Stephen E. Jones

Creation/Evolution Quotes: Unclassified quotes: June 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 June 2008.
The date format is dd/mm/yy. See copyright conditions at end.

[Index: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec]

"On the evolution-hypothesis we are obliged to assume that the earliest living things-probably minute units 
of protoplasm smaller than any the microscope reveals to us-had the ability to appropriate directly from the 
inorganic world both the nitrogen and the materials for carbohydrates without both of which protoplasm 
cannot be formed; since in the absence of preceding organic matter there was no other source. The general 
law of evolution as well as the observed actions of Protozoa and Protophyta, suggest that these 
primordial types simultaneously displayed animal-life and plant-life. For whereas the developed animal-type 
cannot form from its inorganic surroundings either nitrogenous compounds or carbo-hydrates; and whereas 
the developed plant-type, able to form carbo-hydrates from its inorganic surroundings, depends for the 
formation of its protoplasm mainly, although indirectly, on the nitrogenous compounds derived from 
preceding organisms, as do also most of the plants devoid of chlorophyll-the fungi; we are obliged to 
assume that in the beginning, along with the expending activities characterizing the animal-type, there went 
the accumulating activities characterizing both of the vegetal types -forms of activity by-and-by 
differentiated." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, 
Revised, 1910, pp.63-64)

"Though the successive steps in the artificial formation of organic compounds have now gone so far that 
substances simulating proteids, if not identical with them, have been produced, yet we have no clue to the 
conditions under which proteids arose; and still less have we a clue to the conditions under which inert 
proteids became so combined as to form active protoplasm. The essential fact to be recognized is that living 
matter, originated as we must assume during a long stage of progressive cooling in which the infinitely 
varied parts of the Earth's surface were slowly passing through appropriate physical conditions, possessed 
from the outset the power of assimilating to itself the materials from which more living matter was formed; 
and that since then all living matter has arisen from its self-increasing action. But now, leaving speculation 
concerning these anabolic changes as they commenced in the remote past, let vs contemplate them as they 
are carried on now-first directing our attention to those presented in the vegetal world." (Spencer, H., "The 
Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.64) 

"The relation of these facts here sketched in rude outline to the doctrine of Evolution at large should be 
observed. Already we have seen how (§ 8a), in the course of terrestrial evolution, there has been an 
increasingly heterogeneous assemblage of increasing heterogeneous compounds, preparing the way for 
organic life. And here we may see that during the development of plant-life from its lowest algoid and 
fungoid forms up to those forms which constitute the chief vegetal world, there has been an increasing 
number of complex organic compounds formed; displayed at once in the diversity of them contained in the 
same plant and in the still greater diversity displayed in the vast aggregate of species, genera, orders, and 
classes of plants." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, 
Revised, 1910, p.67)

"As, in the course of evolution, we rise from the smallest to the largest aggregates by a process of 
integration, so do we rise by a process of differentiation from the simplest to the most complex aggregates. 
The initial types of life are at once extremely small and almost structureless. Passing over those which swarm 
in the air, the water, and the soil, and are now some of them found to be causes of diseases, we may set out 
with those ordinarily called Protozoa and Protophyta: the lowest of which, however, are either at once 
plants and animals, or are now one and now the other." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. 
Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.181)

"That the first living things were minute portions of simple protoplasm is implied by the general theory of 
Evolution; but we have no evidence that such portions exist now." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of 
Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.181)

"Thus the hypothesis of evolution prepares us for those two radical modifications of the cell-doctrine which 
the facts oblige us to make. It leads us to expect that as structureless portions of protoplasm must have 
preceded cells in the process of general evolution; so, in the special evolution of each higher organism, 
there will be an habitual production of cells out of structureless blastema. And it leads us to expect that 
though, generally, the physiological units composing a structureless blastema, will display their inherited 
proclivities by cell-development and metamorphosis; there will nevertheless occur cases in which the tissue 
to be formed, is formed by direct transformation of the blastema." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," 
[1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.20)

"Before closing the chapter, it will be useful to compare the definition of Life here set forth, .with the 
definition of Evolution set forth in First Principles. Living bodies being bodies which display in the 
highest degree the structural changes constituting Evolution; and Life being made up of the functional 
changes accompanying these structural changes; we ought to find a certain harmony between the 
definitions of Evolution and of Life. Such a harmony is not wanting. The first distinction we noted between 
the kind of change shown in Life, and other hinds of change, was its serial character. We saw that vital 
change is substantially unlike non-vital change, in being made up of successive changes. Now since 
organic bodies display so much more than inorganic bodies those continuous differentiations and 
integrations which constitute Evolution; and since the re-distributions of matter thus carried so far in a 
comparatively short period, imply concomitant re-distributions of motion; it is clear that in a given time, 
organic bodies must undergo changes so comparatively numerous as to render the successiveness of their 
changes a marked characteristic. And it will follow a priori, as we found it to do a posteriori, that the 
organisms exhibiting Evolution in the highest degree, exhibit the longest or the most rapid successions of 
changes, or both. Again, it was shown that vital change is distinguished from non-vital change by being 
made up of many simultaneous changes; and also that creatures possessing high vitality are marked off 
from those possessing low vitality, by the far greater number of their simultaneous changes. Here, too, there 
is entire congruity." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. 
I, Revised, 1910, p.107. Emphasis original)

too, must have gradually passed into their concrete shapes through processes of growth. Growth is, indeed, 
as being an integration of matter; the primary trait of Evolution; and if Evolution of one kind or other is 
universal, growth is universal-universal, that is, in the sense that all aggregates display it in some way at 
some period." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, 
Revised, 1910, p.135)

"If all organisms have arisen by Evolution, it is of course not to be expected that such several modes of 
development can be absolutely demarcated: we are sure to find them united by transitional modes. ...In 
ordinary speech Development is often used as synonymous with Growth. It hence seems needful to say that 
Development as here and here after used, means increase of structure and not increase of bulk.. It may 
be added that the word Evolution, comprehending growth as well as Development, is to be reserved for 
occasions when both are implied." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New 
York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.162. Emphasis original)

"Any one well acquainted with the facts, may readily raise objections to this arrangement. He may name 
forms which do not obviously come under any of these heads. He may point to plants that are for a time 
multicentral but afterwards develop axially. And from lower types of animals he may choose many in which 
the continuous and discontinuous modes are both displayed. But, as already hinted, an arrangement free 
from such anomalies must be impossible, if the various kinds of organization have arisen by Evolution. The 
one above sketched out is to be regarded as a rough grouping of the facts, which helps us to a conception 
of them in their totality; and, so regarded, it will be of service when we come to treat of Individuality and 
Reproduction. ... From these most general external. aspects of organic development, let us now turn to its 
internal and more special aspects. When treating of Evolution as a universal process of things, a rude 
outline of the course of structural changes in organisms was given ( First Principles, §§ 17.0, 119, 132). 
Here it will be proper to describe these changes more fully." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," 
[1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.166-167)

"Thus in each of the organic sub-kingdoms, we see this change from an incoherent, indefinite homogeneity 
to a coherent, definite heterogeneity, illustrated in a quadruple way. The originally-like units called cells, 
become unlike in various ways, and in ways more numerous and marked as the development goes on. The 
several tissues which these several classes of cells form by aggregation, grow little by little distinct from 
each other; and little by little put on those structural complexities that arise from differentiations among their 
component units. In the shoot, as in the limb, the external form, originally very simple, and having much in 
common with simple forms in general, gradually acquires an increasing complexity, and an increasing 
unlikeness to other forms. Meanwhile, the remaining parts of the organism to which the shoot or limb 
belongs, having been severally assuming structures divergent from one another and from that of this 
particular shoot or limb, there has arisen a greater heterogeneity in the organism as a whole. ... One of the 
most remarkable inductions of embryology comes next in order. And here we find illustrated the general 
truth that in mental evolution as in bodily evolution the progress is from the indefinite and inexact to the 
definite and exact. For the first statement of this induction was but an adumbration of the correct statement." 
(Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, 

"It may be argued that on the hypothesis of Evolution, Life necessarily comes before organization. On this 
hypothesis, organic matter in a state of homogeneous aggregation must precede organic matter in a state of 
heterogeneous aggregation. But since the passing from a structureless state to a structured state, is itself a 
vital process, it follows that vital activity must have existed while there was yet no structure: structure could 
not else arise. That function takes precedence of structure, seems also implied in the definition of Life."
(Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, 

"That organic types should be comparatively stable, might be anticipated on the hypothesis of Evolution. 
The structure of any organism being a product of the almost infinite series of actions and reactions to which 
ancestral organisms have been exposed; any unusual actions and reactions brought to bear on an 
individual, can have but an infinitesimal effect in permanently changing the structure of the organism as a 
whole. The new set of forces, compounded with all the antecedent sets of forces, can but inappreciably 
modify that moving equilibrium of functions which all these antecedent sets of forces have established. 
Though there may result a considerable perturbation of certain functions-a considerable divergence from 
their ordinary rhythms-yet the general centre of equilibrium cannot be sensibly changed. On the removal of 
the perturbing cause the previous balance will be quickly restored: the effect of the new forces being almost 
obliterated by the enormous aggregate of forces which the previous balance expresses." (Spencer, H., "The 
Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.242)

"On the hypothesis of Evolution, perplexities of this nature are just such as we might anticipate. If Life in 
general commenced with minute and simple forms, like those out of which all organisms, however complex, 
now originate; and if the transitions from these primordial units to organisms made up of groups of such 
units, and to higher organisms made up of groups of such groups took place by degrees; it is clear that 
individualities of the first and simplest order would merge gradually in those of a larger and more complex 
order, and these again in others of an order having still greater bulk and organization. Hence it would be 
impossible to say where the lower individualities ceased and the higher individualities commenced." 
(Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, 

"We may infer that in a way parallel to that just indicated, cell-evolution was, under one of its aspects, a 
change from a stage in which the exciting substance and the substance excited were mingled with 
approximate uniformity, to a stage in which the exciting substance was gathered together into the nucleus 
and finally into the chromosomes: leaving behind the substance excited, now distinguished as cytoplasm." 
(Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, 

"In Chapters III and IIIa of the First Part, reasons were given for concluding that in the animal organism 
nitrogenous substances play the part of decomposing agents to the carbo-hydrates-that the molecular 
disturbance set up by the collapse of a proteid molecule destroys the equilibrium of sundry adjacent 
carbohydrate molecules, and causes that evolution of energy which accompanies their fall into molecules of 
simpler compounds. Here, if the foregoing argument is valid, we may conclude that this highly complex 
phosphorized compound which, chromatin contains, plays, the same part to the adjacent nitrogenous 
compounds as these play to the carbo-hydrates. If so, we see arising a stage earlier that `general 
physiological method' illustrated in § 23f. It was there pointed out that in animal organisms the various 
structures are so arranged that evolution of a small amount of energy in one, sets up evolution of a larger 
amount of energy in another; and often this multiplied energy undergoes a second multiplication of like 
kind." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 
1910, pp.262-263) 

"But, notwithstanding the immense divergences of structure so produced, the varieties inter-breed. To this, 
however, it may be replied that sufficient time has not elapsed- that the process by which a structural 
adaptation so reacts on the constitution as to make it a distinct one, possibly, or probably, takes many 
thousands of years. Let` us accept for the moment Lord Kelvin's low estimate of the geologic time during 
which life has existed-one hundred million years. Suppose we divide that time into as many parts as there are 
hours occupied in the development of a human foetus. And suppose that during these hundred million 
years there has been going on with some uniformity the evolution of the various organic types now existing. 
Then the amount of change undergone by the foetus in an hour, will be equivalent to thet to the amount of change 
undergone by an evolving organic form in fifteen thousand years. That is to say, during general evolution it 
may have taken fifteen thousand years to establish, as distinct, two species differing from one another no 
more than the foetus differs from itself after the lapse of an hour. Hence, though we lack proof that adaptive 
modifications become specific traits, it is quite possible that they are in course of becoming specific traits." 
(Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, 

"Either the multitudinous kinds of organisms which now exist, and the far more multitudinous kinds 
which have existed during past geologic eras, have been from time to time separately made; or they 
have arisen by insensible steps, through actions such as we see habitually going on. Both hypotheses 
imply a Cause. The last, certainly as much as the first, recognizes this Cause as inscrutable. The point 
at issue is, how this inscrutable Cause has worked in the production of living forms. This point, if it is 
to be decided. at all, is to be decided only by examination of evidence. Let us inquire which of these 
antagonist hypotheses is most congruous with established facts." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of 
Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.415) 

"EARLY ideas are not usually true ideas. Undeveloped intellect, be it that of an individual or that of the race, 
forms conclusions which require to be revised and re revised, before they reach a tolerable correspondence 
with realities. Were it otherwise there would be no discovery, no increase of intelligence. What we call the 
progress of knowledge, is the bringing of Thoughts into harmony with Things; and it implies that the first 
Thoughts are either wholly out of harmony with Things, or in very incomplete harmony with them. If 
illustrations be needed the history of every science furnishes them. The primitive notions of mankind as to 
the structure of the heavens were wrong; and the notions which replaced them were successively less 
Wrong. The original belief respecting the form of the Earth was wrong; and this wrong belief survived 
through the first civilizations. The earliest ideas that have come down to us concerning the natures of the 
elements were wrong; and only in quite recent times has the composition of matter in its various forms been 
better understood. The interpretations of mechanical facts, of meteorological facts, of physiological facts, 
were at first wrong. In all these cases men set out with beliefs which, if not absolutely false, contained but 
small amounts of truth disguised by immense amounts of error. Hence the hypothesis that living beings 
resulted from special creations, being a primitive hypothesis, is probably an untrue hypothesis. It would be 
strange if, while early men failed to reach the truth in so many cases where it is comparatively conspicuous, 
they reached it in a case where it is comparatively hidden. ... Besides the improbability given to the belief in 
special creations, by its association with mistaken beliefs in general, a further improbability is given to it by 
its association with a special class of mistaken beliefs. It belongs to a family of beliefs which have one after 
another been destroyed by advancing knowledge; and is, indeed, almost the only member of the family 
surviving among educated people." (Spencer, H., "The Principlesogy," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: 
New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.417-418. Emphasis original) 

"The belief in special creations of organisms arose among men during the era of profoundest darkness; 
and it belongs to a family of beliefs which have nearly all died out as enlightenment has increased. It is 
without a solitary established fact on which to stand; and when the attempt is made to put it into 
definite shape in the mind, it turns out to be only a pseud-idea. This mere verbal hypothesis, which men 
idly accept as a real or thinkable hypothesis, is of the same nature as would be one, based on a day's 
observation of human life, that each man and woman was specially created -an hypothesis not 
suggested by evidence but by lack of evidence-an hypothesis which formulates ignorance into a 
semblance of knowledge. Further, we see that this hypothesis, failing to satisfy men's intellectual need 
of an interpretation, fails also to satisfy their moral sentiment. It is quite inconsistent with those 
conceptions of the divine nature which they profess to entertain. If infinite power was to be 
demonstrated, then, either by the special creation of every individual, or by the production of species 
by some method of natural genesis, it would be better demonstrated than by the use of two methods, 
as assumed by the hypothesis. And if infinite goodness was to be demonstrated, then, not only do the 
provisions of organic structure, if they are specially devised, fail to demonstrate it, but there is an 
enormous mass of them which imply malevolence rather than benevolence. Thus the hypothesis of 
special creations turns out to be worthless by its derivation; worthless in its intrinsic incoherence; 
worthless as absolutely without evidence; worthless as not supplying an intellectual need; worthless 
as not satisfying a moral want. We must therefore consider it as counting for nothing, in opposition to 
any other hypothesis respecting the origin of organic beings." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of 
Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.429-430)

"JUST as the supposition that races of organisms have been specially created, is discredited by its 
origin; so, conversely, the supposition that races of organisms have been evolved, is credited by its 
origin. Instead of being a conception suggested and accepted when mankind were profoundly 
ignorant, it is a conception born in times of comparative enlightenment. Moreover, the belief that plants 
and animals have arisen in pursuance of uniform laws, instead of through breaches of uniform laws, is a 
belief which has come into existence in the most-instructed class, living in these better-instructed times. 
Not among those who have disregarded the order of Nature, has this idea made its appearance; but 
among those who have familiarized themselves with the order of Nature. Thus the derivation of this 
modern hypothesis is as favourable as that of the ancient hypothesis is unfavourable." (Spencer, H., 
"The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.431. 
Emphasis original)

"A kindred antithesis exists between the two families of beliefs, to which the beliefs we are comparing 
severally belong. While the one family has been dying out the other family has been multiplying. As fast as 
men have ceased to regard different classes of phenomena as caused by special personal agents, acting 
irregularly; so fast have they come to regard these different classes of phenomena as caused by a general 
agency acting uniformly-the two changes being correlatives. And as, on the one hand, the hypothesis that 
each species resulted from a supernatural act, having lost nearly all its kindred hypotheses, may be expected 
soon to die; so, on the other hand, the hypothesis that each species resulted from the action of natural 
causes, being one of an increasing family of hypotheses, may be expected to survive." (Spencer, H., "The 
Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.431-432)

"The hypotheses of Special Creation and Evolution, are no less contrasted in respect of their legitimacy as 
hypotheses. While, as we have seen, the one belongs to that order of symbolic conceptions which are 
proved to be illusive by the impossibility of realizing them in thought; the; other is one of those symbolic 
conceptions which are more or less fully realizable in thought." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," 
[1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.433)

"In all respects, then, the hypothesis of evolution contrasts favourably with the hypothesis of special 
creation. It has arisen in comparatively-instructed times and in the most cultivated class. It is one of those 
beliefs in the uniform concurrence of phenomena, which are gradually supplanting beliefs in their irregular 
and arbitrary concurrence; and it belongs to a genus of these beliefs which has of late been rapidly 
spreading. It is a definitely-conceivable hypothesis; being simply an extension to the organic world at large, 
of a conception framed from our experiences of individual organisms; just as the hypothesis of universal 
gravitation was an extension of the conception which our experiences of terrestrial gravitation had 
produced. This definitely-conceivable hypothesis, besides the support of numerous analogies, has the 
support of direct evidence. We have proof that there is going on a process of the kind alleged; and though 
the results of this process, as actually witnessed, are minute in comparison with the totality of results 
ascribed to it, yet they bear to such totality a ratio as great as that by which an analogous hypothesis is 
justified. Lastly, that sentiment which the doctrine of special creations is thought necessary to satisfy, is 
much better satisfied by the doctrine of evolution; since this doctrine raises no contradictory implications 
respecting the Unknown Cause, such as are raised by the antagonist doctrine." (Spencer, H., "The 
Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.439-440)

"On considering the `General Aspects of the Special-creation hypothesis,' we discovered it to be worthless. 
Discredited by its origin, and wholly without any basis of observed fact, we found that it was not even a 
thinkable hypothesis; and, while thus intellectually illusive, it turned out to have moral implications 
irreconcilable with the professed beliefs of those who hold it. Contrariwise, the `General Aspects of the 
Evolution-hypothesis' begot the stronger faith in it the more nearly they were considered. By its lineage and 
its kindred, it was found to be as closely allied with the proved truths of modern science, as is the 
antagonist hypothesis with the proved errors of ancient ignorance. We saw that instead of being a mere 
pseud-idea, it admits of elaboration into a definite conception: so showing its legitimacy as an hypothesis. 
Instead of positing a purely fictitious process, the process which it alleges proves to be one actually going 
on around us. To which add that, morally considered, this hypothesis presents no radical incongruities. 
Thus, even were we without further means of judging there could be no rational hesitation which of the two 
views should be entertained." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York 
NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.554-555) 

"But the experiences which most clearly illustrate the process of general evolution, are our experiences of 
special evolution, repeated in every plant and animal.. Each organism exhibits, within a short time, a series of 
changes which, when supposed to occupy a period indefinitely great, and to go on in various ways instead 
of one way, give us a tolerably clear conception of organic evolution at large. In an individual development, 
we see brought into a comparatively infinitesimal time, a series of metamorphoses equally great with each of 
those which the hypothesis of evolution assumes to have taken place during immeasurable geologic 
epochs. A tree differs from a seed in every respect-in bulk, ucture, in colour, in form, in chemical 
composition. Yet is the one changed in the course of a few years into the other: changed so gradually, that 
at no moment can it be said-Now the seed ceases to be and the tree exists. What can be more widely 
contrasted than a newly-born child and the small, semi-transparent, gelatinous spherule constituting the 
human ovum? The infant is so complex in structure that a cyclopoedia is needed to describe its constituent 
parts. The germinal vesicle is so simple that it may be defined in a line. Nevertheless, nine months suffice to 
develop the one out of the other; and that, too, by a series of modifications so small, that were the embryo 
examined at successive minutes, even a microscope would not disclose any sensible changes. Aided by 
such facts, the conception of general evolution may be rendered as definite a conception as any of our 
complex conceptions can be rendered. If, instead of the successive minutes of a child's foetal life, we take 
the lives of successive generations of creatures-if we regard the successive generations as differing from 
one another no more than the foetus differs in successive minutes; our imaginations must indeed be feeble if 
we fail to realize in thought, the evolution of the most complex organism out of the simplest. If a single cell, 
under appropriate conditions, becomes a man in the space of a few years; there can surely be no difficulty in 
understanding how, under appropriate conditions, a cell may, in the course of untold millions of years, give 
origin to the human race." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York 
NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.434-435) 

"The hypothesis of evolution is contrasted with the hypothesis of special creations, in a further respect. It 
is not simply legitimate instead of illegitimate, because representable in thought instead of unrepresentable; 
but it has the support of some evidence, instead of being absolutely unsupported by evidence. Though the 
facts at present assignable in direct proof that by progressive modifications, races of organisms which are 
apparently distinct from antecedent races have descended from them, are not sufficient; yet there are 
numerous facts of the order required. Beyond all question unlikenesses of structure gradually arise among 
the members of successive generations. We find that there is going on a modifying process of the kind 
alleged as the source of specific differences: a process which, though slow, does, in time, produce 
conspicuous changes-a process which, to all appearance, would produce in millions of years, any amount of 
change." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 
1910, pp.435-436)

"Why should the insect Aphis and the swift-flying Emperor-butterfly be constructed on the same 
fundamental plan? It cannot be by chance that there exist equal numbers of segments in all these multitudes 
of species. There is no reason to think it was necessary, in the sense that no other number would have 
made a possible organism: And to say that it is the result of design- to say that the Creator followed this 
pattern throughout, merely for the purpose of maintaining the pattern-is to assign an absurd motive. No 
rational interpretation of these and countless like morphological facts, can be given except by the 
hypothesis of evolution; and from the hypothesis of evolution they are corollaries." (Spencer, H., "The 
Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.469)

"'Why should one crustacean, which has an extremely complex mouth formed of many parts consequently 
always have fewer legs; or conversely, those with many legs have simpler mouths? Why should the sepals, 
petals, stamens, and pistils in any individual flower, though fitted for such widely-different purposes, be all 
constructed on the same pattern?' [Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species,", John Murray: London, Sixth 
Edition, 1872, p.384] To these and countless similar questions, the theory of evolution furnishes the only 
rational answer. In the course of that change from homogeneity to heterogeneity of structure displayed in 
evolution under every form, it will necessarily happen that from organisms made up of numerous like parts, 
there will arise organisms made up of parts more and more unlike: which unlike parts will nevertheless 
continue to bear traces of their primitive likeness." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. 
Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.472)

"Here, as before, the teleological doctrine fails utterly; for these rudimentary organs are useless, and 
occasionally even detrimental; as is the appendix vermiformis, in Man-a part of the caecum which is of no 
value for the purpose of absorption but which, by detaining small foreign bodies, often causes severe 
inflammation and death. The doctrine of typical plans is equally out of court; for while, in some members of a 
group, rudimentary organs completing the general type are traceable, in other members of the same group 
such organs are unrepresented. There remains only the doctrine of evolution; and to this, these rudimentary 
organs offer no difficulties. On the contrary, they are among its most striking evidences." (Spencer, H., "The 
Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.474-475)

"Let us consider next, how the hypothesis of evolution corresponds with the facts of distribution, not over 
different areas but through different media. If all forms of organisms have descended from some primordial 
form, it follows that since this primordial form must have inhabited some one medium out of the several 
media now inhabited, the peopling of other media by its descendants implies migration from one medium to 
others-implies adaptations to media quite unlike the original medium. To speak specifically-water being the 
medium in which the lowest living forms exist, the implication is that the earth and the air have been 
colonized from the water." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York 
NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.479)

"In whatever way it is formulated, or by whatever language it is obscured, this ascription of organic 
evolution to some aptitude naturally possessed by organisms, or miraculously imposed on them, is 
unphilosophical. It is one of those explanations which explain nothing-a shaping of ignorance into the 
semblance of knowledge. The cause assigned is not a true cause-not a cause assimilable to known causes-
not a cause that can be anywhere shown to produce analogous effects. It is a cause unrepresentable in 
thought: one of those illegitimate symbolic conceptions which cannot by any mental process be elaborated 
into a real conception. In brief, this assumption of a persistent formative power inherent in organisms, and 
making them unfold into higher types, is an assumption no more tenable than the assumption of special 
creations: of which, indeed, it is but a modification; differing only by the fusion of separate unknown 
processes into a continuous unknown process." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. 
Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.492)

"In First Principles, when considering the phenomena of Evolution at large, the leading characters and 
causes of those changes which constitute organic evolution were briefly traced. Under each of the 
derivative laws of force to which the passage from an incoherent, indefinite homogeneity to a coherent, 
definite heterogeneity, conforms, were given illustrations drawn from the metamorphoses of living bodies." 
(Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, 

"Our postulate being that organic evolution in general commenced with homogeneous organic matter, we 
have first to remember that the state of homogeneity is an unstable state ( state (First Principles, § 149)." 
(Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, 

"When considering the causes of evolution in general, we further saw (First Principles, § 156), that the 
multiplication of effects aids continually to increase that heterogeneity into which homogeneity inevitably 
lapses. It was pointed out that since `the several parts of an aggregate are differently modified by any 
incident force;' and since `by the reactions of the differently modified parts the incident force itself must be 
divided into differently modified parts;' it follows that `each differentiated division of the aggregate thus 
becomes a centre from which a differentiated division of the original force is again diffused. And since 
unlike forces must produce unlike results, each of these differentiated forces must produce, throughout the 
aggregate, a further series of differentiations.' " (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. 
Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.511) 

"Returning from these extensive classes of facts for which Mr. Darwin's hypothesis does not account, to the 
still more extensive classes of facts for which it does account, and which are unaccountable on any other 
hypothesis; let us consider in what way this hypothesis is expressible in terms of the general doctrine of 
evolution." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, 
Revised, 1910, pp.542-543)

"Passing from the evidence that evolution has taken place, to the question-How has it taken place? we find 
in known agencies and known processes, adequate causes of its phenomena. In astronomic, geologic, and 
meteorologic changes, ever in progress, ever combining in new and more involved ways, we have a set of 
inorganic factors to which all organisms are exposed; and in the varying and. complicating actions of 
organisms on one another, we have a set of organic factors that alter with increasing rapidity. Thus, 
speaking generally, all members of the Earth's Flora and Fauna experience perpetual re-arrangements of 
external forces. Each organic aggregate, whether considered individually or as a continuously-existing 
species, is modified afresh by each fresh distribution of external forces. To its pre-existing differentiations 
new differentiations are added; and thus that lapse to a more heterogeneous state, which would have a fixed 
limit were the circumstances fixed, has its limit perpetually removed by the perpetual change of the 
circumstances. These modifications upon modifications which result in evolution structurally considered, 
are the accompaniments of those functional. alterations continually required to reequilibrate inner with outer 
actions.(Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 
1910, pp.556-557)

"Even were this the whole of the evidence assignable for the belief that organisms have been gradually 
evolved, it would have a warrant higher than that of many beliefs which are regarded as established. But the 
evidence is far from exhausted." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New 
York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.557-558) 

"SINCE the first edition of this work was published, and more especially since the death of Mr. Darwin, an 
active discussion of the Evolution hypothesis has led to some significant results. That organic evolution 
has been going on from the dawn of life down to the present time; is now a belief almost universally 
accepted by zoologists and botanists-'almost universally,' I say, because the surviving influence of Cuvier 
prevents acceptance of it by some of them in France. Omitting the ideas of these, all biological 
interpretations, speculations, and investigations, tacitly assume that organisms of every kind in every era 
and in every region have come into existence by the process of descent with modification. But while 
concerning the fact of evolution there is agreement, concerning its causes there is disagreement." (Spencer, 
H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.559. 
Emphasis original)

"This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. 
Darwin has called `natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.' That there 
goes on a process of this kind throughout the organic world, Mr. Darwin's great work on the Origin of 
Species has shown to the satisfaction of nearly all naturalists. Indeed, when once enunciated, the truth of 
his hypothesis is so obvious as scarcely to need proof. Though evidence may be required to show that 
natural selection accounts for everything ascribed to it, yet no evidence is required to show that natural 
selection has always been going on, is going on now, and must ever continue to go on. Recognizing this as 
an a priori certainty, let us contemplate it under its two distinct aspects." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of 
Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.530-531)

"The problems of Morphology fall into two distinct classes, answering respectively to the two leading 
aspects of Evolution. In things which evolve there go on two processes -increase of mass and increase of 
structure. Increase of mass is primary, and in simple evolution takes place almost alone. Increase of structure 
is secondary, accompanying or following increase of mass with more or less regularity, wherever evolution 
rises above that form which small inorganic bodies, such as crystals, present to us. As the fundamental 
antagonism between Dissolution and Evolution consists in this, that while the one is an integration of 
motion and disintegration of matter, the other is an integration of matter and disintegration of motion; and as 
this integration of matter accompanying disintegration of motion, is a necessary antecedent to the 
differentiation of the matter so integrated; it follows that questions concerning the mode in which the parts 
are united into a whole, must be dealt with before questions concerning the mode in which these parts 
become modified." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. 
II, Revised, 1910, p.4-5)

"The task before us is to trace throughout these phenomena the process of evolution; and to show how, as 
displayed in them, it conforms to those first principles which evolution in general conforms to." (Spencer, 
H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.7-8)

"Though we may frame sundry comprehensive propositions respecting the arrangements of their organs, 
considered as so many inert parts; and though we may establish several wide conclusions respecting the 
separate and combined actions of their organs, without knowing anything definite respecting the forms and 
positions of these organs; yet we cannot reach such a rationale of the facts as the hypothesis of Evolution 
aims at, without contemplating structures and functions in their mutual relations. Everywhere structures in 
great measure determine functions; and everywhere functions are incessantly modifying structures. In 
Nature the two are inseparable co-operators; and Science can give no true interpretation of Nature without 
keeping their co-operation constantly in view. An account of organic evolution, in its more special aspects, 
must be essentially an account of the inter-actions of structures and functions, as perpetually altered by 
changes of conditions." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, 
Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.3-4)

"The factors of the second class which we have to keep in view throughout our interpretations, are the 
formative tendencies of organisms themselves -the proclivities inherited by them from antecedent 
organisms, and which past processes of evolution have bequeathed. ... Moreover, we have to take into 
account, not, only the characters of immediately-preceding ancestors, but also those of their ancestors, and 
ancestors of all degrees of remoteness. Setting out with rudimentary types, we have to consider how, in 
each successive stage of evolution, the structures acquired during previous stages have been obscured by 
further integrations and further differentiations; Or, conversely, how the lineaments of primitive organisms 
have all along continued to manifest themselves under the superposed modifications." (Spencer, H., "The 
Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.8-9)

"THAT any formula should be capable of expressing a common character in the shapes of things so unlike 
as a tree and a cow, a flower and a centipede, is a remarkable fact; and is a fact which affords strong prima 
facie evidence of truth. For in proportion to the diversity and multiplicity of the cases to which any 
statement applies, is the probability that it sets forth the essential relations. Those connexions which remain 
constant under all varieties of manifestation, are most likely to be the causal connexions. Still higher will 
appear the likelihood of an alleged law of organic form possessing so great a comprehensiveness, when we 
remember that on the hypothesis of Evolution, there must exist between all organisms and their 
environments, certain congruities expressible in terms of their actions and reactions. The forces being, on 
this hypothesis, the causes of the forms, it is inferable, a priori, that the forms must admit of generalization 
in terms of the forces; and hence, such a generalization arrived at a posteriori, gains the further 
probability due to fulfilment of anticipation." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton 
& Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.231-232. Emphasis original)

"Nearer yet to certainty seems the conclusion thus reached, on finding that it does but assert in their special 
manifestations, the laws of Evolution in general-the laws of that universal re-distribution of matter and 
motion which hold throughout the totality of things, as well as in each of its parts." (Spencer, H., "The 
Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.231-232)

"That process of integration which every plant displays during its life, we found reason to think has gone 
on during the life of the vegetal kingdom as a whole. Protoplasm into cells, cells into folia, folia into axes, 
axes into branched combinations-such, in brief, are the stages passed through by every shrub; and such 
appear to have been the stages through which plants of successively-higher kinds have been evolved from 
lower kinds." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, 
Revised, 1910, p.232) 

"This broad statement of the correspondence between the general facts of Morphological Development and 
the principles of Evolution at large, may be reduced to statements of a much more specific kind. The 
phenomena of symmetry and unsymmetry and asymmetry, which we have traced out among organic forms, 
are demonstrably in harmony with those laws of the re-distribution of matter and motion to which Evolution 
conforms." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, 
Revised, 1910, p.234) 

"The proposition arrived at when dealing with the causes of Evolution, `that in the actions and reactions of 
force and matter, an unlikeness in either of the factors necessitates an unlikeness in the effects; and that in 
the absence of unlikeness in either of the factors the effects must be alike' (First Principles, § 169), is a 
proposition which implies all these particular likenesses and unlikenesses of parts which we have been 
tracing. ... And here, indeed, we may see clearly that these truths are corollaries from that ultimate truth to 
which all phenomena of Evolution are referable. It is an inevitable deduction from the persistence of force, 
that organic forms which have been progressively evolved, must present just those fundamental traits of 
form which we find them present." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New 
York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.234-235) 

"EVOLUTION implies insensible modifications and gradual transitions, which render definition difficult-
which make it impossible to separate absolutely the phases of organization from one another. And this 
indefiniteness of distinction, to be expected a priori, we are compelled to recognize a posteriori, the 
moment we begin to group morphological phenomena into general propositions. Thus, on inquiring what is 
the morphological unit, whether of plants or of animals, we find that the facts refuse to be included in any 
rigid formula. The doctrine that all organisms are built up of cells, or that cells are the elements out of which 
every tissue is developed, is but approximately true." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. 
Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.17. Emphasis original)

"The rationale of these truths appears to be furnished by the hypothesis of evolution. We set out with 
molecules some degrees higher in complexity than those molecules of nitrogenous colloidal substance into 
which organic matter is resolvable; and we regard these very much more complex molecules as having the 
implied greater instability, greater sensitiveness to surrounding influences, and consequent greater mobility 
of form. Such being the primitive physiological units, organic evolution must begin with the formation of a 
minute aggregate of them-an aggregate showing vitality by a higher degree of that readiness to change its 
form of aggregation which colloidal matter in general displays; and by its ability to unite the nitrogenous 
molecules it meets with, into complex molecules like those of which it is composed. Obviously, the earliest 
forms must have been minute; since, in the absence of any but diffused organic matter, no form but a minute 
one could find nutriment. Obviously, too, it, must have been structureless ; since, as differentiations are 
producible only by the unlike actions of incident forces, there could have been no differentiations before 
such forces had had time to work. Hence, distinctions of parts like those required to constitute a cell were 
necessarily absent at first." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York 
NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.18-19)

"And we need not therefore be surprised to find, as we do find, specks of protoplasm manifesting life, and 
yet showing no signs of organization. A further stage of evolution is implied when the imperfectly 
integrated molecules forming one of these minute aggregates, become more coherent; at the same time as 
they pass into a state of heterogeneity, gradually increasing in its definiteness. That is to say, we may look 
for the assumption by them, of some distinctions of parts, such as we find in cells and in what are called 
unicellular organisms. They cannot retain their primordial uniformity; and while in a few cases they may 
depart from it bid, slightly, they will, in the great majority of cases, acquire a decided multiformity : there will 
result the comparatively integrated and comparatively differentiated Protophyta and Protozoa. The 
production of minute aggregates of physiological units being the first step, and the passage of such minute 
aggregates into more consolidated and more complex forms being the second step, it must naturally happen 
that all higher organic types, subsequently arising by further integrations and differentiations, will 
everywhere bear the impress of this earliest phase of evolution." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," 
[1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.19)

"A criticism passed on the general argument set forth in the foregoing sections, runs as follows:-`I 
have already pointed out that the process of evolution by which you believe the Liverworts with a distinct-
axis and appendages to have been produced from the thalloid forms is not founded on sound evidence 
either in comparative morphology or development. But even if we admit that such an integration of a 
proliferously-produced colony might have given rise to the leafy Jungermanniaceae, there are even more 
weighty objections to the supposition that the same process produced the shoot structures of the flowering 
plants. In the first place the flowering plant-body is not homologous with the liverwort plant-body, since 
they represent different generations. The liverwort plant-body or gametophyte, i.e., the generation bearing 
sexual organs, is homologous with the prothallus of ferns and other Pteridophytes, and in the Flowering 
Plants with reduced structures contained within the spores (embryo-sac and pollen-grain) but still giving 
rise to sexual cells. The liverwort spore-capsule and its accessory parts (in fact everything produced from 
the fertilized egg) is homologous with the sporogonium of the mosses, and, as most botanists think, with the 
leafy plant-body of Pteridophytes and Phanerogams. This generation is called the sporophyte and from the 
spores which it produces are developed the gametophytes of the next generation.'" (Spencer, H., "The 
Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.80. 
Emphasis original)

"I may, however, indicate the line of defence I should take were I to go again into the matter. The objections 
are based on the structure of existing Liverworts and Phaenogams. But I have already referred to the 
probability-or, indeed, the certainty-that in conformity with the general principle set forth in the note to 
Chapter I, we must conclude that the early types of Liverworts out of which the Phaenogams are supposed 
to have evolved, as well as the early types of Phaenogams in which the stages of evolution were presented, 
no longer exist. We must infer that forms simpler than any now known, and more intermediate in their traits, 
were the forms concerned; and if so, it may be held that the incongruities with the hypothesis which are 
presented by existing forms, do not negative it. The scepticism my critic himself expresses respecting the 
current interpretation is a partial justification of this view. Moreover, his admission that the theory set forth 
`fits in well with the phenomena exhibited by phanerogamic shoots,' must, I think, be regarded as weighty 
evidence. On the Evolution-hypothesis we are obliged to suppose that the Monocotyledons and 
Dicotyledons respectively arose by integration of fronds; and if to the question after what manner the 
integration took place, there is an hypothesis which renders it comprehensible, and agrees both with the 
structures of the two kinds of shoots and the structures of the two kinds of seeds, as well as with various of 
the other phenomena the two types present, it has strong claims for acceptance." (Spencer, H., "The 
Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.83-84. Emphasis 

"As, hitherto, we have concerned ourselves with those most general phenomena of organic form which, 
holding irrespective of class and order and sub-kingdom, illustrate the processes of integration and 
differentiation characterizing Evolution at large; so, now, we have to concern ourselves with the evidences 
of those differentiations and integrations of organic functions which have simultaneously arisen, and which 
similarly transcend the limits of zoological and botanical divisions." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of 
Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.239)

"Though the subject-matter of Physiology is as broadly distinguished from the subject-matter of 
Morphology as motion is from matter; yet, just as the laws of motion cannot be known apart from some 
matter moved, so there can be no knowledge of function without a knowledge of some structure as 
performing function. Much more than this is obvious. The study of functions, considered from our present 
point of view as arising by Evolution, must be carried on mainly by the study of the correlative 
structures." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, 
Revised, 1910, p.240)

"The problems of Physiology, in the wide sense above described, are, like the problems of Morphology, to 
be considered as problems to which answers must be given in terms of incident forces. On the hypothesis of 
Evolution these specializations of tissues and accompanying concentrations of .functions, must, like the 
specializations of shape in an organism and its component divisions, be due to the actions and reactions 
which its intercourse with the environment involves; and the task before us is to explain how they are 
wrought-how they are to be comprehended as results of such actions and reactions." (Spencer, H., "The 
Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.241)

"Manifestly our data are so scanty that nothing more than very general and approximate interpretations of 
this kind are possible. If the hypothesis of Evolution furnishes us with a rude conception of the way in 
which the more conspicuous and important differentiations of functions have arisen, it is as much as can be 
expected. ... For though, in tracing up Morphological Evolution, we have to study those processes of 
integration by which organic aggregates are formed, before studying the differentiations that arise among 
their parts; we must, contrariwise, in tracing up Physiological Evolution, study the genesis of the different 
functions before we study the interdependence that eventually arises among them and constitutes 
physiological unity." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, 
Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.242-243)

"THE brain is an incredibly fragile organ. Evolution certainly thinks so -- it has surrounded this mass of 
nerves and cells with a solid case of bone to guard against physical trauma, and lined its blood vessels with 
an almost impermeable membrane to guard against chemical and biological threats. As long as these 
defences remain unbreached, the brain is relatively safe." (Nogrady, B., "Implant infection answer a winner," 
The Australian, June 21, 2008. Emphasis original)

"Mitochondria are found not just in photocells, but in most other cells. Each one can be thought of as a 
chemical factory which, in the course of delivering its primary product of usable energy processes more 
than 700 different chemical substances, in long, interweaving assembly-lines strung out along the surface of 
its intricately folded internal membranes. The round globule ... is the nucleus. Again, this is characteristic of 
all animal and plant cells. Each nucleus ... contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, 
than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica put together. And this figure is for each cell, not 
all the cells of a body put together ... The total number of cells in the body (of a human) is about 10 trillion. 
When you eat a steak, you are shredding the equivalent of more than 100 billion copies of the 
Encyclopaedia Britannica." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker," W.W. Norton: New York NY, 
1986, pp.17-18. Emphasis original)

"As I mentioned ... there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia 
Britannica,  all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over. I don't know the comparable figure for a willow 
seed or an ant, but it will be of the same order of staggeringness. There is enough storage capacity in the 
DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica 60 times 
over. Some species of the unjustly called 'primitive' amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 
1,000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas. Amazingly, only about 1 per cent of the genetic information in, for 
example, human cells, seems to be actually used: roughly the equivalent of one volume of the 
Encyclopaedia Britannica ... A bacterium has a smaller information capacity than a human cell, by a 
factor of about 1,000, and it probably uses nearly all of it ... Its DNA could 'only' hold one copy of the New 
Testament! Modern genetic engineers already have the technology to write the New Testament or anything 
else into a bacterium's DNA. The 'meaning' of the symbols in any information technology is arbitrary, and 
there is no reason why we should not assign combinations, say triplets, from DNA's 4-letter alphabet, to 
letters of our own 26-letter alphabet (there would be room for all the upper and lower-case letters with 12 
punctuation characters). Unfortunately, it would take about five man-centuries to write the New Testament 
into a bacterium, so I doubt if anybody will bother. If they did, the rate of reproduction of bacteria is such 
that 10 million copies of the New Testament could be run off in a single day, a missionary's dream if only 
people could read the DNA alphabet but, alas, the characters are so small that all 10 million copies of the 
New Testament could simultaneously dance upon the surface of a pin's head." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind 
Watchmaker," W.W. Norton: New York NY, 1986, pp.115-116)

"The the spontaneous generation held that organisms could arise spontaneously. It esly. It explained, for 
example, why rats could always be found in garbage dumps-somehow they spontaneously arose from the 
garbage. Spontaneous generation was disproved by Louis Pasteur in the nineteenth century, and with its 
passing biology embraced the law of biogenesis, which stated that all life comes only from preexisting life: 
omne vivum ex vivo-all that is alive came from something living." (Hunter, C.G.*, "Darwin's God Evolution 
and the Problem of Evil," Brazos Press: Grand Rapids MI, 2001, pp.96-97. Emphasis original)

"In the field of biology, one of the most commonly accepted and widely used laws of science is the Law of 
Biogenesis. This law was set forth many years ago to dictate what both theory and experimental evidence 
showed to be true among living organisms-that life comes only from preceding life of its own type or kind. 
David Kirk has observed: `By the end of the nineteenth century there was general agreement that life cannot 
arise from the nonliving under conditions that now exist upon our planet. The dictum "All life from 
preexisting life" became the dogma of modern biology, from which no reasonable man could be expected to 
dissent ([Kirk, D., "Biology Today," Random House: New York]1975, p.7). The experiments which formed the 
ultimate basis of this law were first carried out by such men as Francesco Redi (1688) and Lazarro 
Spallanzani (1799) in Italy, Louis Pasteur (1860) in France, and Rudolph Virchow (1858) In Germany. It was 
Virchow who documented that cells do not arise from amorphous matter, but instead come only from 
preexisting cells. The Encyclopaedia Britannica states concerning Virchow that "His aphorism 'omnis 
cellula e cellula' (every cell arises from a preexisting cell) ranks with Pasteur's 'omne vivum e vivo' (every 
living thing arises from a preexisting living thing) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology" 
(see Ackerknect, [E.H., "Rudolph Virchow," Encyclopaedia Britannica,  Vol. 23] 1973, p.35). Through the 
years, countless thousands of scientists in various disciplines have established the Law of Biogenesis as 
just that-a scientific law stating that life comes only from preexisting life. Interestingly, the Law of 
Biogenesis was firmly established in science long before the contrivance of modern evolutionary theories." 
(Thompson, B.*, "The Scientific Case for Creation", [1986], Apologetics Press, Montgomery AL, Revised 
Edition, 1993, pp.29-30) 

"The later events in the complex history of the cell theory were taking place while Virchow was a youth, and 
at Wurzburg he began to realize that that form of the cell theory that postulated the origin of every cell from 
a pre-existing cell and not from amorphous material could give new insight into pathological processes. In 
this he was influenced by the work of many others, notably by the views of John Goodsir of Edinburgh on 
the cell as a centre of nutrition and by the researches of Robert Remak, a German neuroanatomist and 
embryologist, who in 1852 was one of the first to point out that the multiplication of cells to form tissues was 
accompanied by cell division. By that year Remak had concluded that in pathological tissues also new cells 
arose from existing cells. But Remak's writings had little. influence on pathologists and medical practitioners. 
Thus the idea expressed by Virchow's omnis cellula e cellula ('every cell is derived from a [pre-existing] 
cell') is not completely original. Even this aphorism is not Virchow's; it was coined by François Vincent 
Raspail in 1825. But Virchow made cellular pathology into a system of overwhelming importance." 
(Underwood, E.A., "Virchow, Rudolf," Encyclopaedia Britannica,  Benton: Chicago, 15th edition, 1984, Vol. 
19, pp.150-151.

"Historians point out, however, that Schwann and Schleiden were not alone in contributing to this 
great generalization of natural science-strong intimations of the cell theory occur in the work of their 
predecessors. Recognizing that the basic problem was the origin of cells, these early investigators 
invented a hypothesis of `free cell formation,' according to which cells developed de novo out of an 
unformed substance, a `cytoblastema,' by a sequence of events in which first the nucleolus develops, ` 
then the nucleus, the cell body, and finally the cell membrane. The best physical model of the 
generation of formed bodies then available was crystallization, and their theory was inspired by that 
model. In retrospect, the hypothesis of free cell formation would not seem to have been justified, 
however, since cell division, a feature not characteristic of crystallization processes, had frequently 
been observed by earlier microscopists, especially among single-celled organisms. Even though cell 
division was observed repeatedly in the following decades, the theory of free cell formation lingered 
throughout most of the 19th century; however, it came to be thought of more and more as a possible 
exception to the general principle of the reproduction of cells by division. The principle of division of 
cells was affirmed in 1855 by a German biologist of great prestige: Rudolph Virchow asserted that 
`omnis cellula e cellula' ('all cells come from cells'); but doubt remained." ("Cell Theory and 
Classification," Encyclopaedia Britannica,  Benton: Chicago, 15th edition, 1984, Vol. 3, p.1059)

"Biogenesis Vs Evolution The experiments and scientific methodology of Redi, Pasteur and Spallanzani 
are held in very high esteem by the scientific community. The overturning of the spontaneous generation 
hypothesis is taught to students world over to demonstrate modern, rational, experimental science. The 
Encyclopedia Britannica states concerning Rudolf Virchow: "His aphorism 'omnis cellula e cellula' (every 
cell arises from a pre-existing cell) ranks with Pasteur's 'omne vivum e vivo' (every living thing arises from a 
preexisting living thing) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology." [Ackerknecht, E.H., 
"Rudolf Virchow," Encyclopaedia Britannica,  Vol. 23, 1973, p.35] A student learns the historical greatness 
of these facts from his natural science teacher on one day in class, but on the next, so to speak, is taught 
spontaneous generation as a truth concerning the origin of life. ... The terminology is changed from 
spontaneous generation to biopoiesis, abiogenesis, biochemical predestination, mutations and natural 
selection, and the event is removed to the remote past, but the meaning remains. The creationist is quick to 
remind evolutionists that biopoiesis and evolution describe events that stand in stark naked contradiction 
to an established law. The law of biogenesis says life arises only from preexisting life, biopoiesis says life 
sprang from dead chemicals; evolution states that life forms give rise to new, improved and different life 
forms, the law of biogenesis says that kinds only reproduce their own kinds. Evolutionists are not oblivious 
to this law. They simply question it. They say that spontaneous generation was disproved under the 
conditions of the experimental models of Pasteur, Redi and Spallanzani. This, they contend, does not 
preclude the spontaneous formation of life under different conditions." (Wysong, R.L.*, "The Creation-
Evolution Controversy," Inquiry Press: Midland MI, 1976, p.182. Emphasis original) 

"Law of Biogenesis The law of biogenesis is the "principle that a living organism can arise only from 
another living organism, a principle contrasting with concepts such as that of the spontaneous generation 
of living from non-living matter..." [Allaby, M., ed, "Oxford Dictionary of Natural History," Oxford University 
Press, 1985, p.77]. That law, perhaps "the most fundamental in biology," is the axiom that life only comes 
from life, as Medawar defines it: `In its affirmative form, the law of Biogenesis states that all living organisms 
are the progeny of living organisms that went before them. The familiar Latin tag is omne vivum ex vivo-
All that is alive came from something living; in other words, every organism has an unbroken genealogical 
pedigree extending back to the first living things. In its negative form, the law can be taken to deny the 
occurrence (or even the possibility) of spontaneous generation. Moreover, the progeny of mice are mice and 
of men, men-"homogenesis," or like begetting like. The Law of Biogenesis is arguably the most fundamental 
in biology, for evolution may be construed as a form of biogenesis that provides for the occasional 
begetting of a variant form...' [Medawar, P. & Medawar, J., "Aristotle to Zoos: A Philosophical Dictionary of 
Biology", Harvard University Press, 1983, p.39] (Bird, W.R.*, "The Origin of Species Revisited," Regency: 
Nashville TN, 1991, Vol. I, pp.311-312) 

"Pasteur won the prize for a series of meticulous and conclusive experiments that showed that 
microorganisms came only from other microorganisms, and that a genuinely sterile broth or solution would 
remain sterile indefinitely unless contaminated by living creatures. The old aphorism, Omne vivum ex vivo 
(All life from life) became dogma. ... Pasteur answered an old question, but raised a new and tougher one: If 
all life comes from preexisting life, where did the first life come from? If one believed in Darwin's new theory 
of evolution, how could one avoid the logical trap that ultimately the first living organism could not have 
descended from an earlier one? (Had the Fundamentalists been thinking fast enough, they might have seized 
upon a combination of the ideas of Pasteur and Darwin as a proof of the initial special creation of life.) 
Pasteur appeared to leave only two alternatives: Either life was created at a specific time in the past, or life 
had always existed, somewhere else in the universe if not on Earth. Darwin dismissed the entire controversy 
as pointless and premature: `It will be some time before we see slime, protoplasm, etc., generating a new 
animal. But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of 
creation, by which I really meant `appeared' by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at 
present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.' [Darwin, C.R., Letter to J. D. 
Hooker, 29 March 1863, in Darwin, F., ed., "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin", Vol III, John Murray, 
London, 1887, p17). With very few exceptions, most serious biologists and chemists accepted Darwin's 
verdict for more than another 70 years." (Wilson, E.O., et. al.,  "Life on Earth", Sinauer Associates: 
Sunderland MA, 1973, Third printing, 1975, p.594) 

"Virchow, Rudolph German medical microscopist (1821-1902) who did most to dispel the notion, current 
from the time of Hippocrates, that disease resulted from imbalance in body 'humours'. Replaced it by a cell-
based theory, arguing that cells are derived only from other cells (omnis cellula a cellula), broadening and 
deepening CELL THEORY." (Thain, M. & Hickman, M., "The Penguin Dictionary of Biology," [1951], 
Penguin Books: London, Tenth Edition, 2000, p.664. Emphasis original) 

"Yet, seen from the standpoint of modern cell theory, the writings of both Schleiden and Schwann have a 
murky quality, which results mostly from their aim of forcing a mechanistic interpretation upon their 
observations. They wanted to demonstrate that life could be interpreted in terms of mathematics and 
chemistry and, in the rational spirit of the century, this was often associated with the idea of spontaneous 
generation of life from nonliving matter. In Schwann's special, limited version of spontaneous generation, 
nuclei and eventually cells formed themselves out of structureless substance. This gives their theory an 
entirely different weight and import from modern cell theory, which states that nuclei come only from 
preexisting nuclei, cells only from preexisting cells. Modern theory is much closer to the outlook of Pasteur, 
which implies that the ultimate living units are of such complexity that new ones are formed only by growth 
and division of preexisting units. The Schleiden-Schwann cell theory had immediate repercussions in 
medicine. The German pathologist, anthropologist, and politician Rudolph Virchow conceived of illness as 
the sickness of individual cells, and in fact the microscopic examination of tissues added valuable new tools 
for diagnosis, with certain cell abnormalities being associated with specific diseases. His ideas and 
observations were brought together in the influential Die Cellular Pathologie in 1858, which was within 
two years published in translation in England. This book was mainly concerned with establishing 
microscopy as a branch of medicine, but is known in biology for its theory that all cells come from 
preexisting cells. The doctrine omnis cellula e cellula was eventually accepted, and accounted for a subtle 
shift of emphasis away from the idea that the whole organism directly controlled the minutest details of 
body functioning, including the controlled emergence of cells from diffuse materials, and toward the concept 
that there was an intermediate level of organization between the chemical and the whole- organism level, in 
which more or less autonomous cells were the significant unit. Virchow's theoretical grasp of cellular 
pathology was weakened by the fact that the germ theory of disease was not yet developed, and the mode 
of cell and nuclear division was not yet known, but his work nevertheless was a well-placed stepping-stone 
in both the history of medicine and of the cell theory." (Lanham, U., "Origins of Modern Biology," Columbia 
University Press: New York NY, 1968, Second printing, 1971, pp.198-199)

"For Schwann and Schleiden the cell still was primarily a structural element, but already in the 1840s other 
authors stressed the physiological, particularly developmental, nutritional, role of cells. As the knowledge of 
cells and their constituents (particularly the nucleus) grew, the meaning of the concept `cell theory' 
gradually shifted. Schleiden's theory had the immediate effect of stimulating exceedingly active research on 
dividing cells of animals and plants. In 1852 R. Remak (1815-1865) showed that the frog egg is a cell and that 
new cells in the developing frog embryo are formed by the division of previously existing cells. He 
emphatically rejected free cell formation. In this he was joined by Rudolf Virchow (1855), who showed for 
many normal and pathological animal and human tissues that every cell originated by division from a 
preexisting cell. He established `as a general principle, that no development of any kind begins de novo,  
and consequently [one must] reject the theory of [spontaneous] generation just as much in the history of 
the development of individual parts as we do in that of entire organisms' (Virchow, 1858: 54). Kolliker, as well 
as several botanists, arrived at the same conclusion at about the same time, even though Schleiden's 
authority tended to delay its acceptance in botany. In 1868 (II: 370) Darwin was still uncertain whether or not 
free cell formation occurs. In due time Virchow's famous aphorism omnis cellula e cellula (1855)-'every cell 
from a pre-existing cell'-was accepted by everyone, even though the details of the process of division, 
particularly of the nucleus, were not understood at that time ..." (Mayr, E.W., "The Growth of Biological 
Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1982, pp.657-658)

"Given an originally-homogeneous portion of protoplasm, and it follows from the general laws of Evolution 
(First Principles,  §§ 149-155), first, that it must lose its homogeneity, and, second, that the leading 
dissimilarities must arise between the parts most-dissimilarly conditioned-that is, between the outside and 
the inside. The exterior must bear amounts and kinds of force unlike the amounts and kinds which the 
interior bears; and from the persistence of force it follows inevitably that unlike effects must be wrought on 
them-they must be differentiated. What is the limit towards which the differentiation tends? We have seen 
that the re-distribution of matter and motion whence, under certain conditions, evolution results, can never 
cease until equilibrium is reached - proximately a moving equilibrium, and finally a complete equilibrium 
(First Principles,  §§ 170-175). Hence, the differentiation must go on until it establishes such differences in 
the parts as shall balance the differences in the forces acting on them. When dealing with equilibration in 
general, we saw that this process is what is called adaptation (First Principles,  § 173) ; and, in this work, 
we saw that by it the totality of functions of an organism is brought into correspondence with the totality of 
actions affecting it (§§ 159-163)." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New 
York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.245)

"In summing up the special truths illustrative of this general truth, it will be proper here to contemplate more 
especially their dependence on first principles. Dealing with biological phenomena as phenomena of 
evolution, we have to interpret not only the increasing morphological heterogeneity of organisms, but also 
their increasing physiological heterogeneity, in terms of the re-distribution of matter and motion. While we 
make our rapid re-survey of the facts, let us then more particularly observe how they are subordinate to the 
universal course of this re-distribution." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & 
Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.384)

"THAT from the beginning of life there has been an ever-increasing heterogeneity in the Earth's Flora and 
Fauna, is a truth recognized by all biologists who accept the doctrine of evolution. In discussing the origin 
of species Mr. Darwin and others have been mainly occupied in explaining the genesis of now this and now 
that form of organism, considered as a member of one or other series, and regarded as becoming 
differentiated from its allies. But by implication, if not avowedly, there has been simultaneously accepted the 
belief that the forms continually produced by divergences and re-divergences, have constituted an 
assemblage increasingly multiform in its included kinds. And this, which we are shown by the process of 
organic evolution as followed out in its details, is a corollary from the doctrine of evolution at large, as was 
pointed out in § 159 of First Principles. Meanwhile there has been little if any recognition of an 
accompanying change, no less fundamental. In the general transformation which constitutes Evolution, 
differentiation and integration advance hand in hand; so that along with the production of unlike parts there 
progresses the union of these unlike parts into a whole." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], 
D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.396. Emphasis original)

"All these general and special relations between plants and animals have arisen since the phaenogamic type 
came into existence-have, indeed, arisen since the higher members of that type, the Angiosperms, have 
appeared; for the Gymnosperms do not play any part in this intercommunion. But so far as we can judge of 
present results of geologic explorations, there were no Angiosperms during the Eozoic and Paleozoic 
periods. So that this class of connexions between animals and vegetals must have been established since 
carboniferous times-a period long, indeed, but far shorter than that which organic evolution at large has 
occupied." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, 
Revised, 1910, p.407)

"Genesis so as to include all processes aiding the formation and perfecting of new individuals; we see that 
the two are fundamentally opposed. Assuming other things to remain the same-assuming that environing 
conditions as to climate, food, enemies, &c., continue constant; then, inevitably, every higher degree of 
individual evolution is followed by a lower degree of race-multiplication, and vice versa. Progress in bulk, 
complexity, or activity, involves retrogress in fertility; and progress in fertility involves retrogress in bulk, 
complexity, or activity." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, 
Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.430)

"We might rest on these deductions and their several corollaries. Without going further we might with 
safety assert the general truths that, other things equal, advancing evolution must be accompanied by 
declining fertility; and that, in the highest types, fertility must still further decrease if evolution still further 
increases. We might be sure that if, other things equal, the relations between an organism and its 
environment become so changed as permanently to diminish the difficulties of self-preservation, there will 
be a permanent increase in the rate of multiplication; and, conversely, that a decrease of fertility will result 
where altered circumstances make self-preservation more laborious." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of 
Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.431)

"The proposition at which we have thus arrived is, then, that excess of fertility, through the changes it is 
ever working in -Man's environment, is itself the cause of Man's further evolution; and the obvious 
corollary here to be drawn is, that Man's farther evolution so brought about, itself necessitates a decline in 
his fertility." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, 
Revised, 1910, pp.528-529)

"Those higher feelings presupposed by the better self-regulation. which, in a better society, can alone 
enable the individual to leave a persistent posterity, are, other things equal, the correlatives of a more 
complex brain; as are also those more numerous, more varied, more general, and more abstract ideas, which 
must also become increasingly requisite for successful life as society advances. And the genesis of this 
larger quantity of feeling and thought, in a brain thus augmented in size and developed in structure, is, other 
things equal, the correlative of a greater wear of nervous tissue and greater consumption of materials to 
repair it. So that both in original cost of construction and in subsequent cost of working, the nervous 
system must become a heavier tax on the organism. Already the brain of the civilized man is larger by nearly 
thirty per cent. than the brain of the savage. Already, too, it presents an increased heterogeneity-especially 
in the distribution of its convolutions. And further changes like these which have taken place under the 
discipline of civilized life, we infer will continue to take place. But everywhere and always, evolution is 
antagonistic to procreative dissolution. Whether it be in greater growth of the organs which subserve self-
maintenance, whether it be in their added complexity of structure, or whether it be in their higher activity, the 
abstraction of the required materials implies a diminished reserve of materials for race-maintenance." 
(Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, 

"Whether the interests of the species are most subserved by a higher evolution of the individual joined with 
a diminished fertility, or by a lower evolution of the individual joined with an increased fertility, are 
questions ever being experimentally answered. If the more-developed and less-prolific variety has a greater 
number of survivors, it becomes established and predominant. If, contrariwise, the conditions of life being 
simple, the larger or more-organized individuals gain nothing by their greater size or better organization; 
then the greater fertility of the less evolved ones, will insure to their descendants an increasing 
predominance." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, 
Revised, 1910, pp.528-529)

"Each increment of evolution entails a decrement of reproduction which is not accurately proportionate, but 
somewhat less than proportionate. The gain in the one direction is not wholly cancelled by a loss in the 
other direction, but only partially cancelled: leaving a margin of profit to the species. Though augmented 
power of self-maintenance habitually necessitates diminished power of race-propagation, yet the product of 
the two factors is greater than before; so that the forces preservative of race become, thereafter, in excess of 
the forces destructive of race, and the race spreads. We shall soon see why this happens. Every advance in 
evolution implies an economy. That any increase in bulk, or structure, or activity, may become established, 
the life of the organism must be to some extent facilitated by the change-the cost of self-support must be, on 
the average, reduced." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, 
Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.501)

"In another way, the same thing must result from those additions to bulk or complexity or activity that are 
due to survival of the fittest. Any change which prolongs individual life will, other things remaining the 
same, further the production of offspring. Even when it is not, like the foregoing, a means of economizing 
the forces of the individual, still, if it increases the chances of escaping destruction, it increases the chances 
of leaving posterity. Any further degree of evolution, therefore, will be established only where the cost of it 
is more than repaid: part of the gain being shown in the lengthened life of the individual, and part in the 
greater production of other individuals." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & 
Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.502) 

"The inverse variation of Individuation and Genesis is, therefore, but approximate. Recognizing the truth 
that every increment of evolution which is appropriate to the circumstances of an organism, brings an 
advantage somewhat in excess of its cost; we see the general law, as more strictly stated, to be that Genesis 
decreases not quite so fast as Individuation increases. Whether the greater Individuation takes the form of a 
larger bulk and accompanying access of strength; whether it be shown in higher speed or agility; whether it 
consists in a modification of structure which facilitates some habitual movement, or in a visceral change that 
helps to utilize better the absorbed aliment; the ultimate effect is identical. There is either a more economical 
performance of the same actions, internal or external, or there is a securing of greater advantages by 
modified actions, which cost no more, or have an increased cost less than the increased gain." (Spencer, H., 
"The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.504-505) 

"In any case the result is a greater surplus of vital capital, part of which goes to the aggrandizement of the 
individual, and part to the formation of new individuals. While the higher tide of nutritive matters, 
everywhere filling the parent-organism, adds to its power of self-maintenance, it also causes a reproductive 
overflow larger than before. Hence every type which is best adapted to its conditions, (and this on the 
average means every higher type), has a rate of multiplication that insures a tendency to predominate. 
Survival of the fittest, acting alone, is ever replacing inferior species by superior species. But beyond the 
longer survival, and therefore greater chance of leaving offspring, which superiority gives, we see here 
another way in which the spread of the superior is insured. Though the more-evolved organism is the less 
fertile absolutely, it is the more fertile relatively." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. 
Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.505) 

"ANY further evolution in the most-highly evolved of terrestrial beings, Man, must be of the same nature as 
evolution in general. Structurally considered, it may consist in greater integration, or greater differentiation, 
or both-augmented bulk, or increased heterogeneity and definiteness, or a combination of the two. 
Functionally considered, it may consist in a larger sum of actions, or more multiplied varieties of actions, or 
both-a larger amount of sensible and insensible motion generated, or motions more numerous in their hinds 
and more intricate and exact in their co-ordinations, or motions that are greater alike in quantity, complexity, 
and precision." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, 
Revised, 1910, p.505. Emphasis original)

"Expressing the change in terms of that more special evolution displayed by organisms; we may say that it 
must be one which further adapts the moving equilibrium of organic actions. As was pointed out in First 
Principles, § 173, `the maintenance of such a moving equilibrium, requires the habitual genesis of internal 
forces corresponding in number, directions, and amounts to the external incident forces-as many inner 
functions, single or combined, as there are single or combined outer actions to be met.' And it was also 
pointed out that `the structural complexity accompanying functional equilibration, is definable as one in 
which there are as many specialized parts as are capable, separately and jointly, of counteracting the 
separate and joint forces amid which the organism exists.' Clearly, then, since all incompletenesses in Man 
as now constituted, are failures to meet certain of the outer actions (mostly involved, remote, irregular), to 
which he is exposed; every advance implies additional co-ordinations of actions and accompanying 
complexities of organization." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New 
York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.522-523)

"Or, to specialize still further this conception of future progress, we may consider it as an advance towards 
completion. of that continuous adjustment of internal to external relations, which Life shows us. In Part I. of 
this work, where it was shown that the correspondence between inner and outer actions which under its 
phenomenal aspect, we call Life, is a particular kind of what, in terms of Evolution, we called a moving 
equilibrium; it was shown that the degree of life varies as the degree of correspondence. Greater evolution or 
higher life implies, then, such modifications of human nature as shall make more exact the existing 
correspondences, or shall establish additional correspondences, or both. Connexions of phenomena of a 
rare, distant, unobtrusive, or intricate kind, which we either suffer from or do not take advantage of, have to 
be responded to by new connexions of ideas, and acts properly combined and proportioned: there must be 
increase-of knowledge, or skill, or power, or of all these. And to effect this more extensive, more varied, and 
more accurate, co-ordination of actions, there must be organization of still greater heterogeneity and 
definiteness." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, 
Revised, 1910, p.523)

"Let its, before proceeding, consider in what particular ways this further evolution, this higher life, this 
greater co-ordination of actions, may be expected to show itself. Will it be in strength? Probably not to any 
considerable degree. Mechanical appliances are fast supplanting brute force, and doubtless will continue 
doing this. Though at present civilized nations largely depend for self-preservation on vigour of limb, and 
are likely to do so while wars" (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New 
York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.523-524)

"Thus, looking at the several possibilities, and asking what direction this further evolution, this more 
complete moving equilibrium, this better adjustment of inner to outer relations, this more perfect 
coordination of actions, is likely to take; we conclude that it must take mainly the direction of a higher 
intellectual and emotional development. ... This conclusion we shall find equally forced on us if we inquire 
for the causes which are to bring about such results. No more in the case of Man than in the case of any 
other being, can we presume that evolution has taken place, or will hereafter take place, spontaneously. In 
the past, at present, and in the future, all modifications, functional and organic, have been, are, and must be, 
immediately or remotely consequent on surrounding conditions. What, then, are those changes in the 
environment to which, by direct or indirect equilibration, the human organism has been adjusting itself, is 
adjusting itself now, and will continue to adjust itself? And how do they necessitate a higher evolution of 
the organism?" (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, 
Revised, 1910, pp.525-526)

"There now remains but to inquire towards what limit this progress tends. So long as the fertility of the race 
is more than sufficient to balance the diminution by deaths, population must continue to increase. So long 
as population continues to increase, there must be pressure on the means of subsistence. And so long as 
there is pressure on the means of subsistence, further mental development must go on, and further 
diminution of fertility must result; provided that the actions and reactions which have been described are 
not artificially interfered with. I append this qualifying clause advisedly, and especially emphasize it, 
because these actions and reactions have been hitherto, and are now, greatly interfered with by 
governments, and the continuance of the interferences may retard, if not stop, that further evolution which 
would else go on." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. 
II, Revised, 1910, pp.531-532)

"I refer to those hindrances to the survival of the fittest which in earlier times resulted from the 
undiscriminating charities of monasteries and in later times from the operation of Poor Laws. Of course if the 
competition which increasing pressure of population entails, is prevented from acting on a considerable part 
of the community, such part, saved from the needed intellectual and moral stress, will not undergo any 
further mental development; and must ever tend to leave a posterity, and an increasing posterity, in which 
none of that higher individuation which checks genesis takes place. Such State-meddlings with the natural 
play of actions and reactions produce a further evil equally great or greater. For those who are not self-
maintained, or but partially self-maintained, are supplied with the means they lack by the better members of 
the community; and these better members have thus not only to support themselves and their offspring, but 
also to support or aid the inferior members and their offspring. The under-working of one part is 
accompanied by the over-working of the other part-by a working which at each stage of progress exceeds 
that which the normal conditions necessitate, and results sometimes in illness, premature age, or death, or in 
lessened number of children, or in imperfect rearing of children: the bad are fostered and the good are 
repressed." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, 
Revised, 1910, p.532) 

"It does not follow that the struggle for life and the survival of the fittest must be left to work out their 
effects without mitigation. It is contended only that there shall not be a forcible burdening of the superior 
for the support of the interior. Such aid to the inferior as the superior voluntarily yield, kept as it will be 
within moderate limits, may be given with benefit to both-relief to the one, moral culture to the other. And 
aid willingly given (little to the least worthy and more to the most worthy) will usually be so given as not to 
further the increase of the unworthy. For in proportion as the emotional nature becomes more evolved, and 
there grows up a higher sense of parental responsibility, the begetting of children that cannot be properly 
reared will be universally held intolerable. If, as we see, public opinion in many places and times becomes 
coercive enough to force men to fight duels, we can scarcely doubt that at a higher stage of evolution it may 
become so coercive as to prevent men from marrying improvidently. If the frowns of their fellows can make 
men commit immoral acts, surely they may make men refrain from immoral acts specially when the actors 
themselves feel that the threatened frowns would be justified. Hence with a higher moral nature will come a 
restriction on the multiplication of the inferior." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. 
Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.533) 

"In brief, the sole requirement is that there shall be no extensive suspension of that natural relation between 
merit and benefit which constitutes justice. Holding, then, that this all-essential condition will itself come to 
be recognized and enforced by a more evolved humanity, let us consider what is the goal towards which the 
restraint on genesis by individuation progresses. ... Supposing the Sun's light and heat, on which all 
terrestrial life depends, to continue abundant for a period long enough to allow the entire evolution we are 
contemplating; there are still certain changes which must prevent such complete adjustment of human 
nature to surrounding conditions, as would permit the rate of multiplication to become equal to the rate of 
mortality. " (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, 
Revised, 1910, pp.533-534)

"Evolution under all its aspects, general and special, is an advance towards equilibrium. We have seen that 
the theoretical limit towards which the integration and differentiation of every aggregate advances, is a state 
of balance between all the forces to which its parts are subject, and the forces which its parts oppose to 
them (First Prin. § 170). And we have seen that organic evolution is a progress towards a moving 
equilibrium completely adjusted to environing actions. It has been also pointed out that, in civilized Man, 
there is going on a new class of equilibrations-those between his actions and the actions of the societies he 
forms (First Prin. § 175). Social restraints and requirements are ever altering his activities and by 
consequence his nature; and as fast as his nature is altered, social restraints and requirements undergo more 
or less re-adjustment. Here the organism and the conditions are both modifiable; and by successive 
conciliations of the two, there is effected a progress towards equilibrium. More recently we have seen that in 
every species, there establishes itself an equilibrium of an involved kind between the total race-destroying 
forces and the total race-preserving forces-an equilibrium which implies that where the ability to maintain 
individual life is small, the ability to propagate must be great, and vice versa. Whence it follows that the 
evolution of a race more in equilibrium with the environment, is also the evolution of a race in which there is 
a relative approach towards equilibrium between the number of new individuals produced and the number 
which survive and propagate." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New 
York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.536-538)

"The distribution in Space cannot be said to imply that organisms have been designed for their particular 
habitats and placed in them; since, besides the habitat in which each kind of organism is found there are 
commonly other habitats, as good or better for it, from which it is absent-habitats to which it is so much 
better fitted than organisms now occupying them, that it extrudes these organisms when allowed the 
opportunity. Neither can we suppose that the purpose has been to establish varieties of Floras and Faunas; 
since, if so, why are the Floras and Faunas but little divergent in widely-sundered areas between which 
migration is possible, while they are markedly divergent in adjacent areas between which migration is 
impossible?" (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, 
Revised, 1910, pp.411-412)

"Passing to distributions in Time, there arise the questions -why during nearly the whole of that vast period 
geologically recorded have there existed none of those highest organic forms which have now overrun the 
Earth?-how is it that we find no traces of a creature endowed with large capacities for knowledge and 
happiness? The answer that the Earth was not, in remote times, a fit habitation for such a creature, besides 
being unwarranted by the evidence, suggests the equally awkward question-why during untold millions of 
years did the Earth remain fit only for inferior creatures? What, again, is the meaning of extinction of types? 
To conclude that the saurian type was replaced by other types at the beginning of the tertiary period, 
because it was not adapted to the conditions which then arose, is to conclude that it could not be modified 
into fitness for the conditions; and this conclusion is at variance with the hypothesis that creative skill is 
shown in the multiform adaptations of one type to many ends." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," 
[1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.412) 

"We all know that the savage thinks of each striking phenomenon, or group of phenomena, as caused by 
some separate personal agent; that out of this conception there grows up a polytheistic conception, in 
which these minor personalities are variously generalized into deities presiding over different divisions of 
nature; and that these are eventually further generalized. This progressive consolidation of causal agencies 
may be traced in the creeds of all races, and is far from complete in the creed of the most advanced races. 
The unlettered rustics who till our fields, do not let the consciousness of a supreme power wholly absorb 
the aboriginal conceptions of good and evil spirits, and of charms or secret potencies dwelling in particular 
objects. The earliest mode of thinking changes only as fast as the constant relations among phenomena are 
established. Scarcely less familiar is the truth, that while accumulating knowledge makes these conceptions 
of personal causal agents gradually more vague, as it merges them into general causes, it also destroys the 
habit of thinking of them as working after the methods of personal agents. We do not now, like Kepler, 
assume guiding spirits to keep the planets in their orbits. It is no longer the universal belief that the sea was 
once for all mechanically parted from the dry land; or that the mountains were placed where we see them by 
a sudden creative act. All but a narrow class have ceased to suppose sunshine and storm to be sent in some 
arbitrary succession. The majority of educated people have given up thinking of epidemics of punishments 
inflicted by an angry deity. Nor do even the common people regard a madman as one possessed by a 
demon. That is to say, we everywhere see fading away the anthropomorphic conception of Cause. In one 
case after another, is abandoned the ascription of phenomena to a will analogous to the human will, working 
by methods analogous to human methods." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton 
& Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.418-419)

"If, then, of this once-numerous family of beliefs the immense majority have become extinct, we may not 
unreasonably expect that the few remaining members of the family will become extinct. One of these is the 
belief we are here considering-the belief that each species of organism was specially created. Many who in 
all else have abandoned the aboriginal theory of things, still hold this remnant of the aboriginal theory. Ask 
any well-informed man whether he accepts the cosmogony of the Indians, or the Greeks, or the Hebrews, 
and he will regard the question as next to an insult. Yet one element common to these cosmogonies he very 
likely retains: not bearing in mind its origin. For whence did he get the doctrine of special creations? 
Catechise him, and he is forced to confess that it was put into his mind in childhood, as one portion of a 
story which, as a whole, he has long since rejected. Why this fragment is likely to be right while all the rest 
is wrong, he is unable to say. May we not then expect that the relinquishment of all other parts of this story, 
will by and by be followed by the relinquishment of this remaining part of it?" (Spencer, H., "The Principles 
of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.419)

"Virchow and Remak rejected free-cell formation and spontaneous generation. By 1854 Virchow was 
convinced that `there is no life but through direct succession,' that is, all cells were derived from preexisting 
cells. In 1855 Virchow published a paper on `cellular pathology,' which included the famous motto omnis 
cellula e cellula. ... For Virchow the cell was the fundamental link in the great chain that formed the 
hierarchy of tissues, organs, systems, and, ultimately, the complete organism." (Magner, L.N., "A History of 
the Life Sciences," Marcel Dekker: New York NY, Second Edition, 1994, p.203)

"More and more investigators began to suspect that the division of an existing cell was the sole mechanism 
for producing new cells. This was an exceedingly difficult hypothesis to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. 
The microscopes and the techniques for studying cells in the early 1800s were most inadequate by later 
standards, and it took many observations on different sorts of organisms and tissues before the German 
pathologist Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902) was to express the view, in 1855, Omnis cellula e cellula (`all cells 
from cells') and have it generally accepted. In a lecture given in 1858 he put it thus: `A new cell can [never] 
build itself up out of any noncellular substance. Where a cell arises, there a cell must have previously 
existed (Omnis cellula e cellula), just as an animal can spring only from an animal, a plant only from a 
plant. In this manner, although there are still a few spots in the body where absolute demonstration has not 
yet been afforded, the principle is nevertheless established, that in the whole series of living things, whether 
they be entire plants or animal organisms, or essential constituents of the same, an eternal law of 
continuous development prevails.' (Virchow 1863, lecture 2)" (Moore, J.A., "Science as a Way of 
Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1993, pp.260-261. 
Emphasis original)

"Not everyone agreed with Virchow that all cells and all organisms come from preexisting cells, but as the 
nineteenth century progressed this hypothesis became ever more probable. In a few decades the 
experiments of the French scientist Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) would establish the improbability of 
spontaneous generation of living organisms and the cells within them. Thus by the end of the nineteenth 
century it had been established beyond all reasonable doubt that: Omnis vivo e vivo [and] Omnis cellula 
e cellula" (Moore, J.A., "Science as a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology," Harvard 
University Press: Cambridge MA, 1993, p.261)

"The belief which we find thus questionable; both as being a primitive belief and as being a belief belonging 
to an almost-extinct family, is a belief not countenanced by a single fact. No one ever saw a special creation; 
no one ever found proof of an indirect kind that a special creation had taken place. It is significant, as Dr. 
Hooker remarks, that naturalists who suppose new species to be miraculously originated, habitually 
suppose the origination to occur in some region remote from human observation. Wherever the order of 
organic nature is exposed to the view of zoologists and botanists, it expels this conception; and the 
conception survives only in connexion with imagined places, where the order of organic nature is 
unknown." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, 
Revised, 1910, pp.419-420)

"Besides being absolutely without evidence to give it external support, this hypothesis of special creations 
cannot support itself internally-cannot be framed into a coherent thought. It is one of those illegitimate 
symbolic conceptions which are mistaken for legitimate symbolic conceptions (First Principles, § 9), 
because they remain untested. Immediately an attempt is made to elaborate the idea into anything like a 
definite shape, it proves to be a pseud-idea, admitting of no definite shape. Is it supposed that a new 
organism, when specially created, is created out of nothing? If so, there is a supposed creation of matter; 
and the creation of matter is inconceivable-implies the establishment of a relation in thought between 
nothing and something-a relation of which one term is absent-an impossible relation. Is it supposed that the 
matter of which the new organism consists is not created for the occasion, but is taken out of its pre-existing 
forms and arranged into a new form? If so, we are met by the question-how is the re-arrangement effected? 
Of the myriad atoms going to the composition of the new organism, all of them previously dispersed 
through the neighbouring air and earth, does each, suddenly disengaging itself from its combinations, rush 
to meet the rest, unite with them into the appropriate chemical compounds, and then fall with certain others 
into its appointed place in the aggregate of complex tissues and organs? Surely thus to assume a myriad 
supernatural impulses, differing in their directions and amounts, given to as many different atoms, is a 
multiplication of mysteries rather than the solution of a mystery. For every one of these impulses, not being 
the, result of a force locally existing in some other form, implies the creation of force; and the creation of 
force is just as inconceivable as the creation of matter. It is thus with all attempted ways of representing the 
process." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, 
Revised, 1910, pp.420-421)

"The old Hebrew idea that God takes clay and moulds a new creature, as a potter moulds a vessel, is 
probably too grossly anthropomorphic to be accepted by any modern defender of the special-creation 
doctrine. But having abandoned this crude belief, what belief is he prepared to substitute? If a new organism 
is not thus produced, then in what way is one produced? or rather-in what way does he conceive a new 
organism to be produced? We will not ask for the ascertained mode, but will be content with a mode which 
can be consistently imagined. No such mode, however, is assignable. Those who entertain the proposition 
that each kind of organism results from a divine interposition, do so because they refrain from translating 
words into thoughts. They do not really believe, but rather believe they believe. For belief, properly so 
called, implies a mental representation of the thing believed, and no such mental representation is here 
possible." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, 
Revised, 1910, pp.420-421)

"If we imagine mankind to be contemplated by some being as short-lived as an ephemeron, but possessing 
intelligence like our own-if we imagine such a being studying men and women, during his few hours of life, 
and speculating as to the mode in which they came into existence; it is manifest that, reasoning in the usual 
way, he would suppose each man and woman to have been separately created. No appreciable changes of 
structure occurring in any of them during the time over which his observations extended, this being would 
probably infer that no changes of structure were taking place, or had taken place; and that from the outset 
each man and woman had possessed all the characters then visible-had been originally formed with them. 
The application is obvious. A human life is ephemeral compared with the life of a species; and even the 
period over which the records of all human lives extend, is ephemeral compared with the life of a species. 
There is thus a parallel contrast between the immensely-long series of changes which have occurred during 
the life of a species, and that small portion of the series open to our view. And there is no reason to suppose 
that the first conclusion drawn by mankind from this small part of the series visible to them, is any nearer the 
truth than would be the conclusion of the supposed ephemeral being respecting men and women." 
(Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, 

"This analogy, suggesting as it does how the hypothesis of special creations is merely a formula for our 
ignorance, raises the question-What reason have we to assume special creations of species but not of 
individuals; unless it be that in the case of individuals we directly know the process to be otherwise, but in 
the case of species do not directly know it to be otherwise? Have we any ground for concluding that 
species were specially created, except the ground that we have no immediate knowledge of their origin? And 
does our ignorance of the manner in which they arose warrant us in asserting that they arose by special 
creation?" (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, 
Revised, 1910, p.422)

"Another question is suggested by this analogy. Those who, in the absence of immediate evidence of the 
way in which species arose, assert that they arose not in a natural way allied to that in which individuals 
arise, but in a supernatural way, think that by this supposition they honour the Unknown Cause of things; 
and they oppose any antagonist doctrine as amounting to an exclusion of divine power from the world. But 
if divine power is demonstrated by the separate creation: of each species, would it not have been still better 
demonstrated by the separate creation of each individual? Why should there exist this process of natural 
genesis? Why should not omnipotence have been proved by the supernatural production of plants and 
animals everywhere throughout the world from hour to hour? Is it replied that the Creator was able to make 
individuals arise from one another in a natural succession, but not to make species thus arise? This is to 
assign a limit to power instead of magnifying it. Either it was possible or not possible to create species and 
individuals after the same general method. To say that it was not possible is suicidal in those who use this 
argument; and if it was possible, it is required to say what end is served by the special creation of species 
which would not have been better served by the special creation of individuals." (Spencer, H., "The 
Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.422-423)

"Again, what is to be thought of the fact that the immense majority of these supposed special creations took 
place before mankind existed? Those who think that divine power is demonstrated by special creations, 
have to answer the question-to whom demonstrated? Tacitly or avowedly, they regard the demonstrations 
as being for the benefit of mankind. But if so, to what purpose were the millions of these demonstrations 
which took place on the Earth when there were no intelligent beings to contemplate them? Did the 
Unknowable thus demonstrate his power to himself? Few will have the hardihood to say that any such 
demonstration was needful. There is no choice but to regard them, either as superfluous exercises of power, 
which is a derogatory supposition, or as exercises of power that were necessary because species could not 
be otherwise produced, which is also a derogatory supposition." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," 
[1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.423)

"Other implications concerning the divine character must be recognized by those who contend that each 
species arose by divine fiat. It is hardly supposable that Infinite Power is exercised in trivial actions effecting 
trivial changes. Yet the organic world in its hundreds of thousands of species shows in each sub-division 
multitudinous forms which, though unlike enough to be classed as specifically distinct, diverge from one 
another only in small details which have no significance in relation to the life led. Sometimes the number of 
specific distinctions is so great that did they result from human agency we should call them whimsical." 
(Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, 

"For example, in Lake Baikal are found 115 species of an amphipod, Gammarus; and the multiplicity 
becomes startling on learning that this number exceeds the number of all other species of the genus: various 
as are the conditions to which, throughout the rest of the world, the genus is subject. Still stranger seems 
the superfluous exercise of power on examining the carpet of living forms at the bottom of the ocean. Not 
dwelling on the immense variety of creatures unlike in type which live miles below the surface in absolute 
darkness, it will suffice to instance the Polyzoa alone: low types of animals so small that a thousand of 
them would not cover a square inch, and on which, nevertheless, there has been, according to the view we 
are considering, an exercise of creative skill such that by small variations of structure more than 350 species 
have been produced!" (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, 
Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.424)

"Kindred illustrations are furnished by the fauna of caverns. Are we to suppose that numerous blind 
creatures-crustaceans, myriapods, spiders, insects, fishes-were specially made sightless to fit them for the 
Mammoth Cave? Or what shall we say of the Proteus, a low amphibian with rudimentary eyes, which 
inhabits certain caves in Carniola, Carinthia and Dalmatia and is not found elsewhere. Must we conclude 
that God went out of his way to devise an animal for these places? More puzzling still is a problem presented 
to the special-creationist by a batrachian inhabiting Central Australia. In a region once peopled by 
numerous animals but now made unfit by continuous droughts, there exists a frog which, when the pools 
are drying up, fills itself with water and burrowing in the mud hibernates until the next rains; which may 
come in a year or may be delayed for two years. What is to be thought of this creature? Were its structure 
and the accompanying instinct divinely planned to fit it to this particular habitat? Many such questions 
might be asked which, if answered as the current theory necessitates, imply a divine nature hardly like that 
otherwise assumed." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, 
Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.424-425)

"Those who espouse the aboriginal hypothesis entangle themselves in yet other theological difficulties. 
This assumption that each kind of organism was specially designed, carries with it the implication that the 
designer intended everything which results from the design. There is no escape from the admission that if 
organisms were severally constructed with a view to their respective ends, then the character of the 
constructor is indicated both by the ends themselves, and the perfection or imperfection with which the 
organisms are fitted to them. Observe the consequences." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], 
D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.425)

"Without dwelling on the question recently raised, why during untold millions of years there existed on the 
Earth no beings endowed with capacities for wide thought and high feeling, we may content ourselves with 
asking why, at present, the Earth is largely peopled by creatures which inflict on one another so much 
suffering? Omitting the human race, whose defects and miseries the current theology professes to account 
for, and limiting ourselves to the lower creation, what must we think of the countless different pain-inflicting 
appliances and instincts with which animals are endowed? Not only now, and not only ever since men have 
lived, has the Earth been a scene of warfare among all sentient creatures; but palaeontology shows us that 
from the earliest eras geologically recorded; there has been going on this universal carnage. Fossil 
structures, in common with the structures of existing animals, show us elaborate weapons for destroying 
other animals. We have unmistakable proof that throughout all past time, there has been a ceaseless 
devouring of the weak by the strong. How is this to be - explained? How happens it that animals were so 
designed as to render this bloodshed necessary? How happens it that in almost every species the number of 
individuals annually born is such that the majority die by starvation or by violence before arriving at 
maturity ? Whoever contends that each kind of animal was specially designed, must assert either that there 
was a deliberate intention on the part of the Creator to produce these results, or that there was an inability to 
prevent them. Which alternative does he prefer?-to cast an imputation on the divine character or to assert a 
limitation of the divine power?" (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New 
York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.425-426)

"It is useless for him to plead that the destruction of the less powerful by the more powerful, is a means of 
preventing the miseries of decrepitude and incapacity, and therefore works beneficently. For even were the 
chief mortality among the aged instead of among the young, there would still arise the unanswerable 
question-why were not animals constructed in such ways as to avoid these evils? why were not their rates 
of multiplication, their degrees of intelligence; and their propensities, so adjusted that these sufferings might 
be escaped? And if decline of vigour was a necessary accompaniment of age, why was it not provided that 
the organic actions should end in sudden death, whenever they fell below the level required for pleasurable 
existence? Will any one who contends that organisms were specially designed; assert that they could not 
have been so designed as to prevent suffering? And if he admits that they could have been made so as to 
prevent suffering, will he assert that the Creator preferred making them in such ways as to inflict suffering?" 
(Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, 

"Already in § 52, where the generalization of von Baer respecting the relations of embryos was set forth, 
there was given the warning, above repeated with greater distinctness, that it is only an adumbration. In the 
words of his translator, he `found that in its earliest stage, every organism has the greatest number of 
characters in common with all other organisms in their earliest stages; that at a stage somewhat later, its 
structure is like the structures displayed at corresponding phases by a less extensive multitude of 
organisms; that at each subsequent stage, traits are acquired which successively distinguished the 
developing embryo from groups of embryos that it previously resembled-thus step by step diminishing the 
class of embryos which it still resembles; and that thus the class of similar forms is finally narrowed to the 
species of which it is a member.'" (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New 
York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.451-452)

"Assuming for a moment that this generalization is true as it stands, or rather, assuming that the 
qualifications needed are not such as destroy its correspondence with the average facts, we shall see that it 
has profound significance. For if we follow out in thought the implications-if we conceive the germs of all 
hinds of organisms simultaneously developing, and imagine that after taking their first step together, at the 
second step one half of the vast multitude diverges from the other half; if, at the next step, we mentally 
watch the parts of each great assemblage beginning to take two or more routes of development; if we 
represent to ourselves such bifurcations going on, stage after stage, in all the branches; we shall see that 
there must result an aggregate analogous, in its arrangement of parts, to a tree. If this vast genealogical tree 
be contemplated as a whole, made up of trunk, main branches, secondary branches, and so on as far as the 
terminal twigs; it will be perceived that all the various kinds of organisms represented by these terminal 
twigs, forming the periphery of the tree, will stand related to one another in small groups, which are united 
into groups of groups, and so on. The embryological tree, expressing the developmental relations of 
organisms, will be similar to the tree which symbolizes their classificatory relations. That subordination of 
classes, orders, genera, and species, to which naturalists have been gradually led, is just that subordination 
which results from the divergence and re-divergence of embryos, as they all unfold. On the hypothesis of 
evolution this parallelism has a meaning-indicates that primordial kinship of all organisms, and that 
progressive differentiation of them, which the hypothesis alleges. But on any other hypothesis the 
parallelism is meaningless; or rather, it raises a difficulty; since it implies either an effect without a cause or a 
design without a purpose." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York 
NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.452-453)

"This conception of a tree, symbolizing the relationships of types and a species derived from the same root, 
has a concomitant conception. The implication is that each organism, setting out from the simple nucleated 
cell, must in the course of its development follow the line of the trunk, some main branch, some sub-branch, 
some sub-sub-branch, &c., of this embryological tree; and so on till it reaches that ultimate twig 
representing the species of which it is a member. It must in a general way go through the particular line of 
forms which preceded it in all past times: there must be what has been aptly called a `recapitulation' of the 
successive ancestral structures. This, at least, is the conclusion necessitated by the generalization we are 
considering under its original crude form." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & 
Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.452-453)

"Von Baer lived in the days when the Development Hypothesis was mentioned only to be ridiculed, and he 
joined in the ridicule. What he conceived to be the meaning of these groupings of organisms and these 
relations among their embryological histories, is not obvious. The only alternative to the hypothesis of 
Evolution is the hypothesis of Special Creation; and as he did not accept the one it is inferable that he 
accepted the other. But if he did this he must in the first place have found no answer to the inquiry why 
organisms specially created should have the embryological kinships he described. And in the second place, 
after discovering that his alleged law was traversed by many and various nonconformities, he would have 
been without any explanation of these." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & 
Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.453-454)

"If it be said that the conditions of the case necessitated the derivation of all organisms from simple germs, 
and therefore necessitated a morphological unity in their primitive states; there arises the obvious answer, 
that the morphological unity thus implied, is not the only morphological unity to be accounted for. Were 
this the only unity, the various kinds of organisms, setting out from a common primordial form, should all 
begin from the first to diverge individually, as so many radii from a centre; which they do not. If, otherwise, 
it be said that organisms were framed upon certain types, and that those of the same type continue 
developing together in the same direction, until it is time for them to begin putting on their specialities of 
structure; then the answer is, that when they do finally diverge they ought severally to develop in direct 
lines towards their final forms. No reason can be assigned why, having parted company, some should 
progress towards their final forms by irregular or circuitous routes. On the hypothesis of design such 
deviations are inexplicable." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York 
NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.454)

"The hypothesis of evolution, however, while it pre-supposes those kinships among embryos in their early 
forms which are found to exist, also leads us to expect nonconformities in their courses of development. If, 
as any rational theory of evolution implies, the progressive differentiations of types from one another during 
past times, have resulted from the direct and indirect effects of external conditions-if races of organisms 
have become different, either by immediate adaptations to unlike habits of life, or by the mediate adaptations 
resulting from preservation of the individuals most fitted for such habits of life, or by both; and if most 
embryonic changes are significant of changes that were undergone by ancestral races; then these 
irregularities must be anticipated. For the successive changes in modes of life pursued by successive 
ancestral races, can have had no regularity of sequence. In some cases they must have been more numerous 
than in others; in some cases they must have been greater in degree than in others; in some cases they must 
have been to simpler modes, in some cases to more complex modes, and in some cases to modes neither 
higher nor lower. Of two cognate races which diverged in the remote past, the one may have had 
descendants that have remained tolerably constant in their habits, while the other may have had 
descendants that have passed through widely-aberrant modes of life; and yet some of these last may have 
eventually taken to modes of life like those of the other races derived from the same stock. And if the 
metamorphoses of embryos indicate, in a general way, the changes of structure undergone by ancestors; 
then, the later embryologic changes of such two allied races will be somewhat different, though they may 
end in very similar forms." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York 
NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.454-455)

"Hence, remembering the perpetual intrusions of organisms on one another's modes of life, often widely 
different; and remembering that these intrusions have been going on from the beginning; we shall be 
prepared to find that the general law of embryonic parallelism is qualified by irregularities which are mostly 
small, in many cases considerable, and occasionally great. The hypothesis of evolution accounts for these: 
it does more-it implies the necessity of them." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton 
& Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.455-456)

"The substitutions of organs and the suppressions of organs, are among those secondary embryological 
phenomena which harmonize with the belief in evolution but cannot be reconciled with any other belief: 
Some embryos, during early stages of development; possess organs that afterwards dwindle away, as there 
arise other organs to discharge the same functions. And in other embryos organs make their appearance, 
grow to certain points, have no functions to discharge, and disappear by absorption. We have a remarkable 
instance of substitution in the temporary appliances for respiration, which some embryos exhibit. During the 
first phase of its development, the mammalian embryo possesses a system of blood-vessels distributed over 
what is called the area vasculosa-a system of vessels homologous with one which, among fishes, serves for 
aerating the blood until the permanent respiratory organs come into play. Now since this system of blood-
vessels, not being in proximity to an oxygenated medium, cannot be serviceable to the mammalian embryo 
during development of the lungs, as it is serviceable in the embryo-fish during development of the gills, this 
needless formation of it is unaccountable as a result of design. But it is quite congruous with the 
supposition that the mammalian type arose out of lower vertebrate types. For in such case the mammalian 
embryo, passing through states representing in a general way those which its remote ancestors had in 
common with the lower Vertebrata, develops this system of vessels in like manner with them." (Spencer, 
H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.456-457)

"An instance more significant still is furnished by certain Amphibia. One of the facts early made familiar 
to the natural-history student is that the tadpole breathes by external branchiae, and that these, needful 
during its aquatic life, dwindle away as fast as it develops the lungs fitting it for terrestrial life. But in one of 
the higher Amphibia, the viviparous Salamander, these transformations ordinarily undergone during the 
free life of the larva, are undergone by the embryo in the egg. The branchiae are developed though there is 
no use for them: lungs being substituted as breathing appliances before the creature is born. Even more 
striking than the substitutions of organs are the suppressions of organs. Mr. Darwin names some cases as 
`extremely curious; for instance, the presence of teeth in foetal whales, which when grown up have not a 
tooth in their heads; ... It has even been stated on good authority that rudiments of teeth can be detected in 
the beaks of certain embryonic birds.' Irreconcilable with any teleological theory, these facts do not even 
harmonize with the theory of fixed types which are maintained by the development of all the typical parts, 
even where not wanted; seeing that the disappearance of these incipient organs during foetal life spoils the 
typical resemblance. But while to other hypotheses these facts are stumbling-blocks, they yield strong 
support to the hypothesis of evolution. (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: 
New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.457) 

* 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: 30 April, 2008. Updated: 15 March, 2010.