even once. Indeed, to my knowledge, such an event has never been recorded in the annals of bridge. ...
The emergence of life, it has been said, could have been such an event, a fantastic stroke of luck, like getting
thirteen spades at bridge, but no transgression of the laws of probability. .... For the time being, I wish
merely to examine the scientific validity of the probability argument. Its logic is impeccable, provided we are
dealing with a single event. But the emergence of life cannot possibly have happened as a single event. To
illustrate this impossibility, Hoyle has used the analogy of a Boeing 747 arising ready to fly from a tornado-
swept junkyard. The possibility of a living cell coming together in one shot is immeasurably less plausible
than the spontaneous assembly of a Boeing 747-if degrees of impossibility are to be envisaged. ... A Boeing
747 is built piecemeal in a very large number of steps. Raw materials me first refined or synthesized and
worked into a multitude of separate parts. These are then joined, in modular fashion, to make the engines,
the body and wings, the flaps, the landing gear, the electronic circuits, and all the other parts of the aircraft.
These various parts are then brought together for final assembly. The steps in the construction of a living
cell are different, but the principle is the same. Because of the high complexity of the final product, there
must, by necessity, be a very large number of steps, often modular in nature. This consideration completely
alters the probability assessment. We are being dealt thirteen spades not once but thousands of times in
succession! This is utterly impossible, unless the deck is doctored. What this doctoring implies with respect
to the assembly of the first cell is that most of the steps involved must have had a very high likelihood of
taking place under the prevailing conditions. Make them even moderately improbable and the process
must abort, however many times it is initiated, because of the very number of successive steps involved."
(de Duve, C.R., "Vital Dust: Life as a Cosmic Imperative," Basic Books: New York NY, 1995, pp.8-9.
Emphasis original)
14/12/2004
"Concepts of God vary greatly. What is interesting is that these concepts are not strictly the purview of
believers. It seems that one need not be one of the faithful to hold strong convictions about God. Skeptics
often seem to be equally committed to their own ideas about God. In the Middle Ages theologians produced
a variety of arguments for the existence of God. One of the most intriguing of those theistic proofs was
Anselm's (1033-1109) ontological proof. Anselm began with the premise that God is the greatest thing we
can conceive. In his peculiar language, God is "that than which no greater can be conceived." [Brown C.,
"Philosophy and the Christian Faith," Tyndale Press: London, 1969, p.20] If there is something greater than
what we are thinking of, we are not thinking of God. Surely it goes without saying that a God who exists is
greater than one who does not. So the skeptic's claim that God does not exist is invalid, because he is
confusing another notion for God. When he says that God does not exist, he is not really thinking of God at
all." (Hunter C.G.*, "Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion Over Science," Brazos Press: Grand Rapids MI,
2003, pp.82-83)
15/12/2004
"Though the concept of the day of the Lord often connotes gloom and darkness, there is still another Old
Testament eschatological concept which has a brighter ring: that of the new heavens and the new
earth. The eschatological hope of the Old Testament always included the earth: The biblical idea of
redemption always includes the earth. Hebrew thought saw an essential unity between man and nature. The
prophets do not think of the earth as merely the indifferent theater on which man carries out his normal task
but as the expression of the divine glory. The Old Testament nowhere holds forth the hope of a bodiless,
nonmaterial, purely "spiritual" redemption as did Greek thought. The earth is the divinely ordained scene of
human existence. Furthermore, the earth has been involved in the evils which sin has incurred. There is an
interrelation of nature with the moral life of man; therefore the earth must also share in God's final
redemption.' [Ladd G.E., "The Presence of the Future," Harper & Row: New York NY, 1964, pp.59-60] This
future hope for the earth is expressed in Isaiah 65:17: `For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and
the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind (cf. 66:22). Other passages from Isaiah indicate
what this renewal of the earth will involve: the wilderness will become a fruitful field (32:15), the desert shall
blossom (35:1), the dry places will be springs of water (35:7), peace will return to the animal world (11:6-8),
and the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea (11:9)." (Hoekema A.A.*,
"The Bible and the Future," [1978], Paternoster Press: Exeter, Devon UK, 1979, p.11)
15/12/2004
"The doctrine of the new earth, as taught in Scripture, is an important one. It is important, first, for the
proper understanding of the life to come. One gets the impression from certain hymns that glorified believers
will spend eternity in some ethereal heaven somewhere off in space, far away from earth. The following lines
from the hymn "My Jesus, I Love Thee" seem to convey that impression: "In mansions of glory and endless
delight /I'll ever adore thee in heaven so bright." But does such a conception do justice to biblical
eschatology? Are we to spend eternity somewhere off in space, wearing white robes, plucking harps,
singing songs, and flitting from cloud to cloud while doing so? On the contrary, the Bible assures us that
God will create a new earth on which we shall live to God's praise in glorified, resurrected bodies. On that
new earth, therefore, we hope to spend eternity, enjoying its beauties, exploring its resources, and using its
treasures to the glory of God. Since God will make the new earth his dwelling place, and since where God
dwells there heaven is, we shall then continue to be in heaven while we are on the new earth. For heaven
and earth will then no longer be separated, as they are now, but will be one (see Rev. 21:1-3). But to leave
the new earth out of consideration when we think of the final state of believers is greatly to impoverish
biblical teaching about the life to come." (Hoekema A.A.*, "The Bible and the Future," [1978], Paternoster
Press: Exeter, Devon UK, 1979, p.274)
15/12/2004
"One question we should face at this point is whether the new earth will be totally other than this present
earth or a renewal of the present earth. Both in Isaiah 65:17 and in Revelation 21:1 we hear about "a new
heaven and a new earth:" The expression "heaven and earth" should be understood as a biblical way of
designating the entire universe: "Heaven and earth together constitute the cosmos." But now the question
is, Will the present universe be totally annihilated, so that the new universe will be completely other than
the present cosmos, or will the new universe be essentially the same cosmos as the present, only renewed
and purified? ... We must, however, reject the concept of total annihilation in favor of the concept of
renewal, for the following four reasons: First, both in II Peter 3:13 and in Revelation 21:1 the Greek word used
to designate the newness of the new cosmos is not neos but kainos. The word neos means new in time or
origin, whereas the word kainos means new in nature or in quality. The ... "a new heaven and a new earth,"
[Rev. 21:1] ... means, therefore, not the emergence of a cosmos totally other than the present one, but the
creation of a universe which, though it has been gloriously renewed, stands in continuity with the present
one. A second reason for favoring the concept of renewal over that of annihilation is Paul's argumentation
in Romans 8. When he tells us that the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God
so that it may be set free from its bondage to decay (vv. 20-21), he is saying that it is the present creation
that will be liberated from corruption in the eschaton, not some totally different creation. A third reason is
the analogy between the new earth and the resurrection bodies of believers. Previously we pointed out that
there will be both continuity and discontinuity between the present body and the resurrection body. The
differences between our present bodies and our resurrection bodies, wonderful though they are, do not take
away the continuity: it is we who shall be raised, and it is we who shall always be with the Lord. Those
raised with Christ will not be a totally new set of human beings but the people of God who have lived on this
earth. By way of analogy, we would expect that the new earth will not be totally different from the present
earth but will be the present earth wondrously renewed. A fourth reason for preferring the concept of
renewal over that of annihilation is this: If God would have to annihilate the present cosmos, Satan would
have won a great victory. For then Satan would have succeeded in so devastatingly corrupting the present
cosmos and the present earth that God could do nothing with it but to blot it totally out of existence. But
Satan did not win such a victory. On the contrary, Satan has been decisively defeated. God will reveal the
full dimensions of that defeat when he shall renew this very earth on which Satan deceived mankind and
finally banish from it all the results of Satan's evil machinations." (Hoekema A.A.*, "The Bible and the
Future," [1978], Paternoster Press: Exeter, Devon UK, 1979, pp.279-281)
15/12/2004 John 3:16-17,36 (NIV) [16] "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that
whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the
world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. [18] Whoever believes in him is not
condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the
name of God's one and only Son. ... [36] Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects
the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
16/12/2004
"When the Mars missions were being prepared, the astronomer Donald Menzel and I had a $5 bet as to
whether or not `life as on earth' [our precise designation] would be discovered on Mars. The physical
scientist Menzel said yes, the evolutionary biologist Mayr said no. who was right is on record. By now it is
quite evident that none of the other planets in this solar system is suitable for life. One negative instance, of
course, proves nothing. If all suns in the universe have planets (actually a rather dubious assumption), we
would have hundreds of millions of planets. Surely, it is argued, some of these should have spawned life. .
And I agree, the probability for a multiple origin of a self-replicating nucleic acid-protein aggregate is indeed
high. ...What is still entirely uncertain is how often this has happened where it has happened, and how much
evolution might have occurred subsequent to the origin of such life. We who live on the earth do not fully
appreciate what an inhospitable place most planets must be. To be able to support life they must be just the
right distance from their sun, have the right temperature, a sufficient amount of water, a sufficient density to
be able to hold an atmosphere, a protection against damaging ultraviolet radiation, and so forth.
Furthermore, every planet changes in the course of its history, and the sequence of changes has to be just
right. If, for instance, there were too much free oxygen at an early stage, it would destroy life. The total set of
prerequisites for the origin and maintenance of life drastically reduces the number of planets that would
have been suitable for the origin of life. There is, indeed, the possibility that the combination and sequence
of conditions that permitted the origin of life on earth was not duplicated on a single other planet in the
universe. I do not make such a claim, and it would not be science if I did, since it would be impossible ever
to refute it. However, measured by the possibility of refutation, the claims of the proponents of
extraterrestrial life and intelligence are equally outside the bounds of science. The only thing we know for
sure is that of the nine planets of the solar system the earth is the only one that has produced life. Let us
assume, however, for the sake of the argument that life has originated on some of the supposedly hundreds
of millions of planets in the universe. Since we do not know how many suns have planets, the mentioned
figure might be a gross overestimation. ... It is interesting and rather characteristic that almost all the
promoters of the thesis of extraterrestrial intelligence are physical scientists. They are joined by a number of
molecular and microbial biologists, and by a handful of romantic organismic biologists. Why are those
biologists who have the greatest expertise on evolutionary probabilistics so almost unanimously skeptical
of the probability of extraterrestrial intelligence? It seems to me that this is to a large extent due to the
tendency of physical scientists to think deterministically, while organismic biologists know how
opportunistic and unpredictable evolution is. ... What about evolution of intelligence among the animals? ....
Of the 50 or so original phyla of animals, only one, that of the chordates, eventually gave rise to intelligent
life, but the world still had to wait some 500 my before this happened. At first, still in Paleozoic, the
vertebrates appeared in exceedingly diverse types, formerly all lumped together under the name `Fishes,' ....
Among this multitude of types, only one gave rise to the amphibians; and among the various types of
amphibians, only one to the reptiles. .... Among these numerous types of reptiles, only two, the
pseudosuchians (ancestors of birds) and the therapsids (ancestors of mammals), gave rise to descendants
to some of whom a reasonable degree of intelligence can be attributed. But with all my bias in favor of birds,
I would not say that a raven or parrot has the amount and kind of intelligence to found a civilization. So we
have to continue with the mammalian class. .... Forms with a rather high development of the central nervous
system and a good deal of intelligence are quite common among the mammals, but only one of these many
orders led to the development of a truly superior intelligent life, the primates. ... but only the anthropoid apes
produced intelligence that clearly surpasses other mammals. Only after 18 of the 25 my of the existence of
the anthropoid apes, and after a splitting of this major lineage into a number of minor lineages, like the
gibbons (and relatives), the orangutan (and relatives), the African apes (chimpanzee and gorilla), and a
considerable number of extinct lineages, did the lineage emerge which eventually, less than one-third of a
million years ago, led to Homo sapiens. The reason why I have buried you under this mass of
tedious detail is to make one point, but an all- important one. In conflict with the thinking of those who see a
straight line from the origin of life to intelligent man, I have shown that at each level of this pathway there
were scores, if not hundreds, of branching points and independently evolving phyletic lines, with only a
single one in each case forming the ancestral lineage that ultimately gave rise to Man. ... The point I am
making is the incredible improbability of genuine intelligence emerging. There were probably more than a
billion species of animals on earth, belonging to many millions of separate phyletic lines, all living on this
planet earth which is hospitable to intelligence, and yet only a single one of them succeeded in producing
intelligence. ... One additional improbability must be mentioned. Somehow, the supporters of SETI naively
assume that `intelligence' means developing a technology capable of intragalactic or even intergalactic
communication. But such a development is highly improbable. For instance, Neanderthal Man, living 100,000
years ago, had a brain as big as ours. Yet, his `civilization' was utterly rudimentary. The wonderful
civilizations of the Greeks, the Chinese, the Mayas, or the Renaissance, although they were created by
people who were for all intents and purposes physically identical with us, never developed such a
technology, and neither did we until a few years ago. The assumption that any intelligent extraterrestrial life
must have the technology and mode of thinking of late twentieth-century Man is unbelievably naive. ...
Civilizations, as human history demonstrates, are fleeting moments in the history of an intelligent species.
For two civilizations to communicate with each other, it is necessary that they flourish simultaneously. ... I
am trying to demonstrate ... that even if there were intelligent extraterrestrial life, and even if it had developed
a highly sophisticated technology ... the timing of their efforts and those of our engineers would have to
coincide to an altogether improbable degree, considering the amounts of astronomical time available. Every
aspect of `extraterrestrial intelligence' that we consider confronts us with astronomically low probabilities. If
one multiplies these with each other, one comes out so close to zero that it is zero for all practical purposes.
This was already pointed out by Simpson in 1964. Those biologists who doubt the probability of ever
establishing contact with extraterrestrial intelligent life if it should exist do not `deny categorically the
possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence,' as they have been accused. How could they? There are no facts
that would permit such a categorical denial. Nor have I seen a published statement of such a categorical
denial. All they claim is that the probabilities are close to zero. This is why evolutionary biologists, as a
group, are so skeptical of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, and even more so of any possibility of
communicating with it, if it exists. In my views SETI is a deplorable waste of taxpayers' money, money that
could be spent more usefully for other purposes." (Mayr E., "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology:
Observations of an Evolutionist," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1988, pp.67-73 )
16/12/2004
"Deterministically inclined astronomers are convinced by statistical reasoning that what has happened on
the earth must also have happened on planets of stars other than the sun. Biologists, impressed by the
inherent improbability of every single step that led to the evolution of man. consider what Simpson called
`the prevalence of humanoids' exceedingly improbable.)" (Mayr E., "Evolution," Scientific American, Vol.
239, No. 3, September 1978, p.44)
16/12/2004
"There exists, as well, a generally silent group of students engaged in biological pursuits who tend to
disagree with much of the current thought but say and write little because they are not particularly
interested, do not see that controversy over evolution is of any particular importance, or are so strongly in
disagreement that it seems futile to undertake the monumental task of controverting the immense body of
information and theory that exists in the formulation of modern thinking. It is, of course, difficult to judge the
size and composition of this silent segment, but there is no doubt that the numbers are not inconsiderable.
Wrong or right as such opinion may be, its existence is important and cannot be ignored or eliminated as a
force in the study of evolution." (Olson E.C., "Morphology, Paleontology, and Evolution," in Tax S., ed.,
"Evolution After Darwin," Vol. I, "The Evolution of Life: Its Origin, History and Future," University of
Chicago Press: Chicago IL, 1960, p.523)
16/12/2004
"This emergence has begun to produce a separation in the creationist movement-an upper and lower tier, so
to speak. I think that what ultimately separates the two tiers is different levels of respect for accuracy and
completeness of detail, and different levels of awareness that a theory's looking good in vague and general
form is an enormously unreliable predictor of whether in the long run the theory will be disemboweled by
recalcitrant technical details. That appreciation is something that typically comes only with a legitimate
scientific education, which some of the creationist popularizers and many in their audiences lack." (Ratzsch
D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate," InterVarsity
Press: Downers Grove IL, 1996, p.82)
17/12/2004
"As happened many times, life rallied; evolution responded to ecological challenges by appropriate
adaptions. It even turned disaster into success, driven by the great Permian crisis to accomplish one of its
most decisive advances. While seed plants took over the cold, dry swamps left barren by the decimation of
sporulating plants, some obscure amphibian suddenly soared into prominence by developing the animal
equivalent of the seed: the fluid-filled egg. Instead of delivering fertilized egg cells for development in some
body of water-the normal amphibian mode-the female of this key transition species enclosed its fertilized egg
cells in a fluid-filled sac, the amnion, within which the embryo could pursue its normal aquatic development.
After Claude Bernard's milieu interieur to bathe all cells and tissues, here was a re-created milieu exterieur to
shelter the developing embryo. A hard, porous shell protected this substitute marine incubator, while a
highly vascularized membrane, the allantois, produced by the embryo and lining the inner face of the shell,
served in gas exchanges and waste disposal. Another sac, filled with a richly nutritious yolk, provided the
embryo with necessary foodstuffs. Thus, the complete development of the organism up to a stage where it
could survive on land took place within the protective, well-stocked, and appropriately renewed
environment of the amniotic fluid. True terrestrial reproduction was initiated. The first reptile was born." (de
Duve C.R., "Vital Dust: Life as a Cosmic Imperative," [1995], Basic Books: New York NY, 1998, reprint, p.207)
18/12/2004
"To understand Pascal's Wager you have to understand the background of the argument. Pascal lived in a
time of great scepticism. Medieval philosophy was dead, and medieval theology was being ignored or
sneered at by the new intellectuals of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century. Montaigne, the
great sceptical essayist, was the most popular writer of the day. The classic arguments for the existence of
God were no longer popularly believed. What could the Christian apologist say to the sceptical mind of this
age? Suppose such a typical mind lacked both the gift of faith and the confidence in reason to prove God's
existence; could there be a third ladder out of the pit of unbelief into the light of belief? Pascal's Wager
claims to be that third ladder. Pascal well knew that it was a low ladder. If you believe in God only as a bet,
that is certainly not a deep, mature, or adequate faith. But it is something, it is a start, it is enough to dam the
tide of atheism. The Wager appeals not to a high ideal, like faith, hope, love, or proof, but to a low one: the
instinct for self- preservation, the desire to be happy and not unhappy. But on that low natural level, it has
tremendous force." (Kreeft, P.*, "Argument from Pascal's WagerArgument from Pascal's Wager," in Kreeft, P.*, "Fundamentals of the
Faith: Essays in Christian Apologetics," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, 1988)
18/12/2004
"Thus Pascal prefaces his argument with the words, `Let us now speak according to our natural lights.'
Imagine you are playing a game for two prizes. You wager blue chips to win blue prizes and red chips to win
red prizes. The blue chips are your mind, your reason, and the blue prize is the truth about God's existence.
The red chips are your will, your desires, and the red prize is heavenly happiness. Everyone wants both
prizes, truth and happiness. Now suppose there is no way of calculating how to play the blue chips.
Suppose your reason cannot win you the truth. In that case, you can still calculate how to play the red
chips. Believe in God not because your reason can prove with certainty that it is true that God exists but
because your will seeks happiness, and God is your only chance of attaining happiness eternally. Pascal
says, `Either God is, or he is not. But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this
question. [Remember that Pascal's Wager is an argument for sceptics.] Infinite chaos separates us. At the far
end of this infinite distance [death] a coin is being spun that will come down heads [God] or tails [no God].
How will you wager?' " (Kreeft, P.*, "Argument from Pascal's WagerArgument from Pascal's Wager," in Kreeft, P.*, "Fundamentals of
the Faith: Essays in Christian Apologetics," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, 1988)
18/12/2004
"The most powerful part of Pascal's argument comes next. It is not his refutation of atheism as a foolish
wager (that comes last) but his refutation of agnosticism as impossible. Agnosticism, not-knowing,
maintaining a sceptical, uncommitted attitude, seems to be the most reasonable option. The agnostic says,
`The right thing is not to wager at all.' Pascal replies, `But you must wager. There is no choice. You are
already committed [embarked].' We are not outside observers of life, but participants. We are like ships that
need to get home, sailing past a port that has signs on it proclaiming that it is our true home and our true
happiness. The ships are our own lives and the signs on the port say `God'. The agnostic says he will
neither put in at that port (believe) nor turn away from it (disbelieve) but stay anchored a reasonable
distance away until the weather clears and he can see better whether this is the true port or a fake (for there
are a lot of fakes around). Why is this attitude unreasonable, even impossible? Because we are moving. The
ship of life is moving along the waters of time, and there comes a point of no return, when our fuel runs out,
when it is too late. The Wager works because of the fact of death. ... Once it is decided that we must wager;
once it is decided that there are only two options, theism and atheism, not three, theism, atheism, and
agnosticism; then the rest of the argument is simple. Atheism is a terrible bet. It gives you no chance of
winning the red prize." (Kreeft, P.*, "Argument from Pascal's WagerArgument from Pascal's Wager," in Kreeft, P.*, "Fundamentals of
the Faith: Essays in Christian Apologetics," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, 1988)
18/12/2004
"Pascal states the argument this way: `You have two things to lose: the true and the good; and two things to
stake: your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to
avoid: error and wretchedness. Since you must necessarily choose, your reason is no more affronted by
choosing one rather than the other. That is one point cleared up. But your happiness? 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. Do not hesitate then: wager that he does exist. If God does not
exist, it does not matter how you wager, for there is nothing to win after death and nothing to lose after
death. But if God does exist, your only chance of winning eternal happiness is to believe, and your only
chance of losing it is to refuse to believe.' As Pascal says, `I should be much more afraid of being mistaken
and then finding out that Christianity is true than of being mistaken in believing it to be true.' If you believe
too much, you neither win nor lose eternal happiness. But if you believe too little, you risk losing
everything.'" (Kreeft, P.*, "Argument from Pascal's Wager," in Kreeft, P.*, "Fundamentals of the Faith: Essays in Christian
Apologetics," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, 1988)
18/12/2004
"I have begun with Philip Wentworth's story because it is paradigmatic of so many modernist intellectuals
who thought they were dedicating themselves to a life of reason when, in reality, they were mostly learning
to rationalize, to justify what they felt like doing. We all like to believe we are more rational than we really
are. The painful truth is that we are naturally inclined to believe what we want to believe, and we may adopt
some fashionable intellectual scheme because it allows us to feel superior to other people, especially those
unenlightened masses who need the crutch or the discipline of religion. Of course people may also adopt a
religious creed in order to justify themselves, especially in times or places where religion is fashionable.
Everybody is subject to the temptation to rationalize. The temptation is probably greatest for those with the
most intelligence because the more intelligent we are, the easier we will find it to invent convenient
rationalizations for what we want to believe and to decorate them with high-sounding claptrap. Unless we
take the greatest precautions, we will use our reasoning powers to convince ourselves to believe reassuring
lies rather than the uncomfortable truths that reality may be trying to tell us. ... How do we tell reason from
rationalization-not just when we talk about others but when we form our own beliefs? How can we tell the
truth that makes us free from the philosophical system that keeps us self-satisfied? ... `Reason is wholly
instrumental. It cannot tell us where to go; at best it can tell us how to get there. It is a gun for hire that can
be employed in the service of any goals we have, good or bad' [Simon H.A., "Reason in Human Affairs,"
Stanford University Press: Stanford CA, 1983]). ... reasoning ... can tell us how to get whatever we
want but not why we should ultimately want one thing rather than another." (Johnson, P.E.*, "The
Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism," Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2000,
pp.36-37. Emphasis original)
18/12/2004
"There was a very religious man named Jim, who lived near a river. One day, the river rose over the banks
and flooded the town, and Jim was forced to climb onto his porch roof. While sitting there, a man in a boat
came along and told Jim to get in the boat with him. Jim said, `No, that's okay. God will take care of me.' So,
the man in the boat drove off. The water rose higher, so Jim climbed onto his roof. At that time, another boat
came along, and the person in that one told Jim to get in. Jim replied, `No, that's okay. God will take care of
me.' The person in the boat then left. The water rose even more, and Jim climbed onto his chimney. A
helicopter came along and lowered a ladder for him. The woman in the helicopter told Jim to climb up the
ladder and get in. Jim said, `That's okay.' The woman said, `Are you sure?' Jim replied, `Yeah, I'm sure God
will take care of me.' Finally, the water rose too high and Jim drowned. Jim got to heaven and was face-to-
face with God. Jim said to God, `You told me that you would take care of me! What happened?' God replied,
`Well, I sent you two boats and a helicopter. What else did you want?'" ("God will take care of me,"
Basic Jokes)
18/12/2004
"Not that life was easy for the first amphibians. They had gravity to contend with-a factor several times
greater on dry land than in the buoying water as well as desiccation, the drying-out action of the air.
Nevertheless they flourished. ... These newcomers to the land, however, never succeeded in wholly freeing
themselves from the water. Although they learned to rely fully on their lungs, and to amble along the
swampy riversides on sturdy legs derived from their ancestral fins, they always returned to the water to lay
soft, jelly-coated eggs. Reproduction tied them to the past, and to the water. In the fullness of time, mutation
and selection again performed their wonders. Some of the amphibians developed an egg which was encased
in a firm, leathery shell and was thus far better protected than the soft eggs of the fish and the other
amphibians. This new and better egg was internally fertilized and deposited in some safe place until the
young were hatched. With its perfection, the egg-laying animals won their full freedom from the water. A
well- protected embryo could develop in its own private pool, the amniotic cavity of the egg, guarded not
only from dryness but also from the hazards of the land world outside. The new and freer group which was
evolving in this way, from amphibian ancestry, was the reptiles. The oldest fossil eggs ever found come
from sediments in Texas dated at about 280 million years ago. When the eggs were laid the reptiles were
already well advanced. (Moore R., "Evolution," [1962], Time/Life Books: Netherlands, 1964, pp.113-114)
18/12/2004
"Every textbook of evolution asserts that reptiles evolved from amphibia but none explains how the major
distinguishing adaptation of the reptiles, the amniotic egg, came about gradually as a result of a successive
accumulation of small changes. The amniotic egg of the reptile is vastly more complex and utterly different
to that of an amphibian. There are hardly two eggs in the whole animal kingdom which differ more
fundamentally. ... some of the main distinguishing features of the amniotic egg [are] the tough impervious
shell, the two membranes, the amnion which encloses a small sac in which the embryo floats, and the
allantois in which the waste products formed during the development of the embryo accumulate, and the
yolk sac containing the food reserve in the form of the protein albumen. None of these features are found in
the egg of any amphibian. The evolution of the amniotic egg is baffling. It was this decisive innovation
which permitted for the first time genuinely terrestrial vertebrate life, freeing it from the necessity of
embryological development in an aquatic environment. Altogether at least eight quite different innovations
were combined to make the amniotic revolution possible: the formation of a tough impervious shell; the
formation of the gellatinous egg white (albumen) and the secretion of a special acid to yield its water; the
excretion of nitrogenous waste in the form of water insoluble uric acid; the formation of the amniotic cavity
in which the embryo floats (This is surrounded by the amniotic membrane which is formed by an outgrowth
of mesodermal tissue. Neither the amniotic cavity nor the membrane which surrounds it has any homologue
in any amphibian; the formation of the allantois from the future floor of the hind gut as a container for waste
products and later to serve the function of a respirator organ; the development of a tooth or caruncle which
the developed embryo can utilize to break out of the egg; a quantity of yolk sufficient for the needs of the
embryo till hatching; changes in the urogenital system of the female permitting fertilization of the egg before
the hardening of the shell. The problem of the origin of the amniotic system is even more enigmatic
considering that the basic problem it solves, in freeing reproduction from dependency on a pool of water,
has been solved in the amphibia by much less radical means, by merely exploiting the basic amphibian egg.
Some amphibian eggs have a tough gelatinous skin which will stand a certain degree of desiccation, others
are live bearing. Certain amphibia are therefore quite independent of water for reproduction. The origin of
the amniotic egg and the amphibian - reptile transition is just another of the major vertebrate divisions for
which clearly worked out evolutionary schemes have never been provided. (Denton, M.J., "Evolution: A
Theory in Crisis," Burnett Books: London, 1985, pp.218-219)
18/12/2004
"THE LAND EGG or reptilian egg, as it is also called has a very special place in the story of life as it lived on
earth. The land egg is one of nature's greatest innovations. It made possible the conquest of the land, first
by reptiles and then by birds and mammals. If the land egg had not developed, the land would have
remained largely empty except for plants, invertebrate life and amphibians. As we have seen, amphibians are
not strictly land animals; they cannot venture far from water, and most must return to the water to lay their
soft, jelly-coated eggs. Some time after the first amphibians developed, evolution took a decisive leap
forward. The first reptiles invaded the land. ... These first reptiles, which had evolved from the amphibians,
were able to do so because they had acquired an egg that could be laid and incubated on land. This land or
reptilian egg was much more complicated than the simple amphibian egg. The water cradled and protected
the amphibian. The developing amphibian got its oxygen and most of its food from the water, and its waste
matter was discharged into the water. A land egg if it was to be successful had to provide everything the
water had. Let us look closely at the extraordinary solution-the land or amniotic egg, as biologists often call
it. ... Enclosed in the calcareous shell is a rich supply of food-the yolk-which, in a fertilized egg, is connected
to the digestive tract of the embryo. ... Enclosing the developing embryo is a large sac, the amnion, which is
filled with liquid and protects the embryo from injury and desiccation. The amnion is thus the embryo's own
private pond. At the back end of the embryo is a tube and a sac, the allantois, which functions both as a
bladder for waste matter and as a lung. Enclosing the amnion is a membrane charged with blood vessels,
which takes in oxygen and discharges carbon dioxide through the porous calcareous shell which encloses
the egg. Another sac contains egg white (albumen). Enclosing everything inside the shell is yet another
membrane, the chorion. ... The shell is porous in a special way-it lets gases in and out but sheds a
reasonable amount of water. However, if you submerge a developing egg in water, its embryo will surely
drown. Thus, with its own food supply (yolk sac), its private pond (amnion), waste disposal and lung
(allantois) and protective shell, the tiny reptile was freed from its dependence on water, and the conquest of
the land could be attempted." (Stivens D., "The Incredible Egg: A Billion Year Journey", Weybright &
Talley: New York NY, 1974, pp.168-170)
18/12/2004
"One of the greatest evolutionary advances-the amniotic egg-occurred among the deuterostomes. This type
of egg, exemplified by that of a chicken ... first appeared in reptiles about 255 million years ago. The amniote
egg allowed vertebrates to roam on land, far from existing ponds. Whereas amphibians must return to water
to breed and to enable their eggs to develop, the amniote egg carries its own water and food supplies. The
egg is fertilized internally and contains yolk to nourish the developing embryo. Moreover, it contains two
sacs: the amnion, which contains the fluid bathing the embryo, and the allantois, in which waste materials
from embryonic metabolism collect. The entire structure is encased in a shell that allows the diffusion of
oxygen but is hard enough to protect the embryo from environmental assaults. A similar development of egg
casings enabled arthropods to be the first terrestrial invertebrates. Thus, the final crossing of the boundary
between water and land occurred with the modification of the earliest stage in development, the egg."
(Gilbert S.F., "Developmental Biology," [1985], Sinauer Associates: Sunderland MA, Fourth Edition, 1994,
p.31).
18/12/2004
"Here, if this were a textbook, I should have to tell you how the amphibians gave rise to the reptiles, but I
shall confine my account to a single feature of reptilian innovation, the egg - or rather, since fishes lay eggs
of a sort, the amniotic egg without which of course we cannot begin to understand how the birds contrived
to emerge. It is one of the wonders of evolution. ... a minor miracle. .... Besides being smooth it is rigid
enough to protect its cargo while not being so hard that the chick will be unable to peck its way out. The
shell also is pervious to gases, so that the chick can breathe ... Suspended in the middle of the egg is the
yolk, supported by threads. You can rotate the shell of the egg twenty times without disturbing the yolk: the
threads just wind up. The medium in which the yolk floats, the white or albumen, is remarkable too. ... I am
speaking of course of the bird's egg as it exists today. The reptilian egg, as it first emerged, was slightly
different. It contained the large yolk which served to nourish the developing embryo. It also contained two
sacs, the amnion, filled with liquid and containing the embryo, and the allantois, which receives the waste
products produced by the embryo while it is in the egg. It was however very different from the egg of fishes.
From the shell, constructed of crystals of hydroxyapatite and waxed over, to the altered chemistry, based on
fat rather than protein, the amniote egg was in a different class altogether, a stunning advance on the simple
blob of jelly that constituted the egg of frogs and fishes - a saltation if ever there was one." (Taylor G.R.,
"The Great Evolution Mystery," Abacus: London, 1983, pp.62-64).
18/12/2004
"A major difference between modern amphibians and the remaining tetrapods is the occurrence of an
amniotic egg in the latter group. The amniotic (or cleidoic) egg is sometimes referred to as the `land egg,' but
this is a misnomer. .... Nonetheless, the amniotic egg is a derived character that distinguishes the two major
groups of tetrapods amniotes and nonamniotes. The amniotic egg, as we know it, is characteristic of turtles,
squamates, crocodilians, birds, monotremes, and in modified form, of therian mammals as well. ... An
amniotic egg is a remarkable example of biological engineering .... The shell, which may be leathery or
calcified, provides mechanical protection while allowing movement of respiratory gases and water vapor.
The albumin (egg white) gives further protection against mechanical damage and provides a reservoir of
water and protein. The large yolk is the energy supply for the developing embryo. .... The significant
differences [from the anamniotic eggs of amphibians and fishes] lie in three other extraembryonic membranes
the chorion, amnion, and allantois. The chorion and amnion develop from outgrowths of the body wall at the
ends of the embryo. These two pouches spread outward and around the embryo until they meet At their
junction, the membranes merge and leave an outer membrane, the chorion, which surround the embryo and
yolk sac, and an inner membrane the amnion, which surrounds the embryo itself The allantoic membrane
develops as an outgrowth of the hind gut posterior to the yolk sac and lie within the chorion. It is a
respiratory organ and a storage place for nitrogenous wastes produced by the metabolism of the embryo.
The allantois is left behind in the egg when the embryo emerges, and the nitrogenous wastes stored in it do
not have to be reprocessed." (Pough F.H., Heiser J.B. & McFarland W.N., 1989, "Vertebrate Life," [1979],
Macmillan: New York NY, Third edition, 1989, pp.363-365).
18/12/2004
"It is easier to understand the stages by which the reptiles evolved temporal fenestrae and other
distinguishing skeletal characters than to imagine the steps that led to the development of the `land egg.'
Paleontologists continue to speculate upon the way in which the enclosure of the embryo came about,
however, because the matter is central to the broad question of reptilian origins. Study of the eggs laid by
living reptiles has provided little insight into the evolution of the extraembryonic structures which gave
protoreptiles their first advantage over other tetrapods. Rather than recapitulating the process of its
evolution, the `land egg' develops in a specialized manner derived, no doubt, by abbreviation and reordering
of an earlier procedure. ... All the extraembryonic membranes in the `land egg' of a modern reptile must
complete their formation normally if the embryo is to sustain itself. The yolk sac is of crucial importance,
because nutritive materials from the yolk mass can enter the body only by passing through the vessels in its
surface. The allantois also cannot fail: it serves as the respiratory organ for the embryo, since blood
coursing through it loses carbon dioxide and receives oxygen by diffusion through the adjacent chorion and
porous shell. In addition, its central cavity stores nitrogenous wastes produced by the actively
metabolizing, embryonic cells. Blood reentering the embryo from the allantoic vessels restores to the body
water that has When resorbed from the excreted waste and also adds some that passes into the egg from the
environmental air. The exterior of the embryo is kept wet by a liquid that accumulates within the amnion.
Unlike pond water, to which it is often compared, the amniotic fluid does not act as an oxygen-bearing
medium for the embryo. It is an adaptation for protecting the developing, animal against shock and for
preventing it from resting against the membranes in the shell and sticking to them. Despite the difficulty of
explaining how the embryo might have been served while the "land egg" was evolving to its present state,
Szarski has suggested a series of steps by which the reptilian structure may have arisen." (Stahl B.J.,
"Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution," [1974], Dover: New York NY, Revised edition, 1985, pp.268-270)
18/12/2004
"Reptiles, birds, and mammals have additional terrestrial adaptations that distinguish them from amphibians.
One of these is the amniotic egg, a shelled, water-retaining egg. The amniotic egg functions as a "self-
contained pond" that enables these vertebrates to complete their life cycles on land. Although most
mammals don't lay eggs, they retain other key features of the amniotic condition. In recognition of this
important evolutionary breakthrough, reptiles, birds, and mammals are collectively called amniotes."
(Campbell N.A., Reece J.B. & Mitchell L.G., "Biology," [1987], Benjamin/Cummings: Menlo Park CA, Fifth
Edition, 1999, p.634)
18/12/2004
"Some specialized amphibians have virtually cut free from the ties of water both for everyday life and for
breeding, but they do so with difficulty. The reptiles on the other hand have made the transition, in a major
evolutionary jump, to an entirely land-based life. Their bodies and eggs are much more waterproof than
those of amphibians, and the embryo completes its development in the egg - no reptile goes through a larval
stage. Compared with the amphibians, therefore, reptiles are independent of the environment and have the
potential to take up ways of life denied to their amphibian forebears. ... Part of this success is a result of the
evolution of the egg, or more precisely its container, from the simple jelly- covered amphibian egg. The
reptile egg is called 'cleidoic', meaning 'boxlike', and is the forerunner of the bird egg, although the details of
its construction vary between groups. .... The most important features of the reptile egg are the three
membranes surrounding the embryo: the amnion, chorion and allantois. These act as a lifesupport system
for the embryo, making it independent of the environment, and are a major adaptation for terrestrial life.
Reptiles, birds and mammals are called amniotes, to distinguish them from amphibians and fishes which do
not have these membranes. The embryo of a reptile or a bird survives on dry land because these membranes
provide a water-filled bath, act as lungs for exchanging oxygen and carbon dioxide with the atmosphere, and
form a reservoir for waste products." (Burton R., "Egg: Nature's Miracle of Packaging," William Collins:
London, 1987, p.34)
19/12/2004
"Pascal, Blaise ... In Pensées he offered Pascals Wager. Assuming, as Pascal does, that we cannot know far
sure by reason alone whether God exists or what lies beyond this life, how then should we live in this life?
What are the odds for there being a God and an afterlife? Pascal wrote: `Either God is or he is not. But to
which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question. Infinite chaos separates us. At the far
end of this infinite distance a coin is being spun which will come down heads or tails. How will you wager?
Reason cannot make you choose either, reason cannot prove either wrong. ... Yes, but you must wager.
There is no choice, you are already committed. Which will you choose then? Let us see: since a choice must
be made, let us see which offers you the least interest. You have two things to lose: the true and the good;
and two things to stake: your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature
has two things to avoid: error and wretchedness.... 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. Do not hesitate then; wager that he does exist....' ... According to Pascal's wager, one cannot lose
by wagering that God and immortality exist. Even if one cannot prove God nor an after life, it is a good bet to
believe in him. We have nothing to lose. If God does not exist, the life of the believer is a great life anyway.
If he does exist, then so much the more. Not only is this life great but the one to come will be even greater.
So, believing in God and a life to come is a good bet, both for this life and the one to come. The wager
cannot be avoided. We must either believe in God or not. Since we can't avoid betting, the odds
overwhelmingly favor betting on God. The game of life must be played. Even those who end their life, must
play the game; they only shorten its duration. But assuming there is no God to meet beyond the grave is a
big gamble-one not worth taking. But assuming there is a God is a gamble not worth missing. For believing
there is a God pays in this life for sure and possibly in the next. But assuming there is no God brings
unhappiness in this life and the possibility of more to come. In Pascal's own words, `That leaves no choice;
wherever there is infinity, and where there are not infinite chances of losing against that of winning, there is
no room for hesitation, you must give everything.'"(Geisler N.L., "Pascal, Blaise," in "Baker Encyclopedia of
Christian Apologetics," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1999, p.584)
19/12/2004
"In February of 1993, Ruse made some remarkable concessions in a talk at the annual meeting of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The program was organized by Eugenie
Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a privately funded group dedicated to protecting
science education from the menace of creationism. In practice this project involves mounting a rhetorical
attack on anyone who questions naturalistic evolution. The usual NCSE line is that all critics of naturalism
are either overt or covert Biblical literalists, and so it was probably a step toward reality for the group to ask
Ruse to speak on a topic labeled `Nonliteralist Anti-Evolutionism The Case of Phillip Johnson.' The object of
this case study was not invited to defend himself, but the proceedings were officially tape recorded and I
received a copy almost immediately. After indulging in a few moments of the ritual Johnson-bashing that the
spirit of the occasion required, Ruse changed his tone dramatically and engaged in some profound public
soul-searching. The Dallas conference seemed to have made a big impression on him. He reported that he
had found me and the other participants to be very likable people, and he thought our discussions had been
`quite constructive.' Mainly we had talked about metaphysics and my [Johnson's] position that naturalistic
metaphysics underlies Darwinist belief. Ruse admitted to his AAAS audience, `In the ten years since I
performed, or I appeared, in the creationism trial in Arkansas, I must say that I've been coming to this kind of
position myself.' Although he is as much an evolutionist as ever, Ruse now acknowledges that the science
side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing Science, which-it may not be a good thing to
admit in a court of law-but I think that in all honesty that we should recognize.' [Ruse, M., "The New
Antievolutionism," Annual Meeting of the AAAS, February 13, 1993] I am told that the audience greeted
these remarks with stunned silence, indicating that they sensed the political consequences that might follow
from this line of reasoning." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL,
Second edition, 1993, p.163)
20/12/2004
"The reaction among Darwinists to the prospect of admitting that they make metaphysical assumptions is
indicated by the title of zoologist Arthur Shapiro's commentary in the next issue of NCSE Reports : `Did
Michael Ruse Give Away the Store?' Shapiro, who was also a participant in the Dallas conference, disputed
the view of his colleagues who had answered that question in the affirmative. ... `Of course there is an
irreducible core of ideological assumptions underlying science'... The `New Anti-evolutionism' program
was reported in the _Times Higher Education Supplement_, April 9, 1993, in the article `The Ascent of Man's
Ignorance' by Michael Ince. This lengthy article was very complete in its coverage of the program, with one
exception: it omitted any mention of Michael Ruse, although Ruse was the most prominent speaker. I find a
delightful irony in this omission. As Thomas Kuhn taught us, a shaky paradigm lives on through its power
to make anomalies invisible." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove
IL, Second edition, 1993, pp.163-164; 210-211. Emphasis Shapiro's)
20/12/2004
"But I think he [H.G. Wells] thought that the object of opening the mind is simply opening the mind.
Whereas I am incurably convinced that the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut
it again on something solid." (Chesterton, G.K.*, "The Autobiography of G.K. Chesterton," The Collected
Works of G.K. Chesterton, [1936], Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, 1988, reprint, p.212)
21/12/2004
"The whole book has been dominated by the idea of chance, by the astronomically long odds against the
spontaneous arising of order, complexity and apparent design. We have sought a way of taming chance, of
drawing its fangs. 'Untamed chance', pure, naked chance, means ordered design springing into existence
from nothing, in a single leap. It would be untamed chance if once there was no eye, and then, suddenly, in
the twinkling of a generation, an eye appeared, fully fashioned, perfect and whole. This is possible, but the
odds against it will keep us busy writing noughts till the end of time. The same applies to the odds against
the spontaneous existence of any fully fashioned, perfect and whole beings, including- I see no way of
avoiding the conclusion - deities. To 'tame' chance means to break down the very improbable into less
improbable small components arranged in series. No matter how improbable it is that an X could have arisen
from a Y in a single step, it is always possible to conceive of a series of infinitesimally graded intermediates
between them. However improbable a large-scale change may be, smaller changes are less improbable. And
provided we postulate a sufficiently large series of sufficiently finely graded intermediates, we shall be able
to derive anything from anything else, without invoking astronomical improbabilities." (Dawkins R., "The
Blind Watchmaker," [1986] Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, pp.317-318)
21/12/2004
"A similar fate is overtaking the Darwinian household concept of natural selection or the survival of the
fittest - which, as we have seen, is the evolutionist's equivalent of the behaviourist's `reinforcement'. Once
upon a time, it all looked so simple. Nature rewarded the fit with the carrot of survival and punished the unfit
with the stick of extinction. The trouble only started when it came to defining 'fitness'. Are pygmies fitter
than giants, brunettes fitter than blondes, left-handers fitter than right-handers? What exactly are the criteria
of 'fitness'? The first answer that comes to mind is: the fittest are obviously those who survive longest. But
when we talk about the evolution of species, the lifespan of individuals is irrelevant (it may be a day for
some insects, a century for tortoises); what matters is how many offspring they produce in their life-time.
Thus natural selection looks after the survival and reproduction of the fittest, and the fittest are those which
have the highest rate of reproduction - we are caught in a circular argument which completely begs the
question of what makes evolution evolve. This lethal flaw in the theory was recognized by leading
evolutionists (Mayr, Simpson, Waddington, Haldane, etc.) several decades ago; it was and is, as I said, an
open secret. However, since no satisfactory alternative was in sight, the crumbling edifice had to be
defended. Thus Sir Julian Huxley in 1953: `So far as we know, not only is Natural Selection inevitable, not
only is it an effective agency of evolution, but it is the only effective agency of evolution.'
[Huxley J.S., "Evolution in Action," [1953], Penguin: Harmondsworth, Middlesex UK, 1963, reprint, p.42.
Huxley's italics] Compare this ex cathedra pronouncement to the devastating comment by the late Professor
Waddington (who was himself an eminent member of the neo-Darwinian establishment, but given to critical
doubt): `Survival does not, of course, mean the bodily endurance of a single individual, outliving
Methuselah. It implies, in its present-day interpretation, perpetuation as a source for future generations.
That individual 'survives' best which leaves most offspring. Again, to speak of an animal as 'fittest' does not
necessarily imply that it is strongest or most healthy or would win a beauty competition. Essentially it
denotes nothing more than leaving most offspring. The general principle of natural selection, in fact, merely
amounts to the statement that the individuals which leave most offspring are those which leave most
offspring. It is a tautology.' [Waddington C.H., "The Strategy of the Genes," 1957, London, pp.64-65]"
(Koestler A., "Janus: A Summing Up," Picador: London, 1983, pp.170-171)
22/12/2004
"It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth
chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which
already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive
theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such
an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided
materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (Habermas, G.R. & Flew, A.G.N, "Atheist
Becomes Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew," December, 2004)
22/12/2004
"The Russians, I am told, report that they have not found God in outer space. On the other hand, a good
many people in many different times and countries claim to have found God, or been found by God, here on
earth. The conclusion some want us to draw from these data is that God does not exist. As a corollary, those
who think they have met Him on earth were suffering from a delusion. .... It is not in the least disquieting that
no astronauts have discovered a god of that sort. The really disquieting thing would be if they had. ...
Looking for God-or Heaven - by exploring space is like reading or seeing all Shakespeare's plays in the hope
that you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters or Stratford as one of the places. Shakespeare is in
one sense present at every moment in every play. But he is never present in the same way as Falstaff or
Lady Macbeth. Nor is he diffused through the play like a gas. .... Now of course this is only an analogy. I am
not suggesting at all that the existence of God is as easily established as the existence of Shakespeare. My
point is that, if God does exist, He is related to the universe more as an author is related to a play than as one
object in the universe is related to another." (Lewis, C.S., "The Seeing Eye," in "Christian Reflections,"
[1967], Fount: Glasgow UK, 1988, reprint, pp.209-10)
23/12/2004
"Calling it a cover-up would be far too dramatic. But for more than half a century-even in the midst of some
of the greatest scientific achievements in history-physicists have been quietly aware of a dark cloud
looming on a distant horizon. The problem is this: There are two foundational pillars upon which modern
physics rests. One is Albert Einstein's general relativity, which provides a theoretical framework for
understanding the universe on the largest of scales: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and beyond to the
immense expanse of the universe itself. The other is quantum mechanics, which provides a theoretical
framework for understanding the universe on the smallest of scales: molecules, atoms, and all the way down
to subatomic particles like electrons and quarks. Through years of research, physicists have experimentally
confirmed to almost unimaginable accuracy virtually all predictions made by each of these theories. But
these same theoretical tools inexorably lead to another disturbing conclusion: As they are currently
formulated, general relativity and quantum mechanics cannot both be right. The two theories
underlying the tremendous progress of physics during the last hundred years-progress that has explained
the expansion of the heavens and the fundamental structure of matter-are mutually incompatible." (Greene
B.R., "The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory,"
[1999], Vintage: London, 2000, p.3. Emphasis original)
23/12/2004
"As Einstein said some time ago, `The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is
comprehensible.' [ Hoffman B. & Dukas H., `Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel,' Viking: New York, 1972,
p.18] The astonishment at our ability to understand the universe at all is easily lost sight of in an age of
rapid and impressive progress. However, maybe there is a limit to comprehensibility. Maybe we have to
accept that after reaching the deepest possible level of understanding science can offer, there will
nevertheless be aspects of the universe that remain unexplained. Maybe we will have to accept that certain
features of the universe are the way they are because of happenstance, accident, or divine choice.
The success of the scientific method in the past has encouraged us to think that with enough time and effort
we can unravel nature's mysteries. But hitting the absolute limit of scientific explanation-not a technological
obstacle or the current but progressing edge of human understanding-would be a singular event, one for
which past experience could not prepare us." (Greene B.R., "The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden
Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory," [1999], Vintage: London, 2000, p.385. My emphasis)
23/12/2004
"We are thus inquiring, from an operational point of view, What is the most reduced organism that can
survive in the present global ecosystem? It is apparent that we need look no further than the prokaryotes,
for the eukaryotes have vastly larger and more complex cells. The restriction of being free living is a
significant one, because if a cell is an obligate intracellular parasite such as the rickettsiae or chlamydia, it is
then dependent on the host cell's metabolic apparatus, and the entire complex must be considered in
discussing the extent of simplicity of the parasite. Note, however, that we are looking at simplicity of extant
forms. This simplicity per se does not imply primitiveness. A search across known taxa points to the
mollicutes, a class of wall-less prokaryotes that are judged to contain the smallest cells by visible
microscopy, electron microscopy, and filtration through small, pore-sized barriers. On these criteria a number
of families within the order Mycoplasmatales have cells approximately spherical in shape with diameters as
small as the order of 0.3 microns ... although 0.30 µ diameter is not an absolute lower limit of size, it is
approaching the limit imposed by atomicity. ... Simplicity can come about by ... the size of the genome. Here
note that within the family Mycoplasmataceae two genera, Mycoplasma and Ureaplasma, have genomes ...
which correspond... to the order of 1,000 kilobases. This forces a genetic limitation on the complexity of
cells. Before discussing that limitation in more detail, note that aside from the mycoplasma, the smallest
prokaryotic genome sizes are around 1,600 kilobases. There seem to be no species with genomes between
the mycoplasma cluster and a wide number of genera having genomes of 1,600 kilobases or greater. ... The
residual genome of 987 kilobase pairs is available to code proteins. Since three bases are required to encode
an amino acid, the entire genome coding capacity is 329,000 amino acids. If the average protein contains the
order of 600 coded amino acids, then mycoplasma can encode about 550 proteins. This defines a level of
functional simplicity at which cells can operate, since proteins, with some notable exceptions tend to have
single enzymatic functions and may have one or more control factors. ... Without going into further details
about various mycoplasma species, it is apparent that these forms fit all of the criteria for life, make full
contact with biochemical generalizations, and have reduced the necessary hardware for survival to
something near a minimum. The complex and demanding nutritional requirements would nevertheless
preclude the survival of these organisms under primitive conditions. Although mycoplasma are autonomous
in the sense of not requiring a host organism when grown in the laboratory, they are dependent on the
experimenter to provide a precise and chemically complex environment. To look for truly autonomous
organisms among present-day biota, we have to turn attention to the cyanobacteria.This second search for
simplicity focuses on minimizing the requirements for growth and division. This defines a different type of
simplicity, a kind of ecological minimum-an organism that makes the least chemical demands on the
environment. Such a search leads directly to cyanobacteria. These are clearly prokaryotes, are of wide
occurrence, and pose some problems of classification and systematics. They are photosynthetic and
produce elemental oxygen using essentially the same pathways as eukaryotic plants. Many species can also
fix elementary nitrogen, thus enabling them to grow on CO2, N2, H2O, and mineral nutrients. ...In any case, it
is clear that some cyanobacteria are able to build up the entire family of necessary organic compounds
starting with CO2, N2, H2O, and ... purely mineral components .... Using the same numerical analysis applied
to the mycoplasma, the simplest cyanobacteria can code for about 1,400 functions, which should handle all
the required biochemical and cellular response functions. All of the organic molecules must be synthesized
from the simplest possible precursors. Until the identification of the fossil-stromatolite-associated
organisms, no one would have seriously considered proposing cyanobacter as primitive organisms. Their
complexity and sophisticated function seem to preclude their primitiveness. In addition, oxygen-evolving
photosynthesis was considered a late event in prokaryotic evolution. The Warrawoona stromatolites force
us to consider the cyanobacteria or possibly the photosynthetic bacteria as much earlier organisms.
Subsequent experimental evidence forces a total reevaluation of the old view that the earliest organism were
fermentative anaerobes (Broda, 1978). This poses a paradox: ecological simplicity requires a certain amount
of internal biochemical complexity. The presence of cyanobacteria in the earliest fossils points to this group
as primitive. It is certainly possible to redraw the unrooted taxonomic tree proposed by Woese (1981) with
cyanobacteria as the primitive group. This would solve the difficult problem of the orderly input of energy
into the early biosphere. It would leave the equally difficult problem of how something as complex as
cyanobacteria could have arisen from the small molecules that began to accumulate after the devastating
impacts of large meteors that continually sterilized the Earth." (Morowitz H.J., "Beginnings of Cellular Life:
Metabolism Recapitulates Biogenesis," Yale University Press: New Haven CT, 1992, pp.59-62, 63, 65-68)
23/12/2004
"When we consider the spontaneous origin of a living organism, this is not an event that need happen
again and again. It is perhaps enough for it to happen once. The probability with which we are concerned is
of a special kind; it is the probability that an event occur at least once. To this type of probability a
fundamentally important thing happens as one increases the number of trials. However improbable the event
in a single trial, it becomes increasingly probable as the trials are multiplied. Eventually the event becomes
virtually inevitable. For instance, the chance that a coin will not fall head up in a single toss is 1/2. The
chance that no head will appear in a series of tosses is 1/2X 1/2X 1/2...as many times over as the number of
tosses. In 10 tosses the chance that no head will appear is therefore 1/2 multiplied by itself 10 times, or
1/1,000. Consequently the chance that a head will appear at least once in 10 tosses is 999/1,000. Ten trials
have converted what started as a modest probability to a near certainty. The same effect can be achieved
with any probability, however small, by multiplying sufficiently the number of trials. ... The important point
is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side.
However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will
almost certainly happen at least once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and
reproduction, once may be enough. Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal
is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is
meaningless here. Given so much time, the `impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable, and the
probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles." (Wald G., "The origin of
life," Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 2, August 1954, pp.45- 53, pp.47-48)
23/12/2004
"So, cumulative selection can manufacture complexity while single-step selection cannot. But cumulative
selection cannot work unless there is some minimal machinery of replication and replicator power, and the
only machinery of replication that we know seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of
anything less than many generations of cumulative selection! ... in this chapter we are asking how
improbable, how miraculous, a single event we are allowed to postulate. What is the largest single event of
sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck, that we are allowed to get away with in our
theories, and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life? In order for a monkey to write
'Methinks it is like a weasel' by chance, it needs a very large amount of luck, but it is still measurable. We
calculated the odds against it as about 10 thousand million million million million million million (10^40) to 1
against. Nobody can really comprehend or imagine such a large number, and we just think of this degree of
improbability as synonymous with impossible. ... So, there are some levels of sheer luck, not only too great
for puny human imaginations, but too great to be allowed in our hard-headed calculations about the origin
of life. ... The answer to our question - of how much luck we are allowed to postulate - depends upon
whether our planet is the only one that has life, or whether life abounds all around the universe. The one
thing we know for certain is that life has arisen once, here on this very planet. ... There are probably at least
10^20 (i.e. 100 billion billion) roughly suitable planets in the universe. ... Let us, for the sake of discussion,
entertain the alternative assumption that life has arisen only once, ever, and that was here on Earth. ... if we
assume, as we are perfectly entitled to do for the sake of argument, that life has originated only once in the
universe, it follows that we are allowed to postulate a very large amount of luck in a theory, because there
are so many planets in the universe where life could have originated. ... let us put an upper limit of 1 in 100
billion billion for the maximum amount of luck that this argument entitles us to assume. Think about what
this means. We go to a chemist and say: get out your textbooks and your calculating machine; sharpen your
pencil and your wits; fill your head with formulae, and your flasks with methane and ammonia and hydrogen
and carbon dioxide and all the other gases that a primeval nonliving planet can be expected to have; cook
them all up together; pass strokes of lightning through your simulated atmospheres, and strokes of
inspiration through your brain; bring all your clever chemist's methods to bear, and give us your best
chemist's estimate of the probability that a typical planet will spontaneously generate a self-replicating
molecule. Or, to put it another way, how long would we have to wait before random chemical events on the
planet, random thermal jostling of atoms and molecules, resulted in a self-replicating molecule? Chemists
don't know the answer to this question. Most modern chemists would probably say that we'd have to wait a
long time by the standards of a human lifetime, but perhaps not all that long by the standards of
cosmological time. The fossil history of earth suggests that we have about a billion years - one 'aeon', to use
a convenient modern definition - to play with, for this is roughly the time that elapsed between the origin of
the Earth about 4.5 billion years ago and the era of the first fossil organisms. But the point of our 'numbers
of planets' argument is that, even if the chemist said that we'd have to wait for a 'miracle', have to wait a
billion billion years - far longer than the universe has existed, we can still accept this verdict with
equanimity. There are probably more than a billion billion available planets in the universe. If each of them
lasts as long as Earth, that gives us about a billion billion billion planet-years to play with. That will do
nicely! A miracle is translated into practical politics by a multiplication sum." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, pp.141-145)
23/12/2004
"We are now ready to handle the chances for the spontaneous generation of a bacterium. ... For our
purposes, we will want to overestimate and select the largest number of random trials that might have been
attempted on the early earth, as the actual number would be very difficult to determine.We need to know
two items, the length of time needed for a single trial and the number of trials that can take place
simultaneously. Under the most favorable conditions, an E. coli colony can double in about twenty
minutes. In other words, it takes twenty minutes for a bacterium to assemble a replica of itself from simple
chemicals. It is unlikely that a bacterium would come together more quickly by random processes. Let us
presume, however, that a simpler bacterium than E. coli is involved, and estimate one minute as the
time for a trial. If we accept the evidence of the fossils and the usual age cited for the solar system, then a
maximum of 1 billion years, or 5 x 1014 minutes, was available for the origin of life on earth.
What about available space? As a maximum estimate, we can assume that the entire earth was covered by an
ocean 10 kilometers deep, which was available for experiments. Further, we will allow that space to be
divided into small compartments (1 micrometer on each side) of bacterial size. We would then have 5 times
1036 separate reaction flasks. If a separate try was made in each flask every minute for 1
billion years, we would have 2.5 times 1051 tries available. .... As a rough rule, we will consider
that an event becomes probable when the number of trials available is of the same order of magnitude ... as
the adverse odds on a single trial. ... We cannot compute these odds precisely, but approximations will serve
our purposes quite well. ... A more realistic estimate has been made by Harold Morowitz, a Yale University
physicist [Morowitz, H.J., "Energy Flow in Biology," Academic Press: New York NY, 1968, pp.5-12]. He has
calculated the odds for the following case: Suppose we were to heat up a large batch of bacteria in a sealed
container to several thousand degrees, so that every chemical bond within them was broken .... We then
cooled this mixture slowly, in order to allow the atoms to form new bonds, until everything came to
equilibrium. In this state, the most stable chemicals (those with the least energy) would dominate the
mixture, while those with higher energy would be present to a lesser extent, in accordance with the laws of
statistics. Morowitz asks, what fraction of the final product will consist of living bacteria? Or in other words,
if a single bacterium was used to start the experiment (ensuring that the appropriate atoms, in proper
amounts, were present), what would be the chances that a living bacterium would result at the end? The
answer computed by Morowitz reduces the odds of Hoyle [1 in 1040,000] to utter
insignificance: 1 chance in 10100,000,000,000.... This number is so large that to write it in
conventional form we would require several hundred thousand blank books. We would enter "1" on the first
page of the first book, and then fill it, and the remainder of the books, with zeros. ... The Skeptic will want to
rewrite Professor Wald's conclusion: Improbability is in fact the villain of the plot. The improbability
involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to
nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the
universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle."
(Shapiro, R., "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth," Summit: New York NY, 1986,
pp.125-128)
24/12/2004
"Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (argument from ignorance). This type of thinking assumes that something
should be believed until it is shown to be false. One who uses this fallacy says, `Accept this because you
can't prove it isn't true.' In other words, if you don't know something is wrong, you should embrace it. But
what would happen if someone approached a snake with the attitude of, `Well, I can't prove that it is
poisonous, so I guess it's safe to pick it up.'? ... Ignorance proves nothing, and all that can be concluded
from nothing is nothing. Atheist: `There can't be a God, because I have never seen any evidence for him."
(Geisler N.L. & Brooks R.M., "Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking," Baker: Grand
Rapids MI, 1990, p.95)
24/12/2004
"The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by the argument that there must be ghosts because
no one has ever been able to prove that there aren't any. The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed
whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false, or that
it is false because it has not been proved true. But our ignorance of how to prove or disprove a proposition
clearly does not establish either the truth or the falsehood of that proposition. This fallacy often arises in
connection with such matters as psychic phenomena, telepathy, and the like, where there is no clear-cut
evidence either for or against. It is curious how many of the most enlightened people are prone to this
fallacy, as witnessed by the many students of science who affirm the falsehood of spiritualist and telepathic
claims simply on the grounds that their truth has not been established." (Copi I.M., Introduction to Logic,"
[1953], Macmillan Publishing Co: New York NY, Seventh Edition, 1986, p.94).
25/12/2004
"The Order of the Fossils. There is another aspect of the fossil record, however, which seems to support the
evolution model. Different forms of life seem to have first appeared in different geologic ages-first in
vertebrates, then marine vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles then birds and mammals, then man.
Some such sequence as this is of course a primary prediction of the evolution model. Creationism on the
other hand would expect to find all the major kinds of organisms appearing at essentially the same time,
unless there were a number of different periods of creation. This latter idea, called by its advocates
`progressive creation' is inconsistent with the postulate of a purposive, knowledgeable Creator, who knew
what He was doing at the beginning." (Morris H.M., "The Troubled Waters of Evolution," [1974] Creation-
Life Publishers: San Diego CA, second edition, 1982, p.92)
25/12/2004
"The American biochemist Harold Morowitz [Morowitz, 1966, pp.446- 459] has speculated as to what might
be the absolute minimum requirement for a completely self-replicating cell, deriving essential organic
precursors, amino acids, sugars, etc. from its environment but autonomous in every other way in terms of
current biochemistry. Such a cell would necessarily be bound by a cell membrane and the simplest feasible is
probably the typical bilayered lipid membrane utilized by all existing cells. The synthesis of the fats of the
cell membrane would require perhaps a minimum of five proteins. Energy would be required and some eight
proteins might be needed for a very simplified form of energy metabolism. A minimum of ten proteins would
be required for synthesis of the nucleotide building blocks of the DNA, and for DNA synthesis. Such a cell
would also require a protein synthetic apparatus for the synthesis of its proteins. If this was along the lines
of the usual ribosomal system, it would require a minimum of about eighty proteins. Such a minimal cell
containing, say, three ribosomes, 4 mRNA molecules, a full complement of enzymes, a DNA molecule
100,000 nucleotides long and a cell membrane would be about 1000Ä (1Ä = 10-8 cm) in
diameter. According to Morowitz: `This is the smallest hypothetical cell that we can envisage within the
context of current biochemical thinking. It is almost certainly a lower limit, since we have allowed no control
functions, no vitamin metabolism and extremely limited intermediary metabolism. Such a cell would be very
vulnerable to environmental fluctuation. The smallest known bacterial cells, Morowitz continues, have: ... an
average diameter of less than 3000Ä. Since the minimum hypothetical cell has a diameter of over 1000Ä there
is a limited gap in which to seek smaller cells. The minimal cell described above would contain sufficient
DNA to code for about one hundred average sized proteins, which is close to the observed coding potential
of the smallest known bacterial cells. It may be, therefore, that the tiniest of all known bacterial cells are very
close to satisfying the minimum criteria for a fully autonomous cell system capable of independent
replication. The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that
such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable,
event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle." (Denton, M.J., "Evolution: A Theory
in Crisis," Burnett Books: London, 1985, pp.263-264)
5/12/2004
"As far as the mycoplasma is concerned, we can safely assume that it is very close to the lower limit of size
for an autonomously self-replicating cell. The biochemist Harold Morowitz has speculated as to what might
be the absolute minimum requirement for a completely self-replicating cell deriving all essential organic
precursors-amino acids, sugars, etc.-from its environment but autonomous in every other way in terms of
our current under standing of biochemistry. [Morowitz, 1966, pp.446-459] Such a cell would necessarily be
bound by a cell membrane and the simplest feasible would probably be the typical bilayered lipid membrane
utilized by all existing cells on earth today. The synthesis of the fats of the cell membrane would require
perhaps a minimum of five proteins. Energy would be required, and this might require a further eight proteins
for a very simple form of energy metabolism. Altogether, probably a minimum of another hundred proteins
would be required for DNA replication and protein synthesis. The size of such a cell, containing perhaps
four mRNA molecules, a full complement of enzymes, a DNA molecule about 100,000 nucleotides long and
bounded by a cell membrane, would be about one- tenth of a micron in diameter. Morowitz comments: `This
is the smallest hypothetical cell that we can envisage within the context of current biochemical thinking. It is
almost certainly a lower limit, since we have allowed no control functions, no vitamin metabolism and
extremely limited intermediary metabolism.' [Ibid., p.456]" (Denton, M.J., "Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of
Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe," Free Press: New York, 1998, p.309)
26/12/2004
"There is a phrase of facile liberality uttered again and again at ethical societies and parliaments of religion:
`the religions of the earth differ in rites and forms, but they are the same in what they teach.' It is false; it is
the opposite of the fact. The religions of the earth do not greatly differ in rites and forms; they do
greatly differ in what they teach. It is as if a man were to say, ` Do not be misled by the fact that the Church
Times and the Freethinker look utterly different, that one is painted on vellum and the other carved on
marble that one is triangular and the other hectagonal; read them and you will see that they say the same
thing.' The truth is, of course, that they are alike in everything except in the fact that they don't say the same
thing. An atheist stockbroker in Surbiton looks exactly like a Swedenborgian stockbroker in Wimbledon.
You may walk round and round them and subject them to the most personal and offensive study without
seeing anything Swedenborgian in the hat or anything particularly godless in the umbrella. It is exactly in
their souls that they are divided. So the truth is that the difficulty of all the creeds of the earth is not as
alleged in this cheap maxim: that they agree in meaning, but differ in machinery. It is exactly the opposite.
They agree in machinery; almost every great religion on earth works with the same external methods, with
priests, scriptures, altars, sworn brotherhoods, special feasts. They agree in the mode of teaching; what
they differ about is the thing to be taught. Pagan optimists and Eastern pessimists would both have temples,
just as Liberals and Tories would both have newspapers. Creeds that exist to destroy each other both have
scriptures, just as armies that exist to destroy each other both have guns." (Chesterton G.K.*, "Orthodoxy,"
[1908], Fontana: London, 1961, reprint, pp.127-128. Emphasis original)
27/12/2004
"But my belief that miracles have happened in human history is not a mystical belief at all; I believe in them
upon human evidence as I do in the discovery of America. Upon this point there is a simple logical fact that
only requires to be stated and cleared up. Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the
disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in
connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly
or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or
wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them. The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an
old applewoman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just as you believe an old apple-woman when she
bears testimony to a murder. The plain, popular course is to trust the peasants word about the ghost exactly
as far as you trust the peasant's word about the landlord. Being a peasant he will probably have a great deal
of healthy agnosticism about both. Still you could fill the British Museum with evidence uttered by the
peasant, and given in favour of the ghost. If it comes to human testimony there is a choking cataract of
human testimony in favour of the supernatural. If you reject it, you can only mean one of two things. You
reject the peasant's story about the ghost either because the man is a peasant or because the story is a
ghost story. That is, you either deny the main principle of democracy, or you affirm the main principle of
materialism-the abstract impossibility of miracle. You have a perfect right to do so; but in that case you are
the dogmatist. It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence- it is you rationalists who refuse actual
evidence, being constrained to do so by your creed. But I am not constrained by any creed in the matter,
and looking impartially into certain miracles of medieval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion
that they occurred." (Chesterton G.K.*, "Orthodoxy," [1908], Fontana: London, 1961, reprint, p.149)
27/12/2004
"Manipulation of the terminology also allows natural selection to appear and disappear on command. When
unfriendly critics are absent, Darwinists can just assume the creative power of natural selection and employ
it to explain whatever change or lack of change has been observed. When critics appear and demand
empirical confirmation, Darwinists can avoid the test by responding that scientists are discovering
alternative mechanisms, particularly at the molecular level, which relegate selection to a less important role.
The fact of evolution therefore remains unquestioned, even if there is a certain amount of healthy debate
about the theory. Once the critics have been distracted, the Blind Watchmaker can reenter by the back door.
Darwinists will explain that no biologist doubts the importance of Darwinian selection, because nothing else
was available to shape the adaptive features of the phenotypes." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991],
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, pp.153-154)
27/12/2004
"Wherefore, so long as gradatory, orderly, and adapted forms in Nature argue design, and at least while the
physical cause of variation is utterly unknown and mysterious, we should advise Mr. Darwin to assume, in
the philosophy of his hypothesis, that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines. Streams flowing
over a sloping plain by gravitation (here the counterpart of natural selection) may have worn their actual
channels as they flowed; yet their particular courses may have been assigned; and where we see them
forming definite and useful lines of irrigation, after a manner unaccountable on the laws of gravitation and
dynamics, we should believe that the distribution was designed." (Gray A., "Darwiniana: Essays and
Reviews Pertaining to Darwinism," Dupree A.H., ed., The Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1963, pp.121-122)
29/12/2004
"WHEN THE SUPREME COURT struck down the Louisiana law requiring balanced treatment for creation-
science, Justice Antonin Scalia dissented from the decision because he thought that `The people of
Louisiana, including those who are Christian fundamentalists, are quite entitled ... to have whatever
scientific evidence there may be against evolution presented in their schools.' Stephen Jay Gould was
baffled that a jurist of Scalia's erudition (he had held professorships at several major universities) would
entertain the absurd notion that fundamentalists could have scientific evidence against evolution. Gould
went looking in Scalia's opinion for an explanation, and found it in various sentences implying that
evolution is a theory about the origin of life. In an article correcting `Justice Scalia's Misunderstanding,'
Gould tried to set the matter straight. Evolution, he wrote,`is not the study of life's ultimate origin, as a path
toward discerning its deepest meaning.' Even the purely scientific aspects of life's first appearance on earth
belong to other divisions of science, because 'evolution' is merely the study of how life changes once it is
already in existence. In fact, Justice Scalia used the general term `evolution' exactly as scientists use it-to
include not only biological evolution but also prebiological or chemical evolution, which seeks to explain
how life first evolved from nonliving chemicals. Biological evolution is just one major part of a grand
naturalistic project, which seeks to explain the origin of everything from the Big Bang to the present without
allowing any role to a Creator. If Darwinists are to keep the Creator out of the picture, they have to provide a
naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. " (Johnson, P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press:
Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, pp.102-103)
30/12/2004
"The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in
every century people have thought they understood the Universe at last, and in every century they
were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern `knowledge' is that it is
wrong. ... This particular thesis was addressed to me a quarter of a century ago by John Campbell [a
science fiction editor], who specialized in irritating me. He also told me that all theories are proven wrong in
time. My answer to him was, `John, when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people
thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is
spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them
put together.' The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that `right' and `wrong' are absolute; that
everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong." (Asimov I., The Relativity
of Wrong," in "The Relativity of Wrong," [1988], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 1989, reprint, pp.214-
15. Emphasis original)
30/12/2004
"Perhaps in no other area of modern biology is the challenge posed by the extreme complexity and ingenuity
of biological adaptations more apparent than in the fascinating new molecular world of the cell. Viewed
down a light microscope at a magnification of some several hundred times, such as would have been
possible in Darwin's time, a living cell is a relatively disappointing spectacle appearing only as an ever-
changing and apparently disordered pattern of blobs and particles which, under the influence of unseen
turbulent forces, are continually tossed haphazardly in all directions. To grasp the reality of life as it has
been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty
kilometres in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New
York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the
surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and
closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings
we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. We would see
endless highly organized corridors and conduits branching in every direction away from the perimeter of the
cell, some leading to the central memory bank in the nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing
units. The nucleus itself would be a vast spherical chamber more than a kilometre in diameter, resembling a
geodesic dome inside of which we would see, all neatly stacked together in ordered arrays, the miles of
coiled chains of the DNA molecules. A huge range of products and raw materials would shuttle along all the
manifold conduits in a highly ordered fashion to and from all the various assembly plants in the outer
regions of the cell. We would wonder at the level of control implicit in the movement of so many objects
down so many seemingly endless conduits, all in perfect unison. We would see all around us, in every
direction we looked, all sorts of robot-like machines. We would notice that the simplest of the functional
components of the cell, the protein molecules, were astonishingly, complex pieces of molecular machinery,
each one consisting of about three thousand atoms arranged in highly organized 3-D spatial conformation.
We would wonder even more as we watched the strangely purposeful activities of these weird molecular
machines, particularly when we realized that, despite all our accumulated knowledge of physics and
chemistry, the task of designing one such molecular machine - that is one single functional protein molecule
- would be completely beyond our capacity at present and will probably not be achieved until at least the
beginning of the next century. Yet the life of the cell depends on the integrated activities of thousands,
certainly tens, and probably hundreds of thousands of different protein molecules. We would see that
nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their
decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating
the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for
quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction. In
fact, so deep would be the feeling of deja-vu, so persuasive the analogy, that much of the terminology we
would use to describe this fascinating molecular reality would be borrowed from the world of late twentieth-
century technology. What we would be witnessing would be an object resembling an immense automated
factory, a factory larger than a city and carrying out almost as many unique functions as all the
manufacturing activities of man on earth. However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not
equalled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire
structure within a matter of a few hours. " (Denton, M.J., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," Burnett Books:
London, 1985, pp.328-329)
31/12/2004
"Other theistic evolutionists do accept individual miracles, although generally in a tentative or defensive
way that suggests a certain embarrassment. Kenneth Miller, a Roman Catholic cell biologist and skilled
platform debater for Darwinism, writes in his book Finding Darwin's God that a key doctrine in my own faith
is that Jesus was born of a virgin, even though it makes no scientific sense-there is the matter of Jesus' Y-
chromosome to account for. But that is the point. Miracles, by definition, do not have to make scientific
sense. They are specific acts of God, designed in most cases to get a message across. Their very rarity is
what makes them remarkable. [Miller K.R., "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground
Between God and Evolution," (1999), HarperCollins: New York NY, 2000, reprint, p.239] I suspect that most
of Miller's materialist colleagues will wonder how serious he can be in claiming to believe in an event while
saying that it makes no scientific sense, especially since he is vigorous in judging all other claims of
supernatural influence on the natural world by the standards of science. If he makes this one exception then
why not others, and how does he decide where to draw the line? They may also wonder what Miller could
possibly mean by his quest to `find Darwin's God,' when it is so widely known in the scholarly world (and
even to Miller himself) that Darwin in his later years was an agnostic." (Johnson, P.E.*, "The Wedge of
Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism," Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 2000, pp.90-91)
31/12/2004
"Darwin also considers the argument that the subject of evolution `was in the air,' `that men's minds were
prepared for it.' We may note that even if this was so, it would not explain why Darwin was the individual
who plucked evolution out of the air or how he accomplished the feat. Darwin himself rejected the argument
out of hand because, as he wrote, he `never happened to come across a single naturalist who seemed to
doubt about the permanence of species,' and he acknowledged no debt to his predecessors. These are
extraordinary statements. They cannot be literally true, yet Darwin cannot be consciously lying, and he may
therefore be judged unconsciously misleading, naive, forgetful, or all three. His own grandfather, Erasmus
Darwin, whose work Charles knew very well, was a pioneer evolutionist. Darwin was also familiar with the
work of Lamarck, and had certainly met at least a few naturalists who had flirted with the idea of evolution.
He actually specifies one elsewhere in the autobiography: a Robert Edmund Grant, professor at the
University of London. Of all this Darwin says that none of these forerunners had any effect on him. Then, in
almost the next breath, he admits that hearing evolutionary views supported and praised rather early in life
may have favored his upholding them later." (Simpson, G.G., "Charles Darwin in search of himself." Review
of "The Autobiography Of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882, With Original Omissions Restored, edited with
appendix and notes by his granddaughter Nora Barlow," Wm. Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. Scientific American,
August 1958, Vol. 199, No. 2, pp.117-122, p.119)
31/12/2004
"As I've tried to stress, at the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory
attitudes - an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive, and the most ruthlessly
sceptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. The
collective enterprise of creative thinking and sceptical thinking, working together, keeps the field on
track. Those two seemingly contradictory attitudes are, though, in some tension. ... If you're only sceptical,
then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything. You become a crochety misanthrope
convinced that nonsense is ruling the world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.) Since major
discoveries in the borderlines of science are rare, experience will tend to confirm your grumpiness. But every
now and then a new idea turns out to be on the mark, valid and wonderful. If you're too resolutely and
uncompromisingly sceptical, you're going to miss (or resent) the transforming discoveries in science, and
either way you will be obstructing understanding and progress. Mere scepticism is not enough. ... No one
can be entirely open or completely sceptical. We all must draw the line somewhere." (Sagan, C.E., "The
Demon- Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark," [1996], Headline: London, 1997, reprint, pp.287-
288. 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 © 2004-2010, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved.
These my quotes may be used
for non-commercial purposes only and may not be used in a book, ebook, CD, DVD, or any other
medium except the Internet, without my written permission. If used on the Internet, a link back
to this page would be appreciated.
Created: 1 October, 2004. Updated: 25 April, 2010.