Stephen E. Jones

Creation/Evolution Quotes: Unclassified quotes: August 2003

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

The following are unclassified quotes posted in my email messages in August, 2003.
The date format is dd/mm/yy. See copyright conditions at end.

[Index: January-March] [ April-June] July, September, October-December]

"First of all, it is incontestable that Epicurus's primary goal in regard to physics was therapeutic. As we have 
shown, he was not primarily a truth seeker, but a philosopher in search of a cosmological theory to support 
his moral project. He himself said so. That is not to say that he did not really believe that the universe was 
made up solely of atoms and the void. He really did believe it. In other words, he wanted it to be true 
and used his materialism as an explanatory filter that eliminated a priori the possibility that the 
universe could be intelligently designed. But he did not and could not have proved in the third century B.C. 
that the universe consisted only of eternal atoms and the void." (Wiker, B.*, "Moral Darwinism: How We 
Became Hedonists," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2002, p.54. Emphasis in original).

"Popular belief and anthropology texts alike agree that slow, even change over millions of years gradually 
transformed the ape-man of the African savanna into our present selves; but let us look briefly at the fossil 
record itself. ... We do not see constant progressive brain enlargement through time, or a climb to a more 
completely human posture. We see instead new `ideas,' like upright posture, developed fully from the 
outset." (Eldredge, N. & Tattersall, I., "The Myths of Human Evolution," Columbia University Press: New 
York NY, 1982, pp.7-8).

"My Father [Philip Gosse], after long reflection, prepared a theory of his own, which, as he fondly hoped, 
would take the wind out of Lyell's sails, and justify geology to godly readers of 'Genesis'. It was, very 
briefly, that there had been no gradual modification of the surface of the earth, or slow development of 
organic forms, but that when the catastrophic act of creation took place, the world presented, instantly, the 
structural appearance of a planet on which life had long existed. .... In truth, it was the logical and inevitable 
conclusion of accepting, literally, the doctrine of a sudden act of creation; it emphasized the fact that any 
breach in the circular course of nature could be conceived only on the supposition that the object created 
bore false witness to past processes, which had never taken place. For instance, Adam would certainly 
possess hair and teeth and bones in a condition which it must have taken many years to accomplish, yet he 
was created full-grown yesterday. He would certainly - though Sir Thomas Browne denied it - display an 
'omphalos', yet no umbilical cord had ever attached him to a mother. Never was a book cast upon the waters 
with greater anticipations of success than was this curious, this obstinate, this fanatical volume. My Father 
lived in a fever of suspense, waiting for the tremendous issue. This 'Omphalos' of his, he thought, was to 
bring all the turmoil of scientific speculation to a close, fling geology into the arms of Scripture, and make 
the lion eat grass with the lamb. It was not surprising, he admitted, that there had been experienced an ever-
increasing discord between the facts which geology brings to light and the direct statements of the early 
chapters of 'Genesis'. Nobody was to blame for that. My Father, and my Father alone, possessed the secret 
of the enigma; he alone held the key which could smoothly. open the lock of geological mystery. He offered 
it, with a glowing gesture, to atheists and Christians alike. This was to be the universal panacea; this the 
system of intellectual therapeutics which could not but heal all the maladies of the age. But, alas! atheists 
and Christians alike looked at it, and laughed, and threw it away." (Gosse, E., "Father and Son: A Study of 
Two Temperaments," [1967], Penguin: Harmondsworth UK, 1984, reprint, pp.104-105).

"Back on board he [Darwin] began to sort out his specimens, and was soon struck by an important fact: the 
majority of them were unique species which were to be found in these islands and nowhere else, and this 
applied to the plants as well as to the reptiles, birds, fish, shells and insects. It was true that they resembled 
other species in South America, but at the same time they were very different. 'It was most striking', Darwin 
wrote later, 'to be surrounded by new birds, new reptiles, new shells, new insects, new plants, and yet by 
innumerable trifling details of structure, and even by the tones of voice and plumage of the birds, to have 
the temperate plains of ... Patagonia, or the hot dry deserts of northern Chile, vividly brought before my 
eyes'." (Moorehead, A., "Darwin and the Beagle," [1969], Penguin: Harmondsworth UK, 1971, p.201).

"Many more measurements have been made on Palomar Mountain and elsewhere, down to the present day, 
and no exception has been found to the rule discovered by Slipher. Regardless of the direction in which we 
look out into space, all the distant objects in the heavens are moving away from us and from one another. 
The Universe is blowing up before our eyes, as if we are witnessing the aftermath of a gigantic explosion. 
Consider the implications of this picture. If the galaxies are moving apart, at an earlier time they must have 
been closer together than they are today. At a still earlier time, they must have been still closer together. 
Continue to move backwards in time in your imagination; the outward motions of the galaxies, reversed in 
time, bring them closer and closer; eventually, they come into contact; then their materials mix; finally, the 
matter of the Universe is packed together into one dense mass under enormous pressure, and with 
temperatures ranging up to trillions of degrees. The dazzling brilliance of the radiation in this dense, hot 
Universe must have been beyond description. The picture suggests the explosion of a cosmic hydrogen 
bomb instant in which the cosmic bomb exploded marked the birth of the Universe. Now we see how the 
astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. All the details differ, but the 
essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events 
leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and 
energy." (Jastrow, R. "Until the Sun Dies," [1977], Fontana/Collins: London, 1979, reprint, pp.20-21).

"Here was a dilemma! Geology certainly seemed to be true, but the Bible, which was God's word, 
was true. If the Bible said that all things in Heaven and Earth were created in six days, created in six 
days they were, in six literal days of twenty-four hours each. The evidences of spontaneous variation of 
form, acting, over an immense space of time, upon ever-modifying organic structures, seemed 
overwhelming, but they must either be brought into line with the six-day labour of creation, or they must be 
rejected. I have already shown how my Father worked out the ingenious 'Omphalos' theory in order to 
justify himself as a strictly scientific observer who was also a humble slave of revelation. But the old 
convention and the new rebellion would alike have none of his compromise." (Gosse, E., "Father and Son: A 
Study of Two Temperaments," [1967], Penguin: Harmondsworth UK, 1984, reprint, pp.112-113. Emphasis in 

"Darwinism is the most plausible unintelligent mechanism, yet it has tremendous difficulties and the 
evidence garnered so far points to its inability to do what its advocates claim for it. If unintelligent 
mechanisms can't do the job, then that shifts the focus to intelligent agency. That's as far as the argument 
against Darwinism takes us, but most people already have other reasons for believing in a personal God who 
just might act in history, and they will find the argument for intelligent design fits with what they already 
hold. With the argument arranged this way, evidence against Darwinism does count as evidence for an 
active God, just as valid negative advertising against the Democratic candidate will help the Republican, 
even though Vegetarian and One-World candidates are on the ballot, too. Life is either the result of 
exclusively unintelligent causes or it is not, and the evidence against the unintelligent production of life is 
clearly evidence for intelligent design." (Behe, M.J.*, "The God of Science: The Case for Intelligent 
Design." Review of "Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism", by Robert Pennock, 
MIT Press, 1999).

"The world was in fact made with time, if at the time of its creation change and motion came into 
existence. This is clearly the situation in the order of the first six or seven days, in which morning and 
evening are named, until God's creation was finished on the sixth day, and on the seventh day God's rest is 
emphasized as something conveying a mystic meaning. What kind of days these are is difficult or even 
impossible for us to imagine, to say nothing of describing them. ... In our experience, of course, the days 
with which we are familiar only have an evening because the sun sets, and a morning because the sun rises; 
whereas those first three days passed without the sun, which was made, we are told, on the fourth day. The 
narrative does indeed tell us that light was created by God, and that God separated that light from the 
darkness, and gave to the light the name of 'day', and to the darkness the name of 'night'. But what kind of 
light that was, and with what alternating movement the distinction was made, and what was the nature of 
this evening and this morning; these are questions beyond the scope of our sensible experience. " 
(Augustine, St., "The City of God," [1467], Bettenson H., transl., Penguin: London, 1984, p.436. Emphasis in 

"Some may become skeptical about these conclusions when the remains of life are someday discovered on 
Mars. Such a discovery may be inevitable. However, it will not mean that spontaneous generation works. 
Rather, both the solar wind and ejected debris from asteroid collisions have the capacity to carry life 
materials from Earth to Mars." (Ross, H.N.*, "The Fingerprint of God," [1989], Promise Publishing Co: 
Orange CA, Second Edition, 1991, p.138).

"Though I'm convinced that the origin of life defies a naturalistic explanation, I am expecting that life, or the 
remains of life, will eventually be discovered on Mars. My reason has nothing to do with spontaneous 
generation. It has everything to do with Mars' proximity to Earth. ... The remains, at least, of many micro- 
organisms are likely to be found on Mars for no other reason than that Mars is only thirty-five-million miles 
away from Earth. ... Consider the following data: ...The solar wind is capable of wafting tiny life forms (sizes 
ranging from 0.2 microns to about 1 micron) outward through the solar system and perhaps beyond. ... 
Many micro-organisms can be kept at liquid air temperatures (about -200 degrees Centigrade) for more than 
six months without losing their capacity to germinate. ... Several microbial species exposed for five days to 
the vacuum conditions of outer space did not lose their viability. ... Some microbes are capable of absorbing 
600 kilorads of x-ray radiation without losing their viability. ... Even very tiny amounts of graphite (of which 
there is more than an adequate supply in outer space) will protect micro-organisms from harmful ultraviolet 
radiation. ... Meteorites large enough to make a crater greater than 60 miles across will cause Earth rocks to 
escape Earth's gravity. Out of 1,000 such rocks ejected, 291 strike Venus, 20 go to Mercury, 17 hit Mars, 14 
make it to Jupiter, and 1 goes all the way to Saturn. Traveling the distance with these rocks will be many 
varieties of Earth life. Thus there are many reasons to believe that millions of Earth's minute creatures have 
been deposited on the surface of Mars and other solar system planets. Admittedly, conditions on Mars are 
unfavorable for the germination of such life except for only the briefest of moments. A liquid drop of water 
on the Martian surface, for example, evaporates in less than a second. Thus, living "adult" organisms 
should be quite rare on Mars. But, we should not be surprised to find considerable quantities of spores and 
the remains of biological material." (Ross, H.N.*, "The Creator and the Cosmos," NavPress: Colorado 
Springs CO, 1993, pp.144-146)

"`But,' many Christians say, `Can't a Christian also be an evolutionist? Why can't we regard evolution as 
God's method of creation? Why do you want us to choose between evolution and creation. Why can't we 
believe in both?' Well, as a matter of fact, one can be a Christian evolutionist. One can be a Christian liar or a 
Christian thief or a Christian gossip, too. Christians can, unfortunately, be many things they ought not to 
be! This author himself was a Christian evolutionist until some time after getting out of college, but that 
didn't make it right. The Bible clearly teaches special creation-not evolution-and so did the Lord Jesus Christ 
Himself. There can be, and are, some Christian evolutionists, but there is no such thing as `Christian 
evolution.' ... `Christian evolution,' by its very nature, is thus inconsistent in concept, a contradiction in 
terms, like `Christian atheism' or `flaming snowflakes' or `kindly cruelty.' Christian evolutionists may, indeed, 
be born again, saved by grace, redeemed by the saving work of Christ on the cross, but they will also one 
day have to explain to the Lord just why they chose to believe the false science of evolution instead of the 
plain statements of God's Word." (Morris, H.M., "Evolution in Turmoil: An Updated Sequel to The 
Troubled Waters of Evolution," Creation-Life Publishers: San Diego CA, 1982, p.149).

"To conclude our analysis of Hobbes, it should be clear that Richard Dawkins's statement that `the universe 
we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no 
evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference" [(Dawkins R., "River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of 
Life," Phoenix: London, 1996, p.155)] is merely a restatement of the assumptions underlying the Epicurean 
materialism of Hobbes, and Dawkins rightly draws the same, conclusion. Since the universe is the purely 
material of chance, it is amoral, a conclusion ultimately drawn from the belief that the universe is not 
designed (and therefore has no intrinsic moral order) and has no designer (and therefore no extrinsic moral 
orderer). Given such a universe, it is not difficult to see that the most we could hope for is the maximization 
of our desire and the minimization of pain, and that translates, in the political realm, to the maximization of 
our rights to pursue our desires with the minimum of impediments. The language of rights has become the 
lingua franca of moral discourse because that is the only language possible in a universe where 
`there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference.'" (Wiker, 
B.*, "Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2002, pp.165-

"In a real sense, then, the issue turned on miracles. If a miracle is defined as any sort of supernatural breach 
of the order of nature, initiated by God for his purposes, and existing beyond the reach of science, then a 
belief in the impossibility of miracles was the litmus test of positivism, and the spread of skepticism about 
such intervention was an index to the growth of poth of positive attitudes. Wollaston unintentionally stated the 
argument for the positivists when he protested, in reviewing the Origin, that many miracles of creation were 
no more absurd than one. More than anything else, it was the incredibility of miracles that disclosed the 
positivistic commitment to a set of epistemic rules defining reality. It was, above all, miraculous 
creation that offended Darwin both scientifically and theologically. It was a desire to somehow keep God in 
nature without appealing to miracles that exercised the theoretical skills of the providential evolutionists. 
What had separated the developing positive outlook from the traditional one, from its significant beginnings 
in the seventeenth century on, was not the idea that nature is predictable men had known that from neolithic 
times if not earlier-but that nature must not be unpredictable." (Gillespie, N.C., "Charles Darwin and the 
Problem of Creation," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, 1979, p.146. Emphasis in original)

"It is no accident that the majority of evolutionists working today seem to be either atheistic or agnostic in 
their fundamental orientation towards a possible Creator. The very nature of science itself seems to exert a 
strong selective effect on the type o who ultimately decide to become scientists. While it may be 
true that the modern scientific movement was originally founded upon a strong theistic foundation, many 
modern-day scientists have nevertheless lost touch with the religious roots of their profession, and a 
significant proportion of these individuals can even be described as being openly anti-theistic. Indeed, 
many atheists seem to be drawn to scientific careers precisely because of the non-theistic nature of 
the hard sciences." (Corey, M.A.*, "Back to Darwin: The Scientific Case for Deistic Evolution," University 
Press of America: Lanham MD, 1994, p.403. Emphasis in original)

"The logical positivist tradition held that scientific theories could be distinguished from nonscientific 
theories not because scientific theories had been produced via unique or superior methods, but because 
such theories were more meaningful. Logical positivists asserted that all meaningful statements are either 
empirically verifiable or logically undeniable. According to this "verificationist criterion of meaning," 
scientific theories are more meaningful than philosophical or religious ideas, for example, because scientific 
theories refer to observable entities such as planets, minerals and birds, whereas philosophy and religion 
refer to such unobservable entities as God, truth and morality. Yet as is now well known, positivism soon 
self-destructed. Philosophers came to realize that positivism's verificationist criterion of meaning did not 
achieve its own standard. That is, the assumptions of positivism turn out to be neither empirically verifiable 
nor logically undeniable. Furthermore, positivism's verificationist ideal misrepresented much actual scientific 
practice. Many scientific theories refer to unverifiable and unobservable entities such as forces, fields, 
molecules, quarks and universal laws. Meanwhile, many disreputable theories (e.g., the flat-earth theory) 
appeal explicitly to "common-sense" observations. Clearly, positivism's verifiability criterion would not 
achieve the demarcation desired." (Meyer, S.C.*, "The Methodological Equivalence of Design & Descent: 
Can There be a Scientific `Theory of Creation'?," in Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific 
Evidence for an Intelligent Designer," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1994, p.74).

"From these highly dispersed hydrogen and helium gases ... somehow, evolutionists believe, stars and 
galaxies created themselves, our solar system created itself, life created itself, and from that first primordial 
form of life all other forms of life evolved, including man.... Thus, so the story says, we have gone from 
hydrogen gas to people. It was George Mulfinger who reminded us that if this is true, then we could say that 
hydrogen is an odorless, tasteless, invisible gas which, if given enough time, becomes people!" (Gish, 
D.T.**, "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics," Institute for Creation Research: El Cajon CA, 1993, p.154)

"If we took something A as evidence for B, and that same B as evidence for A, that would be grounds for 
criticism. And if we took A as the explanation of B, and B in turn as the explanation of A, we would also be 
in deep logical yogurt. But given science's character as an interwoven system with which we approach 
hidden levels of nature, we have to take nature's interpretability in the terms of a theory-the theory's 
explanatory power as a source of evidential support for the theory. And there is nothing logically pernicious 
about that. That A explains B while B evidentially supports A is not, on the face of it, a logical circle. Or if it 
is in some sense a circle, it might be what one philosopher has called a virtuous, rather than a vicious, circle. 
For instance, what is our evidence that there used to be a huge salt sea around Bonneville in Utah? The 
present salt flats. And how do we explain the presence of the salt flats? Well, there used to be this huge salt 
sea ... If science rested on inference from data, it might be circular to interpret the data in accord with the 
theory and then to infer that very theory from the data into which the theory had already been built. But that 
simply is not the way science works." (Ratzsch, D.L.*, "The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is 
Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1996, pp.148-149. Ellipses in 

"Evolution-the proposition that all organisms are related-is as highly verified a thesis as can be found in 
science. Subjected to close scrutiny from all angles for over a century now, evolution emerges as the only 
naturalistic explanation we have of the twin patterns of similarity and diversity that pervade all life. The 
basic notion that life has evolved is as certain as the existence of gravity or the idea that the earth is 
spheroidal. We call such highly verified notions `facts' when they consistently escape all attempts to prove 
them false. Evolution is no myth. But how life has evolved is another matter entirely." (Eldredge, N. 
& Tattersall, I., "The Myths of Human Evolution," Columbia University Press: New York NY, 1982, p.2. 
Emphasis in original)

"The text of my sermon will be from Gillespie's book, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation ... 
Gillespie's book is a historian's attempt explain the amount of space that Darwin gave to combating the 
creationist arguments. Gillespie shows that what Darwin was doing was trying to replace the creationist 
paradigm by a positivist paradigm, a view of the world in which there was neither room nor necessity for 
final causes. ... So, in general, I'm trying to suggest two themes. The first is that evolutionism and 
creationism seem to have become very hard to distinguish, particularly lately. I've just been showing how 
Gillespie's bitterest characterization of creationism seems to be, as I think, applicable to evolutionism - a sign 
that the two are very similar. ... Well, here's Gillespie again on creationism in the 1850s. He says: `Frequently, 
those holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the facts.' That seems to 
summarize the feeling I get in talking, to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of 
transformation but affirm only the facts, knowing that it's taken place. Again the two points do seem hard to 
distinguish." (Patterson, C., "Evolutionism and Creationism," Transcript of Address at the American 
Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5, 1981, pp.2-3).

"Where does intelligent design fit within the creation-evolution debate? Logically, intelligent design is 
compatible with everything from utterly discontinuous creation (e.g., God intervening at every conceivable 
point to create new species) to the most far-ranging evolution (e.g., God seamlessly melding all organisms 
together into one great tree of life). For intelligent design the primary question is not how organisms came to 
be (though, as we've just seen, this is a vital question for intelligent design) but whether organisms 
demonstrate clear, empirically detectable marks of being intelligently caused. In principle an evolutionary 
process can exhibit such `marks of intelligence' as much as any act of special creation." (Dembski, W.A.*, 
"Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 
1999, pp.109-110)

"That said, intelligent design is incompatible with what typically is meant by `theistic evolution' (or what is 
also called `creative evolution,' `teleological evolution,' `evolutionary creation' or most recently `fully gifted 
creation'). Theistic evolution takes the Darwinian picture of the biological world and baptizes it, identifying 
this picture with the way God created life. When boiled down to its scientific content, however, theistic 
evolution is no different from atheistic evolution, treating only undirected natural processes in the origin 
and development of life. Theistic evolution places theism and evolution in an odd tension. If God purposely 
created life through Darwinian means, then God's purpose was ostensibly to conceal his purpose in 
creation. Within theistic evolution, God is a master of stealth who constantly eludes our best efforts to 
detect him empirically. Yes, the theistic evolutionist believes that the universe is designed. Yet insofar as 
there is design in the universe, it is design we recognize strictly through the eyes of faith. Accordingly the 
physical world in itself provides no evidence that life is designed. For all we can tell, our appearance on 
planet earth is an accident." (Dembski, W.A.*, "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and 
Theology," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1999, p.110)

"Category Mistake. Another fallacy based on confusion is the category mistake. This is an "apple-and-
oranges" error because it mixes up two ideas that don't belong together. It says, `Accept this (apple) 
because it falls into that (orange) category.' What kinds of things get confused? Just about anything. But a 
good example might be the categories of color and taste: `what does blue taste like?' As you can tell, this is a 
meaningless question, because colors don't have taste. This kind of mistake happens often in questions 
about God, because he is often in a category all by himself."
(Geisler, N.L. & Brooks, R.M.*, "Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking," Baker: Grand 
Rapids, MI, 1990, p.108)

"On many occasions, I have challenged [young-Earth] creationists to show me the chapter and verse which 
reveals the recent creation of the Earth. No answer has been forthcoming. The Bible certainly does not state 
the age of the Earth. Nevertheless, [young-Earth] creationists claim that the Bible reveals that the Earth is 
6000-10,000 years old, that is approximately 8000 give or take 2000 years. This is in great contrast to the 
scientific age of the Earth calculated and measured by many methods as 4,500,000,000  /- 30,000, 000 years. 
Anyone with a basic knowledge of mathematics will be able to see that the scientific measurement is far 
more accurate than the creationist guess. It is also a little disturbing that the [young-Earth] creationist age of 
8000   2000 years is an inaccurate measurement considering that 8000 years is not a very long time. It is 
somewhat like saying that a basketball player is 8 feet tall but could be 6 feet or 10 feet tall!" (Plimer I.R., 
"Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism," Random House: Sydney, Australia, 1994, p.21)

"The details of bringing the earth from its original, unformed condition to its present, well-ordered state are 
given in vv.2-31. Verse 2 contains three nominal or circumstantial clauses, which state the conditions in 
existence at the time when God said, "Let there be light" (v.3). This threefold condition had existed from the 
point of absolute creation until the first creative word was spoken (v.3). How long this was, we are not told. 
... The work of creation is comprised in an hexameron, or period of six days, coming to a majestic climax in 
the resting of the Creator on the seventh day. The length of these days is not stated ..." (Young, E.J.*, "An 
Introduction to the Old Testament," [1949], Tyndale Press: London, 1958, reprint, p.52). 
"The Bible does not anywhere make an explicit statement in which the age of the earth is given. It tells us 
how long the Children of Israel were in Egypt, the length of time from the Exodus to the building of 
Solomon's temple, the duration of the Babylonian Captivity, etc. But nowhere is there a statement of how 
many years it was from creation to the time of Abraham or any other date that can be correlated with secular 
history. It is important to remember this point. Any estimate of the age of the earth based on the Bible rests 
on deductions drawn from information contained in Holy Scriptures. If the deductions are valid, the 
conclusions are likewise valid. The reverse is true if the deductions are in error." (Zimmerman, P.A.*, "The 
Age of the Earth," in Zimmerman, P.A., ed., "Darwin, Evolution, and Creation," [1959], Concordia: St Louis 
MO, 1966, Fifth Printing, p.161).

"Some Biblical scholars believe that between [Genesis 1] verses one and two a great period of time elapsed. 
... If true, this would make room for an incalculable number of years. ... The second check point is the latter 
part of Gen. 1:2. ... one may ask whether the moving of the Spirit of God over the face of the waters is 
included in the first day. It is mentioned before the creation of light. The term `moving' refers to a brooding 
activity. If this is outside the limits of the first day, then certainly a great amount of time may be included in 
this verse." (Zimmerman, P.A.*, "The Age of the Earth," in Zimmerman P.A., ed., "Darwin, Evolution, and 
Creation," [1959], Concordia: St Louis MO, 1966, Fifth Printing, pp.161-162)

"Thus, Darwin continued to regard Kelvin's calculation of the earth's age as perhaps the gravest objection 
to his theory. He wrote to Wallace in 1869 that `Thomson's [Lord Kelvin's] views on the recent age of the 
world have been for some time one of my sorest troubles.' And, in 1871, in striking metaphor, `But then 
comes Sir W. Thomson like an odious spectre.' Although Darwin generally stuck to his guns and felt in his 
heart of hearts that something must be wrong with Kelvin's calculations, he did finally compromise in the 
last edition of the Origin (1872), writing that more rapid changes on the early earth would have accelerated 
the pace of evolution, perhaps permitting all the changes we when observe in Kelvin's limited time [98-200 
million years]: `It is, however, probable, as Sir William Thompson [sic] insists, that the world at a very early 
period was subjected to more rapid and violent changes in its physical conditions than those now 
occurring; and such changes would have tended to induce changes at a corresponding rate in the 
organisms which then existed.'" (Gould, S.J., "False Premise, Good Science," in "The Flamingo's Smile: 
Reflections in Natural History," Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.132).

"Here we face another curious consequence of Darwin's way of looking at life: despite the power of 
molecular genetics to reveal the hereditary essences of organisms, the large-scale aspects of evolution 
remain unexplained, including the origin of species. There is 'no clear evidence ... for the gradual emergence 
of any evolutionary novelty' says Ernst Mayr, one of the most eminent of contemporary evolutionary 
biologists (Mayr E., "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 
1988, pp.529-53). New types of organism simply appear upon the evolutionary scene, persist for various 
periods of time, and then become extinct. So Darwin's assumption that the tree of life is a consequence of 
the gradual accumulation of small hereditary differences appears to be without significant support. Some 
other process is responsible for the emergent properties of life, those distinctive features that separate one 
group of organisms from another, such as fishes and amphibians, worms and insects, horsetails and 
grasses. Clearly something is missing from biology. It appears that Darwin's theory works for the small-
scale aspects of evolution: it can explain the variations and the adaptations within species that produce fine-
tuning of varieties to different habitats. The large-scale differences of form between types of organism that 
are the foundation of biological classification systems seem to require a principle other than natural 
selection operating on small variations, some process that gives rise to distinctly different forms of 
organism. This is the problem of emergent order in evolution, the origins of novel structures in organisms 
that has always been a primary interest in biology." (Goodwin, B., "How The Leopard Changed Its Spots: 
The Evolution of Complexity," [1994], Phoenix: London, 1995, reprint, pp.x-xi).

"Theistic Evolution. By `theistic' evolution is meant the belief that a theistic God used an evolutionary 
process he had created to produce all living species of life. In addition, `theistic' means that God performed 
at least one miracle after his original creation of the universe ex nihilo ... Otherwise, there is no 
difference between atheism and deism on the matter of origins. Of course, a theistic evolutionist (who does 
not deny more than two supernatural acts of creation) could still believe in other miracles in the Bible after 
creation, such as the Virgin Birth or resurrection. Minimal Theistic Evolution. The minimal theistic 
evolutionist believes that God performed two supernatural acts of creation: (1) the creation of matter out of 
nothing, and (2) the creation of first life. After that every other living thing, including human beings, 
emerged by natural processes that God had ordained from the beginning. Maximal Theistic Evolution. The 
maximal theistic evolutionist holds that God performed at least three supernatural acts of creation: matter 
first life, and the human soul. After the initial creation of matter and life, all animal organisms including the 
human body, evolved by natural laws God established from the very beginning. This is the traditional 
Roman Catholic view, at least for the last century. The belief in any more supernatural acts of creation would 
probably be better called a minimal form of creationism (though this is an arbitrary line), since it would hold 
that God supernaturally intervened at least four times in creation. Most scholars who hold this, also believe 
that God supernaturally intervened many more times than this. They often refer to themselves as 
Progressive Creationists." (Geisler, N.L.*, "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," Baker: Grand 
Rapids MI, 1999, p.233)

"It is clear in his repeated references to the beliefs of many scientists about a naturalistic origin of life (and 
evolution) that Van Till wants to gives his reader the misleading impression that these scientific 
professionals, as he likes to call them, believe as he does because of the preponderance of the evidence, 
when in fact their beliefs, like Van Till's, are based on philosophical presuppositions. Similar situations 
would also attend the Cambrian explosion and the Big Bang cosmology, for example. Van Till's strong 
preference for a nature that evolves based on its properties (or giftedness) and his aversion to any 
`intervention' by God, his gapless economy, borders on a deistic world view. Deism is the view that God 
created a universe that operates independently, like a windup clock, in contrast to biblical theism that sees 
God as Creator and Sustainer, like an electric clock. His description of how he would pray for his surgeon 
was surprisingly deistic in tone. When I have had surgery, I had no hesitation in praying that God would 
give my surgeon supernatural skill and insight as needed to give me a maximum outcome. If we see God as 
responsible for the natural as well as the supernatural (which Van Till acknowledges at one point in his 
paper), then the view of the supernatural as God intervening in nature is seen to be incorrect, since God is 
immediately responsible for everything that happens. God is simply doing most things in a patterned way 
(laws of nature, with universal constants and properties of matter), while occasionally doing some things in 
an unpatterned way, and not just in so-called redemptive history. Finally, his labeling of a creation where the 
specification of information for new systems may be necessary as `less than fully gifted' is very pejorative." 
(Bradley, W.L.*, "Response to Howard, J. Van Till," in Moreland, J.P. & Reynolds, J.M., eds., "Three Views 
on Creation and Evolution," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1999, pp.224-225)

"But Dembski contends that if he can codify the process by which we recognize intelligence in other fields, 
he can justifiably apply that process to biology. If he can codify that process, he says, intelligent design is 
not a matter of religious belief but a matter of following the evidence wherever it leads. Such a codification is 
Dembski's contribution to the intelligentdesign movement, and his claim to fame. It is an explanatory process 
that can be used for judging objects, events, and information. It begins by ruling out chance and natural law 
as explanations, and then infers design." (Kern, L., "Monkey Business," Dallas Observer, January 11, 

"Johnson has used his background in legal reasoning to challenge fundamental suppositions of the 
Darwinian establishment. He sees modern science consisting of two essentially contradictory definitions. 
On the one hand, science is empirical research, following the evidence wherever it leads. On the other hand, 
Johnson says, science is `applied materialist philosophy,' which starts with the assumption that `in the 
beginning were the particles, and impersonal natural laws, and nothing else.' This kind of science rules out 
of order any question of design or creation." (Swanson, S., "Debunking Darwin?: 'Intelligent-design' 
movement gathers strength," Christianity Today, January 6, 1997)

"There are two definitions of science at work in the scientific culture, and a concealed contradiction between 
them is beginning to come out into public view. On the one hand, science is dedicated to empirical evidence 
and to following that evidence wherever it leads. That is why science had to be free of the Bible, because 
the Bible was seen to constrain the possibilities scientists were allowed to consider. On the other hand, 
science also means `applied materialist philosophy.' Scientists who are materialists always look for strictly 
materialist explanations or every phenomenon, and they want to believe that such explanations always 
exist." (Johnsonm, P.E.*, "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 
1997, p.80)

"There is sufficient clearness to enlighten the elect, and sufficient obscurity to humble them. There is 
sufficient obscurity to blind the reprobate, and sufficient clearness to condemn them and make them 
inexcusable." (Pascal, B.*, "Pensées," 578, [1660], W.F. Trotter, Trans)

"A thing may be named according to its origin (where it came from) or its end (where it is going to, or what it 
has resulted in). An ironing board is named after its origin. Ironing was originally done by a heated piece of 
flat metal with a handle, the whole thing made of iron. A dishwasher is named after its goal, or end, to wash 
dishes. This book is named after the historical result of the modern acceptance of Epicurean materialism, and 
that is moral Darwinism. There are at least two good reasons for this. First, the end result, Darwinism, is far 
more familiar to us than the origin, Epicurean materialism. A title that depends on something unfamiliar to 
entice readers will end up largely unsold, entombed in boxes in a warehouse because it was, on the surface, 
encrypted in obscurity. Darwinism is more familiar to us because our current intellectual and moral situation 
is directly formed by Darwinism. Epicureanism is the root of Darwinism, but Darwinism is the flower, or 
better the vine which, growing from the root, entangles nearly every aspect of our contemporary culture. 
Second, Darwinism is a well-developed scientific argument which, as part of the entire project of modern 
scientific materialism, developed far beyond what Epicurus could ever have imagined his thought could be 
(but not beyond what he had hoped for). That means, interestingly enough, that there is more evidence for 
the truth of Epicurus's assertions in Darwin than in Epicurus's own arguments." (Wiker, B.*, "Moral 
Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2002, p.19)

"The creation of the world by God is the most magnificent of all acts of creation. It and humanity's 
redemption through Jesus Christ are the two key instances of God's self-revelation. The revelation of God in 
creation is typically called general revelation, whereas the revelation of God in redemption is typically called 
special revelation. Consequently theologians sometimes speak of two books, the book of nature, which is 
God's self-revelation in creation, and the book of Scripture, which is God's self-revelation in redemption. If 
you want to know who God is, you need to know God through both creation and redemption. According to 
Scripture, the angels praise God chiefly for two things: God's creation of the world and God's redemption of 
the world through Jesus Christ." (Dembski, W..A.*, "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and 
Theology," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1999, p.235)

"The probability is clearly very high that the scientific view is more correct than the creationist one on 
this particular point for the sort of reasons just given. But that does not make it legitimate to assert that 
no one should take the creationist view. If a person wants to believe something that is exceedingly 
improbable, it would seem to be an in alienable human right to be permitted to do so, just so long as it does 
not harm others; and creationist belief hardly threatens to do that. (It must be noted, however, that the 
actions of some creationists are admittedly intended to influence the education of children-harmfully, in the 
view of a number of people. But there can be dispute over what actions should be taken about education 
without ruling as illegitimate the beliefs of one of the parties.) Quite in general, it is not the case that, 
because science has changed its mind in the past, therefore it might change its mind again in any 
direction and by any amount . But it is also not the case that scientific opinion is necessarily always 
better than popular belief." (Bauer H.H., "Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method," [1992], 
University of Illinois Press: Urbana & Chicago IL, 1994, reprint, p.66. Emphasis in original).

"The question for now is not whether the vast claims of Darwinian evolution conflict with Genesis, but 
whether they conflict with the evidence of biology. To make that question visible, it is necessary to 
distinguish between the dictates of materialist philosophy and the inferences that one might legitimately 
draw from the evidence in the absence of a materialist bias. So I put this simple question to the Darwinian 
establishment: What should we do if empirical science and materialist philosophy are going in different 
directions? Suppose, for example, that the evidence suggests that intelligent causes were involved in 
biological creation. Should we follow the evidence or the philosophy ? (Johnson, P.E.*, "The 
Wedge: Breaking the Modernist Monopoly on Science," Touchstone, July/August 1999, Vol. 12, No. 4, 
pp.22-23. Emphasis in original)

"But science, understood in a particular way, can cure us of such dread, and can thereby bring us this-
worldly contentment. Such, for Epicurus, was the whole point of natural science, for `if our 
suspicions about heavenly phenomena and about death did not trouble us at all and were never anything to 
us ... then we would have no need of natural science.' Clearly, then, science for Epicurus was not primarily 
truth-seeking, but therapeutic. For this reason, not just any view of natural science would do. The cure for 
our anxieties resides in a view of nature and natural science that (ironically)  by design would 
completely eliminate any possible divine influence and, beyond that, eliminate the immaterial soul; for those 
who believe that they are completely extinguished at death certainly have no fear of punishments in the 
afterlife. As a consequence, Epicurus defined science with this therapeutic goal in mind, the establishment 
of a kind of tranquillity. This goal of tranquillity, or freedom from disturbance, was moral in the broadest 
sense: it directed all one's thoughts and actions to achieve a particular goal, establishing habits of thinking 
and acting ... that determined one's entire way of life. To establish this freedom from disturbance in the 
minds of the adherents requires `a continuous recollection of the general and most important points' of a 
particular view of natural science, one which rests in turn on a particular view of nature. We must meditate 
continually on nature constructed as a closed system, closed to any influence by the gods, and closed to 
any possibility of the existence of an immortal soul that could live after death. This continued reflection 
makes materialism a habit of mind, that is, a firm faith, or `secure conviction,' as he called it, that nature really 
is that way." (Wiker, B.*, "Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists," InterVarsity Press: Downers 
Grove IL, 2002, pp.33-34. Emphasis in original)

"To cite an important example, Darwin's evolutionary arguments are often taken to be quite novel. But as will 
become clear, nothing could be further from the truth. Darwinism should really be regarded as in no way 
novel, but rather as a necessary and ancient part of the entire materialist creed. Modern evolutionary theory 
is not modern-we find it full-blown in the first century B.C. in the Roman Epicurean poet-philosopher 
Lucretius-and its rise was assured with the victory of materialism in the seventeenth century. Rather than 
lookirwin as starting a revolution, as some are inclined to do, we ought to look at him as 
ending it, as the last piece of the materialist worldview snapping into place. That means, of course, 
that there is more to Darwinism than Darwin. There is an entire cosmological framework that Darwinism 
presupposed, and it can be traced all the way back to Epicurus." (Wiker, B.*, "Moral Darwinism: How We 
Became Hedonists," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2002, pp.25-26. Emphasis in original)

"Intelligent design is a moral and metaphysical threat to Darwinism. That is why Darwinian critics of 
intelligent design are so quick to conflate it with theology. ... Darwinists like Kenneth Miller and Robert 
Pennock, who write full-length books against intelligent design, lament that it is theology masquerading as 
science. To this, theologians like John Haught and Ian Barbour add that intelligent design doesn't even 
succeed as theology. Why is that? The problem is not that intelligent design fails to raise legitimate topics 
for scientific research. ... Nonetheless, Darwinian critics of intelligent design remain adamant that it is a 
misbegotten form of theology. A little reflection shows why Darwinists take this stance. Indeed, why does 
Kenneth Miller write a book titled Finding Darwin's God, and why does John Haught write a book titled God 
After Darwin? The juxtaposition of God and Darwin here is not coincidental. As Wiker shows, this 
preoccupation with theology results from critics of intelligent design having built their own theology (or 
antitheology as the case may be) on a foundation of Darwinism. Moreover, because intelligent design 
challenges that foundation, critics reflexively assume that intelligent design must be inherently theological 
and have a theological agenda. Freud, if it were not for his own virulent Darwinism, would have instantly 
seen this move by critics as a projection. Critics of intelligent design resort to a classic defense mechanism 
in which they project onto intelligent design the very thing that it is unmasking in their own views, namely, 
the extent to which Darwinism, especially as it has been taken up by today's intellectual elite, has itself 
become a project in theology, metaphysics and moral philosophy." (Dembski, W.A.*, "Foreword," in Wiker, 
B.*, "Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2002, p.12).

"Could it be that much of the impetus keeping materialism as the reigning view of science today is, as it was 
with Epicurus, moral in origin, both in the broader and in the more confined sense? I believe, in many cases, 
that it is. To be blunt, materialists often suppress (or simply dismiss) evidence of intelligent design because, 
consciously or unconsciously, they realize that the Epicurean moral world they comfortably inhabit (for it 
was Epicurus's goal to make the world comfortable) would be completely undermined if materialist 
cosmology were overthrown by intelligent design. In this materialists rightly embrace that most fundamental 
law mentioned in the introduction, that every distinct view of the universe entails a view of morality, and 
every distinct view of morality needs a cosmology to support it. Many materialists therefore rightly fear the 
intelligent design revolution because they realize that a moral revolution necessarily follows upon it. If an 
intelligent designer exists, then a divinely mandated moral code for which we are accountable might exist. If 
an intelligent designer is not part of nature, and hence is not material, then he could have created other 
immaterial entities such as the immortal and immaterial soul. If the immortal soul exists and God exists, and he 
mandates a moral code, then heaven and hell might exist. If heaven and hell exist and God exists, then we 
might, be held accountable for actions that are mandated or prohibited. All of this is quite disturbing, and 
materialists rightly fear it. Those who wish to be freed from it realize that materialism remains the therapeutic 
cure." (Wiker, B.*, "Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 
2002, pp.56-57)

"While Eldredge and Gould's model is a perfectly reasonable explanation of the gaps between species (and, 
in my view, correct) it is doubtful if it can be extended to explain the larger systematic gaps. The gaps which 
separate species: dog/fox, rat/mouse etc are utterly trivial compared with, say, that between a primitive 
terrestrial mammal and a whale or a primitive terrestrial reptile and an Ichthyosaur; and even these relatively 
major discontinuities are trivial alongside those which divide major phyla such as molluscs and arthropods. 
Such major discontinuities simply could not, unless we are to believe in miracles, have been crossed in 
geologically short periods of time through one or two transitional species occupying restricted geographical 
areas. Surely, such transitions must have involved long lineages including many collateral lines of hundreds 
or probably thousands of transitional species. To suggest that the hundreds, thousands or possibly even 
millions of transitional species which must have existed in the interval between vastly dissimilar types were 
all unsuccessful species occupying isolated areas and having very small population numbers is verging on 
the incredible! (Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," Burnett Books: London, 1985, pp.193-194)

"As Dawkins sees it, `explanations' of complexity that appeal to a deity already possessing complexity will 
be completely vacuous unless we can take the next step and provide an explanation for the deity's 
complexity. Ultimately, he thinks, no explanation of any complexity has been provided until that complexity 
has been tracked back directly or indirectly to the emergence of complexity out of simplicity. [Dawkins R., 
`The Blind Watchmaker,' Norton: New York, 1987] (pp.316-17). ... He seems to be assuming that no origin has 
been explained unless the ultimate origin of anything appealed to in the explanation has also been explained. 
In addition to being mistaken, that principle is surely as dangerous for the naturalist as for the theist To take 
the parallel case, one could claim that to explain the origin of species by invoking natural processes is to 
explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of natural processes. And, of course, attempts 
to explain natural processes by invoking the big bang or anything else-will generate an exactly similar 
problem with anything appealed to in that explanation. Any explanation has to begin somewhere, 
and the principle that no explanation is legitimate unless anything referred to in the explanation is itself 
explained immediately generates a regress that would effectively destroy any possibility of any explanation 
for anything." (Ratzsch D.L.*, "The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-
Evolution Debate," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1996, pp.191-192. Emphasis in original).

"At various key points in the [Judge Overton's] Opinion, Creationism is charged with being untestable, 
dogmatic (and thus non-tentative), and unfalsifiable. All three charges are of dubious merit. For instance, to 
make the interlinked claims that Creationism is neither falsifiable nor testable is to assert that Creationism. 
makes no empirical assertions whatever. That is surely false. Creationists make a wide range of testable 
assertions about empirical matters of fact. Thus, as Judge Overton himself grants (apparently without seeing 
its implications), the creationists say that the earth is of very recent origin (say 6,000 to 20,000 years old); 
they argue that most of the geological features of the earth's surface are diluvial in character (i.e., products 
of the postulated worldwide Noachian deluge); they are committed to a large number of factual historical 
claims with which the Old Testament is replete; they assert the limited variability of species. They are 
committed to the view that, since animals and man were created at the same time, the human fossil record 
must be paleontologically co-extensive with the record of lower animals. It is fair to say that no one has 
shown how to reconcile such claims with the available evidence - evidence which speaks persuasively to a 
long earth history, among other things. In brief, these claims are testable, they have been tested, and they 
have failed those tests. Unfortunately, the logic of the Opinion's analysis precludes saying any of the 
above. By arguing that the tenets of Creationism are neither testable nor falsifiable, Judge Overton (like 
those scientists who similarly charge Creationism, with being untestable) deprives science of its strongest 
argument against Creationism. Indeed, if any doctrine in the history of science has ever been falsified, it is 
the set of claims associated with "creation-science." Asserting that Creationism makes no empirical claims 
plays directly, if inadvertently, into the hands of the creationists by immunizing their ideology from empirical 
confrontation. The correct way to combat Creationism, is to confute the empirical claims it does make, not to 
pretend that it makes no such claims at all. It is true, of course, that some tenets of Creationism are not 
testable in isolation (e.g., the claim that man emerged by a direct supernatural act of creation). But that 
scarcely makes Creationism "unscientific." It is now widely acknowledged that many scientific claims are not 
testable in isolation, but only when embedded in a larger system of statements, some of whose 
consequences can be submitted to test." (Laudan L., "Science at the Bar-Causes for Concern," in Ruse M., 
ed., "But is it Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy," Prometheus 
Books: Amherst NY, 1996, p.351)

"The most interesting aspect of any argument is not what it explicitly states, but what it implicitly assumes. 
A rationalistic culture teaches us to think that truth is the product of a process of logical reasoning. When 
we are dealing with intermediate or detailed truths, which rest on more fundamental premises, this model is 
correct. The model breaks down, however, when we try to apply it to the fundamental premises themselves. 
This is because logic is a way of getting to conclusions from premises. By its very nature, a logical argument 
cannot justify the premises upon which it rests. When these premises are questioned, they have to be 
justified by a different logical argument, which rests upon different premises. We may follow this process 
forever, and we will never encounter anything but another logical argument, which will itself be based upon 
premises. But then what is the ultimate premise, the Archimedean fulcrum on which intellect can sit and 
judge all the rest? If we try to answer that question by employing logic we lapse into the absurdity of 
circular reasoning. Reasoning has to start somewhere. Any attempt to justify the ultimate starting point 
necessarily fails, because it only establishes a different starting point. Hence, the really important step in 
any argument is apt to be the unexplained, unjustified, and often unstated starting point." (Johnson, P.E.*, 
"Nihilism and the End of Law," First Things, Vol. 31, March 1993, pp.19-25)

"For example, take the rationalist philosopher who demands philosophical proofs of God's existence. From a 
humanistic standpoint, which finds its Archimedean point in the self-existent human mind, the demand is 
perfectly reasonable. But where did this mind come from, and why should we trust its philosophical ground 
rules? From a biblical theistic standpoint, human reason possesses a degree of reliability because God 
created it in His own image. When human reason denies its basis in creation, it becomes unreason. Those 
who have thought that they are wise in rejecting God end up as fools, carried along by every intellectual fad 
and approving every kind of hateful nonsense. Many people who live in modern times find this analysis 
confirmed every day by what they see on television and read in the newspapers. Then why is the biblical 
starting point out of the question for modernist intellectuals?" (Johnson, P.E.*, "Nihilism and the End of 
Law," First Things, Vol. 31, March 1993, pp.19-25).

"You would not probably expect any one fully to agree with you on so many abstruse subjects; and there 
are some points in your book which I cannot digest. The chief one is that the existence of so-called natural 
laws implies purpose. I cannot see this. Not to mention that many expect that the several great laws will 
some day be found to follow inevitably from some one single law, yet taking the laws as we now know them, 
and look at the moon, where the law of gravitation-and no doubt of the conservation of energy-of the atomic 
theory, &c. &c., hold good, and I cannot see that there is then necessarily any purpose. Would there be 
purpose if the lowest organisms alone, destitute of consciousness existed in the moon? But I have had no 
practice in abstract reasoning, and I may be all astray. Nevertheless you have expressed my inward 
conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of 
chance." (Darwin, C.R, letter to W. Graham, July 3rd, 1881, in Darwin F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles 
Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. I., 1959, reprint, p.285).

"Now it is the design theorists' contention that the Darwinian establishment, in order to maintain its political, 
cultural and intellectual authority, consistently engages in a fallacy of equivocation when it uses the terms 
creation and evolution. The fallacy of equivocation is the fallacy of speaking out of both sides of your 
mouth. It is the deliberate confusing of two senses of a term, using the sense that's convenient to promote 
one's agenda. For instance, when Michael Ruse in one of his defenses of Darwinism writes, "Evolution is a 
fact, fact, FACT!" how is he using the term evolution ?Is it a fact that organisms have changed over 
time? There is plenty of evidence to confirm that organisms have experienced limited change over time. Is it 
a fact that the full panoply of life has evolved through purposeless naturalistic processes? This might be a 
fact, but whether it is a fact is very much open to debate." (Dembski, W.A.*, "Intelligent Design: The Bridge 
Between Science and Theology," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1999, p.115. Emphasis in original)

"There is another aspect of the fossil record, however, which seems to support the evolution model. 
Different forms of life seem to have first appeared in different geologic ages-first in vertebrates, then marine 
vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles then birds and mammals, then man. Some such sequence as this 
is of course a primary prediction of the evolution model. Creationism on the other hand would expect to find 
all the major kinds of organisms appearing at essentially the same time, unless there were a number of 
different periods of creation. This latter idea, called by its advocates `progressive creation' is inconsistent 
with the postulate of a purposive, knowledgeable Creator, who knew what He was doing at the beginning." 
(Morris, H.M., "The Troubled Waters of Evolution," [1974] Creation-Life Publishers: San Diego CA, Second 
Edition, 1982, p.92)

"Contradictions between Genesis and the Geological Ages. Even if it were possible to understand "day" in 
Genesis as referring to something like a geological age (and it is not hermeneutically possible, as just seen), 
it still would not help any in regard to the concordist motivation. The vague general concordance between 
the order of creation in Genesis and the order of evolutionary development in geology (and as noted earlier 
such a vague concordance is to be expected in the nature of the case and thus proves nothing) becomes a 
veritable morass of contradictions when we descend to an examination of details. At least 25 such 
contradictions exist. ... it is impossible to speak convincingly of a concordance between the geological ages 
and Genesis. Apart from the question of evolution or creation, the Genesis record is stubbornly intransigent 
and will not accommodate the standard system of geological ages. A decision must be made for one or the 
other-one cannot logically accept both." (Morris, H.M.*, ed., "Scientific Creationism (General Edition)," 
[1974], Master Books: El Cajon CA, Second Edition, 1985, pp.227-228)

"A chief feature of Swinburne's [Swinburne R.G., "The Existence of God," Oxford University Press: Oxford, 
1991] argument is his application of just such an Occam's razor type test to the hypothesis that God exists 
uncaused. He regards this as the simplest of hypotheses and therefore of higher prior probability than other 
hypotheses, such as the existence of an uncaused universe. By God, Swinburne means a being who has 
omnipotence and omniscience among his qualities. A being with infinite power and knowledge is simpler 
than one with a finite limited quantity of power or knowledge, because in the latter case one would have to 
ask, 'Why is the limit just what it is?' Similarly the existence of an uncaused universe is a complex hypothesis 
compared with the existence of an infinite being: it just cries out for an explanation. ... Swinburne argues that 
a person with infinite capacities is essentially simpler than one with finite capacities because, as we have 
said, in the latter case one is forced to ask, 'Why are these capacities limited to such and such particular 
values?' For example, a being who can both create and mould matter is simpler than one who can only mould 
it, like Plato's demiurge. Swinburne argues that this is the same kind of simplicity that a gravitational 
attraction proportional to 1/r^2 possesses over one proportional to 1/r^2.000142. The latter is both unnatural 
and has physically unsatisfying consequences. Following Dirac and Polanyi one would believe the 1/r^2 law 
despite experimental evidence to the contrary (up to a point of course-certainly the reliability of the 
experiment would need to be plainly demonstrable to force abandonment of so pleasingly simple a law). We 
shall see below how some are led to invoke distinctly uneconomical and complex hypotheses in order to 
avoid belief in God." (Holder R.D.*, "Nothing but Atoms and Molecules?: Probing The Limits of Science," 
Monarch: Tunbridge Wells UK, 1993, pp.163-164)

"[Young-Earth] Creationists have had a tendency to criticize early geologists as if they were opposed to 
Christianity and were developing their ideas in order to attack the truth of the gospel. It is, for example, 
frequently charged that the idea of evolution led to the geologic time scale and the `arrangement' of strata to 
fit a preconceived order of the evolution of life. Such charges simply ignore the historical facts. The great 
majority of pioneer geologists in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were Christian men who 
as we have seen were intent on upholding Scripture. Virtually all of them were opposed to Lamarck's or 
anybody else's theory of evolution. William Smith had absolutely no interest in evolution; Cuvier 
vigorously opposed it. Yet both of them discovered a progression or increasing general complexity of life 
forms in their successions of strata. ... The facts are that the modern view that the Earth is extremely old was 
developed by Christian men who believed wholeheartedly in creation and the Flood and who were opposed 
to evolution. They came to their view, not because of a preconceived evolutionary philosophy, but because 
of their intimate knowledge of rocks gained over the years from thorough field study. The traditional ideas 
of a six thousand-year-old Earth and a global Flood simply could not account for what they saw." (Young 
D.A., "Christianity and the Age of the Earth," [1982], Artisan: Thousand Oaks CA, 1988, pp.66-67)

"For those who try to harmonize evolution with Genesis, the order of evolution must compare with the order 
of events in Genesis. There are a number of problems here. The basic tenets of evolution totally conflict with 
the order in Genesis. For instance, Genesis teaches that God created fruit trees before fish-plants on day 
three, fish on day five. Evolution teaches that fish came before fruit trees. Evolution teaches that first life 
began in the sea, and after millions of years life was established on the land. The Bible teaches that the earth 
was first created covered with water: evolutionary teaching is that the earth first began as a hot molten blob. 
There is no way that the order of events according to evolution and Genesis can be reconciled." (Ham 
K.A.*, "The Lie: Evolution," [1987], Master Books: El Cajon CA, Third Printing, 1988, p.150)

"Darwin's theory of natural selection has been a perennial candidate for burial. Tom Bethell held the most 
recent wake in a piece called `Darwin's Mistake' (Harper's, February 1976): `Darwin's theory, I believe, is on 
the verge of collapse.... Natural selection was quietly abandoned, even by his most ardent supporters, some 
years ago.' ... Bethell's argument has a curious ring for most practicing scientists. We are always ready to 
watch a theory fall under the impact of new data, but we do not expect a great and influential theory to 
collapse from a logical error in its formulation. Virtually every empirical scientist has a touch of the Philistine. 
Scientists tend to ignore academic philosophy as an empty pursuit. Surely, any intelligent person can think 
straight by intuition. Yet Bethell cites no data at all in sealing the coffin of natural selection, only an error in 
Darwin's reasoning: `Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake 
has only recently been recognized as such.... At one point in his argument, Darwin was misled.' Although I 
will try to refute Bethell, I also deplore the unwillingness of scientists to explore seriously the logical 
structure of arguments. Much of what passes for evolutionary theory is as vacuous as Bethell claims. Many 
great theories are held together by chains of dubious metaphor and analogy. Bethell has correctly identified 
the hogwash surrounding evolutionary theory. ... Natural selection is the central concept of Darwinian 
theory-the fittest survive and spread their favored traits through populations. Natural selection is defined 
by Spencer's phrase `survival of the fittest,' but what does this famous bit of jargon really mean? Who are 
the fittest? And how is `fitness' defined? We often read that fitness involves no more than `differential 
reproductive success'-the production of more surviving offspring than other competing members of the 
population. Whoa! cries Bethell, as many others have before him. This formulation defines fitness in terms 
of survival only. The crucial phrase of natural selection means no more than `the survival of those who 
survive'-a vacuous tautology. (A tautology is a phrase-like `my father is a man' -containing no information in 
the predicate (`a man') not inherent in the subject (`my father'). Tautologies are fine as definitions, but not as 
testable scientific statementsthere can be nothing to test in a statement true by definition.)" (Gould S.J., 
"Darwin's Untimely Burial," in "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History," [1978], Penguin: London, 
1991, reprint, pp.39-40)

"Is There Evidence That Evolution Based on Reduction of Competition Has Been Widespread? Many 
authors have suggested that current competition is no more obvious than it is because prior competition 
has produced communities composed of species that now live harmoniously. An absence of current strong 
competition is not evidence against the importance of competition, but for it. Joseph Connell (1980 [Connell 
J.H. "Diversity and the coevolution of competitors, or the ghost of competition past," Oikos, Vol. 35, 1980, 
pp.131-138]) termed this result `the ghost of competition past,' a phrase that captures the spirit of the idea. A 
process of divergence would occur such as we have described and illustrated earlier .... If this process is a 
frequent one, we ought to be able to find cases in which two species, when they occur separately 
(allopatric), are similar but differ when they occur together (sympatric). ... termed character displacement ... 
One of the best examples of character displacement involves the small and medium ground finches 
(Geospiza fuliginosa and Geospiza fortis) of the Galapagos studied by David Lack (1947). ... How many other 
clear-cut examples of morphological character displacement are known? Their answer is, surprisingly few. " 
(Brewer R., "The Science of Ecology," [1988], Saunders College Publishing: Ft. Worth TX, Second Edition, 
1994, p.290).

"Given that competition is an energy-costly process that has a negative impact on the interactants, we might 
expect selective advantages to accrue to individuals that use different resources from their competitors. 
Further, as many competitive interactions are asymmetric, with larger species outcompeting smaller ones, 
directional selection is expected to be particularly intense on competitive 'losers'. Differences in resource 
use, size, and shape between coexisting species are in fact often interpreted as evolutionary responses to 
past competition, and such patterns have been attributed to the 'ghost of competition past' (Connell 1980 
[Connell J.H. "Diversity and the coevolution of competitors, or the ghost of competition past," Oikos, Vol. 
35, 1980, pp.131-138]). However, differences in resource use and morphology among sympatric species may 
have arisen from other causes, including chance, making it difficult to confirm the hand of the ghost." 
(Attiwill P. & Wilson B., eds., "Ecology: An Australian Perspective," Oxford University Press: South 
Melbourne Vic, Australia, 2003, pp.145-146)

"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, 
linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed; but the very process 
of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent forms and the 
intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil 
remains, which are preserved, as we shall attempt to show in a future chapter, in an extremely imperfect and 
intermittent record."
(Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent 
& Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.161)

"From these several considerations, it cannot be doubted that the geological record, viewed as a whole, is 
extremely imperfect; but if we confine our attention to any one formation, it becomes much more difficult to 
understand why we do not therein find closely graduated varieties between the allied species which lived at 
its commencement and at its close. " (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," 
[1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, pp.303-304).

"`Since natural selection, being unintelligent, can only advance with `extreme slowness,' [Darwin C., "The 
Origin of Species," Mentor: New York, 1958, p.110] and by `slight successive variations,' then, concluded 
Darwin, there must have been `an infinite number of ... fine transitional forms which, on our theory, have 
connected all the past and present species of the same group into one long and branching chain of life.' 
[p.311] Indeed, `the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, 
must have been inconceivably great.... But assuredly' he added with confidence, `if this theory be true, such 
have lived upon the earth.' [pp.293, 295]. Unfortunately, there was a problem, one he was forced to 
recognize. `But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them 
embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?' [p.162] Darwin's approach to this dilemma was a 
wonderful example of his faith in the evolutionary hypothesis-he shifted the blame to the fossil record, and 
took the shift as proof itself. `But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor was the 
record in the best preserved geological sections, had not the absence of innumerable transitional links 
between the species which lived at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on 
my theory.' [p.311] In syllogistic form, if evolution is true, there must be innumerable transitional forms 
preserved as fossils; but the fossil evidence does not show innumerable transitional forms. therefore, the 
geological record must be imperfect. One must admit this to be a very clear example of Darwin's faith, and 
not a very good example of his logic. If the proof of a hypothesis is missing, then it is a dubious procedure 
at best to hold onto the hypothesis as if it had been proven so that another hypothesis based on the first 
may offered as proof to explain why the original necessary proof did not appear. But Darwin did just that ..." 
(Wiker, B.*, "Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2002, 

"Although the principles outlined in the previous section allow us to establish the relative ages of 
many bodies of rock, they do not permit us to determine the actual ages of rocks measured in millions of 
years. As we will see ... some sedimentary beds are produced annually, like the rings in a tree trunk. Unless 
the latest of a continuous sequence of annual beds is presently forming, however, it is impossible to count 
backward in order to determine precisely how many years ago an older bed formed. In other words, if a 
sequence of this type formed long ago, we cannot tell the actual ages of its beds. Fortunately, there are 
`geologic clocks' that provide us with a means of approximating the actual ages of ancient rocks. These take 
the form of naturally occurring radioactive materials that decay into other materials at known rates. By 
measuring the amount of decay of a radioactive material that has been decaying since it became part of a 
rock, we can estimate the age of the rock. ... Dating of radioactive materials reveals that some rocks on earth 
are at least 3.7 or 3.8 billion years old. ... Even during the nineteenth century, before there was any means of 
measuring the actual ages of rocks, geologists were aware that the earth was hundreds of millions of years 
old. They could see this by observing the slowness of the geologic processes by which rocks are formed 
and then destroyed. ..." (Stanley S.M., "Earth and Life Through Time," W.H. Freeman & Co: New York, 
Second Edition, 1989, p.17. Emphasis in original)

"Early geologists such as William Smith were able to establish an order for geologic events, but they could 
not assign actual time spans to the intervals that they recognized and named. Although they could 
determine, for example, that Cambrian rocks preceded Ordovician rocks and that Ordovician rocks preceded 
Silurian rocks, they did not know how long ago each of these groups of rocks came into being. The time 
scale developed by these geologists, in other words, was a relative one that had no reference to 
absolute time measured in years. It was not until the twentieth century that scientists were even able to 
begin to construct an absolute time scale that could depict whether a particular species existed between 
about 62 and 63 million years ago, for example, or between about 11.2 and 12.3 million years ago. This time 
scale rests almost entirely on dates derived from the study of naturally occurring radioactive elements." 
(Stanley S.M., "Earth and Life Through Time," W.H. Freeman & Co: New York, Second Edition, 1989, p.111. 
Emphasis in original).

"Most biologists now accept 'the fact of evolution', because the theory of evolution conveniently explains 
the known facts. Some biologists, however, are unable to support it; for example Professor W.R. Thompson, 
the author of the introduction for the last edition of the Origin in the Everyman's Library. Professor 
Thompson examines the book critically from the point of view of a Christian fundamentalist, and holds that it 
is a common-sense conviction that plants animals and man can be distinguished because they are radically 
different. He deplores the anti-religious; thought induced by acceptance of the theory of evolution and, 
while admitting that the Origin gave a great stimulus to biological research, he thinks that its effect has been 
bad for biology and for humanity. Much of Professor Thompson's criticism of Darwin's text is unanswerable. 
In accepting evolution as a fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that 
have been proved by experiment to be correct, or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never 
been thus proved?" (Matthews L.H., "Introduction," in Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species," [1872], 
Everyman's University Library: J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 1972, reprint, p.x)

"On November 3, 1977, an article entitled `Scientists Discover a Form of Life that Predates Higher Organisms' 
appeared on the front page of the New York Times. The article began: `Scientists studying the evolution of 
primitive organisms reported today the existence of a separate form of life that is hard to find in nature. They 
described it as a `third kingdom' of living material, composed of ancestral cells that abhor oxygen, digest 
carbon dioxide and produce methane.' ... With the hindsight of two decades, the significance of discovering 
this `New Form of Life' holds up ratter well: the Times was amply justified in its front-page treatment of the 
story. The group of microorganisms described in the article, which are now called Archaea, were immensely 
interesting, and their discovery could not have been anticipated in the way that many discoveries are. There 
were very few prior hints of their existence, as a group, before this 1977 bombshell. ... Because they 
branched so long ago from other life, they constitute one of only three fundamental categories (or 
`domains') of organisms. The impact of their discovery was stunning: suddenly in 1977, biologists became 
aware of a third kind of life, where previously only two were known. Thus, prior to 1977, all organisms were 
considered either prokaryotes (bacteria) or eukaryotes (everything else, including plants, animals, and 
fungi). After that date, the tree of life was seen to have, not two, but three branches and the exact placement 
of the new one became the focus of research and debate among evolutionary biologists. ... The discovery of 
the Archaea, with their exotic attributes and their evolutionary implications, came as a considerable surprise, 
and that tone of unexpectedness was evident in the press accounts of the time." (Howland J.L., "The 
Surprising Archaea: Discovering Another Domain of Life," Oxford University Press: New York, 2000, pp.vii.-

"Here is a paradox: Archaea are undeniably prokaryotic, yet they exhibit many eukaryotic features 
concerning the manner in which they manage genetic information. Indeed, their genetic systems appear to 
include a rather complicated mix of prokaryotic and eukaryotic strategies for information handling. How is 
this situation consistent with what we know of their evolutionary history? Archaea and Eubacteria branched 
apart early in the course of evolution. Their divergence, occurring well over two billion years ago, can be 
called the first major event in the history of life after its origin; only much later did Eukarya appear on the 
scene. But, on examination of their genetic systems-the ways that they organize and express the information 
encoded in their DNA-Archaea often much more closely resemble eukaryotic organisms, those greatly more 
complex organisms whose cells contain nuclei and other membrane-bounded organelles. At the same time, 
archaeal cells have some features in common with those of the prokaryotic Eubacteria. So which is it? Are 
the real archaeal affinities with the other prokaryotes or with the more advanced eukaryotes? The answer 
turns out to be "both," so we must now ask how such a thing is possible." (Howland J.L., "The Surprising 
Archaea: Discovering Another Domain of Life," Oxford University Press: New York, 2000, p.157)

"The problem, very briefly stated, is this: if employing MN [methodological naturalism] is the only way to 
reach true conclusions about the history of the universe, and if the attempt to provide a naturalistic history 
of the universe has continually gone from success to success, and if even theists concede that trying to do 
science on theistic premises always leads nowhere or into error (the embarrassing `God of the gaps'), then 
the likely explanation for this state of affairs is that naturalism is true and theism is false." (Johnson, P.E.*, 
"Reason in the Balance," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1995, p.211).

"In fact, `virtually all our theories about human origins were relatively unconstrained by fossil data,' 
observes David Pilbeam. [Pilbeam D., "Current Argument on Early Man," in Konigson L-K., ed., "Major 
Trends in Evolution," Pergamon Press, 1980, p.262] `The theories are...fossil-free or in some cases even 
fossil-proof.' [p.267] This shocking statement simply means that there is and always has been far more 
fleshing out of the course and cause of human evolution than can fully be justified by the scrappy skeleton 
provided by the fossils. As a result, he continues, `our theories have often said far more about the theorists 
than they have about what actually happened.' [p.262] A good example of this is the emphatic shift in 
theoretical stance between the 1950s and '60s, when the specter of Man the Hunter, Man the Killer Ape 
dominated paleoanthropology, and the 1970s and '80s, when peace and cooperation were stressed instead, 
with the emergence of Man the Social Animal. New fossils discovered during this transition made no 
contribution to the altered prevailing theory. But the social climate had taken a dramatic swing, from a time 
when war was an acceptable instrument of international policy to a time of realization that another such 
excursion on a worldwide scale could obliterate life on the planet. `When people turn indignantly from one 
sort of speculation to embrace another, there are usually good, nonscientific reasons for it,' [Cartmill M., 
"Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad," Natural History, November 1983, p.77] observes Duke University 
anthropologist Matt Cartmill. Paleoanthropologists were looking to their theories to explain the world as 
they saw it and the way they hoped it would be. Pilbeam once found a quotation that expresses this very 
well: `We do not see things the way they are; We see them the way we are.'" (Lewin R., Bones of 
Contention: Controversies in the Search for Human Origins," Simon & Shuster: New York, 1987, pp.43-44)

"The waters carried the ark up to the Ararat range. The Hebrew text does not mean that the ark was 
deposited on the 17,000 foot summit of the peak, but that the ark rested somewhere on the Ararat range. It 
would have taken a special miracle to get Noah and his family down from such dizzy mountain heights where 
the cold would have been extreme. By the reversal of the geological phenomenon, the water is drained back 
from the valley. The reader must keep in mind, as stated in a leading conservative commentary: `There is in 
Western Asia a remarkably depressed area, extending from the Sea of Aral to the Steppes of the Caucasus 
on the north, and sweeping round the southern shores of the Caspian, comprehending Ararat and the Great 
Salt Desert, which, as Ansted has remarked `forms no inconsiderable portion of the great recognized centre 
of the human family. The Caspian Sea (83 1/2 feet below the level of the sea and in some parts of it 600 feet 
deep) and the Sea of Aral occupy the lowest part of a vast space, whose whole extent is not less than 
100,000 square miles, hollowed out, as it were, in the central region of the great continent, and no doubt 
formerly the bed of the ocean" [and into this natural saucer the ocean waters poured].' (Jamieson R., "JFB 
Bible Commentary," 1870, Vol I, p.100)." (Ramm B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1955], 
Paternoster: Exeter, Devon UK, 1967, reprint, p.162).

"We do this first of all to show that contemporary moral debates, especially the `hot' issues of eugenics, 
embryonic stem cell research, cloning, abortion, infanticide, homosexuality, and so on, are simply the result 
of the clash of the Christian moral universe with the Epicurean moral universe. But second, it becomes clear 
that a great deal of the cultural weight thrown behind scientific materialism (and hence against intelligent 
design) is moral in origin. There is more at stake than first appears in the sometimes rather abstruse scientific 
debates between materialists and intelligent design theorists-far more. ... there is no possibility for 
compromise in the current moral debates between the rival sides in the so-called culture wars. The fight over 
abortion, for example, will not go away until either the Christian worldview or the Epicurean worldview goes 
away; the Christian universe forbids it, while for the Epicurean moral universe it is not even a moral problem. 
The same is true in regard to other conflictual moral issues." (Wiker, B.*, "Moral Darwinism: How We 
Became Hedonists," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2002, pp.29-30)

"Prejudice is a major problem, however, because the leaders of science see themselves as locked in a 
desperate battle against religious fundamentalists, a label which they tend to apply broadly to anyone who 
believes in a Creator who plays an active role in worldly affairs. These fundamentalists are seen as a threat 
to liberal freedom, and especially as a threat to public support for scientific research. As the creation myth of 
scientific naturalism, Darwinism plays an indispensable ideological role in the war against fundamentalism. 
For that reason, the scientific organizations are devoted to protecting Darwinism rather than testing it, and 
the rules of scientific investigation have been shaped to help them succeed." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Darwin on 
Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, p.155)

"The question for now is not whether the vast claims of Darwinian evolution conflict with Genesis, but 
whether they conflict with the evidence of biology. To make that question visible, it is necessary to 
distinguish between the dictates of materialist philosophy and the inferences that one might legitimately 
draw from the evidence in the absence of a materialist bias. So I put this simple question to the Darwinian 
establishment: What should we do if empirical science and materialist philosophy are going in different 
directions? Suppose, for example, that the evidence suggests that intelligent causes were involved in 
biological creation. Should we follow the evidence or the philosophy?" (Johnson, P.E.*, "The 
Wedge: Breaking the Modernist Monopoly on Science," Touchstone, July/August 1999, Vol. 12, No. 4, 
pp.22-23. Emphasis in original)

"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because 
that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if 
all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be 
a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand." (Wise K.P.*, in 
Ashton J.F., ed., "In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation", New Holland: Sydney 
NSW, Australia, 1999, p.329)

"Compartmentalization, complementarity and conflict all grasp some aspect of the relation between science 
and theology, but then try to make that aspect the whole show. In place of these models I want to propose a 
fourth alternative, one that recognizes what is correct in these models, yet without being swayed to their 
extremes. I call this fourth option the mutual support model. 6 According to the mutual support model, 
theology and science overlap but are not coextensive. Where they overlap, one discipline can provide 
epistemic support for the other. Epistemic support is much more general than proof. Proof-as in decisive, 
once-and-for-all settlement of a question-if possible anywhere, is possible only in mathematics. The mutual 
support model has no stake in using theology to decisively prove or settle the claims of science, or vice 
versa. Nonetheless, according to the mutual support model, theology can lend credence, increase the 
conditional probability of, or render plausible certain scientific claims and not others. Likewise, science can 
do the same for theology." (Dembski, W.A.*, "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and 
Theology," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1999, p.191)

"That is not, however, the only influence of `political economy,' or what we now call `classical economics,' 
on Darwin. Darwin's theory of diversification, in which new species are created as new niches are opened 
up, owes something to another economist, Adam Smith, or at least to the pervasive influence that Smith's 
view of market dynamics exercised in the Britain of Darwin's day (Schweber 1977; Gould 1990). Self-interest, 
Smith had argued, is generally the motor of economic progress. Each person in a market, or more generally in 
a society conceived as a market, tries to buy commodities as cheaply as possible and to sell them for as 
much as he or she can get. The laws of the market, determining what commodities are made, how many are 
produced, what price they sell for, and what profit is pocketed, are mathematically computable 
consequences of these psychological and sociological principles of action. Rather than producing economic 
chaos and social injustice, however, as the traditional view had it, Smith argued that unlimited self-interest, 
and the unlimited right to buy and sell whatever you want whenever you want it, actually produces what 
was to be called `the greatest good for the greatest number.' Part of the reason is that incentives are created 
in a market system for dividing labor ever more finely and for finding and exploiting new resources. 
Everyone benefits from that. In On the Origin of Species, Darwin argued in a similar way that `races' 
and species diversify by acquiring adaptations that enable them to divide labor by entering new niches, just 
as firms do in a competitive economy. The influence of the `discourse' of political economy on Darwin is a 
vexed theme because it raises questions about whether Darwin's biological vision is merely an ideological 
reflection of Victorian capitalism." (Depew D.J. & Weber B.H., "Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and 
the Genealogy of Natural Selection," [1995], MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1997, Second Printing, p.8)

"There are two definitions of science at work in the scientific culture, and a concealed contradiction between 
them is beginning to come out into public view. On the one hand, science is dedicated to empirical evidence 
and to following that evidence wherever it leads. That is why science had to be free of the Bible, because 
the Bible was seen to constrain the possibilities scientists were allowed to consider. On the other hand, 
science also means `applied materialist philosophy.' Scientists who are materialists always look for strictly 
materialist explanations or every phenomenon, and they want to believe that such explanations always exist. 
This raises the question: What will the scientists do if the evidence starts to point away from materialism 
and toward the possibility that a Creator is necessary after all? Will they follow the evidence wherever it 
leads, or will they ignore the evidence because their philosophy does not allow it to exist?" (Johnson, P.E.*, 
"Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1997, pp.80-81)

"Where did Darwin get such a radical version of evolution? Surely not from the birds and bees, the twigs 
and trees. Nature helped, but intellectual revolutions must also have ideological bases. ... two Scottish 
economists of the generation just before Darwin played a dominant role: Thomas Malthus and the great 
Adam Smith himself. From Malthus, Darwin received the key insight that growth in population, if 
unchecked, will outrun any increase in the food supply. A struggle for existence must therefore arise, 
leading by natural selection to survival of the fittest (to cite all three conventional Darwinian aphorisms in a 
single sentence). Darwin states that this insight from Malthus supplied the last piece that enabled him to 
complete the theory of natural selection in 1838 .... Adam Smith's influence was more indirect, but also more 
pervasive. We know that the Scottish economists interested Darwin greatly and that, during the crucial 
months of 1838, while he assembled the pieces soon to be capped by his Malthusian insight, he was 
studying the thought of Adam Smith. The theory of natural selection is uncannily similar to the chief 
doctrine of laissez-faire economics. (In our academic jargon, we would say that the two theories are 
`isomorphic'-that is, structurally similar point for point, even though the subject matter differs). To achieve 
the goal of a maximally ordered economy in the laissez-faire system, you do not regulate from above by 
passing explicit laws for order. You do something that, at first glance, seems utterly opposed to your goal: 
You simply allow individuals to struggle in an unfettered way for personal profit. In this struggle, the 
inefficient are weeded out and the best balance each other to form an equilibrium to everyone's benefit. 
Darwin's system works in exactly the same manner, only more relentlessly. No regulation comes from on 
high; no divine watchmaker superintends the works of his creation. Individuals are struggling for 
reproductive success, the natural analog of profit. No other mechanism is at work, nothing `higher' or more 
exalted. ...Adam Smith embodied the guts of his theory-his core insight-in a wonderful metaphor, one of the 
truly great lines written in the English language. Speaking of an actor in the world of laissez-faire, Adam 
Smith states: `He generally indeed neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is 
promoting it.... He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible 
hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.' Such a lovely image: The `invisible hand' that 
produces order, but doesn't really exist at all, at least in any direct way. Darwin's theory uses the same 
invisible hand, but formed into a fist as a battering ram to eliminate Paley's God from nature." (Gould S.J., 
"Darwin and Paley Meet the Invisible Hand," in "Eight Little Piggies: Reflections in Natural History," 
Jonathan Cape: London, 1993, pp.148-149)

"Evolutionary views were welcomed with open arms by American industrialists. The great magnates saw in 
the absorption of smaller companies, an illustration of nature's law. James Hill, fighting to get the railways 
under his control, openly proclaimed that `the fortunes of railroad companies are determined by the law of 
the survival of the fittest.' Andrew Carnegie was at first deeply troubled by the collapse of Christian 
theology and the un-Christian ways of big business. Morality, he believed, was being undermined. In the 
end, however, evolutionary propaganda set his mind at rest by enabling him to see right and wrong in a new 
light. Having once mastered Herbert Spencer, he felt no further need to concern himself with the sins which 
big business committed against its vanquished competitors. For, after all, the law of competition was 
biological. ` It is here,' said Carnegie, `we cannot evade it.... While the law may sometimes be hard for the 
individual, it is best for the race `so the true Christian duty was to apply it in all its ruthlessness. J. D. 
Rockefeller also, who accumulated mountains of wealth by methods that were the scandal of the day, 
defended his conduct in the same way. In the course of a Sunday School address he is reported to have 
said: `The growth of large business is merely the survival of the fittest.... The American Beauty rose can be 
produced in the splendour and fragrance which bring cheer to its beholder only by sacrificing the early buds 
which grow up around it. This is not an evil tendency in business. It is merely the working out of a law of 
nature and a law of God.' Evolution, in short, gave the doer of evil a respite from his conscience. The most 
unscrupulous behaviour towards a competitor could now be rationalised: evil could be called good. Sumner, 
who came to be called the Darwin of the Social Sciences, put the new doctrine very well when he claimed 
that `while men were fighting for glory and greed, for revenge and superstition, they were building human 
society." (Clark R.E.D.*, "Darwin: Before & After: An Examination and Assessment," [1948], Paternoster: 
London, 1966, reprint, pp.105-106).

"SCP: ... We were talking about Francis Crick, the man who discovered DNA. Even though he puts down 
Vitalism, didn't Francis Crick say that perhaps our life, earth's life, came from somewhere in outer space? 
Though I suppose he's still being materialistic; one doesn't need an élan vital, a vitalistic life force, to 
presuppose mechanistic, materialistic life anywhere in the universe. JOHNSON: His thesis is the materialist 
version of supernatural creation. Crick is a good enough scientist to know that when he studied the origin-
of-life field - that's the first origin of the first simple cell - he saw he couldn't solve it, that in fact even the 
simplest biological organisms are extremely complicated and there's no evidence for step-bystep development 
from non-living chemicals to that first cell. The simplest things you see are already in separate groups which are 
quite different from each other." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Interview with Phillip Johnson," by Dr. Joseph S. Busey, 
Spiritual Counterfeits Project, Berkeley CA, 1992)

"In the preparation of this volume, I first read carefully the works of a large number of English, German, and 
French rationalists and infidels, with a view to gather up all the `discrepancies' which they adduce from the 
scriptures. Also, the numerous publications of kindred character-books, pamphlets, and printed sheets - 
which have been put forth by American sceptics were sedulously collected and collated. This being done, 
my next care was to classify and solve these discrepancies. In this process I have, as will be seen, laid under 
contribution a large number of critics and commentators, ancient and modern; in a word, I have gathered 
from every source what ever seemed pertinent and satisfactory. ...Moreover, I may be allowed to say that 
the more thoroughly I have investigated the subject the wore clearly have, I seen the flimsy and 
disingenuous character of the objections alleged by infidels. And, whether or not my labors shall result in 
inducing a similar belief in the minds of my readers, I cannot but avow, as the issue of my investigations, the 
profound conviction that every difficulty and discrepancy in the scriptures is, and will yet be seen to be, 
capable of a fair and reasonable solution." (Haley J.W., "An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies 
of the Bible," [1874], Whitaker House: Springdale PA, 1992, reprint, pp.vii,x. Emphasis in original).

"There are striking parallels of various Australian marsupials with placental mammals. The placental mole, 
flying and nonflyingrels, jumping mice, ordinary mice, cats, and wolves all have marsupial 
counterparts. The resemblance of the (extinct) Tasmanian wolf to the northern wolf is especially close, down 
to the shape of teeth, claws, ears, and skull. That their convergences are beyond the needs of adaptation for 
their respective ways of life suggests that certain patterns are most compatible with the mammalian plan, 
that is the basic mammalian attractor. The way genes can be fitted together must be similar to marsupials and 
placentals, although their common ancestry lies at least 100 million years in the past. It is somehow inherent 
in the mammalian pattern that, in suitable environments, primitive mammals could radiate in similar 
directions, evolving similar burrowing insectivores, coursing carnivores, and so forth. ... The idea that the 
direction of evolution is in any way predetermined is disliked because it seems to hint divine purpose. ... 
Such a built in evolutionary tendency may be surmised to have helped shape H. sapiens. The growth of the 
brain seems somehow to come easily to mammals. From the beginnings of the class, very early in the age of 
reptiles, mammals had much larger brains than reptiles. After the passing of the dinosaurs, mammals rapidly 
increased brain size. The primates developed exceptionally large brains for reasons that cannot be clearly 
attributed to their way of life. This trend was continued and exaggerated in the human line, and again the 
role of natural selection is unclear. (Wesson R.G., "Beyond Natural Selection," [1991], MIT Press: Cambridge 
MA, 1994, reprint, pp.184,186,194).

"DR. SCHUTZENBERGER: I should like to ask a question of a methodological nature. Under which principle 
can you exclude the fact that European eels have not been able to develop in so many ten millions of years a 
species that would not need to go back to the Sargasso to breed? I am sure you would convince me my 
question is silly. DR. MAYR: The question isn't silly at all. Of course, innumerable evolutionary lines, 
perhaps most of them, become so specialized in certain ways that they get themselves into a dead end and 
eventually become extinct. That is why the dinosaurs, the pterodactyls and so many other types became 
extinct. ... DR. SCHUTZENBERGER: But how come the selection pressure hasn't the time to play against the 
one? DR. MAYR: Neither mutation pressure alone nor selection pressure alone can run evolution. You have 
to have the proper kind of changes in the genotype so that selection can make use of them. DR. 
SCHUTZENBERGER: But you told me that there are species that have been able to dispense with this trip. I 
would like to know what are the general reasons why what applies at one time doesn't apply at others. ... The 
Chairman, DR. WEISSKOPF: The eel should have disappeared, he says. DR. SCHUTZENBERGER: No, I say 
that I am surprised that such a thing doesn't seem to be so for other species, since they can survive and live 
in the place where they breed. Why have the eels not been able to develop a mutant type by which they 
would be able to dispense with a trip which is so dangerous? DR. MAYR: Maybe they are having a hell of a 
good time; how do you know? DR. SCHUTZENBERGER: But then how do you know when it is favorable in 
the other direction? I just wanted to bring you to this anthropomorphic judgment which you apply one way 
or the other. The Chairman, DR. WEISSKOPF It seems to me that this was a very important remark. 
Evolution can lead in one case to extinction; in the other, not. I think it was Medawar who said that one 
thing about the theory of evolution is (and he quoted Popper) that it is not falsifiable, that what ever 
happens you can always explain it. I think you have an example here." (Schutzenberger M.P. & Mayr E., 
"Discussion: Paper by Dr. Wald," in Moorhead P.S. & Kaplan M.M., ed., "Mathematical Challenges to the 
Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution: A Symposium Held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and 
Biology, April 25 And 26, 1966," The Wistar Institute Symposium Monograph Number 5, The Wistar 
Institute Press: Philadelphia PA, 1967, pp.63-64)

"Pyrrhic victory ... A victory achieved at great or excessive cost; a ruinous victory. Technically it was a 
victory for the British, who attacked the patriot fortifications -- but a Pyrrhic victory if ever there was: out of 
2,200 British soldiers 1,034 were killed or wounded, including one in nine of all the officers the British lost in 
the whole war. -- Geoffrey Wheatcroft, `A Revolutionary Itinerary,' The Atlantic, April 2001. Ferguson 
argued that British involvement in World War I was unnecessary, far too costly in lives and money for any 
advantage gained, and a Pyrrhic victory that in many ways contributed to the end of the Empire. -- David 
Harsanyi, `The Old Order,' National Review, May 5, 2003. In short, the Hong Kong government might have 
won this particular battle against the speculators, just as the Malaysians reckon they have done. But with 
both administrations' credibility hugely damaged as a result, these are Pyrrhic victories that they may come 
to rue. -- `Market intervention: Fashionable,' The Economist, September 5, 1998 ... A Pyrrhic victory is so 
called after the Greek king Pyrrhus, who, after suffering heavy losses in defeating the Romans in 279 B.C., 
said to those sent to congratulate him, `Another such victory over the Romans and we are undone.'" 
("Word of the Day for Wednesday July 16, 2003,", Lexico Publishing Group).

"DR. FRASER: It would seem to me that there have been endless statements made and the only thing I have 
clearly agreed with through the whole day has been the statement made by Carl [sic] Popper, namely, that 
the real inadequacy of evolution, esthetically and scientifically, is that you can explain anything you want 
by changing your variables around." (Fraser A., "Discussion: Paper by Dr. Wald," in Moorhead P.S. & 
Kaplan M.M., ed., "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution: A 
Symposium Held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, April 25 And 26, 1966," The Wistar 
Institute Symposium Monograph Number 5, The Wistar Institute Press: Philadelphia PA, 1967, p.67)

"Like any good journalist, Hooper knows a scandal when she sees one. `The unspoken possibility of fraud 
hangs in the air,' she says, noting that Kettlewell's field notes have conveniently disappeared. According to 
Sargent, one thing is certain: the famous photos of moths on tree trunks were faked, using dead moths and a 
log. In the wild, peppered moths don't hang around on exposed tree trunks long enough to be eaten, 
preferring the shady undersides of branches. And then there's the nagging question of whether birds 
actually eat moths on tree trunks. Several experts claim that it does not happen in the wild. By placing moths 
on the tree trunks, Kettlewell was effectively laying out a smorgasbord for the watching birds, who soon 
learned when it was feeding time. This was not natural but unnatural selection. The question Hooper sets 
out to answer is why such a shoddy piece of scientific research was so readily accepted by the scientific 
community and allowed to attain iconic status in evolutionary biology. Her answer: because scientists 
wanted to believe it. Once it had been cited enough times, it became an irrefutable article of faith. Hooper's 
meticulous research provides a fascinating insight into the fallibility of scientists after all, as she points out, 
they are only human." (Smith, P.D., "Darwinism in a flutter." Review of "Of Moths and Men: Intrigue, 
Tragedy & the Peppered Moth," by Judith Hooper, Fourth Estate, 2002. The Guardian, May 11, 2002) 

"I had been poring over Kettlewell's two original Heredity papers, which so many biologists and biology 
teachers had never read, and I was puzzled by a few things. What, I asked Ted Sargent ... did he think was 
wrong with them? 'The original mark-release-recapture experiments were poorly done. They wouldn't hold up 
to statistical analysis. And Kettlewell scored the moths' crypsis according to aesthetic matching, which was 
subjective. He should have had blind observers, but he was the one who put the moths on the trees, scored 
their crypsis, and identified the ones that returned to his traps. You should be blind to the outcome of your 
experiments.' ... 'Kettlewell designed the experiment, he did it, he gathered the data. He knew the significance 
of the results and he got the results he wanted. We don't allow experiments like this any more.' The 
unspoken possibility of fraud hangs in the air." (Hooper J., "Of Moths and Men: An Evolutionary Tale," 
W.W Norton & Co: New York NY, 2002, pp.253,255)

"For this reason, the evolutionist likes to bootleg into the argument a deficient definition of evolution. By 
defusing evolution as "change or modification over time," evolutionists then feel free to introduce any 
change in nature as evidence for evolution. By this definition all of us are evolutionists, for all of us 
readily admit that there is change in nature." (Lubenow M.L., "From Fish To Gish: The Exciting Drama of a 
Decade of Creation-Evolution Debates," CLP Publishers: San Diego CA, 1983, p.34. Emphasis in original)

"But surely the human fossil and skeleton record indicates that the genus Homo existed hundreds of 
thousands of years before the New Stone Age? Yes. Homo sapiens (modern) is usually traced back 
to about 100,000 years ago, and Homo sapiens (archaic) to about half a million years ago, homo 
erectus to about 1.8 million years ago, and Homo habilis even to two million years ago. Moreover, Homo 
habilis was already making stone tools in East and South Africa; homo erectus was making wooden tools as 
well and living in caves and camps, while Homo sapiens (especially the European Stone Age sub-
species Neanderthal man), although still a hunter-gatherer, was beginning to paint, carve and sculpt, and 
even to care for the sick and bury the dead. But were these species of Homo 'human' in the biblical sense, 
created in the image of God, endowed with rational moral and spiritual faculties which enabled them to know 
and love their Creator? Ancient skeletons cannot answer this question; the evidence they supply is 
anatomical rather than behavioural. Even signs of cultural development do not prove that those involved 
were authentically human, that is, God-like. The likelihood is that they were all pre-Adamic hominids, still 
Homo sapiens and not yet Homo divinus, if we may so style Adam. Adam, then, was a special creation of 
God, whether God formed him literally 'from the dust of the ground' and then 'breathed into his nostrils the 
breath of life', or whether this is the biblical way of saying that he was created out of an already existing 
hominid. The vital truth we cannot surrender is that, though our bodies are related to the primates, we 
ourselves in our fundamental identity are related to God" (Stott J.R.W., "The Message of Romans: God's 
Good News for the World," [1994], Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, 2002, reprint, p.164)

"Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was 
deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the 
Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living 
creatures. Here we encounter a formidable objection; for it seems doubtful whether the earth, in a fit state for 
the habitation of living creatures, has lasted long enough. Sir W. Thompson [Lord Kelvin] concludes that 
the consolidation of the crust can hardly have occurred less than 20 or more than 100 million years ago, but 
probably not less than 98 or more than 200 million years. These very wide limits show how doubtful the data 
are and other elements may have hereafter to be introduced into the problem. Mr. Croll estimates that about 
60 million years have elapsed since the Cambrian period, but this, judging from the small amount of organic 
change since the commencement of the Glacial epoch, appears a very short time for the many and great 
mutations of life which have certainly occurred since the Cambrian formation; and the previous 140 million 
years can hardly be considered as sufficient for the development of the varied forms of life which already 
existed during the Cambrian period. It is, however, probable, as Sir William Thompson insists, that the world 
at a very early period was subjected to more rapid and violent changes in its physical conditions than those 
now occurring; and such changes would have tended to induce changes at a corresponding rate in the 
organisms which then existed. To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to 
these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer." (Darwin, 
C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: 
London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.315)

"But as the theology of this section began, so did the world-by the divine word of a personal, 
communicating God. Ten times the text reiterates this lead-off statement: `And God said' (Gen. 
1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24,26,29; 2:18). Creation, then, is depicted as the result of the dynamic word of God. ... This 
theological affirmation appears later in the psalms: `By the word of the Lord the heavens were made and all 
their hosts by the breath of His mouth ... He spoke, and it came into being; He commanded, and it stood 
forth. - Psalm 33:6,9. Whether secondary causes were also thereby set into motion in effecting the result 
cannot be determined from the text. Every time the text would seem to imply a mediate creation (i.e., where 
the existing materials or forces of nature might be authorized or endowed by God to do the work of carrying 
out the creation order-the three instances being: `Let the earth bring forth' [Gen. 1:11]; `Let the waters bring 
forth' [v. 20]; `Let the earth bring forth' [v. 24]), the next verse in two of the three instances (vv. 21,25) 
attributes the same things, which appeared to be immediately authorized to effect the new work directly to 
God." (Kaiser, W.C.*, Jr, "Toward an Old Testament Theology," Academie Books/Zondervan: Grand Rapids 
MI, 1978, pp.72-73)

"Which leaves us with a curious conundrum. How did nature fabricate the world's first digital information 
processor - the original living cell - from the blind chaos of blundering molecules? How did molecular 
hardware get to write its own software?" (Davies P.C.W., "How we could create life," The Guardian, 
December 11, 2002)

"Now, one can't have it both ways. One can't say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there 
is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be 
criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance 
scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed 
falsifiable. In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a 
thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin's Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial 
flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is 
that the flagellum can't be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other 
unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial 
species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand 
generations, and see if a flagellum-or any equally complex system-was produced. If that happened, my 
claims would be neatly disproven. How about Professor Coyne's concern that, if one system were shown to 
be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I 
think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a 
certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an 
equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately 
forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood 
clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design. Let's turn the tables 
and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced by Darwinian 
processes? ... If a scientist went into the laboratory and grew a flagellumless bacterial species under 
selective pressure for many generations and nothing much happened, would Darwinists be convinced that 
natural selection is incapable of producing a flagellum? I doubt it. It could always be claimed that the 
selective pressure wasn't the right one, or that we started with the wrong bacterial species, and so on. Even 
if the experiment were repeated many times under different conditions and always gave a negative result, I 
suspect many Darwinists would not conclude that the claim of its Darwinian evolution was falsified. Of 
complex biochemical systems Coyne himself writes `we may forever be unable to envisage the first 
protopathways. It is not valid, however, to assume that, because one man cannot imagine such pathways, 
they could not have existed.' (Coyne 1996) If a person accepts Darwinian paths which are not only unseen, 
but which we may be forever unable to envisage, then it is effectively impossible to make him think he is 
wrong." (Behe, M.J.*, "Philosophical Objections to Intelligent Design: Response to Critics," Discovery 
Institute, July 31, 2000)

"I applaud producers who bring spiritually significant issues to the little screen. Such an occasion presented 
itself in December, 1997, when William F. Buckley, Jr., featured seven panelists, four naturalistic 
evolutionists and three skeptics of their view, on `Firing Line.' ... This focus on transitional forms probably 
arose from creationists' exploitation of this topic in their attempts to prove that Darwinism is wrong. The four 
naturalistic scholars seemed to relish the opportunitiy to disprove that `proof' publicly. Dr. Kenneth Miller 
showed beautifully illustrated charts of Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, and Inodcetus, three 
ancient species supposedly representing transitions between large land mammals and modern whales. ... 
The presenters could not have picked any more vulnerable "evidences" than the whale species. The whale's 
capacity for natural process change is severely limited by six factors: 1) relatively small population; 2) long 
generation spans (the time between birth and the ability to give birth); 3) low number of progeny produced 
per adult; 4) high complexity of biochemistry and morphology; 5) enormous size; and 6) specialized food 
supply. ... these factors severely limit a species' capacity to change, or even to adapt to change, through 
mutations and natural selection." (Ross, H.N.*, "Creation on the `Firing Line'," Facts & Faith, First 
Quarter 1998)

"[Eugenie] Scott refers to me as an intelligent design `creationist,' even though I clearly write in my book 
`Darwin's Black Box' (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common 
descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges 
think `evolution occurred, but was guided by God.' Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National 
Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it 
is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier's in the 
journal `Cell': `More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human' 
[DeRosier, D.J., "The Turn of the Screw: The Bacterial Flagellar Motor," Cell, Vol. 93, April 3, 1998, 
pp.17-20, p.17]. Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to 
something objectively correct?" (Behe, M.J.*, "Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism," Science, dEbate, 7 July 2000)

"We begin our examination of the doctrine of creation by noting that it is creation out of nothing, or without 
the use of preexisting materials. This does not mean that all of God's creative work was direct and immediate, 
occurring at the very beginning of time. (Certainly there was immediate or direct creation, the bringing into 
being of all reality; but there has also been mediate or derivative creation, God's subsequent work of 
developing and fashioning what he had originally brought into existence.)" (Erickson, M.J.*, "Christian 
Theology," [1983], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1988, Fifth Printing, pp.367-368)

* 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 © 2003-2010, 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 my home page at would be appreciated.
Created: 1 August, 2003. Updated. Updated: 30 April, 2010.