Stephen E. Jones

Creation/Evolution Quotes: Unclassified quotes: January 2008

[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [My Quotes; C/E quotes: Unclassified, Classified] [CED blog]

The following are quotes added to my Unclassified Quotes database in January 2008.
The date format is dd/mm/yy. See copyright conditions at end.

[Index: Feb; Mar; Apr; May; Jun; Jul; Aug; Sep; Oct; Nov; Dec]

"Amoebae are small jelly like organisms which crawl on the bottom of ponds. Being easily obtainable they 
have been studied intensively by many biologists in the living state under the microscope. In the 19th 
Century biologists looked at a large species of amoeba. It seemed to crawl about like an uncontrolled lump 
of jelly. The biologists called it Chaos chaos. The last 20 years have seen a revolution in our 
understanding of the nature of life; its beauty and astonishing complexity has gradually been revealed to us. 
No one would dream of calling an amoeba Chaos chaos today. In addition to its capacity to grow and 
divide like other cells, the apparatus which regulates its locomotion is refined to such a degree that in spite 
of intensive research over many years, it is still only partially understood. What has been learned in general 
about living organisms in recent years has made it progressively more and more difficult to explain their 
origin in purely materialistic terms ..." (Ambrose, E.J.*, "The Mirror of Creation," Theology and Science at the 
Frontiers of Knowledge, Number 11, Scottish Academic Press: Edinburgh UK, 1990, p.73. Emphasis original)

"So the first requirement for life is that it should receive a continuous supply of energy: it must have a 
steady supply of matter also. Simple molecules called metabolites enter the cell, are built up into the 
proteins and other structures of the cell and are continuously broken down again. So a living organism can 
be likened to a river. As we stand beside the river, the banks appear to us to be unchanging, certainly during 
any period for which we can continue to observe them. And the river appears unchanging. But in the river 
water molecules are continuously flowing along because they are driven by energy due to the force of 
gravity drawing them to sea level. What is stable about the river is its pattern, the form of currents and flow 
of the water. Likewise a living cell imposes, with the help of its energy supply, a pattern upon the molecules 
which enter it and flow through it. It is this form, this `ephemeral design' which we call a species. 
Immediately, we recognise that we have to do with something totally new, outside anything to be seen in 
the natural nonliving world. Therefore we find that we have to use a new language to describe living 
organisms, a language that has no meaning in chemistry. ... The living cell can be more appropriately 
described in the language used by engineers. In fact a modern mass production factory operating by 
computers and robotics, is of considerable help in trying to find a model to represent the way in which the 
simplest known living cell is able to operate." (Ambrose, E.J.*, "The Mirror of Creation," Theology and 
Science at the Frontiers of Knowledge, Number 11, Scottish Academic Press: Edinburgh UK, 1990, pp.74-75. 
Emphasis original)

"The power house (The Solar panel) ... because a living organism is in a dynamic (moving) state it must 
have a continuous supply of energy. But this energy must be provided in a highly regulated, coordinated 
manner. ... In the cell's robotics factory, the energy originates through the green substance of plants, 
chlorophyll in almost all cases. Even our fossil fuels, oil, gas or coal come from ancient green plants. The 
chlorophyll molecule can absorb a packet or quantum of light energy in the red region of the light spectrum. 
This enables an electron within the molecule to jump to a new orbit of a higher energy. This electron then 
behaves rather like the baton in a relay race, being shifted from one runner (molecule) to another. But it is a 
downhill race. At each transfer, some energy from the electron is passed on. Finally the electron returns, 
in the case of blue green algae (cyanophytes), to its original low level home in the chlorophyll. This is like an 
electric circuit, except that the circuit is made by various carbon compounds instead of the copper in the 
wire of an electric circuit. The wires in the electric circuit are coated with polyvinyl; the electron circuit in the 
living cell must also be protected. In this case the insulation is provided by lipid membranes. The end 
product of these various complicated flow processes is to produce molecules which contain a store or 
reserve of energy; they are like electric batteries which have been charged by the light of the sun. In the 
mass production factory, energy is distributed to various parts of the plant by electrical wires; in the cell this 
is much more simply achieved by these energy carrying molecules. Their name is adenosine triphosphate, or 
ATP for short. They contain three key atoms of phosphorus. On the basis of present evidence from the 
rocks, the earliest known living organisms derived their energy from the sun by the process described above 
which is known as photosynthesis." (Ambrose, E.J.*, "The Mirror of Creation," Theology and Science at the 
Frontiers of Knowledge, Number 11, Scottish Academic Press: Edinburgh UK, 1990, pp.75-76. Emphasis 

"The machine tools Each step along the factory production line involves a machine tool fitted to the 
particular step in drilling, milling, etc., to produce the end product. In the living cell this is achieved by 
beautifully designed molecules called proteins. These molecules consist of a string of beads in which the 
individual beads are the amino acids. ... In three dimensions this has the shape of a tetrahedron, in which the 
groups can be arranged in either left or right handed screw. In the living organisms, the amino acids are left 
handed or L-amino acids. ... The key to the effectiveness of these giant molecules is the gossamer threads 
which can be formed and broken easily at room temperature ... hydrogen bonds ...The protein chains have a 
complicated structure so the folded molecule is not totally compact; it can be likened in some ways to a 
Rubik cube, with a gap at one corner. This gap is shaped like a lock. It can act as a catalyst. ... Chemical 
reactions have ... been likened to hurdles in which so called activation energy must be provided to overcome 
a barrier ... The catalyst acts to reduce the height of the hurdle by absorbing the molecules which are going 
to react at its surface. In the protein molecule the substances that are going to react become absorbed inside 
the lock and fit the lock beautifully like a key. So the protein molecules, which are called enzymes, 
literally direct chemical reactions in a manner favourable to the life of the organism; a truly wonderful 
phenomenon, already seen at the level of molecules. These are the machine tools of life." (Ambrose, E.J.*, 
"The Mirror of Creation," Theology and Science at the Frontiers of Knowledge, Number 11, Scottish 
Academic Press: Edinburgh UK, 1990, pp.76-77. Emphasis original)

"The raw materials A factory must be supplied by train or lorry with raw materials; these may be sheets or 
rods of steel, copper, aluminium, etc., out of which the complex final product, possibly a saloon car, will 
finally be produced. The simplest organisms known to have existed on the earth and found as fossils, 
required extremely simple raw materials; from the atmosphere, carbon dioxide CO2 and nitrogen N2: from the 
liquid water in which they were immersed, the various elements produced earlier by weathering of the rocks; 
sodium, Na, potassium, K, calcium, Ca, magnesium, Mg, molybdenum, Mo, iron, Fe, chlorine, Cl, 
phosphorus, P, etc., all as salts soluble in water. The key to success with the mass-production plant, is that 
components pass rapidly from the lathes, milling cutters, etc., to the assembly, the mass production line. All 
must be grouped as close together as possible to work efficiently. If there were sheds scattered about, 
separated miles apart, the factory could never work at any appreciable speed. In the living cell it is the same: 
some production lines involve ten or more enzymes passing on the partially prepared molecule step by step 
until the end product needed by the cell is completed. They must be kept close together to achieve this 
efficiently; an organism could not survive unless it was highly efficient. In fact the smallest known 
organisms, the microorganisms have an enormous concentration of organic matter inside them; 30% or 
more." (Ambrose, E.J.*, "The Mirror of Creation," Theology and Science at the Frontiers of Knowledge, 
Number 11, Scottish Academic Press: Edinburgh UK, 1990, p.78. Emphasis original)

"The factory gates To make it function therefore, the factory must be compact and contained within walls, 
while having a gate through which raw materials can pass and waste products be disposed of, the living cell 
is the same. Microorganisms and plant cells have an outer protective wall. This wall is composed mainly of 
long chain molecules built up, not from amino acids, but from sugar molecules; the so called 
polysaccharides. But this is not sufficient; there must also be a gate keeper to let in only the lorries which 
carry the raw materials needed by the factory. Inside the outer wall of bacteria and plant cells is a thin layer 
composed of fat molecules, which acts as a gate keeper. The fat molecules are of an interesting type. They 
consist of long hydrocarbon chains as they are found in mineral oils, but in addition at the end of each chain 
is an acidic group formed from carboxyl or phosphate which is soluble in water. ... Part of the molecule, the 
fat part, is insoluble in water, while the acidic part is water soluble. So they form a film at the surfydrocarbon part sticking out of the water. This type stabilises the soap bubbles. The lipid layer 
which surrounds a cell is composed of two such layers, the lipid parts facing in the interior towards each 
other away from water molecules. The outside, the water soluble part, faces into the water. They look a little 
like guardsmen on parade with each rank face outwards. This double layer of lipid molecules, forming a 
protective sheath round the cell is called a membrane. The membrane is far more complicated than this, 
containing proteins also and molecular pumps which regulate the salts inside the cell and maintain the 
enormous concentration of proteins within the cell. Like all other parts of a living cell, the outer membrane is 
in a dynamic state. So this membrane which surrounds the cell acts as a gate keeper, driving into the cell the 
substances that are necessary for life while keeping out unwanted molecules." (Ambrose, E.J.*, "The Mirror 
of Creation," Theology and Science at the Frontiers of Knowledge, Number 11, Scottish Academic Press: 
Edinburgh UK, 1990, pp.78-79. Emphasis original)

"High Technology The above brief summary of some of the key features of a living cell may have given 
an inkling of the level of complexity and coordination that exists in the smallest known independent 
organisms. The degree of sophistication seen already at the level of individual molecules within the cell can 
be truly astonishing. The earliest known organisms on earth were able to obtain energy, produce protein 
membranes, etc., grow and multiply, utilising only simple constituents from the inorganic world, the cradle of 
life. This is already seen at the first stage of energy uptake, in the 'fine tuning' of the chlorophyll molecule 
which absorbs quanta of light derived from the sun. The electron so liberated from chlorophyll must have 
just sufficient energy to enable a carrier molecule FAD to pick up hydrogen atoms. This carrier molecule 
passes on its energy to the complicated chemical reactions which finally produce the molecules that carry 
the essential chemical energy to all parts of the cell, and enable carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to be 
'fixed' and used to build up the proteins, etc., based on the key element carbon. If chlorophyll had been so 
constituted that it absorbed light of slightly longer wavelength, this would not have provided enough 
energy to enable all the complex reactions needed for life to start within the cell. Alternatively, absorption of 
shorter wavelength light can damage the delicate chlorophyll molecule itself. So the beautiful `fine tuning' of 
the chlorophyll molecule recalls to us the Anthropic Principle, already seen in the `fine tuning' of the 
emerging cosmos ..." (Ambrose, E.J.*, "The Mirror of Creation," Theology and Science at the Frontiers of 
Knowledge, Number 11, Scottish Academic Press: Edinburgh UK, 1990, pp.80-81. Emphasis original)

"But the level of sophistication within the 'simplest' living cell goes far beyond this. We need to think in 
terms of what modern engineers call high technology. A spade is an example of low technology. To function 
for digging a garden all that a spade requires is a 'willing' and hard working gardener, to take it up and use it; 
the spade's function to turn over the earth is so fulfilled. But after finishing the digging, the gardener 
decides to relax by going for a drive in the car. All that is required is to sit at the wheel, operate the starter 
and move forwards. The car represents high technology; it contains many components which function 
together, for example a steering wheel, road wheels, internal combustion engine, fuel system, ignition 
system, etc. Each of these components is interesting and requires skill to make, but each has no meaning in 
terms of function by itself unlike the spade whose function is complete in itself. This interdependency of 
parts is what is meant by high technology. Let us think of a group of such components A, B, C, D, E,...etc. 
We then say that A relates to B, C, D, E, etc...B also relates to A, C, D, E, etc. C relates to A, B, D, E, etc. In 
the case of the car A, B, C, D and E will be the components described above. In the simplest known living 
cell these are, the outer membrane, the energy supply system, the molecule-making plant and so on. 
Biologists now call these interrelationships supermolecular organisation. There is at present no 
explanation for it, in known physical terms." (Ambrose, E.J.*, "The Mirror of Creation," Theology and Science 
at the Frontiers of Knowledge, Number 11, Scottish Academic Press: Edinburgh UK, 1990, p.81)

"As we encounter high technology, in the articles we use everyday, we immediately think in terms of 
engineering design. This aspect of a living cell involves vast interrelated phenomena rather like a 
complicated telephone exchange. It can be illustrated in systems which have been worked out most 
beautifully by biochemists in recent years. These are the so-called enzyme pathways involving a group of 
enzymes cooperating. In an enzyme pathway a simple starting molecule is passed step by step along a 
production line to produce an end product. In a car factory a body member will start as a steel ingot, be 
rolled in a rolling mill, to a sheet cut to a shape, drilled and pressed into a girder. Each of these 
steps must be closely integrated with the previous step to provide a useful final product. In an enzyme 
pathway similarly there are enzymes E1, E2, E3, E4, etc. For example in making the long hydrocarbon chains 
of lipids CH2.CH2CH2...that form the lipid barrier of the cell membranes, the process starts with pyruvic acid 
(CH3.CO.COOH); E1 is the enzyme pyruvate oxidase; it catalyses a reaction between pyruvate and 
coenzyme A: coenzymes are molecules that assist in enzyme pathways. The product acetylcoenzyme A can 
react with carbon dioxide with the help of enzyme E2- so successive carbon atoms are added to the lipid 
chain CH2CH2CH2.... In all, 6 enzymes are involved in this production line. Cell biochemistry in toto is 
vastly complex; products of one pathway are utilised by another pathway, as in the case of factory 
production lines. There can be a hundred or more different enzymes within the compass of one minute 
bacterium only a few ten-thousandths of a millimetre in diameter! This is because each enzyme consists of a 
sequence of amino acids arranged in a different order along the protein chains. This ensures that each 
enzyme has a pocket or lock of special form. All the pockets are interrelated. The product originating from 
the lock of E1 fits the lock in E2, the product coming from E2 fits the lock in E3 and so on. So here we have a 
beautiful example of supermolecular organization directly operating within the domain of protein 
molecules. How could it have arisen? Supermolecular organisation extends also beyond the molecular level, 
to coordinate all the diverse components of the cell. (Ambrose, E.J.*, "The Mirror of Creation," Theology and 
Science at the Frontiers of Knowledge, Number 11, Scottish Academic Press: Edinburgh UK, 1990, pp.82-83. 
Emphasis & ellipses original)

"The Central Computer A factory in which the various production lines worked independently could 
never produce a car. It is evident that some centre must also exist within a living cell to account for its 
closely integrated function. In a factory the coordination depending upon changing needs is, to a large 
extent, now dependent on computers; the stored information is in the form of binary language ... The cell 
also has a language, a wonderful language. This has become clear from work carried out during the last 20 
years in the field of molecular biology. The language of the cell contains four letters not the two (1 or 0) of 
the computer. It is written on long chain molecules called nucleic acids. They were given the name because 
they were first isolated from the nucleus or central region of cells. In place of the amino acids of proteins 
which easily form long chains, the units of nucleic acid chains are disc-like molecules which can pack on top 
of each other like a pile of coins. The discs are formed from rings of carbon atoms with nitrogen also. 
Thymidine (T) and Cytosine (C) contain one ring. Adenine (A) and guanine (G) consist of two rings joined 
together. In each case they are joined to a sugar ring and a phosphate group. The phosphate and sugars are 
linked together to produce a long chain molecule with the disc-like regions sticking out at right angles to the 
chain. The language of life is written in the order in which A, C, G and T are strung together along the chain. 
It was mentioned that computer memories carry vast information due to the number of bits. Similarly the 
nucleic acid chain with its four letter alphabet is able to carry a vast amount of information within the minute 
volume of a living cell." (Ambrose, E.J.*, "The Mirror of Creation," Theology and Science at the Frontiers of 
Knowledge, Number 11, Scottish Academic Press: Edinburgh UK, 1990, p.83. Emphasis original)

"The first function of this memory store is to control the synthesis of the various other molecules inside the 
cell. ... Proteins contain 21 amino acids. How can a language written in 21 letters, like our alphabet, be 
generated by the 4 letter alphabet of nucleic acids? It is fascinating to find that molecular biologists, in 
describing the way nucleic acids function, have been forced to adapt the language of writing, editing, 
printing and so on. There may be only one master copy of the message of nucleic acid the so-called DNA. 
... But in the working part of the cell, `the shop floor' many copies of the `blueprints', the messages, are 
required. So equipment rather like a photocopier exists; these copies are made on slightly different nucleic 
acid molecules called RNAs. This is the process of transcription of the message like converting a written 
message into print. The messenger RNAs carry the information to the actual production line where 
protein chains are formed. The bases in the DNA and so also in the RNA are arranged in groups of three. 
Each set of three bases can code for one particular amino acid out of the 21 possible. ... This master code is 
all very well but how can it control the order in which amino acids are added to protein chains? Clearly there 
must be a decoder, a translator. The translators are also RNA molecules but of a different sort called 
transfer RNAs. Parts of these molecules fit the appropriate code in the messenger molecule, as a key fits a 
lock. There are 21 translator molecules. They can each pick up their own amino acid from a pool of amino 
acids inside the cell. ... The successive transfer RNAs come along as the protein chain grows in length; the 
protein chain is formed, carrying the message translated from the message stored in the DNA molecules. 
Protein chains reel off the production line one by one being formed within a few minutes. ... I never cease to 
contemplate this phenomenon of protein synthesis under nuclear control without awe and wonder. It surely 
represents the ultimate in dynamic engineering at the molecular level." (Ambrose, E.J.*, "The Mirror of 
Creation," Theology and Science at the Frontiers of Knowledge, Number 11, Scottish Academic Press: 
Edinburgh UK, 1990, pp.83-84. Emphasis original)

"Mayr has been called `the greatest living evolutionary biologist' by his colleague Stephen Jay Gould. He 
has held that honorary title for more than half a century: one of his most important contributions came in 
1942, when he published `Systematics and the Origin of Species,' which incorporated genetics, ecology and 
paleontology into what has become the modern view of evolution. And Mayr has been hard at it ever since, 
turning out two books this year alone. (Besides this one, he has a 500-page scholarly work on the birds of 
Melanesia, written with Jared M. Diamond.)." (Raeburn, P., "An Evolving Idea." Review of "What Evolution 
Is," by Ernst Mayr, Basic Books. New York, 2001. The New York Times,  December 16, 2001) 

"It does not seem at all likely that animal life, or human life, can exist elsewhere in our own solar system. Let 
us consider what is requisite. The necessary elements must be present, especially carbon, to build up 
protoplasm. Water is also necessary, and no other fluid would do. The temperature, therefore, must not fall 
for long periods below o░ Centigrade (the freezing-point of water), nor must it ever exceed the boiling-point. 
Hence the rotation period of the planet must be short, to avoid nights too long and cold, or days too long 
and hot. The Moon is also of great value here. The sweeping of the tides helps to maintain an equable 
temperature. Further, there must be an atmosphere, and this can be held to the surface only if the planet is 
not too small. Land and water must be present, and in suitable proportions. The distance from the Sun must 
not be too small, or the temperature will rise too high; it must not be too great, or the Earth will freeze. The 
Sun's radiated heat must keep constant, or there will be violent fluctuations of temperature on the Earth. 
When we consider that this radiation is produced by the conversion of three or four million tons of matter 
per second, this constancy is amazing. Professor Eve writes: `If it had not happened, it would be deemed 
impossible.' [Eve, A.S., Nature,  May, 1936] To support animal life, the atmosphere must contain oxygen. 
Hydrogen, which is present in some planetary atmospheres, must be absent, as otherwise free oxygen could 
not exist side by side with it. When we think of all these requisites, it becomes apparent that only a most 
extraordinary coincidence of circumstances could fit a planet for any life at all, or at any rate for life as we 
know it." (Short, A.R.*, "Modern Discovery and the Bible," [1942], Inter-Varsity Fellowship: London, Fourth 
Edition, 1954, Reprinted, 1961, pp.33-34) 

"The greatest interest has been aroused in the possibility of life on Mars. Some readers may remember Mr. 
H. G. Wells' dramatic story The War of the Worlds,  and his picture of the headlong flight of the 
population of London under terror of invasion by the Martians. It is thought quite probable that there may 
be vegetation on Mars, but it is very unlikely that there is any animal life. The changes in temperature are 
excessive, falling to about minus 80 degrees by night. Water is present, as the white polar snowcaps show, 
but it is said to be scarce. Most important of all, according to recent investigations, the atmosphere contains 
little, if any, oxygen. Sir J. Arthur Thomson has written: `There is no use in speculating over the presence of 
life on any planet where water is not present in liquid form. Man's imagination does not rise to picturing any 
kind of embodied life radically differing from the protoplasmic plants and animals that we know.' [Thomson, 
J.A., "Biology for Everyman," p, 915]" (Short, A.R.*, "Modern Discovery and the Bible," [1942], Inter-Varsity 
Fellowship: London, Fourth Edition, 1954, Reprinted, 1961, p.35)

"Let us sum up this section by indicating a few conclusions. Whichever theory of the origin of the Sun, 
stars and this Earth we accept (very tentatively) it is impossible to evade the issue of creation. That is to 
say, there is something at the beginning which natural science cannot explain. This Earth, by an almost 
incredible accumulation of properties, both chemical and physical, has become suitable for supporting life, 
and has apparently maintained this suitability, either without a break or with short breaks, ever since remote 
Cambrian times. It may well be that nowhere else in the universe are such suitable conditions present. Is all 
this due to chance? Ought we not rather to conclude that to attribute everything to chance is to undermine 
science itself, which seeks to discover some cause for events and laws, not a series of very improbable and 
disconnected happenings? The old Book starts with the words, `In the beginning God created the heaven 
and the earth.' That being accepted, if we do accept it, how greatly is our conception of the vastness of 
God's handiwork enlarged by modern astronomy." (Short, A.R.*, "Modern Discovery and the Bible," [1942], 
Inter-Varsity Fellowship: London, Fourth Edition, 1954, Reprinted, 1961, p.35)

"The Origin of Life on the Earth There is an obvious flaw in the argument at the beginning, in that the 
theory offers no explanation for the first appearance, or appearances, of life on the earth. As we have seen, 
Darwin recognized this, and in his Origin of Species spoke of the Creator breathing life into a few forms, 
or into one. But his followers went further, and launched theory after theory to bridge the gap between 
living and non-living. At one time the general public, if not the men of science, saw no difficulty, because 
they believed in the theory of spontaneous generation; that is to say, that minute forms of life habitually 
come into existence from nonliving material. It was popularly believed, for instance, eved, for instance, that lice bred from `dirt.' 
This theory was demolished by Pasteur. In 1864, lecturing at the Sorbonne before a distinguished audience, 
with his experimental flasks and test-tubes before him, he spoke these dramatic words: ` ... Never will the 
doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment.' He spoke truly. 
The modern science of bacteriology, and our control of epidemic disease, would be impossible if germs 
could arise de novo when there were none pre-existing." (Short, A.R.*, "Modern Discovery and the 
Bible," [1942], Inter-Varsity Fellowship: London, Fourth Edition, 1954, Reprinted, 1961, pp.40-41. Emphasis 

"With the elimination of the doctrine of spontaneous generation, the problem of the first appearance of life 
on the earth became acute. At one time it appeared to be solved, and in a manner highly satisfactory to the 
Darwinians. In 1868, some mud dredged from a depth of several miles below the surface of the ocean was 
examined microscopically by Huxley and others, and was found to exhibit movements. It was concluded that 
it was alive, the most primitive of living things, and was duly christened as Bathybius haeckeli,  in honour 
of the German scientist. About eight years after, however, it was conclusively proved that Bathybius was 
an artefact, and the movements could be produced any day by treating deep-sea mud with alcohol. Huxley 
manfully acknowledged his mistake." (Short, A.R.*, "Modern Discovery and the Bible," [1942], Inter-Varsity 
Fellowship: London, Fourth Edition, 1954, Reprinted, 1961, p.41)

"A very little knowledge of biological chemistry is sufficient to show us what an enormous natural miracle it 
would be for the slime or mud of a primitive lake or sea to generate anything living. All life, as far as we 
know, requires a certain chemical basis, including water, an admixture of inorganic salts, usually some 
carbohydrates, and proteins, which are complicated organic compounds, called amino-acids, strung together 
into a vastly more complicated whole. As far as we know, proteins are only synthesized by enzyme systems, 
and these themselves are proteins. A single enzyme is powerless, a whole series is necessary, not one can 
be absent. And these enzymes are highly unstable; heat, for instance, will destroy them. Again, if 
protoplasm capable of life was formed in water, some sort of cell membrane would be essential to prevent the 
newly formed protein substances from dispersing in solution. But even if matter came together, in some 
primitive mud or slime, having the same composition as dead amoebae or bacteria, the greater miracle would 
still have to take place-that of endowing it with life, and life of a kind that would perpetuate itself for ever on 
the earth's surface, or in the seas or lakes. Various more or less fantastic suggestions have been made by 
enthusiasts as to how the gap can be bridged. The most recent that has come under the writer's notice is by 
R. Beutner [Beutner, R.*, "Life's Beginning on the Earth," 1939] who solemnly invokes the aid of lightning. 
We have all heard of lightning as a life-destroying agency; it is curious to hear of it as producing life! To 
such straits are the theorists reduced! Dr. J. Gray, a leading experimental zoologist, giving the presidential 
address to the zoological section of the British Association in 1933, took as his theme the mechanical view 
of the origin of life, and decided against it. He said: `The spontaneous origin of living from inanimate matter 
must be regarded as a highly improbable event, and as such can be assumed not to have occurred.' [The 
Times,  September 8, 1933] We conclude, then, that science is still unable to put forward any satisfactory 
explanation as to how life arose in the first place. We must either accept the Bible doctrine that God created 
life, or go on making improbable speculations." (Short, A.R.*, "Modern Discovery and the Bible," [1942], 
Inter-Varsity Fellowship: London, Fourth Edition, 1954, Reprinted, 1961, pp.42-43)

"At our present state of knowledge two things may be stated. (i) Man has not produced life chemically. That 
he may produce protoplasmic specks is a possibility, but the production of even the smallest organism is as 
yet a long time away. In view of our inability to produce life with our vast chemical knowledge and our 
ability to reproduce almost any condition we wish of pressure, temperature or motion, we must still view a 
chance origin of life as a faith and not as a verified hypothesis. (ii) Unless a person is very anti-Christian it 
cannot be denied that the most satisfactory explanation to date is that life is the creation of the Living God. 
There is certainly nothing scientifically disrespectable in this connection, even though a person is not a 
believer. Those who do believe it, may do without fear of contravening scientific fact and without 
prejudicing the character of their judgment. Or, in the words of Short: `We conclude, then, that science is 
still unable to put forward any satisfactory explanation as to how life arose in the first place. We must either 
accept the Bible doctrine that God created life, or go on making improbable speculations. [Short, A.R.*, 
"Modern Discovery and the Bible," 1942, p.33]" (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and 
Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, p.183)

"The very obvious mistake of the extreme hyper-orthodox is that he equates divine causation with 
sudden creation and his thinking is brittle right at this point. He makes his entire theological system-the 
Deity of Christ, original sin, atonement, resurrection-hang on sudden creation,  and one bone from a fossil 
pit can potentially bring-the whole edifice down. Surely, Christianity cannot live in constant dread as to 
what some palaeontologist or archaeologist is going to bring to light so that one fossil can spell the doom of 
orthodoxy. There is only one sure approach to evolution and biology and that is through a well-defined 
Christian philosophy of biology." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1954], 
Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, p.180. Emphasis original)

"In the earlier part of this volume we developed our own effort to set forth a philosophy of Nature, and that 
our philosophy of Nature is directly related to our philosophy of biology. In summary, we accept 
progressive creationism, which teaches that over the millions of years of geological history God has been 
directly creating higher and higher forms of life. Progressive creation tries to free itself from loaded a priori 
assumptions, and tries seriously to be inductive and empirical. It accepts the a priori of Divine Creation 
and the inspired account, but it turns over the million odd empirical details to science and does not try to 
pre-empt too much for theology. Further, we believe that creation is the realization of certain forms or ideas, 
and it is this realization in Nature which admits a teleological ordering and understanding of Nature. As 
we previously wrote, we believe that the Divine Entelechy in Nature, realizing the forms and ideas of God, is 
the Holy Spirit. This basic pattern of thought we apply directly to a Christian philosophy of biology, and by 
so doing we endeavour to escape so much of the brittle thinking of extreme fundamentalism on biological 
matters." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, 
Reprinted, 1960, pp.180-181)

"Harris has surveyed all the contemporary theories of the origin of life from non-living materials and 
finds them all defective. [Harris, R.J.C., "The Origin of Life," JTVI,  81, 1949, pp.58-84] The six theories 
examined and rejected are that life originated by (i) spontaneous generation; (ii) from cosmic 
panspermia; (iii) from cell models; (iv) from colloids; (v) from enzymes; and (vi) from viruses. 
Approaching the problem from a different perspective Clark arrives at a similar negative judgment to 
Harris. [Clark, R.E.D., "Modern Science and the Nature of Life," JTVI,  77, 1943, pp.60-69] He asserts 
that no definition of life or scientific explanation of its origin can stand up to criticism. The usual 
procedure is to explain one mystery by means of another. The fundamental criticism is that modern 
science works on the basis of a scientific monism by which he means that all there is is matter or 
substance or Nature. But, Clark continues, in that Nature operates on the grounds of random activity 
and the human intelligence on the principle of organization and control,  we have a final dualism. A 
theistic explanation of the origin of life is the only possible explanation." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian 
View of Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, p.182. Emphasis original)

"It is du Nouy's contention that chance cannot account for life. The simplest protein molecules are so 
complex that there is no possibility that they could have their atoms lined up in the correct order and 
number. Taking a protein molecule of two thousand atoms and presuming that there are only two elements 
necessary, the calculus of probability is such that the possibility of such a molecule forming by chance is 
for all practical purposes impossible. Even if 500 trillion shakings per second were employed the possibility 
of a chance variation occurring which would be a protein molecule is one in 10^243 billion years. [du Nouy, 
L., "Human Destiny," 1947, p.34] Since du Nouy is such a controversial figure we refer also to Butler, who 
says much the same thing: `In fact, we can hardly imagine how these complex structures came to exist on the 
earth. We find it difficult to conceive of any natural process by which any structure even as comparatively 
simple as a protein molecule could be formed. It is hardly conceivable that the atoms of a protein molecule 
spontaneously could come together in the right order to form a protein. Calculations have been made of the 
probability or chance of this happening fortuitously. The result is a chance which is so small as to have no 
real meaning.' [Butler, J.A.V., "Man is a Microcosm," Macmillan: New York, 1951, p.112] Butler gives the 
figures as one chance in 100^180 or once in 10^243 billion years. The identical figures are given by 
McCrady, who attributes them to Professor Charles-Eugene Guye. [McCrady, E., "Religious Perspectives in 
Biology," Theology Today,  9, October, 1952, pp.319-332, p.322]" (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of 
Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, p.182. Emphasis original)

"There is without question an anti-Christian version of the theory of evolution. Evolution has been used by 
atheists and naturalists and materialists to bolster their metaphysics and to club the orthodox. Dialectical 
materialism, the official philosophy of Russia, glories in evolution as the scientific doctrine of creation which 
frees man from faith in God. Evolution has been used to support atheism, ethical nihilism, and much anti-
God, anti-Bible, and anti-Christian thought. ...With this form of the theory of evolution, or with this sense 
of the theory of evolution, evangelical Christianity will always be at war" (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View 
of Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, pp.184-185. Emphasis original)

"However, evolution is not always set in a materialistic or atheistic or naturalistic or positivistic setting. That 
evolution has aided anti-Christian systems of thought no informed person can doubt; but that it has also 
been turned to other purposes, no informed person can doubt either. ... Finally, just to mention them, for we 
shall say more about them later, there are evangelical Christians who have espoused theistic evolution, and 
see no incompatibility between this acceptance and their Christian faith. Asa Gray, James McCosh, James 
Orr and A. H. Strong were all evangelical believers who accepted theistic evolution. Benjamin Warfield in a 
carefully guarded statement seemed to teach that if evolution were properly defined, he would not be 
adverse to it." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, 
Reprinted, 1960, pp.185-186. Emphasis original)

"Evolution as a scientific theory. Both the dogmatic evolutionist who calls evolution a theory proved 
beyond any doubt, and the dogmatic fundamentalist who brands it as a mere theory, are wrong. Scientific 
epistemology knows no absolutes in scientific theory. ... We cannot speak of the theory of evolution as 
possessing a certainty which belongs only to formal logic. The most characteristic feature of science is its 
process of generalization. These generalizations may be very limited in what they include or they may be 
very comprehensive. ... These generalizations are otherwise called laws, and it must be kept in mind we 
never see a law; we only see instances which exhibit the law. Nature posits the problem and the mind 
posits the hypothesis; and experimentation and logic tell us it the hypothesis is true or not. Every 
generalization or law or theory or hypothesis must face both logical and material entailment. If we find 
that our hypothesis jars with other hypotheses we must do something about it. We may discover that our 
hypothesis is wrong and the general body of established hypotheses is correct; or, we may feel that our 
hypothesis is correct and the whole body of theory must be overhauled. It was the genius of Einstein to see 
that it was all of physics which needed basic reconstruction, and not new solutions within the old physics 
of certain particular difficulties." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1954], 
Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, p.187. Emphasis original)

"Applying these principles of the nature of scientific law to evolution, the first observation is that 
evolution is not a perfectly nor infallibly verified law. No theory of science enjoys such status. Scientists 
who might speak as if evolution were established beyond all possibility of doubt, or beyond all possibility 
of supplantation, are speaking from ignorance of the nature of scientific generalizations. If we are to thank 
the logical positivists for nothing else, we can at least thank them for the hard work they have put into 
showing the probability status of scientific law, and for working effectively on the notion of degree of 
confirmation. Although it would be rather difficult to put down the degree of confirmation of the theory of 
evolution, we at least know its limits, and in view of the shifting around in evolutionary theory since its 
proposal by Darwin, we know that the confirmation is not as high as it is usually made out to be." (Ramm, 
B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, p.188. 
Emphasis original)

"The theory of evolution in terms of the philosophy of science is a probability statement. It is based on a 
great number of observations-geological, biological, embryological, psychological. From these observations 
certain limited generalizations are made about individual species or families. Increasingly larger 
generalizations are made as to the broader laws of heredity, embryology, tissue structure, or reproduction. 
Finally, the great bulk of the data of life is summarized by the most universal generalization possible, which 
is some form of the theory of evolution. This generalization is substantiated with a variety of arguments 
which are usually collected in some text on evolutionary theory. No one has seen evolution at work over the 
hundreds of thousands of years of geological time. What we have is a vast collection of data of almost 
every conceivable sort. All this data is organized by the theory of evolution, a generalization of the broadest 
possible type. It is, therefore, a probability statement and not anything like absolute or eternal truth. Such 
a generalization is not as yet capable of clear, univocal verification." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of 
Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, pp.188-189. Emphasis original)

"As a hypothesis it [the theory of evolution] can survive only if no serious logical inconsistencies develop 
within it. At the present time it is working with two contradictory assertions: (i) life comes only from life, and 
(ii) life originally arose from the inorganic. Perhaps a hundred years of biological experimentation will prove 
this to be a fatal contradiction. Or we may assert that (i) offspring keep within a well-defined range of 
variability, and (ii) offspring occasionally jump well outside the usual range of variability. Perhaps in years 
to come this too will prove to be fatal to evolution." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and 
Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, p.189)

"If evolution runs into serious material trouble it will have to be modified or discarded. Perhaps it will be 
shown that genes and chromosomes are too complex ever to have evolved but had to be created. Perhaps 
after two hundred years of intensive experimentation all proposed mechanisms of evolution will have to be 
discarded. Typical of many evolutionists is Howells, who admits that there is no known mechanism for 
evolution yet accepts the theory without facing the implications of a theory without a mechanism. He writes: 
`And there is also the mystery of how and why evolution takes place at all ... Evolution is a fact, like 
digestion...Nor is it known just why evolution occurs, or exactly what guides its steps.' [Howells, W., 
"Mankind So Far," Doubleday: New York, 1944, p.5)" (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and 
Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, p.189)

"The geological record might be troublesome to evolution. One hundred more years of palaeontology might 
show the invalidity of many present assumptions." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and 
Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, p.189)

"Although Standen writes popularly he nonetheless has put his finger on two of the sorest points of 
evolutionary theory, showing its possible ultimate embarrassment with facts. (i) He correctly observes that 
there is the vague theory and the precise theory. The vague theory is the belief of scientists that 
evolution has occurred. The precise theory is the hypothesis as to how evolution actually works. There is 
no known satisfactory and clearly demonstrated precise theory of evolution. If evolution is to `stick' as a 
scientific theory it must establish precise theory. In spite of the fact that as yet no precise theory is 
forthcoming, the evolutionists have unbounded faith in the vague theory [Standen, A., "Science is a 
Sacred Cow," E.P. Dutton & Co: New York NY, 1950, pp.101-102]. This is not science at its best. (ii) He 
correctly observes that the so-called evolutionary trees are all leaves or twigs with no branches or trunk. 
Theoretically we should be able to trace an entire series of forms from some primeval creatures to a present 
day creature. It is not a matter of a missing link, but of countless missing links. The wood which should 
support all these branches and twigs is, as Standen says, `hypothetical wood.' [Ibid, pp.104-105] The 
geologist or evolutionist might claim that the geological record is imperfect. Even so, the careful scientist is 
expected to keep his theories close to the evidence. Creating vast genealogical trees out of hypothetical 
wood is not keeping close to the actual data of palaeontology." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science 
and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, pp.189-190. Emphasis original)

"All we are trying to assert at this point is a call for a clear recognition that the theory of evolution is a 
probability statement. Its life must not depend on dogmatism of biologists, but on the actually forthcoming 
evidence and data. This data may increase the status of the theory, or weaken it or even destroy it. It is not 
true to scientific epistemology to give it the benediction of finality or even to treat it as a scientific sacred 
cow." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 
1960, p.190)

"The broad generalizations are usually the most difficult statements to verify,  because they are at the end 
of a long series of probability statements and because the verification of such statements is fraught with so 
many problems-the possible bias of the scientist; the welter of the data; the number of possibilities of 
interpretation at several points of the evidence; trying to weigh the significance of certain phenomena or 
experiments." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, 
Reprinted, 1960, p.190. Emphasis original)

"The history of science is the history of ruined and wrecked generalizations. This is a sign of health, 
exhibiting the power of science to correct itself. It is also a sign of the tentativeness of all scientific theory, 
evolution included. Two great generalizations have been accepted by western culture only to be 
subsequently discredited by later developments. The first was Ptolemaic astronomy, which seemed so 
obvious to the medieval astronomers. Today it is outmoded, though once universally believed in the 
western world. The second is Newtonian physics, which had acquired more prestige than the Ptolemaic 
system. Scientists boasted that Newton had discovered the very laws of God, and for over two hundred 
years his system reigned supreme. Newton's system is now a special condition within the more 
comprehensive system of Albert Einstein, and the atomic physicists have told us that Newtonian physics 
has little applicability to the microcosm. Hundreds of other generalizations in all the sciences have suffered 
the same fate. Evolutionists must seriously face the significance of the history of science before 
evolutionary theory becomes knighted as the everlasting law of biology." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View 
of Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, p.190. Emphasis original)

"If the theory of evolution be a generalization of a host of lesser and greater generalizations, then it is not 
possible to show with our present state of knowledge that all possibilities are exhausted. Evolutionary 
theory in theory could suffer the same fate as the Ptolemaic and Newtonian theories. It is an effort to 
reconstruct the past history of biology, and understand the present phenomena. It is the best guess the 
biologists have made at the present to harmonize all the biological phenomena." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian 
View of Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, pp.190-191. Emphasis original)

"Creation and development are both indispensable categories in the understanding of geology and 
biology. ... Progression cannot be denied geology and biology. The chasms in the order of life can only be 
bridged by creation. Biology cannot be rendered totally meaningful solely in terms of progression. Both 
Genesis and biology start with the null and void, both proceed from the simple to the complex, and both 
climax with man." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, 
Reprinted, 1960, p.191. Emphasis original) 

"A series of guerrilla fights with evolution showing its weaknesses and inconsistencies will not win the day. 
Convictions are surrendered only when a more unifying, a more integrating hypothesis is suggested and 
demonstrated. The Christian approach to evolution cannot consist of snipings at the theory; but it must 
supply an interpretative theory of biology which will do all the evolutionary theory does for modern 
biologists, and something more besides. Until then we may sting the theory of evolution with some factual 
embarrassments here and there but we will never force a retreat. It is our hope that a theory like progressive 
creationism will form the basis of a new biological synthesis which will be to biology like relativity theory 
was to physical theory." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: 
London, Reprinted, 1960, p.191) 

7/01/ed, 1960, p.191) 
"Necessary restrictions on the theory of evolution. The author does not have the necessary learning in 
biology to attempt a refutation of the evidence of evolution However, there appear to be problems in the 
evolutionary theory which are obvious to those who are not trained biologists. There as yet remains the 
proof of the inorganic origin of life. It may be assumed but it is not yet verified. There is the problem of the 
rugged species which have endured without change for millions of years. There is the problem of the 
sudden appearance of new forms in the geological record. There are as yet multitudes of missing links 
among the species. As yet biologists are not agreed as to the mechanism of evolution, and those 
mechanisms advocated do not as yet possess a high degree of verification. Our particular problem is this: 
what are the necessary limitations of evolutionary theory?" (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science 
and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, p.192. Emphasis original)

"There are limits beyond which the theory of evolution may not be pushed, and we wish to examine those 
limits. ... Evolution can never become the self-creation of Nature. By an actual cause we mean that which 
is the ultimate and final cause of a thing. By a mediate cause we mean that which is the tool of the actual 
cause. The carpenter is the actual cause of a house; the hammer, nails, etc., are the mediate causes, or 
secondary causes. It is the firm teaching of Sacred Scripture, Christian theology, and Christian theism that 
the sole actual cause of the universe is Almighty God. God is the First Cause, the Actual Cause, and the 
world-ground of all things. Without God matter could not be, laws could not be, processes could not be. 
The universe in every dimension and at every point depends upon God. Therefore, evolution cannot be 
conceived as actual cause. Nature cannot create itself. To give evolution the status of actual causation 
is the terrible mistake -from the perspective of theism--of naturalism, pragmatism, materialism, and positivism. 
The only possible status which evolution could have is that of any other scientific law, viz. that of 
mediate or secondary causation." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1954], 
Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, p.192. Emphasis original)

"Evolution can never be the rationale of the universe. Evolution has been taken (e.g. Spencer) as the key 
interpretative concept of the universe. The universal law of evolution has been invoked to explain the 
development of the cosmos, the solar system, the elements, the crust of the earth, the flora and fauna of the 
earth, man, and all social institutions--marriage, family, agriculture, legal systems, political systems, 
economic systems and religion. This is .hardly a defensible use of the word evolution. It could only be so 
applied if it were to mean simply change, but if that is all it means it becomes a rather empty term, a truism of 
not too great sophistication. Evolution applied to inorganic things can mean only a series of states, or a 
succession of processes, but always with a balanced equation. There are other serious problems when the 
term is applied to social institutions. Evolution in biology must fear the significance of epigenesis. By 
epigenesis we mean the constant increase of the complexity of forms over a period of time. We mean that 
something new is constantly added; that there is something additive to evolution, something quasi-
creative. It must be something more than mere change or rearrangement." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View 
of Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, pp.192-193. Emphasis original)

"Evolution, if it be true, is a law of biology. It is not a law of the elements, nor of social institutions, nor of 
man's higher powers. It may be a powerful interpretative principle in biology, but it cannot serve as the 
rationale of the universe any more than Newton's concept of gravitation could. Nature, man, and society are 
richer in content than can be accounted for by the biological concept of epigenesis or transformation. 
Evolution as a biological theory cannot be artlessly transmuted into metaphysics, epistemology, and 
religion. No matter how thoroughly a man of biology may believe in, evolution he must not be an idolator 
and worship his theory. He must have the humility to realize that there are other windows on reality." 
(Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, 
p.193. Emphasis original)

"Evolution must reckon with energy and design in Nature. The second law of thermodynamics cannot be 
ignored in the construction of evolutionary theory. [Clark, R.E.D., "Evolution and Entropy," JTVI 75, 1943, 
pp.49-71]. Evolution and entropy are headed in opposite directions. Clark's fundamental thesis is that 
entropy represents a random and degenerative process, whereas life represents an ordered and generative 
process. Entropy is the gradual equalization of molecular velocities through random collisions, and it is 
degenerative in the sense that the physical state of energy levels is decreased. Life is possible only if 
miraculously these two features of entropy are reversed, and certainly entropy is the more basic and 
universal law than evolution. Betts agrees with Clark that entropy is a downhill process, and although while 
not an outright refutation of evolution, it poses serious problems to evolution. The fundamental energy 
process of Nature is disintegrative, not integrative. In radioactivity the process is from the complex to the 
simple. As Betts writes: `Indeed, modern astronomical evidence is showing that there is unidirectional 
"evolution" of matter from the state of high atomic complexity to one of atomic simplicity and a breakdown 
of matter farther into radiation. [Betts, E.H., "Evolution and Entropy," JTVI,  76, 1944, pp.1-18] It is at this 
point that clear metaphysical positions come forth. Even the most positivistic scientist must say something. 
We are faced clearly with the two theories of (i) the recoverability of energy and (ii) the irrecoverability of 
energy. If energy is irrecoverable we are faced with the doctrine of creation. If energy is recoverable we are 
not forced into creationism. If we believe in irrecoverability we believe in an omnipotent God; if not we 
believe in the Epicurean god of Chance. Energy confronts us with the problem of choosing between 
Epicurean Chance and the Eternal Deity. To this hour no known process of recoverability is proven. The 
Christian is convinced that of the two possibilities creation is more intellectually respectable." (Ramm, B.L.*, 
"The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, pp.193-194. 
Emphasis original)

"Modern scientific thought has been insistently against an interpretation of Nature by design or final 
causes. Evolutionary thought must take account of at least two matters in this regard. ... There are a large 
number of cosmic and inorganic features necessary for life on this planet. The earth must fulfil certain 
cosmic relations or life would be frozen out or burnt out, or there would be wrong proportions of gases or 
incorrect proportions of land to water. Such a list becomes encyclopedic in length and I am sure we have not 
begun to determine all the necessary cosmic and chemical features of the earth absolutely necessary for 
life. The facts of the case are that these facts do exist so as to make life Possible. Life is a cosmic function,  
not just a mould on the crust of this earth. Not a bit of protoplasm could appear on this earth unless the 
entire cosmic structure gave its assent. NOT ONE CELL OF LIFE COULD EMERGE IN SOME PRIMEVAL 
grounds can such facts be ignored? To assume all is chance, with not even the flutter of the eyelash, is not 
becoming the genuine openmindedness that characterizes science at its best. Which is the greater strain on 
our credulity: (i) that these countless of thousands of facts of cosmic, chemical, and physical properties-all 
of which are absolutely necessary to life-occurred by chance on this one planet; or (ii) that God of 
omnipotence raised his Son from the dead?" (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," 
[1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, p.194. Emphasis original)

"Evolution must reckon with the multitude of facts now known about sensory perception. It takes 
considerable experimental work and scientific erudition to discover how the eye, ear and nose function. 
Psychophysicists have discovered that these organs are highly engineered products. There must be 
sensitivity to the right ranges of energy in sound and light. There must be energy transformations and even, 
as in the case of the ears, reduction of gears! The eye must have a reasonably clear, workable lens, a 
photographic plate, and a chemical reagent to develop the picture. When we consider how much technical 
construction goes into the construction of a television set, and what a big mechanism it is, and then 
contrast it with the human eye which receives pictures in colour with automatic adjustment features built in, 
yet all contained in about one cubic inch, we cannot but marvel at the intelligence of the man who still 
insists upon chance factors alone in Nature." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," 
[1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, pp.194-195. Emphasis original)

"Only in the twentieth century has science begun to unravel in detail the intricate engineering 
technicalities of human sensory organs. And this is but a token of the evidence available, for there is the 
inexhaustible study of the sensory powers and "instincts" of animals. It is further conceithat when the 
biochemists tell us the fairly complete story of the chemistry of the human body we will bow our heads in 
holy reverence and admit the only feasible accounting of this is the work of an Omnipotent Wisdom. If 
evolution is the law of biology, it cannot be developed in independence of these matters we have here 
presented, and therefore evolution cannot expect to account for all biological phenomena by chance or 
random." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, 
Reprinted, 1960, p.195. Emphasis original)

"Evolution must face the transcendental nature of man. In the nineteenth and twentieth century man had 
ganged up against himself. Taxonomically he put himself with the brutes. Biologically and physically he 
made himself only a physical object-with no mind or soul. The central nervous system is now his soul or 
mind. Everything in traditional philosophy and religion based on the presupposition of a soul, and thus 
yielding a normative discipline must now be rejected, e.g. a true religion, normative ethics, eternal laws of 
the true, the beautiful, and the good, and in their places has been put a positivistic, anti-metaphysical, and 
relativistic scientism. It is our contention that this is a gross misconstruction of the facts. Man has four 
types of experiences which prove that although he is part of Nature in that he possesses a physical body, 
he yet transcends his own physical nature, proving that he also has a mental or spiritual nature which must 
come from above and not from below." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1954], 
Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, p.195. Emphasis original)

"Man has the power of rational thought. Anti-metaphysical positivism can only be propounded and 
defended by a man with the powers of rational thought. All science is based on man's power of 
conceptualization. Rational thought is only possible because man can step out of the circle of necessity. 
Correct answers are not discovered by following through a series of physical states, but by following 
through a series of steps dictated by logic and inference. To convert ice to steam is to subject the ice to a 
series of states. The same is true of the conversion of crude oil to gasoline. But an entirely different 
sequence is followed in finding the cube root of 27. These thought processes have to step out of the circle 
of determined physical states of the brain itself-and they therefore testify that there is something in man that 
is more than body, nerves, and chemicals." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," 
[1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, pp.195-196. Emphasis original)

"Man has the ability to have moral experience. In moral experience there is a definite structure. There are 
always two or more possibilities of moral choice, and these possibilities create a tension. The most ardent 
convert to materialism must decide many times a day which alternative he shall choose in a moral situation. 
Annually he must self-test his honesty with his income tax return. This moral structure is in all of us, and 
even if we get so hardened as to ignore it, we greatly resent those who ignore it in their injustices upon us. 
After all the psychologists have had their say about social conditioning, and after all the anthropologists 
have had their say about cultural conditioning, the moral structure is still part of the fundamental psychic 
equipment of all normal people. Such a structure escapes physical determinism. There is no way of 
accounting for moral experience from below; it is a part of man which comes from above." (Ramm, B.L.*, 
"The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, p.196. 
Emphasis original)

"Man has an aesthetic structure within him. The sense of the beautiful is not in the sense organ but 
through the sense organ. Dogs may hear better than humans but they hardly enjoy a concert as a trained 
musician does. Birds have magnificent eyes, but they are hardly the world's great art critics. We believe that 
animals have the incipient structures of personality and so experience certain things which humans do, but 
only at a greatly reduced level. Animals exhibit certain emotions and certain powers of thought, and perhaps 
even have rude aesthetic experiences. Such powers are necessary for their survival and existence. But the 
full range of these powers is found only in man. The power to detach an object of sense from all else but its 
aesthetic quality is a power that is from above, not from below. Only by taking a stand outside the state of 
physical determination can man enjoy the beautiful." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and 
Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, p.196. Emphasis original)

"Man's belief in God, his sense of the transcendental as seen in worship, and his experience of the spiritual 
order, are all matters of daily experience of Christians and are not accountable on naturalistic premises. As 
far as can be determined nothing corresponding to religious experience or worship or adoration is detectable 
among animals. Erratic as metaphysical beliefs of some thinkers may be, they at least testify to man's power 
to think above transitory experience, and to try to peer over his narrow cell of space and time and try to 
catch a vision of an eternal order. Even though a man may reject the proofs for the existence of God, there is 
something to weigh and measure in these proofs in that man has (i) the power to construct such elaborate 
chains of argumentation, and that (ii) he has a sense of something eternal, transcendent, the ground of all 
being. Man's power to create a world other than the sensory world, and his power to worship and venerate 
that world, is a testimony to the fact that there is more in man than physical states, and this power is from 
above and not from below." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1954], 
Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, pp.196-197. Emphasis original)

"The conclusion at this point is this: evolution may be entertained as a possible secondary cause or 
mediate cause in biological science. But to raise it to a metaphysical principle or as the all-embracing key 
or category or scheme of Reality and to cancel out the metaphysical worth of all other possible clues is 
improper science and doggerel philosophy. If evolution be used so as to relativize all ethics, logic, beauty, 
and religion, and completely to animalize man, we can judge only that it must be severely condemned by 
evangelical Christianity, and by all philosophies and world views which seek genuine significance for 
human personality, worth, and value, and which believe in purpose in human history. Evolutionary theory 
must be developed within the confines of what we have here endeavoured to set forth." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The 
Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, p.197. Emphasis 

"F. E. Zeuner (Dating the Past,  third edition, 1952) has an interesting chapter on `Biological Evolution and 
Time' (Chapter XII). The conclusion he comes to is that evolution works too slowly to be experimentally 
verified in the lifetime of an experimenter or even of humanity. It is almost an admission that evolution can 
never be strictly demonstrated for its mechanism works too slowly to be a matter of experimentation. If this 
is the case then the probability status of the theory of evolution is greatly lowered, and biologists must 
accordingly moderate their spirit of certainty in speaking of its confirmation." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian 
View of Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, pp.209-210)

"Mutation implies a change, but not a creation. So we have to ask whether it is the only variation that may 
possibly have an evolutionary force. Many geneticists unhesitatingly answer in the affirmative, although 
evolution is not their subject." (GrassÚ, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of 
Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.218)

"`The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why.' Michael Ruse, 
Professor of Philosophy, Florida State University" (McGrath, A. & McGrath, J.C., "The Dawkins Delusion?," 
SPCK: London, 2007, front cover)

* 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.


Copyright © 2008-2010, 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 January, 2008. Updated: 16 March, 2010.