Stephen E. Jones

Creation/Evolution Quotes: Unclassified quotes: January-February 2005

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

The following are unclassified quotes posted in my email messages in January-February, 2005.
The date format is dd/mm/yy. See copyright conditions at end.

[Index: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May-Jun, Jul (1), (2), Aug-Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec]

January [top]
"Today more and more evolutionists are doing what Darwin thought impossible. They are studying the 
evolutionary process not through fossils but directly, in real time, in the wild: evolution in the flesh. 
"Evolution" comes from the Latin evolutio, an unrolling, unfolding, opening. Biologists are observing year 
by year and sometimes even day by day or hour by hour details of life's unrolling and opening, right now. ... 
Taken together, these new studies suggest that Darwin did not know the strength of his own theory. He 
vastly underestimated the power of natural selection. Its action is neither rare nor slow. It leads to evolution 
daily and hourly, all around us, and we can watch." (Weiner, J., "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution 
in Our Time," Alfred A. Knopf: New York NY, 1994, pp.8-9)

"The evolutionists themselves may have helped to build the trap they have been led to by this line of 
argument. All too often they have claimed that evolution is a demonstrable fact and have traded on the 
general reputation of scientists for infallibility. Yet, clearly, evolution is not a "fact" in the sense that the 
man in the street understands the word. Without a time machine, we cannot prove that birds evolved 
from reptiles; we can only show that the known fossil record is consistent with this belief. Nor can we prove 
that natural selection is the mechanism responsible for the whole development of life on earth, which is why 
alternatives-such as punctuated equilibrium-are being considered by some biologists." (Bowler, P.J., 
"Evolution: The History of an Idea," [1983], University of California Press: Berkeley CA, Revised edition, 
1989, pp.356-357. Emphasis in

"Theologians worry away at the `problem of evil' and a related `problem of suffering.' On the day I originally 
wrote this paragraph, the British newspapers all carried a terrible story about a bus full of children from a 
Roman Catholic school that crashed for no obvious reason, with wholesale loss of life. Not for the first time, 
clerics were in paroxysms over the theological question that a writer on a London newspaper (The Sunday 
Telegraph) framed this way: `How can you believe in a loving, all-powerful God who allows such a tragedy?' 
The article went on to quote one priest's reply: `The simple answer is that we do not know why there should 
be a God who lets these awful things happen. But the horror of the crash, to a Christian, confirms the fact 
that we live in a world of real values: positive and negative. If the universe was just electrons, there would 
be no problem of evil or suffering.' On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, 
meaningless tragedies like the crashing of his bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally 
meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no 
intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going 
to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any 
justice. 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 blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. 
Housman put it: `For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.' DNA neither cares nor 
knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music." (Dawkins, R., "River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of 
Life," Phoenix: London, 1996, pp.154-155)

"Some Christians use the term `progressive creation' instead of `theistic evolution,' the difference being the 
suggestion that God interjected occasional acts of creation at critical points throughout the geological ages. 
Thus, for example, man's soul was created, though his body evolved from an ape-like ancestor. This concept 
is less acceptable than theistic evolution. It not only charges God with waste and cruelty (through its 
commitment to the geologic ages) but also with ignorance and impotence. God's postulated intermittent 
creative efforts show either that He didn't know what He wanted when He started the process or else that He 
couldn't provide it with enough energy to sustain it until it reached its goal. A god who would have to 
create man by any such cut-and- dry, discontinuous, injurious method as this can hardly be the omniscient, 
omnipotent, loving God of the Bible." (Morris, H.M.*, "Evolution Versus the Bible," in Duncan H.*, 
"Evolution: The Incredible Hoax," [1977], Missionary Crusader: Lubbock TX, 1982, Fourth printing, p.92)

 "[Young-Earth] Creationists understand good as automatically implying lack of animal death, animal 
suffering or animal predation and as implying efficiency, economy and so forth. But it was God who saw the 
creation as good, and just as his thoughts are not ours and his ways are not ours, his judgments of good 
might be a bit beyond ours as well. [Is 55:8-9] In fact, when God speaks of providing prey for young lions, 
the tone is not one of regret. It is part of God's glory-not some distasteful task-that he provides the young 
lions with their prey. [Ps 104:21; 145:15; Job 38:39] Nor is it obvious that wastefulness would be a concern to 
God. Nature produces a lavish profusion of everything from beetles to grass blades to rocks to stars. 
Indeed, what would wasteful even mean in the context of Omnipotent ability to create anything and 
everything from nothing with a word?" (Ratzsch, D.L.*, "The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is 
Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 1996, p.189)

"There is no need for me to go into the incredibly complicated chemistry of photosynthesis, which involves 
whole sequences of chemical reactions and is still not completely understood, despite intensive efforts. 
There is, however, one rather intriguing point. Photosynthesis depends on a substance known as 
chlorophyll. It exists in four slightly different forms, but all are based on a ring-like atomic structure formed 
by four chemical units known as pyrroles. In the middle of the ring is found an atom of magnesium. The four 
varieties of chlorophyll differ only in the make-up of the tail which is attached to the ring. ... Until chemical 
evolution had produced this highly specialised structure, photosynthesis was not possible. ... It turns out 
that there are two distinct chemical systems at work, each with its own enzyme. One builds the components, 
the other forms them into a ring. So here again we have an improbable would have been useless. Each 
complements the other. ... Photosynthesis is a very sophisticated solution to the energy problem ... too 
complex to have arisen at the very start. How then did energy production begin?" ... it is very hard to 
swallow the idea that chance - or rather a long series of chances - built up such an extremely elaborate 
mechanism as photosynthesis, a mechanism which depends on substances far more complex than the raw 
materials which it transforms. Unless there was some inner necessity, some built-in primordial disposition to 
consolidate into such a pattern, it is past belief that anything so intricate and idiosyncratic should appear." 
(Taylor, G.R., "The Great Evolution Mystery," Abacus: London, 1983, pp.204-207)

"Wherefore, so long as gradatory, orderly, and adapted forms in Nature argue design, and at least while the 
physical cause of variation is utterly unknown and mysterious, we should advise Mr. Darwin to assume, in 
the philosophy of his hypothesis, that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines. Streams flowing 
over a sloping plain by gravitation (here the counterpart of natural selection) may have worn their actual 
channels as they flowed; yet their particular courses may have been assigned; and where we see them 
forming definite and useful lines of irrigation, after a manner unaccountable on the laws of gravitation and 
dynamics, we should believe that the distribution was designed." (Gray, A., "Natural Selection Not 
Inconsistent With Natural Theology," Atlantic Monthly, October 1860, "Darwiniana: Essays and Reviews 
Pertaining to Darwinism," [1861], Dupree A.H., ed., Belknap: Cambridge MA, 1963, pp.121-122)

"How did man get his brain? Many years ago Charles Darwin's great contemporary, and co-discoverer with 
him of the principle of natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, propounded that simple question. It is a 
question which has bothered evolutionists ever since, and when Darwin received his copy of an article 
Wallace had written on this subject he was obviously shaken. It is recorded that he wrote in anguish across 
the paper, `No!' and underlined the `No' three times heavily in a rising fervor of objection. Today the 
question asked by Wallace and never satisfactorily answered by Darwin has returned to haunt us. ... It was 
just at this time that Wallace lifted a voice of lonely protest. The episode is a strange one in the history of 
science, for Wallace had, independently of Darwin, originally arrived at the same general conclusion as to 
the nature of the evolutionary process. Nevertheless, only a few years after the publication of Darwin's 
work, The Origin of Species, Wallace had come to entertain a point of view which astounded and 
troubled Darwin. Wallace, who had had years of experience with natives of the tropical archipelagoes, 
abandoned the idea that they were of mentally inferior cast. He did more. He committed the Darwinian 
heresy of maintaining that their mental powers were far in excess of what they really needed to carry on the 
simple food-gathering techniques by which they survived. `How, then,' Wallace insisted, `was an organ 
developed so far beyond the needs of its possessor? Natural selection could only have endowed the 
savage with a brain a little superior to that of an ape, whereas he actually possesses one but little inferior to 
that of the average member of our learned societies.' At a time when many primitive peoples were 
erroneously assumed to speak only in grunts or to chatter like monkeys, Wallace maintained his view of the 
high intellectual powers of natives by insisting that `the capacity of uttering a variety of distinct articulate 
sounds and of applying to them an almost infinite amount of modulation ... is not in any way inferior to that 
of the higher races. An instrument has been developed in advance of the needs of its possessor.' Finally, 
Wallace challenged the whole Darwinian position on man by insisting that artistic, mathematical, and 
musical abilities could not be explained on the basis of natural selection and the struggle for existence. 
Something else, he contended, some unknown spiritual element, must have been at work in the elaboration 
of the human brain. Why else would men of simple cultures possess the same basic intellectual powers 
which the Darwinists maintained could be elaborated only by competitive struggle? `If you had not told me 
you had made these remarks,' Darwin said, `I should have thought they had been added by someone else. I 
differ grievously from you and am very sorry for it.' He did not, however, supply a valid answer to Wallace's 
queries. Outside of murmuring about the inherited effects of habit-a contention without scientific validity 
today - Darwin clung to his original position. Slowly Wallace's challenge was forgotten and a great 
complacency settled down upon the scientific world." (Eiseley, L.C., "The Real Secret of Piltdown," in "The 
Immense Journey," [1946], Vintage: New York NY, 1957, reprint, pp.79,83-85)

"(bara') I, create, make, Creator (Qal); choose, cut down, dispatch, (Piel); be created, be done (Niphal; RSV 
"yet unborn" in Ps 102:18 [H 19]; "clear ground in Josh 17:15, 18; RSV and ASV "mark" in Ezk 21:19 [H 241). 
... The root bara' has the basic meaning "to create." It differs from yasar "to fashion" in that 'he latter 
primarily emphasizes the shaping of an object while bara' emphasizes the initiation of the object. ... The word 
is used in the Qal only of God's activity and is thus a purely theological term. This distinctive use of the 
word is especially appropriate to the concept of creation by divine fiat. The root bara' denotes the concept 
of "initiating something new" in a number of passages. In Isa 41:20 it is used of the changes that will take 
place in the Restoration when God effects that which is new and different. It is used of the creation of new 
things (haddashot) in Isa 48:6-7 and the creation of the new heavens and the new earth (Isa 65:17). Marvels 
never seen before are described by this word (Ex 34:10), and Jeremiah uses the term of a fundamental change 
that will take place in the natural order (Jer 31:22). The Psalmist prayed that God would create in him a clean 
heart (Psa 51:10 [H 121) and coupled this with the petition that God would put a new spirit within him (See 
also Num 16:30; Isa 4:5; 65:18). The word also possesses the meaning of "bringing into existence" in several 
passages (Isa 43:1; Ezk 21: 30 [H 35]; 28:13, 15). It is not surprising that this word with its distinctive 
emphases is used most frequently to describe the creation of the universe and the natural phenomena (Gen 
1: 1, 21, 27; 13, etc.). The usages of the term in this sense present a clearly defined theology. The magnitude 
of God's power is exemplified in creation. This has implications for the weak (Isa 40:26; cf. vv. 27-3 1) and for 
the unfolding of God's purposes in history (Isa 42:5; 45:12). Creation displays the majesty (Amos 4:13), 
orderliness (Isa 45:18), and sovereignty (Ps 89:12 [H 131) of God. Anthropologically, the common creation of 
man forms a plea for unity in Mal 2: 10. And man is seen as created for vanity in Ps 89:47 [H 48]. ... The 
limitation of this word to divine activity indicates that the area of meaning delineated by the root falls 
outside the sphere of human ability. Since the word never occurs with the object of the material, and since 
the primary emphasis of the word is on the newness of the created object, the word lends itself well to the 
concept of creation ex nihilo, although that concept is not necessarily inherent within the meaning of the 
word." (McComiskey, T.E.*, "bara'," in Harris R.L., Archer G.L. & Waltke B.K., eds, "Theological Wordbook 
of the Old Testament," [1980], Moody Press: Chicago IL, 1992, Twelfth Printing, Vol. I, p.127)

'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself-and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to 
be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just 
have to be honest in a conventional way after that. I would like to add something that's not essential to the 
science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking 
as a scientist. .... I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over 
backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is 
our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen. For example, I was a little 
surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and 
astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of this work were. `Well,' I said, 
`there aren't any.' He said, `Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind.' I think that's 
kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what 
you're doing and if they don't want to support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision. 
One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain 
some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of 
a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of results." (Feynman, 
R.P., "Cargo Cult Science," in "`Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman!': Adventures of a Curious Character," 
[1985], Unwin Paperbacks: London, Reprinted, 1990, p.343)

"The Invisibility of Revolutions .... I suggest that there are excellent reasons why revolutions have proved 
to be so nearly invisible. Both scientists and laymen take much of their image of creative scientific activity 
from an authoritative source that systematically disguises-partly for important functional reasons-
the existence and significance of scientific revolutions. ... the source of authority, I have in mind principally 
text books of science together with both the popularizations and the philosophical works modeled on them. 
All three of these categories ... have one thing in common. They address themselves to an already 
articulated body of problems, data, and theory, most often to the particular set of paradigms to which the 
scientific community is committed at the time they are written. Textbooks themselves aim to communicate 
the vocabulary and syntax of a contemporary scientific language. Popularizations attempt to describe these 
same applications in a language closer to that of everyday life. And philosophy of science, particularly that 
of the English-speaking world, analyzes the logical structure of the same completed body of scientific 
knowledge. ... All three record the stable outcome of past revolutions and thus display the bases of the 
current normal-scientific tradition. To fulfill their function they need not provide authentic 
information about the way in which those bases were first recognized and then embraced by the 
profession. In the case of textbooks, at least, there are even good reasons why, in these matters, they 
should be systematically misleading. ... to an extent unprecedented in other fields, both the layman's 
and the practitioner's knowledge of science is based on textbooks and a few other types of literature derived 
from them. Textbooks, however, being pedagogic vehicles for the perpetuation of normal science, have to be 
rewritten in whole or in part whenever the language, problem-structure, or standards of normal science 
change. In short, they have to be rewritten in the aftermath of each scientific revolution, and, once rewritten, 
they inevitably disguise not only the role but the very existence of the revolutions that produced 
them. Unless he has personally experienced a revolution in his own lifetime, the historical sense either of the 
working scientist or of the lay reader of textbook literature extends only to the outcome of the most recent 
revolutions in the field. Textbooks thus begin by truncating the scientist's sense of his discipline's 
history and then proceed to supply a substitute for what they have eliminated. Characteristically, 
textbooks of science contain just a bit of history, either in an introductory chapter or, more often in scattered 
references to the great heroes of an earlier age. From such references both students and professionals come 
to feel like participants in a long-standing historical tradition. Yet the textbook-derived tradition in which 
scientists come to sense their participation is one that, in fact, never existed. For reasons that are 
both obvious and highly functional, science textbooks (and too many of the older histories of science) refer 
only to that part of the work of past scientists that can easily be viewed as contributions to the state merit 
and solution of the texts' paradigm problems. Partly by selection and partly by distortion, the 
scientists of earlier ages are implicitly represented as having worked upon the same set of fixed problems 
and in accordance with the same set of fixed canons that the most recent revolution in scientific theory and 
method has made seem scientific. No wonder that textbooks and the historical tradition they imply have to 
be rewritten after each scientific revolution. And no wonder that, as they are rewritten, science once again 
comes to seem largely cumulative. Scientists are not, of course the only group that tends to see its 
discipline's past developing linearly toward its present vantage. The temptation to write history backward is 
both omnipresent and perennial. But scientists are more affected by the temptation to rewrite history, partly 
because the results of scientific research show no obvious dependence upon the historical context of the 
inquiry, and partly because, except during crisis and revolution, the scientist's contemporary position seems 
so secure. More historical detail whether of science's present or of its past, or more responsibility to the 
historical details that are presented, could only give artificial status to human idiosyncrasy, error, and 
confusion. Why dignify what science's best and most persistent efforts have made it possible to discard? 
The depreciation of historical fact is deeply, and probably functionally, ingrained in the ideology of 
the scientific profession, the same profession that places the highest of all values upon factual details of 
other sorts. " (Kuhn, T.S., "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," [1962], University of Chicago Press: 
Chicago IL, Third edition, 1996, pp.136-138. My emphasis)

"The Creation Hypothesis (InterVarsity Press, 1994) ... received a remarkably respectful review in 
Creation/Evolution, a strongly anticreationist journal. Reviewer Arthur Shapiro, professor of zoology at the 
Davis campus of the University of California, concluded with this paragraph: `I can see Science in the year 
2000 running a major feature article on the spread of theistic science as a parallel scientific culture. I can see 
interviews with the leading figures in history and philosophy of science about how and why this happened. 
For the moment, the authors of The Creation Hypothesis are realistically defensive. They know their way of 
looking at the world will not be generally accepted and that they will be restricted for a while to their own 
journals. ... If they are successful, the day will come when the editorial board of Science will convene in 
emergency session to decide what to do about a paper which is of the highest quality and utterly 
unexceptionable, of great and broad interest, and which proceeds from the prior assumption of intelligent 
design. For a preview of that crisis, you should read this book. Of course, if you are smug enough to think 
`theistic science' is an oxymoron, you won't.'" Shapiro A.N., Review of Moreland J.P., ed., "The Creation 
Hypothesis," InterVarsity Press, 1994, Creation/Evolution, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1994, pp.36-37, in Johnson, P.E.*, 
"Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law, and Education," InterVarsity Press: 
Downers Grove IL, 1995, p.239)

"If evolutionary biologists can discover or construct detailed, testable, indirect Darwinian pathways that 
account for the emergence of irreducibly and minimally complex biological systems like the bacterial 
flagellum, then more power to them -- intelligent design will quickly pass into oblivion. But until that 
happens, the eliminative induction that attributes specified complexity to the bacterial flagellum constitutes 
a legitimate scientific inference. The only way to deny its legitimacy is by appealing to some form of 
apriorism. The apriorism of choice these days is, of course, naturalism. And that apriorism engenders an 
argument not just of ignorance but of invincible ignorance. Indeed, any specified complexity (and therefore 
design) that might actually be present in biological systems becomes invisible as soon as one consents to 
this apriorism. If biological systems actually are designed, not only won't Van Till see it but he can't see it. 
This is invincible ignorance."(Dembski W.A.*, "Naturalism's Argument from Invincible Ignorance: A 
Response to Howard Van Till," Design Inference Website, September 2002.

"Darwin himself relied crucially on such an extrapolative vision: smoothly extend the adaptive struggles of 
generations across millions of years in geological time, and you will obtain the entire, wondrously ramified 
tree of life. ... If this uniformitarian vision of extrapolation fails, then we must conclude that while 
adaptationism may control immediate changes in the overt forms of organisms, it cannot render evolution at 
other scales. The main excitement in evolutionary theory during the past twenty years has not been-as 
Cronin would have us believe-the shoring up of Darwinism in its limited realm (by gene selectionism or any 
other patching device), but rather the documentation of the reasons why Darwin's crucial requirement for 
extrapolation has failed. Selectionism is not a general model for evolutionary change at most scales. ... But 
the ultimate failure of Cronin's adaptationism, as a general evolutionary model, appears most clearly when 
we consider the paleontological record. Darwin's vision may prevail in the here and now of immediate 
adaptive struggles. But if we cannot extend the small changes thereby produced into the grandeur of 
geological time to yield the full tree of life, then Darwin's domain is a limited corner of evolutionary 
explanation. ... . The Darwinian struggle does not extrapolate to the tree of life." (Gould, S.J., "The Confusion 
over Evolution," The New York Review of Books, Vol. 39, No. 19, November 19, 1992, pp.47-54, pp.52-54.

"The word `dinosaur' was invented by Sir Richard Owen more than a century ago to designate certain large 
fossil reptiles that were then being recognized and described for the first time. The word is a combination of 
Greek roots meaning `terrible lizard,' a purely descriptive term, which, like so many scientific names, must not 
be taken literally. Many of the dinosaurs undoubtedly were terrible animals when they were alive, but they 
were not lizards, nor were they related to lizards except in a most general way. In the early days of 
paleontological science the Dinosauria were regarded as a natural group of reptiles, but as knowledge of 
these long extinct animals was expanded most authorities concluded that the term embraces two distinct 
reptilian orders. Consequently the word dinosaur is now a convenient name, but not necessarily a 
systematic term. The two orders of dinosaurs are designated as the Saurischia [lizard-hipped] and the 
Ornithischia [bird-hipped], these names being based upon the form of the pelvis-a basic character in the 
evolution of the dinosaurs. In the Saurischia the pubic bone of the pelvis extends down and forward from its 
juncture with the ilium and the ischium, the dorsal and the postero-ventral bones of the pelvis, respectively. 
In the Ornithischia the pubis has rotated so that it occupies a position ventral and parallel to the backwardly 
extending ischium. Of course there are numerous other characters by means of which the two orders of 
dinosaurs are distinguished, each from the other." (Colbert, E.H. & Morales, M., "Evolution of the 
Vertebrates: A History of the Backboned Animals Through Time," [1955], John Wiley & Sons: New York 
NY, Fourth Edition, 1992, Second Printing, p.148)

"At first sight there is an important distinction to be made between what might be called 'instantaneous 
creation' and 'guided evolution'. Modern theologians of any sophistication have given up believing in 
instantaneous creation. ... many theologians ... smuggle God in by the back door: they allow him some sort 
of supervisory role over the course that evolution has taken, either influencing key moments in evolutionary 
history (especially, of course, human evolutionary history), or even meddling more comprehensively in the 
day-to-day events that add up to evolutionary change. ... In short, divine creation, whether instantaneous or 
in the form of guided evolution, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." 
(Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, pp.316-317)

"I am delighted to report that the American Scientific Affiliation has supported this strategy of clarification 
... The ASA statement notes that the term `evolution' has at least 5 distinct meanings, ranging from the 
vacuous proposition that there has been `change over time' all the way to George Gaylord Simpson's 
religiously loaded claim that `Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in 
mind.' The statement comments that failure to define terms carefully and use them consistently has allowed 
evolutionary naturalists to use the prestige of science improperly to advance their philosophical position, 
with a corresponding erosion of support for science education among the broad population of theists. I 
strongly endorse this new ASA position, not as a solution to the problems we are discussing in these 
lectures but as a sound first step towards better understanding. That a proposal to define terms carefully 
and use them consistently will be met with scorn and contempt by the scientific establishment may seem 
incredible, but I am afraid it is all too likely that this will be the case." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Disestablishing 
Naturalism," 1992 Founder's Lectures III, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Revised, February 17, 1992.

"Nature's recalcitrance is the ultimately determinative factor (or limiting factor) in the shredding, shaping, or 
vindicating of any cosmological narrative. The reader will have noted that certain stubborn realities of 
nature keep coming up time after time, and they serve as the main fuel in the evidentiary debate: (1) the 
Cambrian explosion, now underscored and heightened in the recent discoveries in China, (2) the general 
absence of transitional fossils between the higher taxonomic categories outside of the Cambrian, (3) the 
cell's molecular systems of breathtaking complexity, recently elucidated, and (4) the quiet experiment-driven 
collapse of confidence in "chemical soup" scenarios for the origin of life. ... They are the stuff of anomalies, 
which of course in the Kuhnian vision of science may lead eventually to a genuine paradigm crisis. The four 
scientific realities cited above (a list that could easily be expanded) cannot be ignored in their foundational 
role as rhetorical weapons in the hands of Design. They and their range of possible interpretations have 
become the turf on which some of the fiercest battles are now fought. So the recalcitrance of nature, I 
propose, is the foundation of. the Design assault on the Darwinian paradigm." (Woodward T.E.*, "Doubts 
about Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 2003, p.200)

"When the Mars missions were being prepared, the astronomer Donald Menzel and I had a $5 bet as to 
whether or not `life as on earth' [our precise designation] would be discovered on Mars. The physical 
scientist Menzel said yes, the evolutionary biologist Mayr said no. who was right is on record. By now it is 
quite evident that none of the other planets in this solar system is suitable for life. One negative instance, of 
course, proves nothing. If all suns in the universe have planets (actually a rather dubious assumption), we 
would have hundreds of millions of planets. Surely, it is argued, some of these should have spawned life. . 
And I agree, the probability for a multiple origin of a self-replicating nucleic acid-protein aggregate is indeed 
high [?]. ...What is still entirely uncertain is how often this has happened where it has happened, and how 
much evolution might have occurred subsequent to the origin of such life. We who live on the earth do not 
fully appreciate what an inhospitable place most planets must be. To be able to support life they must be 
just the right distance from their sun, have the right temperature, a sufficient amount of water, a sufficient 
density to be able to hold an atmosphere, a protection against damaging ultraviolet radiation, and so forth. 
Furthermore, every planet changes in the course of its history, and the sequence of changes has to be just 
right. If, for instance, there were too much free oxygen at an early stage, it would destroy life. The total set of 
prerequisites for the origin and maintenance of life drastically reduces the number of planets that would 
have been suitable for the origin of life. There is, indeed, the possibility that the combination and sequence 
of conditions that permitted the origin of life on earth was not duplicated on a single other planet in the 
universe. I do not make such a claim, and it would not be science if I did, since it would be impossible ever 
to refute it. However, measured by the possibility of refutation, the claims of the proponents of 
extraterrestrial life and intelligence are equally outside the bounds of science. The only thing we know for 
sure is that of the nine planets of the solar system the earth is the only one that has produced life. Let us 
assume, however, for the sake of the argument that life has originated on some of the supposedly hundreds 
of millions of planets in the universe. Since we do not know how many suns have planets, the mentioned 
figure might be a gross overestimation. ... It is interesting and rather characteristic that almost all the 
promoters of the thesis of extraterrestrial intelligence are physical scientists. They are joined by a number of 
molecular and microbial biologists, and by a handful of romantic organismic biologists. Why are those 
biologists who have the greatest expertise on evolutionary probabilistics so almost unanimously skeptical 
of the probability of extraterrestrial intelligence? It seems to me that this is to a large extent due to the 
tendency of physical scientists to think deterministically, while organismic biologists know how 
opportunistic and unpredictable evolution is. ... What about evolution of intelligence among the animals? .... 
Of the 50 or so original phyla of animals, only one, that of the chordates, eventually gave rise to intelligent 
life, but the world still had to wait some 500 my before this happened. At first, still in Paleozoic, the 
vertebrates appeared in exceedingly diverse types, formerly all lumped together under the name `Fishes,' .... 
Among this multitude of types, only one gave rise to the amphibians; and among the various types of 
amphibians, only one to the reptiles. .... Among these numerous types of reptiles, only two, the 
pseudosuchians (ancestors of birds) and the therapsids (ancestors of mammals), gave rise to descendants 
to some of whom a reasonable degree of intelligence can be attributed. But with all my bias in favor of birds, 
I would not say that a raven or parrot has the amount and kind of intelligence to found a civilization. So we 
have to continue with the mammalian class. .... Forms with a rather high development of the central nervous 
system and a good deal of intelligence are quite common among the mammals, but only one of these many 
orders led to the development of a truly superior intelligent life, the primates. ... but only the anthropoid apes 
produced intelligence that clearly surpasses other mammals. Only after 18 of the 25 my of the existence of 
the anthropoid apes, and after a splitting of this major lineage into a number of minor lineages, like the 
gibbons (and relatives), the orangutan (and relatives), the African apes (chimpanzee and gorilla), and a 
considerable number of extinct lineages, did the lineage emerge which eventually, less than one-third of a 
million years ago, led to Homo sapiens. The reason why I have buried you under this mass of 
tedious detail is to make one point, but an all-important one. In conflict with the thinking of those who see a 
straight line from the origin of life to intelligent man, I have shown that at each level of this pathway there 
were scores, if not hundreds, of branching points and independently evolving phyletic lines, with only a 
single one in each case forming the ancestral lineage that ultimately gave rise to Man. ... The point I am 
making is the incredible improbability of genuine intelligence emerging. There were probably more than a 
billion species of animals on earth, belonging to many millions of separate phyletic lines, all living on this 
planet earth which is hospitable to intelligence, and yet only a single one of them succeeded in producing 
intelligence. ... One additional improbability must be mentioned. Somehow, the supporters of SETI naively 
assume that `intelligence' means developing a technology capable of intragalactic or even intergalactic 
communication. But such a development is highly improbable. For instance, Neanderthal Man, living 100,000 
years ago, had a brain as big as ours. Yet, his `civilization' was utterly rudimentary. The wonderful 
civilizations of the Greeks, the Chinese, the Mayas, or the Renaissance, although they were created by 
people who were for all intents and purposes physically identical with us, never developed such a 
technology, and neither did we until a few years ago. The assumption that any intelligent extraterrestrial life 
must have the technology and mode of thinking of late twentieth-century Man is unbelievably naive. ... 
Civilizations, as human history demonstrates, are fleeting moments in the history of an intelligent species. 
For two civilizations to communicate with each other, it is necessary that they flourish simultaneously. ... I 
am trying to demonstrate ... that even if there were intelligent extraterrestrial life, and even if it had developed 
a highly sophisticated technology ... the timing of their efforts and those of our engineers would have to 
coincide to an altogether improbable degree, considering the amounts of astronomical time available. Every 
aspect of `extraterrestrial intelligence' that we consider confronts us with astronomically low probabilities. If 
one multiplies these with each other, one comes out so close to zero that it is zero for all practical purposes. 
This was already pointed out by Simpson in 1964. Those biologists who doubt the probability of ever 
establishing contact with extraterrestrial intelligent life if it should exist do not `deny categorically the 
possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence,' as they have been accused. How could they? There are no facts 
that would permit such a categorical denial. Nor have I seen a published statement of such a categorical 
denial. All they claim is that the probabilities are close to zero. This is why evolutionary biologists, as a 
group, are so skeptical of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, and even more so of any possibility of 
communicating with it, if it exists. In my views SETI is a deplorable waste of taxpayers' money, money that 
could be spent more usefully for other purposes." (Mayr, E.W., "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: 
Observations of an Evolutionist," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1988, pp.67-73)

"My philosopher friend went to great lengths to establish the both/and logic as a superior way by which to 
establish truth. `So, Dr. Zacharias,' he said, `when you see one Hindu affirming that God is personal and 
another insisting that God is not personal, just because it is contradictory you should not see it as a 
problem. The real problem is that you are seeing that contradiction as a Westerner when you should be 
approaching it as an Easterner The both/and is the Eastern way of viewing reality.' Again I asked him to 
strike out the last line of his conclusion on the both/and system, but of course he did not. After he had 
belabored these two ideas of either/or and both/and for some time and carried on his tirade that we ought 
not to study truth from a Western point of view but rather from an Eastern viewpoint, I finally asked if I 
could interrupt his unpunctuated train of thought and raise one question. He agreed and put down his 
pencil. I said, `Sir, are you telling me that when I am studying Hinduism I either use the both/and system of 
logic or nothing else?' There was pin-drop silence for what seemed an eternity. I repeated my question: `Are 
you telling me that when I am studying Hinduism I either use the both/and logic or nothing else? Have I got 
that right?' He threw his head back and said, `The either/or does seem to emerge, doesn't it?' `Indeed, it does 
emerge,' I said. `And as a matter of fact, even in India we look both ways before we cross the street it is 
either the bus or me, not both of us.' Do you see the mistake he was making? He was using the either/or 
logic in order to prove the both/and." (Zacharias R.K.*, "Can Man Live Without God," Word Publishing: 
Dallas TX, 1994, p.129)

"The Birth of "RNA World" For those who endorsed this reasoning [that RNA could replicate itself without 
the aid of proteins], a critical breakthrough took place in the 1980s. Colorado State chemist Thomas R. Cech 
found that RNA, under some circumstances, could act in the manner of a protein. For this insight, he and 
Yale biochemist Sidney Altman shared the 1989 Nobel Prize. Their discovery was accidental-certain natural 
RNA molecules were found to have the property of cutting and splicing themselves without the help of a 
protein assistance. The splicing process was part of their normal maturation within living cells. The name 
"ribozyme" was coined to describe the newly discovered class of RNA enzymes.  Heroic efforts were 
undertaken to find other things that RNA molecules could do, apart from cutting themselves. Some workers 
sought RNAs that could function as medicinal agents, by destroying viruses. But for others, the discovery 
of a ribozyme that could act as a replicase became a prominent goal. If such a replicase were available, 
Spiegelman-Eigen-type experiments on evolution in the test tube could be conducted in a much more 
interesting way. An RNA molecule would be copied while an RNA relative (or identical twin) acted as the 
midwife for reproduction. Mutations would affect both functions, and novel and unexpected results might 
emerge, shedding new light on natural selection. A number of scientists felt that such experiments would 
provide the key clue to the origin of life.  A germinal paper was published in 1986 by Walter Gilbert. He had 
shared the Nobel Prize in chemistry with Fred Sanger for the development of methods to read out the 
information stored in the DNA in living organ isms. With early training in physics, Gilbert had an inclination 
to theoretical speculation not usually found in biologists. In his paper he combined the earlier naked gene 
idea with new information about ribozymes and applied them to the origin of life: "The first stage of 
evolution proceeds, then, by RNA molecules performing the catalytic activities necessary to assemble 
themselves out of-nucleotide soup."  He applied the name "RNA world" to his vision of a biosphere in 
which RNA performed all the key functions before proteins entered the scene. The name and the idea 
caught on. For an example, I need only turn to the very widely used textbook from which I teach 
biochemistry. It features a section with the heading (in capital letters): "RNA probably came before DNA 
and proteins in evolution." Within the text, the author writes of an ancient epic "that probably began when 
RNA alone wrote the script, directed the action, and played all the key parts." Many other sources have 
reacted in the same way, some dropping the word "probably."  Efforts to fill those key parts, including the 
replicase, have moved slowly, however. Nature has not been helpful, leaving no trace of most of these 
presumed players. In the absence of any clue, scientists have at tempted to prepare an RNA replicase on 
their own and have run head-on into the connection problem. The number of possibilities to be examined in 
this hunt is staggering. For example, if scientists wished to prepare a mixture that contained one molecule of 
every possible RNA with a length of 100 nucleotides, at the concentrations usually chosen for biochemical 
research, they would need a container about eight times the diameter of our solar system to hold it. 
Obviously, some shortcuts are needed. Biochemists such as Jack W Szostak at Massachusetts General 
Hospital and Gerald E Joyce at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, have been ingenious in 
discovering them.  Using commercial synthesizers, protein enzymes, and a host of elegant techniques, 
researchers prepare more limited RNA mixtures with "only" 100 trillion molecules. Elaborate multistep 
selection techniques are used to separate molecules that may have some abilities of the type they are 
seeking. These candidates are then allowed to multiply, using protein replicases. Their connection order is 
deciphered, and the information is used as the starting point for the next wave of experiments.  In this quest 
for new kinds of ribozymes, good progress has been made in isolating species that resemble ones already in 
the menagerie. Gerald Joyce, for example, has prepared a ribozyme that cuts up DNA rather than RNA. The 
search for an RNA replicase has gone more slowly. I will let Dr. Joyce present the adventure in his own 
words:  `If one believes that an RNA-based life form is possible, then why not make one in the laboratory? ...  
A research biochemist knows how to obtain the components of RNA. They can be bought from a chemical 
supply house! These components are available as pure compounds having only the proper handedness. 
They can be assembled in the laboratory to produce RNA. The challenge is to devise RNA molecules that 
have the ability to direct their own replication.... RNA evolution can be made to occur, leading to the 
evolution of new and interesting RNAs whose functional properties conform to the demands of the 
experimenter. . . .  It is probably only a matter of time, to be measured in years rather than decades, before a 
self-sustained RNA evolving system can be demonstrated in the laboratory. This would be a case in which a 
DNA-and protein-based life form, namely a human biochemist, gives rise to an RNA-based life form, an 
interesting reversal of the sequence of events that occurred during the early history of life on Earth.'  When 
that event takes place, the media will probably announce it as the demonstration of a crucial step in the 
origin of life. I would agree, with one modification. The concept that the scientists are illustrating is one of 
intelligent design. No better term can be applied to a quest in which chemists are attempting to 
prepare a living system in the laboratory, using all the ingenuity and technical resources at their disposal. 
Whether they use synthetic chemicals or materials isolated from nature, we would be justified in calling the 
living system artificial or human-made life.  (Shapiro R., "Planetary Dreams: The Quest to Discover Life 
beyond Earth," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1999, pp.102104. My emphasis):

"The search for ribozymes evokes the same feeling of achievement and beauty in me that I get when I see a 
skilled golfer playing a difficult course at well under par. To imagine that related events could take place on 
their own appears as likely as the idea that the golf ball could play its own way around the course without 
the golfer. We can, of course imagine that natural forces would lend a helping hand. A hurricane could move 
the ball down the course, and occasional floods might "putt" the ball into the hole. A small earthquake 
could then remove it and place it on the next tee. Perhaps each of these events could be simulated if we tried 
hard enough. But to insist that all of these events be linked together and move in an appropriate 
direction puts our origin into the realm of Morowitz's odds [10100,000,000,000 to 1]." (Shapiro 
R., "Planetary Dreams: The Quest to Discover Life beyond Earth," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1999, 
p.104. My emphasis)

"Darwin reluctantly admitted the existence of other mechanisms of evolution, but he was convinced that 
natural selection is the most important evolutionary agent. On this point he had little company; friends and 
foes alike rejected his theory. In our century Darwin has ostensibly been rehabilitated - the currently 
accepted theory of evolution purports to be a modification of Darwin's theory, usually known under the 
name of 'Neo Darwinism'. But a curious thing happened: to the general public, and gradually even to the 
scientific community, Darwin came to stand as the founder of the idea of evolution, 'Darwinism' came to 
mean 'Evolutionism'. A hundred years ago many knew this to be a mistake and it was duly and repeatedly 
pointed out - but to no avail. Today very few people are aware of the mistake, and this circumstance has had 
a rather unexpected consequence. In recent years dissenting voices from many quarters have been raised 
against the ruling theory." (Lovtrup S., "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth," Croom Helm: London, 1987, 

"The Beginning of Chronic Illness. During the first nine months of his return to England, Darwin moved to 
lodgings in London, studied his Beagle collections, wrote most of his Beagle travel narrative, and gave some 
papers to the Geological and Zoological societies. He announced his theory of coral atoll formation, which 
seems to have been generally accepted. He told his friend Fox: `I have plenty of work for the next year or 
two, and till that is finished I will have no holidays.' He made no complaints about his health and he gained 
almost sixteen pounds in weight. Over the next twelve months he continued to work at writing up his Beagle 
geological and zoological observations. He also began to secretly write some evolutionary notebooks. 
During these months he began complaining of illness. His earliest recorded complaint was in a 20 September 
1837 letter to his old Cambridge teacher, Professor Henslow: `I have not been very well of late with an 
uncomfortable palpitation of the heart ...' .... This September 1837 to August 1838 year of `I have not been 
very well'-of disturbed feelings, and physical symptoms of `uncomfortable' and `violent' cardiac palpitations, 
gastric upsets, and headaches -was the beginning of the illness which would persist for most of Darwin's 
life. ... It seems likely that, during this year of illness, the scientific work which caused Darwin the most 
pressures-and hence caused most of his illness-was his secret work on evolution. From July 1837 to 
September 1838 he had written four evolutionary notebooks ... In his first Transmutation Notebook (written 
July 1837 to February 1838) he discussed his theory of evolution-what he called `My theory.'" (Colp R., "To 
Be an Invalid: The Illness of Charles Darwin," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, 1977, Ninth printing, 
1981, pp.14-16)

"As we have already seen, Charles was brought up to be a Christian. Nor was his Christianity formal only, 
for, as a boy, he learned to bring his problems and troubles to God in prayer-as is evident from his own 
words: `I well remember in the early part of my school life that I often had to run very quickly to be in time, 
and from being a fleet runner was generally successful; but when in doubt I prayed earnestly to God to help 
me, and I well remember that I attributed my success to the prayers and not to my quick running and 
marvelled how greatly I was aided.' When studying as a medical student at Edinburgh, Charles became 
convinced that his father would leave him money. ... Yet he remained a Christian and accepted the Bible 
implicitly. After leaving Edinburgh he seems to have begun to doubt whether all the teachings of the Church 
of England were Biblical. After some months of consideration he was satisfied and went to Cambridge in 
order to become a minister of the Gospel. It was at Cambridge that Charles first read Paley's Natural 
Theology, a book which filled him with delight and which he came to know almost by heart. It was at 
Cambridge also that he won the friendship of Henslow and Sedgwick- both deeply Christian men. On the 
other hand it was at Cambridge also that Charles got into bad company, from which he could not or would 
not drag himself away, and it was there also that he began to fed a hypocrite for seeking ordination without 
an inward sense that God had called him to the ministry. On his voyage, Charles continued to profess 
Christianity. But once again, his lack of enthusiasm is somewhat striking. In his letters home, he scarcely 
ever mentioned God, and then only in almost hackneyed expressions ("God bless you"). For a modern 
young man, this would be in no way unusual, but we must remember that in the early nineteenth century 
there was far less reticence than there is to-day about religious matters. Not only in private letters, but even 
in scientific papers, writers felt no hesitation in speaking of God in a manner that was evidently natural and 
sincere. And Darwin was no ordinary naval man but one whose avowed object was to spend his life 
preaching the Gospel as a minister of religion. ...As already noted, on one occasion during the voyage, 
Darwin quoted the Gospel in defence of a certain point in morals, and was laughed at by the crew. Certainly 
Fitzroy, his constant companion, was a convinced Christian, so that Darwin was not without Christian 
companionship. Nor is there any evidence that he reacted strongly against the rather narrow 
fundamentalism of his friend, for a close friendship between them continued for many years to come. On 
returning home, Darwin read further books about Christianity. For long he still intended to be ordained, but 
his notes and specimens kept him busy and he decided to finish his scientific work first of all. This task 
proved unending and, unconsciously at least, Darwin probably wanted it to be unending. As the years 
passed, doubts gradually began to assail him. First of all his faith in the Old Testament was shattered. Then 
he could no longer believe in the miracles of the New. Finally he was left wondering whether Christianity 
was a Divine revelation at all. For a while, so he tells us, Charles would day-dream of wonderful new MSS 
that had been unearthed in the Middle East, which would substantiate the Gospel record and set his mind at 
rest. He cites this as evidence that at heart he truly wanted to believe and that his loss of faith was no fault 
of his own. Yet ... his words really point to the opposite conclusion for he finishes by saying: `I found it 
more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would convince 
me.' No remark could reveal more clearly that, while pretending to himself that he wanted to believe, Charles 
was really determined at all costs not to believe and so, in order to rationalize bis unbele 
steadily raised the level of evidence he required before he would be convinced.Eventually, of course, he 
abandoned his earlier plan of seeking ordination and, as he was now well provided for by his father, and 
further moneys came to him through the death of his brother and the royalties on his books, no financial 
anxiety was involved.Such are the outward facts about the decline of Darwin's faith in Christianity-the facts 
recorded by most of his biographers. Yet there is abundant evidence that they tell only half the story. 
Darwin's loss of faith must have had a far greater effect upon his mind than he himself realized at the time. .... 
As Darwin's religion faded, so he consecrated his life to science with what has aptly been described as an 
almost religious enthusiasm. But his illnesses became worse and worse. What was wrong with him? 
Nothing, apparently. Indeed, his friends generally supposed that he was shamming, for he looked well and 
that his constitution was sound would appear to follow from the fact that he lived to an old age. yet he was 
a chronic invalid. ... Psychologically there can be little doubt as to the meaning of these symptoms. Charles 
Darwin was suffering from a feeling of guilt. But what was worrying him? At first sight, the answer might 
appear to be clear. As we saw in the last chapter, he experienced considerable anxiety with regard to his 
theory of evolution-fearing that it might be rejected and damage his reputation. But that this was not 
primarily at the root of his trouble is clear from the fact that, even after he had won the battle for 
evolution, even after his reputation was assured, his psychological suffering continued as before. Fear of 
the outcome of the evolutionary battle, in short, was only a symptom of a deeper and more fundamental 
anxiety and feeling of guilt. The answer to the riddle is not far to seek. Darwin's trouble almost certainly lay 
in the suppression of his religious needs. His life was one long attempt to escape from Paley, to escape from 
the Church, to escape from God. It is this that explains so much that would otherwise be incongruous in his 
life and character." (Clark R.E.D.*, "Darwin: Before and After: An Examination and Assessment," [1948], 
Paternoster: Exeter, Devon UK, 1966, reprint, p.81-86. Emphasis in original)

"I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call 
cargo cult science. In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land 
with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to make 
things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, 
with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas-he's 
the controller-and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It 
looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo 
cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're 
missing something essential, because the planes don't land. .... But there is one feature I notice that is 
generally missing in cargo cult science. ... It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought 
that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty -a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing 
an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid-not only what you think is 
right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've 
eliminated by some other experiment, And how they worked-to make sure the other fellow can tell they have 
been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. you 
must do the best you can-if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong-to explain it. If you make a 
theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree 
with it, as well as those that agree with it. ... In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to 
help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one 
particular direction or another. ... We've learned from experience that the truth will out. Other experimenters 
will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or 
they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you 
will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in his kind of work. And 
it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of he 
research in cargo cult science. ... The first principle is that you must not fool yourself-and you are the 
easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy 
not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that. I would like to add 
something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not 
fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. ... I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is 
not lying, out bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when 
acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to 
laymen. For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. 
He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications 
of this work were. `Well,' I said, `there aren't any.' He said, `Yes, but then we won't get support for more 
research of this kind.' I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you 
should explain to the layman what you're doing and if they don't want to support you under those 
circumstances, then that's their decision." (Feynman R.P., "Cargo Cult Science," in "`Surely You're Joking, 
Mr Feynman!': Adventures of a Curious Character," [1985], Unwin Paperbacks: London, 1990, reprint, 

"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan 
consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us 
with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and 
planning. .. We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and 
knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose, such as flying, 
swimming, seeing, eating, reproducing, or more generally promoting the survival and replication of the 
organism's genes. It is not necessary, to suppose that the design of a body-or organ is the best that an 
engineer could conceive of. ... But any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even 
poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that-purpose is just by looking at the 
structure of the object." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.21)

"Darwin did not invent the struggle for existence. As Eiseley points out, it is an "obvious and self-evident 
fact," [Eiseley, L.C., "Darwin's Century," Doubleday, 1961, p.52]. and it had been mentioned by naturalists 
several times before Darwin was born. What Darwin did was to make the phrase a familiar shibboleth, assign 
a creative role to the process, and praise it as virtuous. In a way that none of my paperback authors would 
dare to imitate nowadays, he asserted that it favored the welfare of the right sorts: `All that we can do, is to 
keep steadily in mind that each organic being is striving to increase at a geometrical ratio; that each at some 
period of its life, during some season of the year, during each generation or at intervals, has to struggle for 
life, and to suffer great destruction. When we reflect on this struggle, we may console ourselves with the full 
belief, that the war of nature is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the 
vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply.' [Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species," [1859], 
Harvard University Press, 1966, reprint, pp.78-79] Darwin's followers, in their enthusiasm for the principle, 
carried it to extraordinary lengths. [Eiseley, 1961, pp.334-336] T.H. Huxley said that all the molecules within 
each organism were competing with each other as to which should be re-created. Wilhelm Roux developed 
the theory that the organs were struggling with each other for nourishment, kidneys against lungs, heart 
against brain. Neither Darwin nor his immediate followers had much feeling for the internal stability and 
harmony of the organism. [Eiseley, 1961, p.336] Darwin was not working in a vacuum, but in nineteenth-
century England. His ideas, or rather his slogans, were caught up at once and applied in the social sphere. 
As Simpson says, with much restraint: "These concepts had ethical, ideological, and political repercussions 
which were, and continue to be, in some cases, unfortunate." [Simpson G.G., "The Meaning of Evolution," 
[1949], Yale University Press, Revised edition, 1967, p.221] G.B. Shaw, using no restraint, gives a more 
colorful description: `Never in history, as far as we know, had there been such a determined, richly 
subsidized, politically organized attempt to persuade the human race that all progress, all prosperity, all 
salvation, individual and social, depend on an unrestrained conflict for food and money, on the suppression 
and elimination of the weak by the strong, on Free Trade, Free Contract, Free Competition, Natural Liberty, 
Laisser-faire: in short, on "doing the other fellow down" with impunity.' [Shaw G.B., "Back to Methuselah," 
Penguin, 1921, preface] When the first enthusiasm wore off and the bill for the damages came in, the 
biologists realized that things had gone too far. There had been bad science as well as bad sociology, and 
they had to put their house in order. This was accomplished in two ways. First, the emphasis on struggle 
was played down. Instead of being obvious and selfevident, it became almost invisible. Simpson, for 
example, allows it practically no role in the modern view of evolution: `Struggle is sometimes involved, but it 
usually is not, and when it is, it may even work against rather than toward natural selection. Advantage in 
differential reproduction is usually a peaceful process in which the concept of struggle is really irrelevant. It 
more often involves such things as better integration into the ecological situation, maintenance of a balance 
of nature, more efficient utilization of available food, better care of the young, elimination of intragroup 
discords (struggles) that might hamper reproduction, exploitation of environmental possibilities that are not 
the objects of competition or are less effectively exploited by others. [Simpson,1949, p.222] Second, the 
influence of cooperation in nature was emphasized. This was not difficult, since cooperation is as obvious 
and self-evident in nature as struggle had ever been. In Russia, even before the Bolshevik Revolution, the 
scientists always laid more stress on mutual aid than on competition. Nowadays this is also fashionable in 
the West. [Huxley J.S., "Evolution, the Modern Synthesis," Allen & Unwin: London, 1942, 479-480] 
Symbiosis and ecology are popular. Biologists recoil in horror from Tennyson's famous line about "Nature 
red in tooth and claw." Professor W.C. Allee expresses the modern attitude when he says: "The ... life of 
animals shows two major tendencies: one towards aggressiveness, which is best developed in man and his 
fellow vertebrates; the other towards ... cooperation. ... I have long experimented upon both tendencies. Of 
these, the drive toward cooperation ... is the more elusive and the more important." [Allee, W.C., "Biology," 
in J. Newman, ed., "What Is Science?," Simon & Schuster, 1955, p.243). It is my belief that Allee represents 
the general opinion of the biologists and would be indorsed by most reasonable men. .... Sir Julian Huxley, 
for example, goes even further than Simpson in toning down the struggle. He makes the following 
remarkable statement: "The struggle for existence merely signifies that a portion of each generation is bound 
to die before it can reproduce itself." [Huxley J.S., "Evolution in Action," Mentor, 1957, p.34.] Here Darwin's 
original concept is utterly denatured. There is no struggle at all. Some die before maturity, but that sad fact 
was known to Solomon. It is a truism. Darwin would not regard it as a discovery." (Macbeth N., "Darwin 
Retried: An Appeal to Reason," Gambit: Boston MA, 1971, pp.56-58)

"Trouble arose not in the incentive for the Copernican cosmology, but in its execution.... When Copernicus, 
after considerable toil, managed to complete a fully realized model of the universe based upon the 
heliocentric hypothesis-the model set forth, eventually, in De Revolutionibus-he found that it worked little 
better than the Ptolemaic model. One difficulty was that Copernicus, like Aristotle and Eudoxus before him, 
was enthralled by the Platonic beauty of the sphere-"The sphere," he wrote, echoing Plato, "is the most 
perfect ... the most capacious of figures ... wherein neither beginning nor end can be found" -and he 
assumed, accordingly, that the planets move in circular orbits at constant velocities. Actually, as Kepler 
would establish, the orbits of the planets are elliptical, and planets move more rapidly when close to the sun 
than when distant from it. Nor was the Copernican universe less intricate than Ptolemy's: Copernicus found 
it necessary to introduce Ptolemaic epicycles into his model and to move the center of the universe to a 
point a little away from the sun. Nor did it make consistently more accurate predictions, even in its 
wretchedly compromised form; for many applications it was less useful. This, in retrospect, was the tragedy 
of Copernicus's career that while the beauty of the heliocentric hypothesis convinced him that the planets 
ought to move in perfect circles around the sun, the sky was to declare it false. Settled within the stone walls 
of Frauenburg Cathedral, in a three-story tower .... Copernicus carried out his sporadic astronomical 
observations, and tried, in vain, to perfect the heliocentric theory he had outlined while still a young man. 
For decades he turned it over in his thoughts, a flawed jewel, luminous and obdurate. It would not yield." 
(Ferris T., "Coming of Age in the Milky Way," [1988], Vintage: London, 1991, reprint, pp.65-66)

Psalm 104:24-30 (NIV) "[20] You bring darkness, it becomes night, and all the beasts of the forest prowl. [21] 
The lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God. [22] The sun rises, and they steal away; they 
return and lie down in their dens. [23] Then man goes out to his work, to his labor until evening. [24] How 
many are your works, O LORD ! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. [25] There 
is the sea, vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number- living things both large and small. [26] 
There the ships go to and fro, and the leviathan, which you formed to frolic there. [27] These all look to you 
to give them their food at the proper time. [28] When you give it to them, they gather it up; when you open 
your hand, they are satisfied with good things. [29] When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you 
take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. [30] When you send your Spirit, they are created, and 
you renew the face of the earth. "

"It is good thus to try in imagination to give to any one species an advantage over another. Probably in no 
single instance should we know what to do. This ought to convince us of our ignorance on the mutual 
relations of all organic beings; a conviction as necessary as it is difficult to acquire. All that we can do, is to 
keep steadily in mind that each organic being is striving to increase in a geometrical ratio; that each at some 
period of its life, during some season of the year, during each generation or at intervals, has to struggle for 
life and to suffer great destruction. When we reflect on this struggle, we may console ourselves with the full 
belief, that the war of nature is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the 
vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply." (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.79)

"But as Darwin clearly pointed out, evolution can proceed only over the dead bodies of the unfit, the losers 
in the struggle for life. As Darwin wrote in the closing paragraphs of Origin of Species, "the 
production of higher animals" can only proceed "from the war of nature, from famine and death." Even the 
evolution of cooperation can proceed only over the dead bodies of those that don't cooperate. Does that 
sound like the means that God would use to make a world that reflected God's care and concern, God's plan 
and purpose?" (Parker G.E., "Creation: the Facts of Life," Master Book Publishers: San Diego CA, 1980, 

Romans 12:14,17-21 (NIV) "[14] Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. ... [17] Do not repay 
anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. [18] If it is possible, as far as it 
depends on you, live at peace with everyone. [19] Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's 
wrath, for it is written: `It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord. [Dt. 32:35] [20] On the contrary: `If 
your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap 
burning coals on his head.' [Pr 25:21,22 ] [21] Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. "

Matthew 7:1-5 (NIV) "[1]  Do not judge, or you too will be judged. [2] For in the same way you judge others, 
you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.  [3] "Why do you look at the 
speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? [4] How can you 
say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own 
eye? [5] You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the 
speck from your brother's eye."

"This is an anti-Darwinism book. It is written both against the Darwinism of Darwin and his 19th century 
disciples, and against the Darwinism of such influential 20th century Darwinians as G.C. Williams and W.D. 
Hamilton and their disciples. My object is to show that Darwinism is not true: not true, at any rate, of 
our species. If it is true, or near enough true, of sponges, snakes, flies, or whatever, I do not mind 
that. What I do mind is, its being supposed to be true of man. But having said that, I had better add at once 
that I am not a 'creationist', or even a Christian. In fact I am of no religion. ... I do not even deny that natural 
selection is probably the cause which is principally responsible for the coming into existence of new species 
from old ones. I do deny that natural selection is going on within our species now, and that it 
ever went on in our species, at any time of which anything is known." (Stove D.C., "Darwinian Fairytales," 
Avebury: Aldershot UK, 1995, p.vii. Emphasis in original)

"While Darwin was proud of his theory of natural selection, his most important single contribution to the 
evolutionary argument, he saw as one of its main virtues the fact that it provided a counterblow to the idea 
of creation. This is made clear in two of his letters to Asa Gray. `I rest on the fact that the theory of natural 
selection explains many lapses of facts, which, as far as we can see, repeated acts of Creation do not 
explain,' he told Gray a few weeks after publication of The Origin. `On this latter view we can only say "so it 
is" and not all "why it is so." Pray do not decide either way till you have read Ch. XIII and the 
Recapitulation Ch. XIV which will, I think, aid you in balancing facts." And writing in the spring of 1861 of 
change of species by descent, he said: `That seems to me the turning point. Personally, of course, I care 
much about Natural Selection; but that seems to me utterly unimportant compared with the question of 
Creation or Modification.'" [Darwin C.R., Letter to Asa Gray, May 11, 1861]"
 (Clark R.W., "The Survival of Charles Darwin: A Biography of a Man and an Idea," [1984], Weidenfeld and 
Nicolson: London, 1985, p.123)

"Lyell also appears to have agreed with this method of keeping one's religious faith yet not offending 
science by doing so, and wrote to Darwin, who had told him of his reaction to Wallace. `I quite agree with 
you that Wallace's sketch of natural selection is admirable,' Lyell said. `I wrote to tell him so after I had read 
the article, and in regard to the concluding theory, I reminded him that as to the origin of man's intellectual 
and moral nature I had allowed in my first edition that its introduction was a real innovation, interrupting the 
uniform course of the causation previously at work on the earth. I was therefore not opposed to his idea, 
that the Supreme Intelligence might possibly direct variation in a way analogous to that in which even the 
limited powers of man might guide it in selection, as in the case of the breeder and horticulturist. In other 
words, as I feel that progressive development or evolution cannot be entirely explained by natural selection, 
I rather hail Wallace's suggestion that there may be a Supreme Will and Power which may not abdicate its 
functions of interference, but may guide the forces and laws of Nature. This seems to me the more probable 
when I consider, not without wonder, that we should be permitted to give rise to a monstrosity like the 
pouter pigeon, and to cause it to breed true for an indefinite number of generations, certainly not to the 
advantage of the variety or species so created.' [Lyell C., Letter to Charles Darwin, May 5, 1869]" (Clark 
R.W., "The Survival of Charles Darwin: A Biography of a Man and an Idea," [1984], Weidenfeld and 
Nicolson: London, 1985, p.134)

"I should also say here that I have no professional qualifications of any kind for writing about Darwinism. I 
am not a biologist: merely a former professional philosopher, who happens to have both 40 odd years' 
acquaintance with Darwinian literature, and a strong distaste for ridiculous slanders on our species. These 
are evidently not ideal qualifications for criticising Darwinian views of man. But on the other hand, 
Darwinism is not yet so arcane a branch of science that criticism of it by an outsider can be automatically 
assumed to he incompetent." (Stove D.C., "Darwinian Fairytales," Avebury: Aldershot UK, 1995, p.viii)

"Some friends of the great physicist Enrico Fermi were once trying to persuade him, so the story goes, that 
an abundance of life and technological civilizations must exist on an almost limitless number of other worlds. 
`OK,' he said, `but where is everybody?' That was in 1943, and although much has happened since to make a 
convincing theoretical case for an abundance of life throughout the universe, we are still asking Fermi's 
question. However, having the advantage of several decades of scientific progress, we are now able to offer 
possible answers, and technology s available (mainly in radio astronomy) to begin to check our answers. 
What was once only entertaining speculation has become firmly based in science and technology. Fermi's 
question is tantalising. A mass of indirect evidence from widely different sources supports the probability 
that extraterrestrial life and civilizations do exist, yet no one has so far discovered any acceptable direct 
evidence." (Ashpole E., "Where is Everybody?: The Search for Extraterrestrial intelligence," [1989], Sigma 
Press: Wilmslow UK, 1997, p.7)

"The scenario that Dawkins embraced had been formulated by two biologists, Dan Nilsson and Susanne 
Pelger. They began with their hypothetical eye being already in a formative stage that consisted of a patch 
of light-receptive cells at the skin's surface that was sandwiched between a transparent protective layer of 
cells above and a layer of darkly pigmented cells below. By way of mathematical modeling, Nilsson and 
Pelger calculated, conservatively, that it would take only 400,000 generations for this non-eye region of skin 
to be transformed into an organ of sight. Even when only a 1 percent change per generation is invoked over 
what is really a relatively short period of geologic time, Nilsson and Pelger predicted that selection would be 
able to cause the skin to invaginate, bringing the presumptive retinal layer down with it, and then to fill with 
fluid of a very low refractive index. Still no functional eye, but then a lens begins to emerge and eventually it 
achieves a refractive index sufficient to provide sight. The maximum number of tiny steps required to go 
from the flat to the invaginated structure was estimated at 1,033. It took only 529 more steps to make a lens 
and put the eye into its final, semi-flattened shape. Absent from this simulation was consideration of the 
origin of the patch of layered cells in the right place, the development of a variable iris and controlled 
focusing, the creation of the nervous optic chiasma that is the region in which the optic nerves cross over, 
and the innervation of the eyeballs by the optic nerves, which constitute one of the twelve pairs of primary 
nerves that emanate from the brain itself. Curiously lacking, as well, was any discussion by Dawkins of the 
selection pressure that would have set the process in motion and of the selective advantage members of 
more than 399,000 generations of their species would have enjoyed as they served as conduits for this ever-
invaginating, liquid-filled pair of pockets in their head region. But, once the process had taken off on this 
trajectory, there was, as Dawkins saw it, no turning back. For, in his view of evolution, `[u]nlike human 
designers, natural selection can't go downhill, not even if there is a tempting higher hill on the other side of 
the valley.' It is, however, one thing to model how such changes might have occurred seamlessly and 
gradually, and another to have a basis for doing so." (Schwartz J.H., "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and 
the Emergence of Species," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1999, pp.361-362)

Revelation 21:1-8 (NIV). The New Jerusalem. [1] Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first 
heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. [2] I saw the Holy City, the 
new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her 
husband. [3] And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he 
will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. [4] He will 
wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order 
of things has passed away." [5] He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then 
he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true." [6] He said to me: "It is done. I am the 
Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost 
from the spring of the water of life. [7] He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will 
be my son. [8] But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who 
practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars-their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the 
second death."]

"In general, then, evolutionary algorithms generate not true specified complexity but at best the 
appearance of specified complexity. This claim is reminiscent of one made by Richard Dawkins. On 
the opening page of The Blind, Watchmaker he states, "Biology is the study of complicated things 
that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Just as the Darwinian mechanism does 
not generate actual design but only its appearance, so too the Darwinian mechanism does not generate 
actual specified complexity but only its appearance. " (Dembski, W.A.*, "No Free Lunch: Why Specified 
Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, 2002, p.183. 
Emphasis in original)

just a fancy name for nonrandorn death. From a Darwinian viewpoint, however, the presence of a lot of 
fossils of extinct creatures testifies to the emergence of newer, fitter forms of life that prevailed in the 
struggle for existence. Extinction of the unfit is also cited as evidence against intelligent design in biology. 
Why would a wise Creator design creatures that were unfit to survive? In fact, there is no reason to believe 
that extinct forms of life were any less fit to survive under the normal conditions of their time than are 
modern plants and animals, including ourselves. Whatever the true explanation of extinctions may be, the 
Darwinian explanation finds no support whatever in the fossil evidence, as David Raup explains in 
Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck (Norton, 1991) []. This 
essay has a poignant history for me. While Darwin on Trial was in page proofs, an editor from The Atlantic 
phoned with an offer to let me write a long article based on the book for his magazine. Alas, I had already 
published just such an article in First Things-an estimable journal, but one of far less circulation. Under the 
circumstances the editor withdrew the offer but, as a consolation prize, allowed me to review the book of my 
choice. I picked the Raup volume and set to work establishing my thesis that the Darwinian theory of 
extinction cannot be separated from the Darwinian theory of biological creation. The piece barely made it to 
publication, as it was assigned to a subeditor who was an enthusiastic Darwinist and thought my line of 
reasoning was crazy. It was carried in the February 1992 issue. Letters to the editor were carried in three 
subsequent issues of the magazine. All the published letters were vehemently hostile, but Raup himself 
wrote to me privately and said I was right on target." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck?," 
in "Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law & Culture," InterVarsity Press: Downers 
Grove IL, 1998, p.41. Emphasis original)

"The notion that slow, gentle pressure produces extinction is part of the Darwinian paradigm. In The 
Origin of Species, Darwin used the metaphor of a log of wood with many wedges driven into its surface. 
Newly driven wedges were the newly evolved species. With crowding of wedges (species), each new wedge 
displaced and expelled old ones from the log. The clear implication is that gentle pressure exerted by new 
and better-adapted species leads to the extinction of one or more incumbent species. This idea is appealing 
and has been learned by generations of biology students. But its verification from actual field data is 
negligible." (Raup D.M., "Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck?," [1991], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 
1993, Reprint, pp.184-185)

"As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a 
fully stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent-form and 
other less-favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection go 
hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some unknown form, both the parent and 
all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of the formation and 
perfection of the new form." (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.156-157)

"For example, evolution, as defined by the geneticists, is `a change of gene frequencies in populations.'" 
(Mayr, E.W., "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist," Harvard University 
Press: Cambridge MA, 1988, p.529)

"At the genetic level, evolution consists of changes in the genetic constitution of populations." (Ayala F.J. 
& Kiger J.A. Jr., "Modern Genetics," [1980], Benjamin/Cummings: Menlo Park CA, Second Edition, 1984, 

"The problems connected with rates and trends of evolution could be interpreted in terms of the geneticists' 
formula that evolution is a change in gene frequency. However, this is a meaningless formulation as far as 
most other problems of macroevolution are concerned, and is one of the reasons why genetics made such a 
relatively small contribution to the solution of macroevolutionary problems. This inappropriate formulation 
is also responsible for the considerable time lag between the synthesis and an adequate treatment of some 
of these problems." (Mayr, E.W., "The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance," 
Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1982, p.610)

"Evolution The gradual process by which the living world has been developing following the origin of life." 
(Mayr, E.W., "What Evolution Is," Basic Books: New York NY, 2001, p.286. Emphasis original)

"The naturalists who contributed so much to the evolutionary synthesis showed how incomplete if not 
misleading was the reductionist definition of evolution, as a change in gene frequencies. As I have pointed 
out previously (Mayr 1977, 1982) this definition quite misses the point. ... Changes in gene frequencies are 
merely a byproduct of these more basic processes. Furthermore, it is questionable to what extent changes in 
the frequency of neutral genes can be designated as evolution. The now rejected definition is most nearly 
correct for prokaryotes, but it is singularly inappropriate for complex higher organisms." (Mayr E., 
"Introduction: An Overview of Current Evolutionary Biology," Warren L. & Koprowski H., eds, "New 
Perspectives on Evolution," WileyLiss: New York NY, 1991, p.2)

"Multiple hypotheses should be proposed whenever possible. Proposing alternative explanations that can 
answer a question is good science. If we operate with a single hypothesis, especially one we favor, we may 
direct our investigation toward a hunt for evidence in support of this hypothesis. ... A hypothesis can be 
falsified by experimental tests, especially if the experiments are repeated with the same results. ... But ... It is 
impossible to repeat an experiment enough times to be absolutely certain that the results will always be the 
same. And some false hypotheses make accurate predictions. ... Of the many hypotheses proposed to 
answer a particular question, the correct explanation may not even be included. Even the most thoroughly 
tested hypotheses are accepted only conditionally, pending further investigation." (Campbell N.A., Reece 
J.B. & Mitchell L.G., "Biology," [1987], Benjamin/Cummings: Menlo Park CA, Fifth Edition, 1999, pp.14-15)

"Thus our term `phyletic gradualism' in general means slow, steady change by degrees.' In particular, it 
refers to the slow, steady transformation of an entire species. We presented evidence that, contrary to the 
long-held picture of gradual evolutionary change through time, most species hardly change much at all once 
they appear in the fossil record-the phenomenon we called `stasis.' We pointed out that paleontologists 
clung to the myth of gradual adaptive transformation even in the face of plain evidence to the contrary-
paleontology's `trade secret,' as Gould later called it. ... neo-Darwinians-right on down through today's ultra-
Darwinians-have tenaciously clung to the original Darwinian vision of gradualism. ... The ultra-Darwinian 
embrace of phyletic gradualism reveals some very serious flaws in their grasp of the basic organization of 
biological nature." (Eldredge N., "Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," Phoenix: London, 
1996, pp.63-64)

"phyletic gradualism A theory holding that macroevolution is merely the operation of microevolution, which 
operates gradually and more or less continuously over relatively long periods of time. Thus gradual changes 
eventually will accumulate to the point at which descendants of an ancestral population diverge into 
separate species, genera, or higher-level taxa." (Allaby M., ed., "Oxford Dictionary of Zoology," [1991], 
Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, Second Edition, 1999, p.410)

"Today, it seems nearly everyone is an astrobiologist. A decade ago, I knew essentially none. Why this 
sudden obsession with a field that encompasses so many diverse areas in both the physical and life 
sciences? So far, life has not been found to exist away from Earth, although the surge in interest in 
astrobiology suggests there is intense optimism within at least parts of the science community that this 
singularity will change in the future. But scientific curiosity alone likely cannot explain the explosive growth 
of astrobiology. After reading The Living Universe: NASA and the Development of Astrobiology, I came to 
the conclusion that one of the field's attractions was money--and lots of it." (Bada J.L., "A Field with a Life 
of Its Own." Review of "The Living Universe: NASA and the Development of Astrobiology," by Steven J. 
Dick and James E. Strick, Rutgers University Press: Piscataway NJ, 2004. Science, Vol. 307, 7 January 2005, 

"Well in my book ["Darwin Retried" (1971) ] I pointed out that Goldschmidt in 1940 had propounded the idea 
that has come to be known as the Hopeful Monster. In desperation about finding any mechanism that was 
operating slowly and steadily in the Darwinian sense, he stated that it seemed to him impossible to explain 
evolution on the basis of cumulating tiny little steps. Therefore he was driven to the idea that there must 
have been something very sudden, large and sudden, and this is why it came to be known as Systemic 
Mutation, a complete shake-up. Well, it was pointed out that if you shook things up as badly as that and 
had a new form appearing suddenly, first it would be very unlikely to survive and second, it would be very 
difficult for it to reproduce because it couldn't find a partner that was equally monstrous and novel. ... Now 
Goldschmidt was fully aware of this and only suggested that it must be something like that because nothing 
else worked. He was completely and totally rejected. To be a Goldschmidtian for the next thirty years was 
impossible. It would have been suicidal in the fraternity. But strange to say, since my book came out almost 
exactly ten years ago, there has been a great revival of interest in Goldschmidt. He has been rehabilitated in 
a very big way. Stephen Jay Gould and a number of others are now saying Goldschmidt was on the right 
track. He didn't produce anything that you could document, but they say it did happen that way in sudden 
and big jumps, not in cumulating what Darwin called insensible changes." (Macbeth N., "Darwinism: A Time 
for Funerals," Robert Briggs Associates: San Francisco CA, 1982, p.4)

"I am a believer that some of the basic statements of neo-Darwinism are vacuous; and I think there is a 
confusion here, possibly, about whether we are talking about Darwinism or neo-Darwinism. Dr. Medawar 
mentioned this phrase, `the survival of the fittest,' and it is a very elementary, old-fashioned, long outdated 
concept; but, of course, this is what Darwin was talking about. By `fittest,' he meant best able to carry out 
the functions of life, best adapted to some environmental situation and some way of life. By a fit horse, he 
meant a horse that could gallop fastest and escape best from wolves, or whatever it might be. That is a real 
theory which is perfectly capable of refutation. What has happened to it since, in the process of turning this 
into a lot of mathematics, is that `fitness' has been redefined, leaving out anything to do with way of life, 
simply in terms of leaving offspring. So the theory of neo-Darwinism is a theory of the evolution of the 
changing of the population in respect to leaving offspring and not in respect to anything else. Nothing else 
is mentioned in the mathematical theory of neo-Darwinism. It is smuggled in and everybody has in the back 
of his mind that the animals that leave the largest number of offspring are going to be those best adapted 
also for eating peculiar vegetation, or something of this sort; but this is not explicit in the theory. All that is 
explicit in the theory is that they will leave more offspring. There, you do come to what is, in effect, a 
vacuous statement: Natural selection is that some things leave more offspring than others; and you ask, 
which leave more offspring than others; and it is those that leave more offspring; and there is nothing more 
to it than that. The whole real guts of evolution-which is, how do you come to have horses and tigers, and 
things-is outside the mathematical theory."(Waddington C.H., "Discussion: Paper by Dr. Eden," 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.13-

"It has never been possible to break out of the circle by finding a better word than fittest. But, since 
something had to be done to restore logical respectability, a new meaning was foisted on the old word. 
Fitness was redefined to mean "having the most offspring." Mayr says: "...those individuals that 
have the most offspring are by definition...the fittest ones." [Mayr E., "Animal Species and Evolution," 
Harvard University Press, 1963, p.183] ... Simpson, the dean of the evolutionists, nails the point down even 
more firmly, stating that among geneticists fitness has nothing to do with the common understanding of the 
term: "If genetically red-haired parents have, on an average, a larger proportion of children than blondes or 
brunettes, then evolution will be in the direction of red hair. If genetically left-handed parents have more 
children, evolution will be toward left-handedness. The characteristics themselves do not directly matter at 
all. All that matters is who leaves more descendants over the generations. Natural Selection favors fitness 
only if you define fitness as leaving more descendants. In fact geneticists do define it that way, which may 
be confusing to others. To a geneticist fitness has nothing to do with health, strength, good looks, or 
anything but effectiveness in breeding." [Simpson G.G., "This View of Life," Harcourt, Brace & World, 1964, 
p.273]" (Macbeth N., "Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason," Gambit: Boston MA, 1971, pp.63-64. 
Emphasis and ellipses original)

"Goldschmidt had practically no evidence to offer to support his suggestion and I think he recognized that 
clearly. He found what scraps he could as slightly helpful, but he recognized that he was, to some extent, 
pipedreaming about it. But he felt it necessary to pipedream because the Synthetic Theory offered nothing. 
... He made a frank confession of the terrible lack of any really supportive mechanism behind Darwinism. He 
was driven to despair. He had thirty years with the fruit flies and he felt they were getting nowhere. He was 
the man who said you could have a thousand point mutations in one fruit fly ... and it would still be a fruit 
fly. ... Therefore it must be something bigger. ... I did not espouse the idea of a Hopeful Monster because as 
far as I can see, as Goldschmidt could see, as any fool can see, it is extremely difficult to document, in fact 
impossible. It is not a scientific theory, it is only a statement that we are in such terrible shape that it must 
have been something on the order of a miracle."
(Macbeth N., "Darwinism: A time for funerals," Robert Briggs Associates: San Francisco CA, 1982, p.4)

"Natural selection favors fitness only if you define fitness as leaving more descendants. In fact geneticists 
do define it that way, which may be confusing to others. To a geneticist fitness has nothing to do with 
health, strength, good looks, or anything but effectiveness in breeding." [Simpson G.G., "This View of Life," 
Harcourt, Brace & World, 1964, p.273] The explanation by Simpson just quoted indicates why it is not easy 
to formulate the theory of natural selection other than as a tautology. It may seem obvious, for example, that 
it is advantageous for a wild stallion to be able to run faster, but in the Darwinian sense this will be true only 
to the extent that a faster stallion sires more offspring. ... In all such cases we can presume a characteristic to 
be advantageous because a species which has it seems to be thriving, but in most cases it is impossible to 
identify the advantage independently of the outcome. That is why Simpson was so insistent that 
"advantage" has no inherent meaning other than actual success in reproduction. All we can say is that the 
individuals which produced the most offspring must have had the qualities required for producing the most 
offspring." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 
1993, p.20)

"Kimura's estimate is based essentially on an argument first put forward by Haldane (Haldane J.B.S., 
J.Genet., Vol. 55, 1957, p511); it is this argument which I believe to be erroneous. Haldane bases his 
argument on the idea of the "cost" of natural selection. The unit step in evolution is the substitution of one 
allele, say A, for another, a, in a population. This happens because individuals carrying the gene a are killed 
selectively or because they have a lower fertility. The larger the number of selective deaths, the more rapidly 
will gene frequencies change. Haldane estimated the total number of selective deaths (that is, deaths of 
individuals who would have survived had they had the optimum genotype) required to substitute one allele 
for another. He concluded that, for a diploid population with moderate selective advantage, the total 'cost" 
of selection would be between 10 and 100 times the population size, per gene substitution. Now there is an 
upper limit to the number of selective deaths which can occur in one generation. Thus if, for example, a 
population consisting wholly of individuals of optimal genotype could in favourable circumstances increase 
by a factor R. then the fraction of selective deaths cannot be greater than (R-1)/R per generation. This places 
an upper limit on the rate of evolution." (Smith J.M., "`Haldane's Dilemma' and the Rate of Evolution," 
Nature, Vol. 219, 1968, p.1114)

"HALDANE'S DILEMMA Consider a population in which a gene A1 confers on its carriers a Darwinian 
fitness greater than in the carriers of A2. Natural selection acts to enhance the frequency of A1 and to 
reduce that of A2. This may happen because the progeny of A1 survive more frequently than of A2, or 
because the former have a greater fecundity, sexual activity, longevity, or any combination of these and 
other advantages. Whatever the cause, one may say that carriers of A2 are eliminated by `genetic deaths.' 
Substitution of more favorable for less favorable alleles by natural selection occurs at a `cost,' and imposes 
upon the population a `substitutional' genetic load. The concept of substitutional load has a paradox at its 
core. Imagine a population in which every member has a high Darwinian fitness; a new and still more 
favorable mutation arises; now every member except the carrier of the mutant has a new genetic load that 
must be eliminated for the population to reach a still higher level of fitness. In 1957 Haldane analyzed the 
consequences of this situation. During the passage of a favorable mutant from its origin to fixation many 
individuals have to suffer genetic death; the number of such individuals is generally much greater than the 
number of individuals alive in any one generation. Crow and Kimura (1970) give the following example of 
gene substitution `if the typical allele has an initial frequency of l0^-4, a population of one million individuals 
will have to have nine million genetic deaths each generation if it is to substitute an average of one allele per 
generation. Or more probably, if there is to be a gene substitution every 100 generations, the average fitness 
will be lowered by 0.09.' Now, in evolution many genes must be changed to transform one species into 
another. Granted that most living species produce numbers of progeny far in excess of those needed to have 
the population survive, it is difficult to understand how evolution can happen at such an enormous cost in 
genetic deaths. Haldane saw clearly that he was confronted by a dilemma. In his words, `I am quite aware 
that my conclusions will probably need a drastic revision. But I am convinced that quantitative arguments of 
the kind here put forward should play a part in all future discussions of evolution." (Dobzhansky T., Ayala 
F.J., Stebbins G.L. & Valentine J.W. "Evolution," W.H. Freeman & Co: San Francisco CA, 1977, pp.163-164. 
Emphasis original)

"But just as evolution is not a steady march of progress, it cannot run backward either. Evolution is change, 
nothing more or less. Tetrapods took their heroic crawl out of the water 360 million years ago, and their 
descendants have gone back in more than a dozen times. When they entered the water, they did not 
degenerate into lancelets, let alone lobe-fins, Instead, they became things altogether new, such as whales." 
(Zimmer C., "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea," HarperCollins: New York, 2001, p.135)

"So, the geologhe geological time scale and the basic facts of biological change over time are totally independent of 
evolutionary theory. It follows that the documentation of evolution does not depend on Darwinian theory or 
any other theory. Darwinian theory is just one of several biological mechanisms proposed to explain the 
evolution we observe to have happened." (Raup D.M., "Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, Vol. 213, 
No. 4505, 17 July 1981, p.289)

"The most consequential change in man's view of the world, of living nature and of himself came with the 
introduction, over a period of some 100 years beginning only in the 18th century, of the idea of change 
itself, of change over long periods of time: in a word, of evolution. Man's world view today is dominated by 
the knowledge that the universe, the stars the earth and all living things have evolved through a long 
history that was not foreordained or programmed, a history of continual, gradual change shaped by more or 
less directional natural processes consistent with the laws of physics. Cosmic evolution and biological 
evolution have that much in common." (Mayr, E.W., "Evolution," Scientific American, Vol. 239, No. 3, 
September 1978, p.39)

"Darwin as he articulated his theory of evolution by natural selection. He had identified a powerful 
mechanism of change in living systems. He had summarized incontrovertible evidence that evolution had 
taken place in the fundamental sense of change in life over time (species, genera, whole phyla). He had 
demonstrated the equally fundamental weakness of "multiple creations" as a cause of the different faunas 
and floras existing in similar climatic regimes (Europe versus North America, for example). His problem was 
the demonstration of a direct and causal linkage between the evidence of change and the postulated 
mechanism." (Thomson K.S, "Natural Selection and Evolution's Smoking Gun," American Scientist, Vol. 85, 
No. 6, November- December 1997, p.516)

"All of this makes one sympathetic with Nicholas Wade of The New York Times, who recently wrote an 
article entitled "Leapin' Evolution Is Found in Lizards." This was a report on an experiment in which lizards 
of the species Anolis sagrei from an island in the Bahamas were released onto an island lacking lizards and 
with a different vegetation pattern (Losos, Warheit and Schoener 1997). After 10 years, the limb proportions 
of the experimental population had shifted significantly in the direction predicted on the basis of the new 
host ecology. Whether the results document a case of evolution depends, of course, on definitions. 
Certainly it is a form of change over time, and such demonstrations are a necessary requirement for 
documenting a case of Darwinian evolution caught in flagrante delicto. But it is not sufficient to the case. 
All evolution is change, but not all change is evolution. " (Thomson K.S, "Natural Selection and Evolution's 
Smoking Gun," American Scientist, Vol. 85, No. 6, November- December 1997, p.518)

"All scholarly subjects seem to go through cycles, from periods when most of the answers seem to be 
known to periods when no one is sure that even the questions are right. Such is the case for evolutionary 
biology. Twenty years ago Mayr, in his Animal Species and Evolution (1), seemed to have shown that if 
evolution is a jigsaw puzzle, then at least all the edge pieces were in place. But today we are less confident 
and the whole subject is in the most exciting ferment. Evolution is both troubled from without by the 
nagging insistencies of antiscientists and nagged from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and 
developmental mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery-speciation itself. In looking over 
recent literature in and around the field of evolutionary theory, I am struck by the necessity to reexamine the 
simpler foundations of the subject, to distinguish carefully between what we know and what we merely think 
we know. The first and strongest of our critics to be answered should be ourselves. Scientists can always 
do themselves a great service by being scrupulously precise about the nature of their statements. Are they 
statements of fact, strong logical inferences from scientific methods, or hypotheses? In this essay I will 
attempt to show that the word evolution is currently used in at least three quite separate senses. The first 
way in which the term evolution has come to be used is the oldest: it is the general sense of change over 
time." (Thomson K.S., "The Meanings of Evolution," American Scientist, Vol. 70, September-October 1982, 
pp.529-531, p.530)

"It was the aim of our nineteenth-century forebears to produce a description of the evolutionary process 
that would serve biology as Newtonian mechanics had served the physical sciences. The first two meanings 
of evolution provide the necessary basis for this unifying theory. Change over time is a fact, and descent 
from common ancestors is based upon such unassailable logic that we act as though it is a fact. Natural 
selection provides the outline of an explanatory theory. When physicists probed deeper, they found 
unsuspected complexity and uncertainty. It will be interesting to see what the next twenty years will bring 
for evolutionary biology." (Thomson K.S., "The Meanings of Evolution," American Scientist, Vol. 70, 
September-October 1982, pp.529-531, p.531)

"As science, ID holds that it's possible to seek and study evidence of intelligent design in the physical and 
biological worlds without positing either the identity or intent of the designer. So far, much of then Darwinian materialism, which is not exactly the same thing as evolution. No serious scientist or 
informed layperson denies the fact of evolution, in the sense that species come, go and change over time. 
There's a fossil record of infuriating gaps, wondrous complexity and endless surprises to ponder. The 
problem with Darwinian materialism is that, as a matter of faith, it holds that all this happened at 
random...and that, as a matter of dogma, no other explanations may even be considered. (Gold P., 
"Darwinism in denial?," The Washington Times, August 23, 2001.

"If one defines evolution broadly enough (say, as a belief that organisms change over time), then no one 
seriously denies that evolution has occurred. But the modern theory of neo-Darwinism goes much further. It 
claims that the evolution of life is driven by a blind process of natural selection acting on random variations, 
a process that is said to have `no specific direction or goal.' In other words, neo-Darwinism teaches as a 
matter of scientific truth that life as we know it, including all human life, has behind it no creative intelligence 
and before it no goal or purpose. It is this more specific claim about evolution that is being challenged today 
by a growing number of scientists." (West J.G., Jr., "Intelligent design could offer fresh ideas on evolution", 
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, December 6, 2002.

"Evolution is still dogmatically upheld, of course. But intellectual opposition is growing rapidly. The 
collapse of the idea of progress, so strong in Darwin's day, has no doubt played a role. We can now see that 
supporting evidence for the theory has scarcely been unearthed at all. The late Colin Patterson, a curator of 
paleontology at the British Museum of Natural History, questioned in the 1980's whether we really know 
anything about evolution. The supporters of the theory are at their most dogmatic when they tell us that it is 
a `fact,' but when pressed they say that what they mean by evolution is `change over time.' Oh. Or a `change 
in gene frequencies.' As Phil Johnson says, this claim is so weak that it is confirmed every time a baby is 
born. Although portrayed as a science, evolution is more truly an ideology. It is based on the premise of 
materialism, or naturalism. This may be characterized as the belief that nothing exists except for `molecules in 
motion' (in Lenin's apt formulation). If materialism is true, then evolution indeed must be true. Organisms do 
exist, so they must have assembled themselves out of blindly whirling atoms. Evolution, then, is a 
straightforward deduction from a world view, rather than an observation." (Bethell T., "The Evolution Wars: 
Good science encounters a bad philosophy," The American Spectator, December 199- January 2000.

"Yes, the micro[evolution] is rather easy, because you can see so much happening when you have artificial 
breeding of plants and animals. How many varieties of roses are there? How many varieties of maize? 
Several thousand I think. Look at the incredible variety among dogs: Chihuahuas and St. Bernards, Afghans 
and bulldogs. ... There's a great flexibility in almost any species, but it doesn't go too far. It comes to the 
point, and every breeder knows this, when they either go sterile or snap back to the original form. Darwin 
was aware of this himself, so was Luther Burbank, the greatest breeder of all. This leaves us with an 
elasticity in the species but nothing like sufficient elasticity to produce something utterly new, not to turn a 
tree shrew about an inch long into a whale, which is the sort of problem you get with macro-evolution." 
(Macbeth N., "Darwinism: A time for funerals," Robert Briggs Associates: San Francisco CA, 1982, pp.5-6)

"The idea of punctuated equilibria comes from Gould and Eldredge. In it they recognize the dominance, in 
the fossil record, of what they call stasis, that nothing happens and yet new forms appear. So they've come 
out with the idea that off-stage, invisible to us, there are short bursts of rapid evolution. Then the results, 
animal or plant, reappear on stage and remain in a state of stasis for the rest of their existence, hundreds of 
millions of years perhaps. Unfortunately, of course, nobody sees the burst of evolution and it leaves no 
traces. They try to explain this as perhaps due to the fact that it occurred in a small and remote region and 
the chances were very slight that fossils would be preserved. This isn't very persuasive after you have 
heard it a hundred times for all the different creations of both animal and plant. It can't all have happened 
that way, and again it appears a pipe- dream. It's called the Sewall Wright Effect, or genetic drift, or the 
colony principle, or the founder principle. I have rather sharp comments by several people, including Ernst 
Mayr, about its being rather unethical almost for biologists to invoke genetic drift whenever they get in 
trouble and ... rely on ... the Sewall Wright Effect ... happening to small populations in remote spots, where 
they don't leave any record. They are in a condition of bankruptcy." (Macbeth N., "Darwinism: A time for 
funerals," Robert Briggs Associates: San Francisco CA, 1982, pp.6-7)

"... it's more exciting to think of a meeting held in Chicago in October of 1980. ... There were about 150 
scientists of various kinds assembled together, and they spent three or four days on the problems of 
macroevolution and got absolutely nowhere. They were still arguing punctuated equilibria as though it was 
something important, which I really don't think it is; it's only a different way of explaining microchanges. 
They actually had difficulty persuading some of the geneticists that the fossil record showed stasis, this 
terrible lack of any change at all. Geneticists had apparently not been talking to the palaeontologists or 
reading their material and they were surprised, literally surprised, that the palaeontologists had found this 
stasis going on. They had to be persuaded by the testimony of eminent palaeontologists that this was what 
they found in the fossil record. The fruit-fly men had got rapid change in no time at all. The full record of 
that conference is probably on tape somewhere, but a great deal was said out in the corridors and in the 
cloakrooms, etc. that isn't in the record at all, and the impression I got from two or three people who 
attended it was one of really spectacular bankruptcy. They had no theory whatsoever as to macroevolution. 
It's still in the condition it was in Goldschmidt's time with Gould and others now recognizing this." (Macbeth, 
N., "Darwinism: A time for funerals," Robert Briggs Associates: San Francisco CA, 1982, pp.6-7)

"It is thus likely, to say the least, that major as well as minor changes in evolution have occurred gradually 
and that the same forces are at work in each case. Nevertheless there is a difference and many of the major 
changes cannot be considered as simply caused by longer continuation of the more usual sorts of minor 
changes. For one thing, there is excellent evidence that evolution involving major changes often occurs with 
unusual rapidity, although, as we have seen, there is no good evidence that it ever occurs instantaneously. 
The rate of evolution of the insectivore forelimb into the bat wing, to give just one striking example, must 
have been many times more rapid than any evolution of the bat wing after it had arisen. The whole record 
attests that the origin of a distinctly new adaptive type normally occurs at a much higher rate than 
subsequent progressive adaptation and diversification within that type. The rapidity of such shifts from one 
adaptive level or equilibrium to another has suggested the name `quantum evolution,' under which I have 
elsewhere discussed this phenomenon at greater length. " (Simpson, G.G., "The Meaning of Evolution: A 
Study of the History of Life and of its Significance for Man," Yale University Press: New Haven CT, 1949, 

"Circular Definitions and Question Begging One way to eliminate vagueness and to make sure that 
abstractions adequately represent constructions is to define the terms carefully. Clear definitions may not 
solve all difficulties .... Be this as it may, bad definitions multiply them. The most notorious fault with 
definition is circularity, although formal definitions are circular in the sense that the defining term and the 
term to be defined are interchangeable. By `circular definition' is meant a definition which attempts to resolve 
a point at issue by defining a term so as to preempt the point. Such a definition `begs the question.' " 
(Fearnside, W.W. & Holther, W.B., "Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument," Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs 
NJ, 1959, Eleventh printing, p.165. Emphasis original)

"Imposing Restrictions ... For while we can indeed impose whatever restrictions we wish, what we cannot do 
is then without further argument claim that the results of following those restrictions will be truth, 
approximate truth, self-correction or anything of the sort. The problem is that nature may or may not 
conform to our stipulations. For instance, suppose that some czar wishes to be a respected scientist but just 
cannot do much math. One solution to his problem would be to decree that mathematics could not be 
employed in science-that in what he means by science mathematical concepts are by definition 
prohibited. Well, the czar's scientists, and even the czar himself, might construct a pretty amazing system. 
But if nature is fundamentally mathematical, that pretty amazing system would still be pretty amazingly 
mistaken. The czar cannot both put a priori restrictions on science and claim that the results reflect 
reality. If nature itself violates those restrictions, the results are going to be wrong. Those who simply 
stipulate a naturalism in science face exactly the same situation. If nature is not a closed, naturalistic system-
that is, if reality does not respect the naturalists' edict-then the science built around that edict cannot be 
credited a priori with getting at truth, being self-corrective or anything of the sort. Now if we had some 
rational reason for accepting naturalism as in fact true, then stipulating that science had to be naturalistic in 
order to have a chance at uncovering genuine truth would make perfect sense. But that would involve 
making a case for naturalism-not simply decreeing that science was by definition or for convenience 
naturalistic, which is the path taken by various evolutionists. ... Some people have recognized that confining 
science to naturalism would nearly guarantee that some truths were forever beyond science should it turn 
but that supernatural events or processes did at times intersect the empirical realm. And some, recognizing 
that and faced with the dilemma of either giving up stipulating naturalism in science or risking the possibility 
that science will be incapable of getting at such truth, have chosen the latter. For instance, Niles Eldredge 
says, `It could even be true-but it cannot be construed as science,' [Eldredge N., `The Monkey Business' 
Washington Square: New York NY, 1982, p.134] while Douglas Futuyma adds, `It isn't necessarily wrong. It 
just is not amenable to scientific investigation.' [Futuyma D., `Science on Trial', Pantheon: New York NY, 
1983, p.169] Michael Ruse agrees: `It is not necessarily wrong ... but it is not science ` [Ruse M., `But is It 
Science?', Prometheus: Buffalo NY, 1996, p301] So if say, we want to know about origins, and if the truth is 
supernatural, that truth cannot be a part of our science, even if we had some additional access to that truth. 
One characterization of science that has been popular among scientists is that it is `a search for truth, no 
holds barred.' On the present view, though, if one had some rationally defensible grounds for thinking that 
God had ... created ... one would evidently as a scientist by definition have to pretend that one really did not 
know that particular truth. That particular hold would be barred. But then, exactly what sort of project is 
science supposed to be if truth is not the, or at least an, ultimate object?" (Ratzsch, D.L.*, "The Battle of 
Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate," InterVarsity Press: Downers 
Grove IL, 1996, pp.166-168. Emphasis in original)

February [top]
"There is another, far less conclusive, strand of research on prayer and disease that has tried to measure the 
effects of so-called `intercessory' prayer. This is a more daring enter prise: attempting to measure the effect 
of prayer not simply on the health of one who prays, but also on the health of others. In one 1969 triple-
blind study, a prayer intervention group prayed for ten children with leukemia (the children were not aware 
they were being prayed for). another eight children served as a control group, for which the intervention 
group did not pray. (A. number of critics have raised ethical issues about such studies, with reason.) After a 
fifteen-month period, seven out of ten children in the prayer group were alive; only two of the eight in the 
control group were alive. The point was to determine whether intercessory prayer could affect disease; 
however, critics point out that the sample was far too small to draw any conclusions." (Glynn P.*, "God: The 
Evidence: The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World," Forum: Rocklin CA, 1997, p.90)

"An even tougher problem concerns the coding assignments, i.e. which triplets code for which amino acids. 
How did these designations come about? As nucleic acid bases and amino acids don't recognize each other 
directly, but have to deal via chemical intermediaries, there is no obvious reason why particular triplets 
should go with particular amino acids. Other translations are conceivable. Coded instructions are a good 
idea, but the actual code seems to be pretty arbitrary. Perhaps it is simply a frozen accident, a random choice 
that just locked itself in, with no deeper significance." (Davies P.C.W., "The Fifth Miracle: The Search for 
the Origin of Life," Penguin: Ringwood, Australia, 1998, pp.79-80)

"The striking utility of encoded genetic data stems from the fact that amino acids `understand' it. The 
information distributed along a strand of DNA is biologically relevant. In computerspeak, genetic 
data is semantic data. To bring out this point clearly, consider the way in which the four bases A, C, 
G and T are arranged in DNA. As explained, these sequences are like letters in an alphabet, and the letters 
may spell out, in code, the instructions for making proteins. A different sequence of letters would almost 
certainly be biologically useless. Only a very tiny fraction of all possible sequences spells out a biologically 
meaningful message, in the same way that only certain very special sequences of letters and words 
constitute a meaningful book. Another way of expressing this is to say that genes and proteins require 
exceedingly high degrees of specificity in their structure. As I stated in my list of properties in Chapter 1, 
living organisms are mysterious not for their complexity per se, but for their tightly specified complexity. To 
fully comprehend how life arose from non-life we need to know not only how biological information was 
concentrated, but :also how biologically useful information came to be specified, given that the 
milieu from which the first organism emerged was presumably just a random mix of molecular building 
blocks. In short, how did meaningful information emerge spontaneously from incoherent junk?" (Davies 
P.C.W., "The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin of Life," Penguin: Ringwood, Australia, 1998, pp.81-83. 
Emphasis in original)

"The British biologist John Maynard-Smith has described the origin of the code as the most perplexing 
problem in evolutionary biology. With collaborator Eors Szathmary he writes: `The existing translational 
machinery is at the same time so complex, so universal, and so essential that it is hard to see how it could 
have come into existence, or how life could have existed without it.' [Maynard Smith J. & Szathmary E., "The 
Major Transitions in Evolution," W.H. Freeman: Oxford, 1995, p.81]. (Davies P.C.W., "The Fifth Miracle: The 
Search for the Origin of Life," Penguin: Ringwood, Australia, 1998, p.79)

"If evolution is defined simply as shifts in gene frequency within a population, then most creationists accept 
evolution. ... `By this definition, all of us are evolutionists' (Lubenow M.L., "From Fish to Gish," Creation 
Life: San Diego CA, 1983, p.34, in Ratzsch, D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the 
Creation-Evolution Debate," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1996, pp.88, 209)

"`Then,' Hawking writes, 'we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part 
in the discussion of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the 
ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we should know the mind of God.'[Hawking S.W., "A Brief 
History of Time," Bantam: London, 1988, p.175] Hawking's tone and his conception of the significance of his 
work are typical of a certain way of presenting science. Almost all popularizers of science - notably, in recent 
years, Jacob Bronowski and Carl Sagan - say the same kind of things. They say that science is a spectacle of 
majestic progression, that, in spite of its apparent obscurity, it is a natural and inevitable product of the 
human imagination, it has fundamental human significance and it is ultimately capable of answering every 
question. God is often evoked. Sagan in his introduction to Hawking's book says: 'This is also a book about 
God...or perhaps about the absence of God. The word God fills these pages.' [Ibid, p.x] Bringing God into the 
equations suggests both the importance and virtue of the scientific enterprise - this, we are being told, is a 
continuation of the ancient religious quest to find Him and to do His will. The message is that science is 
the human project. It is what we are intended to do. It is the only adventure. ... This is propaganda, 
dangerously seductive propaganda. It is all misleading, even offensive, to the lives we actually lead. We are 
diminished by this rhetoric. It is the rhetoric of what is sometimes called 'scientism' - the belief that science is 
or can be the complete and only explanation. An important part of any case is that, whether we or more 
modest scientists like it or not, science possesses an intrinsically domineering quality. This kind of 
triumphant scientism is built into all science. Opposition tends to be subdued and demoralized to the point 
where we can no longer identify the damage done by these popularizers." (Appleyard B., "Understanding 
the Present: Science and the Soul of Modern Man," Picador: London, 1992, pp.1-2. Emphasis in original)

"Finally they do recognize it, and they have nothing to offer except the faint hope that in epigenesis they 
will find something sooner or later. ... Gould at present and a number of other people like Professor Lovtrup 
in Sweden are turning to this idea of epigenesis. The leap forward would not have occurred among the 
mature specimens of any species. It would have had to be caused by a change in the ontogeny, which is the 
embryological gestation period. A small change in the early stages of the embryo would produce enormous 
changes in the final product, and I think that various experiments indicate that this can happen. If you stick 
a pin into an embryo at various times early on you get a very strange product in the end. You also get one 
that doesn't live very long and doesn't find partners and reproduce. They are, to some extent, pursuing a 
pipe-dream here too, hoping that they will find serious evidence for it. I'm not one to say that they never will, 
but at present it's only a pious hope that something will come out of the idea of epigenesis." (Macbeth N., 
"Darwinism: A time for funerals," Robert Briggs Associates: San Francisco CA, 1982, pp.7-8)

"MODERN arguments work in much the same way. Thus for example the recent work of H.B.D. Kettlewell on 
industrial melanism has certainly confirmed the hypothesis that natural selection takes place in nature. This 
is the story of the black mutant of the common peppered moth which, as Kettlewell has shown with beautiful 
precision, increases in numbers in the vicinity of industrial centres and decreases, being more easily 
exposed to predators, in rural areas. Here, say the neo-Darwinians, is natural selection, that is, evolution, 
actually going on. But to this we may answer: selection, yes; the colour of moths or snails or mice is clearly 
controlled by visibility to predators; but `evolution'? Do these observations explain how in the first place 
there came to be any moths snails or mice at all? By what right are we to extrapolate the pattern by which 
colour or other such superficial characters are governed to the origin of species, let alone of classes, orders, 
phyla of living organisms? But, say the neo-Darwinians again, natural selection is the only mechanism we 
observe in present-day nature. But again, if this were so, we should still have no right to say that the only 
mechanism we see at work now is the only one that has been at work in all the long past of the living world. 
... Because the chance-variation/ natural-selection schema, which through Darwin's work first convinced the 
world that evolution did in fact happen, still holds-the mind entranced, absorbs into itself all 
evolutionary data, and at the same time rejects all data not so absorbable." (Grene M., "The Faith of 
Darwinism," Encounter, Vol. 74, November 1959, pp.48-56, p.52. Emphasis in original)

"The origin of the [genetic] code is perhaps the most perplexing problem in evolutionary biology. The 
existing translational machinery is at the same time so complex, so universal, and so essential that it is hard 
to see how it could have come into existences or how life could have existed without it." (Maynard Smith J. 
& Szathmary E., "The Major Transitions in Evolution," W.H. Freeman: Oxford UK, 1995, p.81)

"Theistic evolutionists ... have a credibility problem that stems from their apparent willingness to find 
support for their compatibilism in the most unlikely places. For example, Denis Lamoureux ... misinterprets a 
tactical shift by the National Association of Biology Teachers as if it were a genuine change in their 
position. Make no mistake about it; the NABT remains dedicated to presenting evolution as an 
`unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process' that was not guided by God or programmed 
to reach a particular goal. The NABT removed the first two terms from their official statement because they 
were too explicit in revealing the philosophical agenda. The purposeless and unguided nature of evolution 
is still implied throughout the statement, and the more politically astute evolutionary naturalists have always 
considered it safer to pursue their agenda by persistent insinuation rather than by direct statements (which 
invite refutation)." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Response to Denis O. Lamoureux," in Johnson, P.E. & Lamoureux D.O., 
"Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins," Regent College Publishing: 
Vancouver, Canada, 1999, pp.54-54)

"And within the smaller, but still tolerably ample, compass of our planetary home, I would nominate as most 
worthy of pure awe-a metaphorical miracle, if you will-an aspect of life that most people have never 
considered, but that strikes me as equal in majesty to our most spiritual projections of infinity and eternity, 
while falling entirely within the domain of our conceptual understanding and empirical grasp: the continuity 
of etz chayim, the tree of earthly life, for at least 3.5 billion years, without a single microsecond of disruption. 
Consider the improbability of such continuity in conventional terms of ordinary probability: Take any 
phenomenon that begins with a positive value at its inception 3.5 billion years ago, and let the process 
regulating its existence proceed through time. A line marked zero runs along below the current value. The 
probability of the phenomenon's descent to zero may be almost incalculably low, but throw the dice of the 
relevant process billions of times, and the phenomenon just has to hit the zero line eventually. For most 
processes, the prospect of such an improbable crossing bodes no permanent ill, because an unlikely crash 
(a year, for example, when a healthy Mark McGwire hits no home runs at all) will quickly be reversed, and 
ordinary residence well above the zero line reestablished. But life represents a different kind of ultimately 
fragile system, utterly dependent upon unbroken continuity. For life, the zero line designates a permanent 
end, not a temporary embarrassment. If life ever touched that line, for one fleeting moment at: any time 
during 3.5 billion years of sustained history, neither we nor a million species of beetles would grace this 
planet today. The merest momentary brush with voracious zero dooms all that might have been, forever 
after. When we consider the magnitude and complexity of the circumstances required to sustain this 
continuity for so long, and without exception or forgiveness in each of so many components-well, I may be 
a rationalist at heart, but if anything in the natural world merits a designation as "awesome," I nominate the 
continuity of the tree of life for 3.5 billion years. The earth experienced several ice ages, but never froze 
completely, not for a single day. Life fluctuated through episodes of global extinction, but never crossed the 
zero line, not for one millisecond. DNA has been working all this time, without an hour of vacation or even a 
moment of pause to remember the extinct brethren of a billion dead branches shed from an evergrowing tree 
of life. When Protagoras, speaking inclusively despite the standard translation, defined "man" as "the 
measure of all things," he captured the ambiguity of our feelings and intellect in his implied contrast of 
diametrically opposite interpretations: the expansion of humanism versus the parochiality of limitation. 
Eternity and infinity lie too far from the unavoidable standard of our own bodies to secure our 
comprehension; but life's continuity stands right at the outer border of ultimate fascination: just close 
enough for intelligibility by the measure of our bodily size and earthly time, but sufficiently far away to 
inspire maximal awe." (Gould, S.J., "I Have Landed," in "I Have Landed: Splashes and Reflections in Natural 
History," [2002], Vintage: London, 2003, pp.14-15)

"Within a few weeks of the date that Miller published his paper [Miller S.L., "A Production of Amino Acids 
Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions," Science, Vol. 117, May 15, 1953, pp.528-529], James Watson and 
Francis Crick published their impressive structure for DNA [Watson J.D. & Crick F.H.C., "Molecular 
structure of Nucleic Acids," Nature, Vol. 171, 25 April 1953, pp.737-738], which showed how this chemical 
could function as a gene. But one needed nucleotides, not amino acids, to construct DNA or RNA. I knew 
that nucleotides were far more intricate than the amino acids that Miller had produced. To form a nucleotide, 
you have to connect three different chemicals in a very specific way: If you wanted a building block for 
RNA, for example, you had to select one of four information units (bases): adenine, cytosine, guanine, or 
uracil, and attach it in an unusual way to the sugar, ribose. The product then had to be united with the 
mineral, phosphate, to form a nucleotide. In spite of these difficulties, RNA world advocates assumed that 
the early Earth provided an abundant supply of such substances. To cite one source out of many, Manfred 
Eigen and his colleague Peter Schuster wrote in 1982, "The building blocks of polynucleotides-the four 
bases, ribose and phosphate-were available too under prebiotic conditions. Material was available from 
steadily refilling pools for the formation of polymers, among them polypeptides and polynucleotides." 
[Eigen M. & Schuster P.J., "Stages of Emerging Life-Five Principles of Early Organization," .J Mol. Evol, Vol. 
19, No. 1, 1982, pp.47-61] (If some of the words are unfamiliar to you, substitute RNA for polynucleotide and 
protein for polypeptide.) I asked Dr. Soup what the basis was for such optimism. Had Miller's experiments 
produced a bumper harvest of nucleotides in his simulated ocean? Had these substances been found in 
nonliving sources such as meteorites? He was quick to respond. No, they haven't been found there at all. 
But many chemists have shown that it's not a problem. They can make these compounds in their labs under 
`prebiotic conditions,' which mimic those of the early Earth. Juan Oro has shown that you can make adenine 
and guanine by heating concentrated cyanide solutions, for example. We've known that you can make 
ribose just by heating up some formaldehyde. Cyanide and formaldehyde are simple chemicals; surely there 
was a lot of them around. And phosphate is present in many rocks. Cytosine and uracil seemed a problem 
for a time, but Stanley Miller solved that just a while ago. We still haven't worked how to connect them to 
the sugar, but some bright fellow will com up with a clever idea sooner or later. Once we have made the 
nucleotides, we then have to connect them together somehow. Jim Ferris has done a first class job in this 
area. He's at Rensselaer Polytechnic; he's won the Oparin Medal for his work. Ferris was able to grow pieces 
of RNA that are over fifty units long, working with mineral surfaces. So we just need to find the right formula 
for the replicase. We might need to connect as few as thirty units together to get that activity. The total 
number of combinations of that length is a big number, but Joyce and Szostak can handle it. So we have 
every reason for optimism. The answer is just around the corner. Dr. Soup looked very content as I ended 
the interview. A Skeptic's Complaint At this point my narrative gets `up close and personal' as we enter an 
area that I know extremely well. In composing a presentation for Dr. Soup, I tried to blend the ideas put forth 
in papers and at meetings by workers in the field of prebiotic synthesis, particularly those who believe that 
life began with an RNA world. I will quote Jim Ferris for the underlying philosophy: `The first life forms 
probably contained nucleic acids for the storage of genetic information. Consequently, there must have 
been a pathway by which the nucleotide building blocks of RNA were synthesized.' [Ferris, J.P. & Usher 
DA, "Origins of Life," in Zubay G., ed., "Biochemistry," MacMillan: New York NY, 1988, pp.1120-1151] 
These scientists have tried to identify candidate chemical reactions that lead to RNA under conditions that 
may have existed on the early Earth. They run their reactions in water, avoid strong acids and alkalis, and 
use chemicals that they consider "prebiotic" for their experiments. To qualify as prebiotic, a chemical must 
appear in a Miller-Urey-type reaction or be produced in another `prebiotic' experiment. The scientists have 
assembled lists of such reactions, which they feel supports their general position. They admit that problems 
exist but feel that they can be solved by additional work on their part. As Jim Ferris stated, the pathway 
must have existed. The scientists' job is to locate the correct one. My own opinion has been very 
different: These reactions, while well carried out in most cases and often ingenious, have nothing 
whatsoever to do with the origin of life." (Shapiro R., "Planetary Dreams: The Quest to Discover Life beyond 
Earth," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1999, pp.108-109. Emphasis in original)

"The Darwinists may have made a serious strategic error in choosing to pursue a campaign of indoctrination 
in the public schools. Previously, the high school textbooks said relatively little about evolution except that 
most scientists believe in it, which is hard to dispute. Serious examination of the scientific evidence was 
postponed until college, and was provided mostly to biology majors and graduate students. Most persons 
outside the profession had little opportunity to learn how much philosophy was being taught in the name of 
science, and if they knew what was going on they had no opportunity to mount an effective challenge. The 
Darwinists themselves have changed that comfortable situation by demanding that the public schools teach 
a great deal more `about evolution.' What they mean is that the public schools should try much harder to 
persuade students to believe in Darwinism, not that they should present fairly the evidence that is causing 
Darwinists so much trouble. What goes on in the public schools is the public's business, however, and even 
creationists are entitled to point out errors and evasions in the textbooks and teaching materials. 
Invocations of authority may work for a while, but eventually determined protestors will persuade the public 
to grant them a fair hearing on the evidence. As many more people outside the Biblical fundamentalist camp 
learn how deeply committed Darwinists are to opposing theism of any sort, and how little support 
Darwinism finds in the scientific evidence, the Darwinists may wish that they had never left their sanctuary." 
(Johnson, P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL,  Second Edition, 1993, 

"I might digress here for a moment to say a word about a strange puzzle in the whole biological world, the 
so-called persistent type or living fossils. There are an enormous number of plants and animals that haven't 
changed at all since the curtain went up. Any number of millions or hundreds of millions of years ago the 
horseshoe crab, the plant called Lycopodium, and the fish called Latimeria, for examples, were 
to be found in the essential form they still have today. In the early days, by which I mean something like 
1960, it was commonly thought that they must somehow or other have found a stable environment and that 
would be the reason for no change. Why should anybody change if he's got a stable and comfortable 
environment? In the end they gave up on that. Simpson acknowledges that there is no such thing as a 
stable environment. Even in the ocean, the temperature and the salinity change, and the other plants and 
animals change, so that it may be slow and rather small change but there is no such thing as a stable 
environment. Therefore it seemed that the reason for this incredible stability must be that they had very rigid 
genetic structures, rigid genotypes. This was a sensible suggestion, but there was no way to test it at the 
time. Then during the '60's a process called electrophoresis was discovered, and by it they can apparently 
judge the flexibility, the elasticity, of the genotype. So Lewontin and Selander and two other people about 
1970 made a study of Limulus, that's the scientific name for the horseshoe crab. They took the 
present crabs, which are apparently identical to those of the beginning of time, and put them through the 
electrophoresis treatment. They discovered that they had just as much elasticity as any other species. There 
was nothing rigid about them. Very good laboratory work, very interesting conclusion, but at the end of 
their article which appeared in the quarterly known as "Evolution," they appended the idea that, if it was not 
a rigid genotype that was causing the stability, it must be something about the environment. It seems to me 
an odd course of reasoning to start with a conviction that there is no such thing as a stable environment 
and that it must be the genotype, then you find it isn't the genotype so must be something in the way of a 
stable environment. Third possibilities are never dreamed of." (Macbeth N., "Darwinism: A time for 
funerals," Robert Briggs Associates: San Francisco CA, 1982, p.8)

"The Supreme Court decision described in the second paragraph is Aguillard v. Edwards, 482 U.S. 578 
(1987). The Justices probably did not mean to lay down a rule that the official theory of evolution may not 
be criticized or questioned in public school classrooms, but that was the effect of their decision. The 
Justices who signed the majority opinion seem to have been fooled by arguments from the science 
establishment that every claim made by the scientific elite about `evolution' is a matter of neutral fact and 
that all opposition to materialism comes from people who want to read the Bible to students instead of 
teaching them science. Perhaps a Justice who drives home in the evening from the Court will by now have 
noticed the `Darwin fish' bumper stickers on cars showing a fish with legs in mockery of the Christian fish 
symbol on other cars and will realize that the Supreme Court has been duped into taking sides in a religious 
debate." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 
1997, p.125)

"I found, for instance, Lewontin of Harvard saying about 1974 that population genetics had contributed 
absolutely nothing to evolutionary theory [e.g. Lewontin R.C., "The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change," 
Columbia University Press: New York NY, 1974, p.189]. He said this in a fat book that he wrote at the time, 
and he said it several times in the plainest possible language-and italicised! I was very struck with this and I 
gathered up 4 or 5 reviews of Lewontin's book by specialists in the field and I discovered that not a single 
one of them ever mentioned this. He was stating that population genetics hadn't achieved a thing, and they 
just didn't seem to want to discuss that. It was as though the College of Cardinals had heard the Pope 
muttering that God is dead and they didn't want to go into that subject at all." (Macbeth N., "Darwinism: A 
time for funerals," Robert Briggs Associates: San Francisco CA, 1982, p.10)

"For many years population genetics was an immensely rich and powerful theory with virtually no suitable 
facts on which to operate It was like a complex and exquisite machine, designed to process a raw material 
that no one had succeeded in mining. Occasionally some unusually clever or lucky prospector would come 
upon a natural outcrop of high-grade ore, and part of the machinery would be started up to prove to its 
backers that it really would work. But for the most part the machine was left to the engineers, forever 
tinkering, forever making improvements, in anticipation of the day when it would be called upon to carry out 
full production.
Quite suddenly the situation has changed. The mother-lode has been tapped and facts in profusion have 
been poured into the hoppers of this theory machine- And from the other end has issued- nothing. It is not 
that the machinery does not work, for a great clashing of gears is clearly audible, if not deafening, but it 
somehow cannot transform into a finished product the great volume of raw material that has been provided. 
The entire relationship between the theory and the facts needs to be reconsidered."
(Lewontin R.C., "The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change," Columbia University Press: New York NY, 
1974, p.189)

"We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do today. But at least we are no longer as 
naive as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960s. Then, most of us viewed cells as containing a 
giant set of second-order reactions ... But, as it turns out, we can walk and we can talk because the 
chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had 
ever considered. ... instead of a cell dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules, we now 
know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules. 
And, as it carries out its biological functions, each of these protein assemblies interacts with several other 
large complexes of proteins. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate 
network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. ... 
Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely 
because, like the machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein 
assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts. ... just as it would in a machine of our common 
experience ... ." (Alberts B., "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of 
Molecular Biologists," Cell, Vol. 92, No. 3, 6 February 1998, pp.291-294, p.291. Emphasis in original.

"The extreme difficulty of obtaining the necessary data, for any quantitative estimation of the efficiency of 
natural selection makes it seem probable that this theory will be re-established, if it be so, by the collapse of 
alternative explanations which are more easily attacked by observation and experiment. If so, it will present a 
parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by 
logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly 
incredible." (Watson, D.M.S., "Adaptation," Nature, No. 3119, Vol. 124, August 10, 1929, pp.231-234, p.233)

"The very possibility of a rational science of nature is usually considered to depend on a uniformity in the 
relations between cause and effect. In the past, religious beliefs have served as a presupposition of 
the scientific enterprise insofar as they have underwritten that uniformity. Natural philosophers of the 
seventeenth century would present their work as the search for order in a universe regulated by an 
intelligent Creator. A created universe, unlike one that had always existed, was one in which the Creator had 
been free to exercise His will in devising the laws that nature should obey. A doctrine of creation could give 
coherence to scientific endeavor insofar as it implied a dependable order behind the flux of nature. To say 
that religious belief could function as a presupposition of science need not entail the strong claim that, 
without a prior theology, science would never have taken off. But it does mean that the particular 
conceptions of science held by its pioneers were often informed by theological and metaphysical beliefs. 
When natural philosophers referred to laws of nature, they were not glibly choosing that metaphor. 
Laws were the result of legislation by an intelligent deity. Thus the philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) 
insisted that he was discovering the "laws that God has put into nature." Later, Newton would declare that 
the regulation of the solar system presupposed the "counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful 
Being." A doctrine of creation could underwrite the scientific enterprise in a second respect. If the human 
mind had been created in such a way that it was matched to the intelligibility of nature, then the possibility 
of secure scientific knowledge could be affirmed. Some two hundred years after Descartes had formulated 
his concept of mechanical laws, a proven capacity to discover the laws of nature and to express them 
mathematically was taken by the first systematic historian of science, William Whewell, as evidence of an 
affinity between the human and the divine mind. As the astronomer Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) had put it, 
in exposing the geometry of creation one was thinking God's thoughts after Him. The idea of a First Cause, 
Whewell suggested, was not extracted from natural phenomena. Rather it had been assumed in order 
that those phenomena could become intelligible to the mind. In addition to providing presuppositions for 
science, religious doctrines have also offered sanction or justification. This has been a recurring 
function as scientists have repeatedly had to justify the place of science in their culture. Proponents of 
scientific inquiry would often argue that God had revealed Himself in two books - the book of His words (the 
Bible) and the book of His works (nature). (Brooke, J.H., "Science and Religion: Some Historical 
Perspectives," [1991], Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1995, Reprinted, pp.19,22. Emphasis in 

"Comparative analysis thus deploys various methods to address different biological questions. Generally, 
comparative analysis is used either in a historical or a nonhistorical context. When we address historical 
questions, we examine evolutionary events to work out the history of life. For example, on the basis of the 
comparison of characters, we may attempt to construct classifications of organisms and the evolutionary 
phylogeny of the group. Often such historical comparisons are not restricted to classification alone but 
center on the process of evolution behind morphological units, such as jaws, limbs, or eyes. When we make 
nonhistorical comparisons, as is frequently the case, we look outside an evolutionary context, with no 
intention of concluding with a classification or elucidation of an evolutionary process. Nonhistorical 
comparisons are usually extrapolative. For example, by testing a few vertebrate muscles, we may 
demonstrate that they produce a force of 15 N (newtons) per square centimeter of muscle fiber cross section. 
Rather than testing all vertebrate muscles, a time-consuming process, we usually assume that other muscles 
of similar cross section produce a similar force (other things being equal). The discovery of force production 
in some muscles is extrapolated to others. In medicine, the comparative effects of drugs on rabbits or mice 
are extrapolated to tentative use in humans. Of course, the assumed similarities upon which an extrapolation 
is based often do not hold in our analysis. Insight into the human female reproductive cycle is best obtained 
if we compare the human cycle with those in higher primates because primate reproductive cycles, including 
the human one, differ significantly from those of other mammals. Extrapolation allows us to make testable 
predictions. Where tests do not support an extrapolation, science is well served because this forces us to 
reflect on the assumptions behind the comparison, perhaps to reexamine the initial analysis of structures 
and to return with improved hypotheses about the animals or systems of interest. Comparison itself is not 
just a quick and easy device. The point to emphasize is this: Comparison is a tool of insight that guides our 
analysis and helps us set up hypotheses about the basis of animal design. ... Morphology is central to 
evolutionary biology as well. Many scientists, in fact, would like to see a discipline devoted to the combined 
subject, namely, evolutionary morphology. Evidence of past evolutionary changes is inscribed in animal 
structure. Within the amphibian limb are the structural reminders of its fish fin ancestry; within the wing of a 
bird are the evidences of its derivation from the reptilian forelimb. Each modern group living today carries 
forward mementos of the evolutionary course traveled by its ancestors. For many biologists, a study of the 
morphological products of the past gives insight into the processes that produced them, insight into the 
natural forces that drove evolutionary changes, and insight into the limitations of evolutionary change." 
(Kardong K.V., "Vertebrates: Comparative Anatomy, Function, Evolution," [1995], McGraw Hill: Boston 
MA, Third Edition, 2002, p.2)

"In the Origin Darwin presented a great deal of evidence in favor of the theory that animals evolve 
over time. In the following decades biologists searched for and found abundant favorable-and no contrary-
evidence that evolution as such has occurred. In the more than a century and a quarter since Darwin's time 
this evidence has become so overwhelming that biologists no longer speak of evolution as a theory but 
consider it a fact-as well-established as the fact that the earth rotates around the sun and that the earth is 
round and not flat. As Dobzhansky has said: 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of 
evolution.' Considering evolution to be an established fact, no evolutionist any longer wastes time looking 
for further evidence. It is only when refuting creationists that one may bother to assemble the powerful 
evidence that has accumulated in the last 130 years proving evolution." (Mayr, E.W., "This is Biology: The 
Science of the Living World," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1997, Sixth printing, 1998, p.178)

"In the argument for design in nature which he advanced here ... Gray made one significant addition. He 
finally came up to the problem of how to introduce design into the Darwinian system. Variation was the 
point he seized upon. At least `while the physical cause of variation is utterly unknown and mysterious, we 
should advise Mr. Darwin to assume, in the philosophy of his hypothesis, that variation has been led along 
certain beneficial lines.' [Gray A., `Natural Selection Not Inconsistent With Natural Theology,' Atlantic 
Monthly, October 1860, `Darwiniana: Essays and Reviews Pertaining to Darwinism,' [1861], Dupree A.H., ed., 
Belknap: Cambridge MA, 1963, pp.121-122] Then followed a figure of speech which would reappear regularly 
in the debates of the next few years. `Streams flowing over a sloping plain (here the counterpart of natural 
selection) may have worn their actual channels as they flowed; yet their particular course, may have been 
assigned; and where we see them forming definite and useful lines of irrigation, after a manner 
unaccountable on the laws of gravitation and dynamics, we should believe that the distribution was 
designed.' [p.122] Here at last is a bridge between the Darwinian system which he so heartily appreciated 
and the Creator in whom he so devoutly believed." (Dupree A.H., "Asa Gray: American Botanist, Friend of 
Darwin," [1959], The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore MD, 1988, reprint, pp.296-297)

"Organisms are unique at the molecular level because they have a mechanism for the storage of historically 
acquired information, while inanimate matter does not. Perhaps there was an intermediate condition at the 
time of the origin of life, but for the last three billion years or more this distinction between living and 
nonliving matter has been complete. All organisms possess a historically evolved genetic program, coded in 
the DNA of the nucleus (or RNA in some viruses). Nothing comparable exists in the inanimate world, except 
in man-made machines. The presence of this program gives organisms a peculiar duality, consisting of a 
genotype and a phenotype. The genotype (unchanged in its components except for occasional mutations) 
is handed on from generation to generation, but, owing to recombination, in ever new variations. In 
interaction with the environment, the genotype controls the production of the phenotype, that is, the visible 
organism which we encounter and study. The genotype (genetic program) is the product of a history that 
goes back to the origin of life, and thus it incorporates the `experiences' of all ancestors, as Delbruck (1949) 
said so rightly. It is this which makes organisms historical phenomena. The genotype also endows them 
with the capacity for goal-directed (teleonomic) processes and activities, a capacity totally absent in the 
inanimate world." (Mayr, E.W., "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist," 
Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1988, pp.16-17)

"evolution. The theory that the existing varieties of plant and animal, so far from having existed more or less 
unmodified from the beginning of biological time, have come into being through a progressive 
diversification that has accompanied their biogenetic descent (see BIOGENESIS) from their ancestors. 
Although the theory had been adumbrated very many times before the publication in 1859 of Darwin's The 
Origin of Species, it was Darwin's ability to propound an acceptable theory (DARWINISM) of how 
evolution might have come about which brought the subject into public discussion and intensive enquiry. It 
is naive to suppose that the acceptance of evolution theory depends upon the evidence of a number of so-
called `proofs'; it depends rather upon the fact that the evolutionary theory permeates and supports every 
branch of biological science, much as the notion of the roundness of the earth underlies all GEODESY and 
all cosmological theories on which the shape of the earth has a bearing. Thus anti-evolutionism is of the 
same stature as flat-earthism. Biologists therefore do not argue about whether evolution has taken place, but 
many details of how evolution proceeds are still matters of controversy. "
(Medawar P. & Ridley M., "evolution," in Bullock A., Trombley S. & Lawrie A., eds., "The New Fontana 
Dictionary of Modern Thought," [1977], HarperCollinsPublishers: London, Third Edition, 1999, p.293)

"Many opponents of the idea of evolution say they reject it because it contradicts the Bible. They claim to 
believe that every word in the Bible is literally true. But no one really believes that. We all know that when, 
in John 7:38, Jesus said, `He that believeth on me...out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water,' he didn't 
mean it literally. It's a figure of speech. Practically every book of the Bible contains some such passages, 
which have to be read as either figures of speech or errors of fact. Consider Biblical astronomy. The Old 
Testament depicts the `firmament' as a strong dome or tent spread out above the Earth. It has the sun, moon, 
and stars set in it and water up above it, and windows in it to let the water out when it rains (see Gen. 1:6-8, 
1:14-17, 7:11, 8:2; Job 37:18; Ps. 104:2; Isa. 24:18; and Mal. 3:10). This is a lovely picture. If you read it as 
poetry, it's gorgeous. But taken literally, it's just plain wrong. There isn't any firmament or any water above 
the firmament, and the sun, moon, and stars aren't attached to anything. And if we can all agree that there 
isn't any firmament, then we can all agree that the literal truth of the Bible can't be the real issue here." 
(Cartmill M., "Oppressed by Evolution," Discover, Vol. 19, No. 3, March 1998.

"BECAUSE OF enormous advances in biochemistry, it has become possible to e not just the visible 
features of organisms, but also their molecules. The principal components of the biological cell include the 
proteins, which govern the essential biochemical processes, and the nucleic acids (the famous DNA and 
RNA), which direct the synthesis of proteins. The structure and composition of these immensely complex 
molecules is now partly understood, and so the proteins and nucleic acids of various kinds of creatures can 
be compared and their differences precisely quantified. Each protein molecule, for example, consists of a 
long chain of amino acids in a specific sequence, analogous to the way a sentence is composed of a 
sequence of letters and spaces in a particular order. Amino acids are simpler organic compounds, 20 of 
which can be combined in various ways to make proteins. A particular kind of protein (like hemoglobin) that 
is found in a great variety of species will differ slightly or not so slightly in its amino acid sequences from 
species to species The difference can be quantified by aligning the sequences and counting the number of 
positions at which the amino acids differ. If there are a total of 100 positions, and the amino acids are the 
same at 80 of them and different at 20, then the biochemist can say that the degree of divergence is 20 per 
cent. Comparable techniques can be employed to measure the divergence in the molecular sequences of 
DNA and RNA molecules. As a result, biochemists have found that it is possible to classify species and 
larger groups by their degree of similarity at the molecular level. The validity of the classifications so 
obtained is a controversial subject. Not all molecules suggest the same pattern of relationships, and in some 
cases molecular classifications differ from traditional classifications. .... Despite these difficulties, many 
scientists consider molecular classification to be not only possible, but, in principle, more objective than 
classification based on visible characteristics." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: 
Downers Grove IL, Second edition, 1993, pp.92-93)

"The study of living things at the molecular level is a relatively new field. The information that scientists 
derive from molecular biology may be used to compare and categorize organisms, a field known as 
biochemical taxonomy. Biochemical analysis holds out the promise of making taxonomy a more precise 
science, because it allows differences between various organisms to be quantified and measured. ... We all 
intuitively regard a horse as more similar in general structure to a cow than to a bird, but there is no way of 
measuring the difference between them in mathematical terms. Deciding which organisms should be classed 
together based on comparative anatomy and homology is always plagued by an element of subjective 
judgment. The revolution in molecular biology changes all that. It provides a new way to compare organisms 
based on the structure of their proteins and DNA. One of the important procedures of biochemical taxonomy 
is the determination of amino acid sequences in protein, and the sequences of triplets in DNA. Researchers 
employ DNA and protein sequence analyzers to determine these sequences. Many proteins are used in a 
variety of organisms. It has been found that the sequence of a given protein, say cytochrome c, is not fixed 
but varies from species to species. Usually cytochrome c is composed of a string of one hundred and four 
amino acids. Though it performs the same function and is similar enough to be recognized as the same 
protein, it nevertheless differs among the various taxa. The amino acid sequences from two different 
organisms can be compared by aligning the two sequences and counting the number of individual amino 
acids that differ. Similar comparisons can be made between two strands of DNA. ... Animals with a greater 
number of similarities in DNA or amino acid sequence are classified more closely taxonomically. The 
classification system that emerges from molecular biology to a large extent confirms classifications 
traditionally made by taxonomists from anatomy. That is, a horse is more like a cow than it is like a bird not 
only in obvious appearance but also in the sequence of amino acids of its proteins, and of triplets in its 
DNA. ... By providing a new way to identify similarities, biochemists have expected to build our 
understanding of what those similarities mean. ... the standard Darwinian interpretation is that similarity 
indicates descent from a common ancestor. The greater the resemblance between two organisms, say 
Darwinists, the more recently they diverged from a single line of descent. Adherents to Darwinism have 
hailed the findings of biochemistry as important new evidence for the theory. The fact that similarities in 
biochemistry parallel similarities in anatomy is held as confirmation of the evolutionary relationships inferred 
from those similarities. The proteins of humans more closely resemble those of monkeys than those of 
turtles, for example. This is taken as confirmation that humans share a common ancestry with monkeys. 
Proponents of intelligent design read similarity in structure as a reflection of similarity in function. All living 
organisms must survive in the same universe and must fit into its ecological web. All must fit into a food 
chain. The need to function within a common universe puts common physical and chemical requirements on 
all organisms. It would be both logical and efficient for an intelligent agent to design living things with a 
common biochemical base. By the same token, it should not surprise us that organisms share similarities on 
both anatomical and biochemical levels." (Davis P. & Kenyon D.H., "Of Pandas and People: The Central 
Question of Biological Origins", Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, Second Edition, 1993, 

"An argument proposes a false dilemma when it presumes that only two alternatives exist when in actuality 
there are more than two. For example, `Either science can explain how she was cured or it was a miracle. 
Science can't explain how she was cured. So it must be a miracle.' These two alternatives do not exhaust all 
the possibilities. It's possible, for example, that she was cured by some natural cause that scientists don't yet 
understand [e.g. God working through natural causes!-SEJ]. Because the argument doesn't take this 
possibility into account, it's fallacious. Again: `Either have your horoscope charted by an astrologer or 
continue to stumble through life without knowing where you're going. You certainly don't want to continue 
your wayward ways. So you should have your horoscope charted by an astrologer.' If someone is 
concerned about the direction his or her life is taking, there are other things he or she can do about it than 
consult an astrologer. Since there are other options, the argument is fallacious." (Schick T. & Vaughn L., 
"How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age," Mayfield: Mountain View CA, 
California, Second edition, 1995, pp.285-286)

"The special character of the New Testament has given rise to special types of errors over and above those 
which are common in all manuscript copying. ... The study of these witnesses to the original text and the 
restoration by their means of the original text as nearly as it can be determined belong to the science of 
Textual Criticism. This is not, of course, a science which has to do specially with the New Testament or the 
Bible as a whole; it makes its contribution to all kinds of literature. In English literature it is a very necessary 
science in the study of the works of Shakespeare and the determining of his original text by the comparative 
study of the early editions. There are four principal stages in the work of the textual critic. First, he makes a 
study of such individual manuscripts as are available to him, correcting obvious slips and taking cognizance 
of what appear to be scribal alterations, whether accidental or deliberate. Next, he arranges these 
manuscripts in groups. Those which share some peculiar feature of spelling or wording, or some common 
error, are probably related to one another and have a common archetype. There are different ways of 
grouping manuscripts, according as their evident relation to one another is more or less close. Those whose 
mutual relation can be fairly precisely established are said to constitute a family. But a number of separate 
families, while they are diverse from one another in many respects, may have a sufficient number of 
significant features in common to suggest that they all represent one rather early textual type. In the third 
place. when the arranging of manuscripts in groups leads to the establishment of an archetype for each of 
the groups which have been distinguished, these archetypes themselves are subjected to comparative 
study in the hope that it may be possible to reconstruct a provisional archetype from which the archetypes 
themselves are descended; if this is achieved, then we have arrived as closely as we can to the autographic 
text." (Bruce F.F., "The Books and the Parchments: Some Chapters on the Transmission of the Bible," [1950], 
Pickering & Inglis: London, Third Edition, 1963, pp.178-179)

"The perception that the pattern of nature conformed to an ordered hierarchic system reappeared with the 
birth of modern biology in the eighteenth-century and was expressed clearly by Linnaeus in his famous 
Systema Naturae. As knowledge of biology increased during the late eighteenth century and early 
nineteenth century, the under lying hierarchic order of nature was increasingly reaffirmed by nearly all the 
great naturalists and biologists of the time ...As Lovejoy remarks in his Great Chain of Being. `Thus it was 
that from the end of the sixteenth to the end of the eighteenth century, the project of distributing all living 
beings, animal or vegetable, into a hierarchy of collective units enclosed one within another, gained such a 
hold upon naturalists, that it finally seemed to them the formulation of their scientific task.' [Lovejoy A.O., 
"The Great Chain of Being, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 1961, p228] By the mid-nineteenth 
century, when knowledge of comparative anatomy was virtually complete, the idea that the pattern of life 
was reducible to highly ordered groups within groups was almost universally acknowledged." (Denton M.J., 
"Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," Burnett Books: London, 1985, pp.123-124)

14/02/2005 "Truth, Nature of. Pilate asked: What is truth? Philosophers from Socrates to the last century 
answered: Is it absolute? Is it knowable (see AGNOSTICISM)? And does it correspond to a 
referent or, in the case of metaphysical truth, does it correspond to reality? The Importance of the Nature 
of Truth. The nature of truth is crucial to the Christian faith. Not only does Christianity claim there is 
absolute truth (truth for everyone, everywhere, at all times), but it insists that truth about the world (reality) 
is that which corresponds to the way things really are. For example, the statement "God exists" means that 
there really is a God outside the universe, an extracosmic Being (see GOD, EVIDENCE OF). Likewise, the 
claim that "God raised Christ from the dead" means that the dead corpse of Jesus of Nazareth supernaturally 
vacated its tomb alive a few days after its burial (see RESURRECTION, EVIDENCE OF). Christian truth 
claims really correspond to the state of affairs about which they claim to inform us. The Nature of Truth. 
What Truth Is Not ... Truth can be understood both from what it is and from what it is not. There are 
many inadequate views of the nature of truth. Most of these result from a confusion between the nature 
(definition) of truth and a test (defense) of truth, or from not distinguishing the result from the rule. Truth 
is not "what works." One popular theory is the pragmatic view of William James and his followers that 
truth is what works. ... That this is inadequate is evident from its confusion of cause and effect. ... Truth 
is not "that which coheres." Some thinkers have suggested that truth is what is internally consistent; it 
is coherent and self-consistent. But this too is an inadequate definition. Empty statements hang together, 
even though they are devoid of truth content. .... At best, coherence is a negative test of truth. Statements 
are wrong if they are inconsistent, but not necessarily true if they are. Truth is not "that which was 
intended." Some find truth in intentions, rather than affirmations. A statement is true if the author 
intends it to be true and false if he does not intend it to be true. But many statements agree with the 
intention of the author, even when the author is mistaken. ... Truth is not "what is comprehensive." 
Another idea is that the view that explains the most data is true. And those that are not as comprehensive 
are not true-or not as true. Comprehensiveness is one test for truth, but not the definition of truth. Certainly 
a good theory will explain all relevant data. And a true worldview will be comprehensive. However, this is 
only a negative test of whether it is true. The affirmations of that view must still correspond with the real 
state of affairs. ... Truth is not "what is existentially relevant." ... existential philosophers ... have 
insisted that truth is what is relevant to our existence or life and false if it is not. ... However, even if truth is 
existential in some sense, not all truth fits into the existential category. There are many kinds of truth, 
physical, mathematical, historical, and theoretical. ... Truth is not "what feels good." The popular 
subjective view is that truth gives a satisfying feeling, and error feels bad. ... [But] It is evident that bad 
news can be true. ... What Truth Is. Correspondence with Reality. Now that the inadequate views of 
the nature of truth have been examined, it remains to state an adequate view. Truth is what corresponds to 
its referent. Truth about reality is what corresponds to the way things really are. Truth is "telling it like it is." 
This correspondence applies to abstract realities as well as actual ones. There are mathematical truths. There 
are also truths about ideas. In each case there is a reality, and truth accurately expresses it. Falsehood, then, 
is what does not correspond. It tells it like it is not, misrepresenting the way things are. The intent behind 
the statement is irrelevant. If it lacks proper correspondence, it is false. ... Truth may be tested in many ways 
but it should be understood in only one way. There is one reality, to which statements or ideas must 
conform in order to be regarded as true. There may be many different ways to defend different truth 
claims, but there is really only one proper way to define truth, namely, as correspondence. The 
confusion between the nature of truth and the verification of truth is at the heart of the rejection of a 
correspondence view of truth. Likewise, there is a difference between what truth is and what truth 
does. Truth is correspondence, but truth has certain consequences. Truth itself 
should not be confused with its results or with its application. The failure to make this distinction leads to 
wrong views of the nature of truth. Truth is that which corresponds to reality or to the state of affairs it 
purports to describe. And falsehood is what does not correspond." (Geisler N.L.*, "Truth, Nature of.," in 
"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," Baker Books: Grand Rapids MI, 1999, pp.741-742, 745. 
Emphasis in original)

"Is Evolution True? The first problem of evolution is whether it is itself true. Although almost all biologists 
are now agreed on the answer, it cannot be taken for granted. Both common sense and many of the high 
authorities of history (if not of the present) testify to the immutability of species. To take common sense, 
species do seem-if you do not look too far and wide-always to reproduce their kind: cows reproduce cows, 
robins robins, and oaks oaks; cows do not reproduce robins, or even horses. What facts and arguments can 
disprove the authority of common sense and history? We are after arguments that will choose between 
evolution and the fixity of species. ... There are two main concepts: morphological and reproductive. 
According to the morphological species concept, species are defined by the similarity of appearance of their 
members. .... The varieties of dogs would serve as an example of artificially created new species in the 
morphological sense. The differences between extreme varieties of dogs-such as the Pekinese and the Great 
Dane-are much larger than the normal morphological differences between species. An African hunting dog 
and a wolf, for instance, are classified in separate subfamilies, but they look more alike than a Pekinese and a 
Great Dane.... We could also have considered another powerful argument for evolution. No sensible 
alternative is known. ... Our first problem of evolution, I believe, is solved. The accumulation of facts and 
arguments on the side of evolution is so great that it can no longer be considered an open question. It is 
best that our beliefs should be rationally based: it is well worth knowing what the case for evolution is. But 
once the case has been examined, it is not really possible for anyone (who is not a fanatic) to doubt what the 
conclusion must be." (Ridley, Mark, "The Problems of Evolution", Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 
1985, pp.1,4, 13-1)

"One objection to the theory of evolution made by Darwin's early opponents was that though he may have 
explained the derivation of organisms from other organisms, he had not explained the origin of life itself from 
inanimate matter. The researches of Louis Pasteur and others demonstrating the impossibility of 
spontaneous generation in an oxygen-rich atmosphere seemed to strongly support the idea that life cannot 
arise from natural causes but requires some supernatural origin, a Creator. It has since been discovered that, 
unlike today, there was no oxygen (or only traces of it) in the early atmosphere of the earth, when life 
originated.' Experiments carried out by Stanley Miller (1953) showed that electrical discharges sent through a 
gaseous mixture of methane, ammonium, hydrogen, and water vapor in a flask would result in the production 
of amino acids, urea, and other organic molecules. Such organic molecules could have accumulated when 
our atmosphere was devoid of oxygen, and, indeed, similar molecules have since been found in meteorites 
and in interstellar space. There are now numerous hypotheses to explain how life, particularly proteins and 
RNA, might have emerged from a combination of these organic molecules. Several of these prebiotic 
scenarios are quite convincing, but in the absence of any chemical fossils of the intermediate stages we may 
never be able to prove which of the scenarios is the right one. It would seem that the first organisms were 
heterotrophic, that is, they utilized prebiotically produced organic compounds available in the environment. 
The organisms had to build the larger macromolecules such as proteins and nucleic acids, but they did not 
have to synthesize de novo the amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars. The simplest naturally formed 
organic compounds reacted to form polymers and eventually compounds of greater and greater complexity. 
The subject of life's origin is highly complex, but it is no longer the mystery it once was, in the early post-
Darwinian period. In fact, there is no longer any fundamental difficulty in explaining, on the basis of physical 
and chemical laws, the origin of life from inanimate matter." (Mayr, E.W., "This is Biology: The Science of the 
Living World," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1997, Sixth printing, 1998, pp.178-179)

"The study of the origin of life is a subject fraught with uncertainties. Despite many years of work and the 
great ingenuity of those carrying out the work, many of these difficulties have yet to be resolved. There is 
no generally accepted theory of how life began. Some maintain that we are just missing some simple trick of 
chemistry to make the whole theory hang together. But many, if not most, biologists think the whole subject 
so messy, uncertain and complex that it is best avoided altogether. Let us begin our exploration of this 
Outstanding Mystery with a few certainties. First, just what are we seeking to explain? From what we have 
learnt in this chapter about the nature of life, we know the key feature which we must account for: the origin 
of replicating compounds such as DNA. If we can arrive at a means of creating these out of simpler 
compounds without a lot of special pleading, then we can consider the problem of life more or less solved." 
(Matthews, R.A.J., "Unravelling the Mind of God: Mysteries at the Frontier of Science," [1992], Virgin 
Books: London, 1993, p.58)

"Living things are built of nonliving carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulphur, but just 
how they got organized into something alive remains one of biology's deepest mysteries. In 1953, at the 
University of Chicago, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey mixed ammonia, water vapor, hydrogen and 
methane to simulate Earth's early atmosphere, then crackled lightning-like electrical sparks through it. Amino 
acids, the building blocks of proteins, appeared, along with other organic compounds usually produced 
only by living things. Over the years, continued experiments with gases and chemicals bombarded with 
heat, ultraviolet and electrical energy produced almost every chemical component (nucleotides) of DNA and 
RNA, but the parts never assembled into the long molecules that make life possible. More recently, longer 
DNA-like molecules did form spontaneously from simpler carbon compounds and zinc salts at California's 
Salk Institute. Given the tendency of these chemicals to form nucleotides and of nucleotides to build long-
chain molecules, according to biologist Lynn Margolis, the process of life emerging from nonlife is `hardly 
surprising' and `shockingly straightforward.' Since an RNA molecule's structure resembles `one-half of an 
open zipper ... when the right ingredients are present, the components of the missing half simply line up and 
fit, thus forming a perfect copy of the original.' Unfortunately, as Margolis admits, `no cell has yet crawled 
out of a test tube,' and thousands of similar experiments, have produced goopy organic tars, but no 
recognizable life. Decades of persistent failure to `create life' by the `spark in the soup' method (or to find 
such productions in nature) have caused some researchers to seek other approaches to the great enigma. A 
few, including geneticist Francis Crick and the astronomer Fred Hoyle, think life may have arrived on Earth 
from elsewhere in the universe, perhaps hitchhiking on a meteor or comet. But this notion of wandering 
celestial rocks `seeding' the Earth (Panspermia), even if true, does not solve the riddle of how life originated: 
it simply pushes the question father back to another time and place. Another recent theory looks to the 
structure of clays and minerals as possible templates, trapping and holding molecules in patterns, which 
might make them susceptable to the process of natural selection. But even the most promising, technically 
sophisticated attempts to demonstrate the origin of life from nonliving chemicals are still guesses and 
gropes in the dark. For almost a century, many scientists have taught that some version of the `spark in the 
soup' theory `must' be true. Repetition of this idea as fact, without sufficient evidence, has done a disservice 
to new generations by capping their curiosity about a profound and open question." (Milner R., "Life, origin 
of," in "The Encyclopedia of Evolution: Humanity's Search for Its Origins," Facts On File: York NY, 1990, 

"The problem confronting Darwin at the end of 1838 was not so much the fact that if he communicated his 
ideas he would be severely criticized, but rather the fact that he did not have very much to communicate. His 
theory had, in essence, preceded his knowledge-that is, he had hit upon a novel and evocative theory of 
evolution with limited knowledge at hand to satisfy either himself or others that the theory was true. He 
could neither accept it himself nor prove it to others. He simply did not know enough concerning the several 
natural history fields upon which his theory would have to be based. Also, I think that from Darwin's 
perspective at the time, his theory qua theory was rudimentary and weak. It was not something he would 
have liked to defend, even if he had to. It was the sort of theory one puts in a desk drawer-to be looked at 
much later, to be written later still. And if it were the sort of theory that might be looked at unfairly at first-
not given a fair chance because of the prejudices it might arouse-all the more reason to take care with it, not, 
so to speak, to let it out of the bag too soon. It was in this sense, it seems, that it was a theory he 
`determined not even to write the briefest sketch of.' It was a very uncertain theory on a highly controversial 
subject." (Gale B.G., "Evolution Without Evidence: Charles Darwin and the Origin of Species," University of 
New Mexico Press: Albuquerque NM, 1982, p.8)

"Darwin came back from his five-year tour of duty on the H.M.S. Beagle in 1836. And he came back on the 
brink of conviction of the fact of evolution-that all creatures past and present are linked up in one grand, 
intricate genealogical array. It was `descent with modification' (Darwin actually never used the word 
`evolution' in his first edition of the Origin). The concept was simplicity itself: all life has descended from a 
single common ancestor, and along the way of his interminable process of ancestry and descent, creatures 
become modified. " (Eldredge N., "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of 
Punctuated Equilibria", Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p.28)

"But of all the systems of classification that could be dreamed up, there is one unique system, unique in the 
sense that words like 'correct' and 'incorrect', 'true' and 'false' can be applied to it with perfect agreement 
given perfect information. ... Birds, for instance, are distinguished from nonbirds by the fact that they are all 
descended from a common ancestor, which is not an ancestor of any non-bird. Mammals are all descended 
from a common ancestor, which is not an ancestor of any non-mammal. Birds and mammals have a more 
remote common ancestor, which they share with lots of other animals like snakes and lizards and tuataras. 
The animals descended from this common ancestor are all called amniotes. So, birds and mammals are 
amniotes. 'Reptiles' is not a true taxonomic term, according to cladists, because it is defined by exception: all 
amniotes-except birds and mammals. In other words; the most recent common ancestor of all 'reptiles' 
(snakes, turtles; etc.) is also ancestral twosome non'reptiles', namely birds and mammals. Within mammals, 
rats and mice share a recent common ancestor with each others-leopards and lions share a recent common 
ancestor with each other; so do chimpanzees and humans with each other. Closely related animals are 
animals that share a recent common ancestor. More distantly related animals share an earlier common 
ancestor. Very distantly related animals, like people and slugs, share a very early common ancestor. 
Organisms can never be totally unrelated to one another, since it is all but certain that life as we know it 
originated only once on earth." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991 
reprint, p.258)

"Intelligent-design theorist Michael Behe has said that he has no reason to doubt the truth of common 
descent, but he does doubt the power of natural selection to shape the full range of biological complexities. 
In Darwin's Black Box he claims to have found a number of such "complex organs" to prove his case. 
This is clearly an important claim. ... So what does Behe have to say? We already have a fairly clear idea 
given our earlier discussions of critical passages from Darwin's Black Box Behe hopes to show the 
impotence of Darwinism by pointing out purportedly profound explanatory gaps. Trying to do this is 
nothing new. ICR's Duane Gish has tried to do this by pointing out gaps in the fossil record. ... Indeed, as 
we saw, almost every creationist attack proceeds in the same way, by citing something that Darwinism 
supposedly cannot explain." (Pennock, R.T., "Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against he New Creationism," 
The MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1999, p.264)

16/02/2005 "A more powerful movement is gaining strength within the Tower and is beginning to take the 
lead in the battles against evolution in the field. This is the group of creationists that advocates `theistic 
science' and promotes what they call -intelligent-design theory.' Creationism-watchers have called the 
advance guard of intelligent-design creationism (IDC) the `upper tier' of creationists because, unlike their 
earlier counterparts, they carry advanced degrees from major institutions, often hold positions in higher 
education, and are typically more knowledgeable, more articulate, and far more savvy. There are a dozen or 
two names that appear most frequently in association with the ideas of intelligent-design and theistic 
science, but because this variation of creationism is still relatively new and its advocates have not all 
published or explicitly identified themselves under these labels it is not yet clear whom to list among its 
leaders. Walter Bradley, Jon Buell, William Lane Craig, Percival Davis, Michael Denton, Mark Hartwig, J. P. 
Moreland, Hugh Ross, and Charles B. Thaxton are important figures. Another is John Angus Campbell, a 
University of Memphis rhetorician, and he mentions Nancy Pearcey, Del Ratzsch, Tom Woodward, John 
Mark Reynolds, Walter ReMine, and Robert Koons (who is a colleague of mine in the philosophy 
department at The University of Texas at Austin), as being among the `key players' of `our movement.'' 
Among the more well- known names to sign on to the crusade are Michael Behe (Lehigh University) and 
Dean Kenyon (San Francisco State University) on the scientific side, and Alvin Plantinga and Peter van 
Inwagen (both of Notre Dame) on the philosophical side. Perhaps more significant, however, are the 
younger members of the group-William Dembski, Paul Nelson, Stephen C. Meyer, and Jonathan Wells. 
These `four horsemen' have dedicated their lives to the creationist cause and have been collecting multiple 
graduate degrees (Dembski in mathematics, philosophy and theology; Meyer and Nelson in philosophy; 
and Wells in religious studies and molecular and cellular biology) so they will be fully armored and ready to 
ride forth. " (Pennock R.T., "Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism," The MIT Press: 
Cambridge MA, 1999, Fourth printing, p.29)

"Inferences to design do not require that we have a candidate for the role of designer. We can determine 
that a system was designed by examining the system itself, and we can hold the conviction of design much 
more strongly than a conviction about the identity of the designer. In several of the examples above, the 
identity of the designer is not obvious. We have no idea who made the contraption in the junkyard, or the 
vine trap, or why. Nonetheless, we know that all of these things were designed because of the ordering of 
independent components to achieve some end." (Behe M.J.*, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical 
Challenge to Evolution," Free Press: New York, 1996, p.196)

"As a theory of biological origins and development, intelligent design's central claim is that only intelligent 
causes adequately explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are 
empirically detectable. To say intelligent causes are empirically detectable is to say there exist well-defined 
methods that, based on observable features of the world, can reliably distinguish intelligent causes from 
undirected natural causes. Many special sciences have already developed such methods for drawing this 
distinction-notably, forensic science, cryptography, archeology and the search for extraterrestrial 
intelligence (SETI). Essential to all these methods is the ability to eliminate chance and necessity. 
Astronomer Carl Sagan wrote a novel about SETI called Contact, which was later made into a movie starring 
Jodie Foster. The plot and the extraterrestrials, of course, were fictional, but Sagan based the SETI 
astronomers' methods of design detection squarely on scientific practice. In other words, real-life SETI 
researchers have never detected designed signals from distant space, but if they encountered such a signal, 
as the film's astronomers did, they too would infer design. Why did the radio astronomers in Contact draw 
such a design inference from the beeps and pauses they monitored from space? SETI researchers run 
signals collected from distant space through computers programmed to recognize preset patterns. Signals 
that do not match any of the patterns pass through the "sieve" and are classified as random. After years of 
receiving apparently meaningless "random" signals, the Contact researchers discovered a pattern of beats 
and pauses that corresponds to the sequence of all the prime numbers between 2 and 101. (Prime numbers 
are divisible only by themselves and by one.) That grabbed their attention, and they immediately detected 
intelligent design. " (Dembski W.A.*, "The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About 
Intelligent Design," Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2004, p.34)

"The scientific community contains many excellent scientists who think that there is something beyond 
nature, and many excellent scientists who do not. How then will science "officially" treat the question of the 
identity of the designer? Will biochemistry textbooks have to be written with explicit statements that "God 
did it"? No. The question of the identity of the designer will simply be ignored by science. The history of 
science is replete with examples of basic-but-difficult questions being put on the back burner. For example, 
Newton declined to explain what caused gravity, Darwin offered no explanation for the origin of vision or 
life, Maxwell refused to specify a medium for light waves once the ether was debunked, and cosmologists in 
general have ignored the question of what caused the Big Bang. Although the fact of design is easily seen 
in the biochemistry of the cell, identifying the designer by scientific methods might be extremely difficult. In 
the same way, Newton could easily observe gravity, but specifying its cause lay centuries in the future. 
When a question is too difficult for science to deal with immediately, it is happily forgotten while other, more 
accessible questions are investigated. If philosophy and theology want to take a crack at the question in the 
meantime, we scientists should wish them well, but reserve the right to jump back into the conversation 
when science has something more to add." (Behe M.J.*, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to 
Evolution," Free Press: New York NY, 1996, p.251)

"The National Academy of Sciences told the Supreme Court that the most basic characteristic of science is 
`reliance upon naturalistic explanations,' as opposed to `supernatural means inaccessible to human 
understanding.' In the latter, unacceptable category contemporary scientists place not only God, but also 
any non-material vital force that supposedly drives evolution in the direction of greater complexity, 
consciousness, or whatever. If science is to have any explanation for biological complexity at all it has to 
make do with what is left when the unacceptable has been excluded. Natural selection is the best of the 
remaining alternatives, probably the only alternative. In this situation some may decide that Darwinism 
simply must be true, and for such persons the purpose of any further investigation will be merely to 
explain how natural selection works and to solve the mysteries created by apparent anomalies. For them 
there is no need to test the theory itself, for there is no respectable alternative to test it against. Any 
persons who say the theory itself is inadequately supported can be vanquished by the question `Darwin's 
Bulldog' T. H. Huxley used to ask the doubters in Darwin's time: What is your alternative?" (Johnson, P.E.*, 
"Darwin on Trial," InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, p.28. Emphasis in original)

"`Naturalism' is similar to `materialism,' the doctrine that all reality has a material base. I prefer the former term 
because it avoids any confusion caused by the ordinary language distinction between matter and energy 
(both are ultimately made up of the somewhat ghostly subatomic entities studied by particle physicists). 
Moreover, particle physicists sometimes write and speak as if what is ultimately real is not the particles 
themselves but the grand unified theory that explains the movements and interactions of the particles. The 
essential point is that nature is understood by both naturalists and materialists to be `all there is' and to be 
fundamentally mindless and purposeless. This distinguishes naturalism from both pantheism (God is all 
there is, and God is identified with nature) and theism (God created the natural world for a purpose)." 
(Johnson, P.E.*, "Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law, and Education", 
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 1995, p.38)

"Naturalism and materialism mean essentially the same thing for present purposes, and so I use the terms 
interchangeably. Naturalism means that nature is all there is; materialism means that matter (i.e., the 
fundamental particles that make up both matter and energy) is all there is. Because evolutionary naturalists 
insist that nature is made up of those particles, there is no difference between naturalism and materialism. In 
other contexts, however, the terms may have different meanings. Materialism sometimes used to mean 
greedy for material possessions, as in `he who dies with the most toys wins.' Naturalism also has quite 
different meanings in other contexts, such art and literary criticism. These other meanings are irrelevant for 
our purposes." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds," InterVarsity Press: Downers 
Grove IL, 1997, p.16)

"The most influential intellectuals in America and around the world are mostly naturalists, who assume that 
God exists only as an idea in the minds of religious believers. In our greatest universities, naturalism-the 
doctrine that nature is "all there is" - is the virtually unquestioned assumption that underlies not only 
natural science but intellectual work of all kinds. If naturalism is true, then humankind created God-not the 
other way around. In that case, rationality requires that we recognize the Creator as the imaginary being he 
always has been, and that we rely only on things that are real, such as ourselves and the material world of 
nature. Reliance on the guidance of an imaginary supernatural being is called superstition. (Johnson, P.E.*, 
"Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education," InterVarsity Press: 
Downers Grove IL, 1995, pp.7-8)

"It would be wrong to conclude without referring to those biologists and others who do not believe that 
evolution is a fact in any but an extremely limited sense. As already stated this book is an account of the 
history of the idea of evolution, and not an account of the arguments for or against the validity of the 
concept. Excluding purely biological reasons, we believe that the concept is a valid one because the idea of 
change on which it is founded has been, and is, so universally held. There are others, however, who do not 
subscribe to the theory of evolution because they consider the known facts, although capable of a partial 
explanation by means of the evolutionary theory, cannot be completely so explained and are more 
convincingly interpreted by a modified form of special creationism which allows for the operation of some 
evolution. The reader will find these points discussed in Douglas Dewar's Difficulties of the Evolution 
Theory (1931), and More Difficulties of the Evolution Theory (1938). In these books, and in other writings, 
Dewar attacks the theory from various possible angles, but chiefly on palaeontological grounds, and he 
deals in detail with various difficulties encountered by biologists which, he contends, are irreconcilable with 
the theory of evolution." (Fothergill P.G., "Historical Aspects of Organic Evolution," Hollis & Carter: 
London, 1952, pp.346-347)

"When Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, the term `creationist' commonly 
designated a person who believed in the special creation of a soul for each human fetus, as opposed to a 
traducianist, who believed that the souls of children were inherited from their parents. For example, when the 
Princeton theologian Charles Hodge devoted a section of his Systematic Theology to `creationism,' he 
limited his discussion entirely to the origin of the soul. Nevertheless, just one day after the Origin of Species 
appeared, Darwin employed the creationist label to refer to opponents of evolution. `What a joke it would 
be,' he wrote to Thomas Henry Huxley, `if I pat you on the back when you attack some immovable 
creationist!' [Darwin C.R., letter to T.H. Huxley, November 25, 1859, in Darwin F., ed., `The Life and Letters of 
Charles Darwin,' [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, pp.27-28] Since at least the early 
1840s Darwin had occasionally referred to `creationists' in his unpublished writings, but the epithet acquired 
little public currency. In 1873 Asa Gray described a `special creationist' (a phrase he placed in quotation 
marks) as one who maintained that species `were supernaturally originated just as they are,' and in 1880 he 
briefly contrasted Darwinism with `direct Creationism.' Similarly, in the 1890s the priest-scientist John A. 
Zahm of Notre Dame occasionally used `creationist' as a synonym for antievolutionist. But the practice of 
describing anti-evolutionists as creationists remained relatively infrequent during the nineteenth century-
and confined, it seems, largely to people who no longer believed in special creations. As far as I can tell, 
such prominent North American anti-Darwinists as Louis Agassiz, Arnold Guyot, and John William Dawson 
neither called themselves creationists nor referred to their views as creationism. During the seventy-five 
years or so after the appearance of the Origin of Species opponents of evolution were commonly denoted 
by such terms as `advocates of creation,' `exponents of the theory of the immutability of species' or, 
increasingly, `antievolutionists." (Numbers R.L., "Darwinism Comes to America," Harvard University Press: 
Cambridge MA, 1998, p.50)

"MY DEAR HUXLEY,-Your letter has been forwarded to me from Down. Like a good Catholic who has 
received extreme unction, I can now sing `nunc dimittis.' I should have been more than contented with one 
quarter of what you have said. Exactly fifteen months ago, when I put pen to paper for this volume, I had 
awful misgivings ; and thought perhaps I had deluded myself, like so many have done, and I then fixed in 
my mind three judges, on whose decision I determined mentally to abide. The judges were Lyell, Hooker, 
and yourself. It was this which made me so excessively anxious for your verdict. I am now contented, and 
can sing my nunc dimittis. What a joke it would be if I pat you on the back when you attack some immovable 
creationist! You have most cleverly hit on one point, which has greatly troubled me; if, as I must think, 
external conditions produce little direct effect, what the devil determines each particular variation? 
What makes a tuft of feathers come on a cock's head, or moss on a moss-rose? I shall much like to talk over 
this with you. ..."
(Darwin C.R., letter to T.H. Huxley, November 25, 1859, in Darwin F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles 
Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, pp.27-28)

"It is an interesting point of history that the communist doctrine of dialectical materialism holds that new 
laws of organization come into operation as matter reaches higher levels of development. Thus there are 
biological laws, social laws, etc. These laws are intended to ensure the onward progression of matter 
towards states of ever-greater organization. The Russian chemist Alexander Oparin was one of the central 
figures in the development of the modern paradigm of the origin of life, and he strongly subscribed to the 
theory that life will be the inevitable outcome of self-organizing chemical processes, though whether for 
reasons of scientific conviction or political expediency is a matter for debate." (Davies P.C.W., "The Cosmic 
Blueprint: Order and Complexity at the Edge Of Chaos," Penguin: London, 1995, pp.119-120)

"To avoid stating how far, I believe, in Materialism, say only that emotions, instincts degrees of talent, 
which are hereditary are so because brain of child resembles parent stock." (Darwin C.R., "M Notebook," 
in Gruber H.E., "Darwin on Man: A Psychological Study of Scientific Creativity," together with Barrett P.H., 
"Darwin's Early and Unpublished Notebooks," E.P. Dutton & Co: New York NY, 1974, p.276)

"Thought (or desires more properly) being hereditary it is difficult to imagine it anything but structure of 
brain hereditary, analogy points out to this.-love of the deity effect of organization, oh you materialist!... 
Why is thought being a secretion of brain, more wonderful than gravity a property of matter? It is our 
arrogance, it our admiration of ourselves." (Darwin C.R., "C Notebook," [1837], in Gruber H.E., "Darwin on 
Man: A Psychological Study of Scientific Creativity," together with Barrett P.H., "Darwin's Early and 
Unpublished Notebooks," E.P. Dutton & Co: New York NY, 1974, pp.450-151)

"As a second attempt, we might locate Darwin's primary claim upon continued scientific attention in the 
extraordinarily broad and radical implications of his proffered evolutionary mechanism-natural selection. 
Indeed, I have pushed this theme relentlessly in my two previous books, focusing upon three arguments: 
natural selection as a theory of local adaptation, not inexorable progress; the claim that order in nature arises 
as a coincidental by-product of struggle among individuals; and the materialistic character of Darwin's 
theory, particularly his denial of any causal role to spiritual forces, energies, or powers. " (Gould, S.J., "Worm 
for a Century, and All Seasons," in "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History," 
[1983], Penguin: London, 1986, reprint, p.122)

"The gentleman was Charles Darwin: well heeled, imperturbably Whig, a privately financed world traveller 
who had spent five years aboard HMS Beagle as a dining companion to the aristocratic captain. He had a 
private fortune in prospect and a reputation as an up-and coming geologist. .... Clergymen from molluscs! 
How had he arrived at such damning beliefs? And this was not the worst part. He embraced a terrifying 
materialism. Only months before he had concluded in his covert notebooks that the human mind, morality, 
and even belief in God were artefacts of the brain: 'love of the deity [is the] effect of organization, oh you 
Materialist!' he upbraided himself." (Desmond A.J. & Moore J.R., "Darwin," [1991], Penguin: London, 1992, 
reprint, pp.xv-xvi)

"The F0F1 Complex: Proton Translocation Through F0 Drives 
ATP Synthesis by F1. ... the F1 complex is only part of the ATP synthase 
complex. F1 is attached by a short stalk to complex F0, which is embedded in 
the inner mitochondrial membrane at the base of the stalk. ... We now know that the F0 
complex serves as the proton translocator, the channel through which protons flow when the 
electrochemical gradient across the membrane is being used to drive the ATP synthase activity of the 
F1 complex. Thus, the functional unit is the F0F1 complex. The 
F0 component provides a channel for the exergonic flow of protons from the outside to the 
inside of the membrane, thereby tapping into the pmf, or driving force, of the electrochemical proton 
gradient, and the F1 component carries out the actual synthesis of ATP, driven by the 
energy of the proton gradient. ... The ... F1 headpiece consists of three a and three  
polypeptides, organized as three a complexes that form a catalytic hexagon. The catalytic site for ATP 
synthesis and hydrolysis is located on the  subunit; the a subunit serves as an ATP/ADP-binding site, 
thereby promoting the catalytic activity of the  subunit. The stalk consists of three polypeptides: gamma 
(y), delta (d), and epsilon (E). These subunits extend into both the F1 and the 
F0 structures. ... The d and e subunits are required for assembly of the 
F0F1 complex, and the y subunit appears to rotate as protons move through 
the channel in the F0 structure ... The F0 complex consists of polypeptides a, 
b, and c, with 1 a subunit, 2 b subunits, and 9 to 12 c subunits present in the functional complex. The c 
subunits are thought to be organized in a circle, forming the proton channel through the membrane. The a 
and b subunits apparently stabilize the proton channel. In addition, subunit b binds to the stalk, thereby 
anchoring the F1/stalk structure to the F0 base. ... Despite years of intense 
research, we do not yet fully understand the mechanism whereby the exergonic flow of protons through 
F0 drives the otherwise endergonic phosphorylation of ADP to ATP by F1. 
However, research in this area was greatly stimulated by the publication in 1994 of the structure for the 
F1 complex from bovine heart mitochondria, as determined by X-ray crystallography. 
Significantly, each of the three a complexes has a distinctly different conformation, a finding that supports 
the binding change model ... This mechanism envisions that each of the a assemblies exists alternately in 
one of three conformations-loose (L), tight (T), and open (O)-with each of the three assemblies in a different 
conformation at any point in time. ATP synthesis is thought to proceed in four steps. In step (1), ADP and 
Pi bind initially to an a assembly that is in the L state. Step (2) involves an energy-dependent change to the 
T conformation, accompanied by the conformational change of another a assembly (which has a 
previously synthesized ATP molecule bound to it) from the T to the O conformation. The bound ADP and Pi 
at the T site then react to form ATP, with the release of water (step (3)). That ATP remains bound but the 
previously synthesized ATP molecule at the other site is released. The F1 complex then 
rotates 60 to position the next a assembly for binding of ADP and Pi, in readiness for the next cycle (step 4 
). The most remarkable feature of this model is that the differences in binding affinities of the three a 
assemblies are thought to be caused by a physical rotation of the y subunit in the center of the (a)3 
catalytic hexagon! The y subunit extends from the F1 headpiece down the stalk to the circle 
of c subunits in the F0 complex. Proton transport through the c channel involves protonation 
and deprotonation of a specific aspartate residue (Asp61) in a particular c subunit, causing structural 
changes in the portion of the c subunit that interacts with both the y and e subunits. These subunits appear 
to move progressively from one subunit c to another, and the torque of that movement is thought to cause 
the physical rotation of the y subunit. According to this model, F0F1 is a 
`rotary engine' in which the electrochemical energy that is released as protons pass through the 
F0 component and is transduced into mechanical energy, which then drives the 
conformational changes of the a assemblies that lead to ATP synthesis. In other words, the 
F0F1 complex is an electrochemical-to-mechanical-to-chemical energy 
transducer-and the smallest rotary engine in the world! Or, in the words of one author, `a splendid molecular 
machine.'" (Becker W.M., Kleinsmith L.J. & Hardin J., "The World of the Cell," [1986], Benjamin/Cummings: 
San Francisco CA, Fourth edition, 2000, pp.438-440)

"Fifteen years ago a man named Hubert Yockey published an article in the Journal of Theoretical Biology 
showing that these considerations could enormously reduce the odds against finding a functional protein 
by trial and error. If we do not insist on the perfect diction of the typical skeptic, but allow some slurred 
speech in proteins, then the probability of finding a small, functional protein of one hundred amino acids in 
length is reduced from one in ten to the 130th power to one in ten to the 65th power-a reduction of sixty-five 
orders of magnitude! Yockey went on to show in the article that his calculation of one in 10^65, which he 
obtained from theoretical considerations, fit very closely with the number that could be calculated from 
considerations of the known sequence variability of the protein cytochrome c among many different 
species. Now, the problem with Yockey's calculation for a believer in the sufficiency of natural law is that, 
although 10^65 is enormously smaller than 10^130, it still is quite a large number. It has been calculated that 
there are about 10^65 atoms in a galaxy. Thus, if Yockey was correct, the odds of finding a functional protein 
are about the same as finding one particular atom in the Milky Way." (Behe M.J., "Experimental Support for 
Regarding Functional Classes of Proteins to Be Highly Isolated from Each Other," in Buell J. & Hearn V., 
eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, 1994, p.66.

"Functional Proteins Are Very Rare. In the past twenty years the science of molecular biology has made 
enormous strides. It is now possible, in laboratories with such expertise, to cut up a gene, rearrange it to suit 
yourself, and place it back in a functioning biological system. Since genes code for proteins, one can also 
produce proteins made-to-order in this manner. Sauer's laboratory, in order to answer questions about 
protein structure that interested them, took the genes for several viral proteins, systematically took out small 
pieces of them (corresponding to instructions for three amino acids at a time), and inserted altered pieces 
back in the genes. They did this, three amino acids `codons' at a time, for the whole length of the gene. By 
clever manipulation of the altered pieces they were able to screen codons for all twenty amino acids at each 
position of the protein. This is like trying all twenty-six letters of the alphabet in turn at each position of a 
word. The altered genes were then placed in bacteria, which read the DNA code and produced chains of 
amino acids from them. It turns out that bacteria quickly destroy proteins that are not folded, so ... By 
determining their sequences they could tell which amino acids in a given position were compatible with 
producing a folded, functional protein. What did they see? In some positions of the protein, Sauer's group 
saw that a great deal of amino acid diversity could be tolerated. Up to fifteen of the twenty amino acids 
could occur at some positions and still yield a functional, folded protein. At other positions in the amino 
acid sequence, however, very little diversity could be tolerated. Many positions could accommodate only 
three or four different amino acids. Other positions had an absolute requirement for a particular amino acid; 
this means that if, say, a P does not appear at position 78 of a given protein, the protein will not fold 
regardless of the proximity of the rest of the sequence to the natural protein. .... Sauer's results can 
be used to calculate the probability of finding a given protein structure. We proceed in the following 
manner. If any of ten amino acids can appear in the first position of a given functional protein sequence, 
then the odds are one in 2 that a nondirected search will place one of the allowed group there. If any of four 
amino acids can appear in the second position, then the odds are one in 5 of finding one of that group, and 
the odds of finding the correct amino acids next to each other in the first two positions are one-half times 
one-fifth, which is one-tenth. Suppose in the third position there is an absolute requirement for G. Then the 
odds of getting a G at that position are one in twenty and the odds of getting the first three amino acids 
right are now up to one in two hundred. .... Over the course of one hundred amino acids in our small protein, 
the odds quickly reach astronomical numbers. From the actual experimental results of Sauer's group it can 
easily be calculated that the odds of finding a folded protein are about one in 10 to the 65th power." To put 
this fantastic number in perspective, imagine that someone hid a grain of sand, marked with a tiny X, 
somewhere in the Sahara Desert. After wandering blindfolded for several years in the desert you reach 
down, pick up a grain of sand, take off your blindfold, and find it has a tiny X. Suspicious, you give the 
grain of sand to someone to hide again, again you wander blindfolded Into the desert, bend down, and the 
grain you pick up again has an X. A third time you repeat this action and a third time you find the marked 
grain. The odds of finding that marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row are about the 
same as finding one new functional protein structure. Rather than accept the result as a lucky coincidence, 
most people would be certain that the game had been fixed. The number of one in 10^65, arrived at by 
Sauer's experimental route, is virtually identical to the results obtained by Yockey's theoretical calculation 
and his deduction from natural cytochrome c sequences! It therefore strongly reinforces our confidence that 
a correct result has been obtained. Sauer's group obtained closely similar results for two different proteins 
.... This means that all proteins that have been examined to date, either experimentally or by comparison of 
analogous sequences from different species, have been seen to be surrounded by an almost infinitely wide 
chasm of unfolded, nonfunctional, useless protein sequences. There are no ledges, no buttes, no 
steppingstones to cross the chasm. The conclusion that a reasonable person draws from this is that the 
laws of nature are insufficient to produce functional proteins and, therefore, functional proteins have not 
been produced through a nondirected search. " (Behe M.J., "Experimental Support for Regarding Functional 
Classes of Proteins to Be Highly Isolated from Each Other," in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science 
or Philosophy?," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, 1994, pp.67-69. Emphasis in original.

"mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) A circular ring of DNA found in mitochondria. In mammals mtDNA makes up 
less than 1% of the total cellular DNA, but in plants the amount is variable. It codes for ribosomal and 
transfer RNA but only some mitochondrial proteins (up to 30 proteins in animals), the nuclear DNA being 
required for encoding most of these. Human mtDNA codes for 13 proteins and some RNA. Mitochondrial 
DNA is generally inherited via the female line only, although there are some exceptions to this (see 
heteroplasmy)." (Martin E. & Hine R.S., eds., "Oxford Dictionary of Biology," [1985], Oxford University 
Press: Oxford UK, Fourth Edition, 2000, p.382-383)

"TO MAKE AN APPLE PIE, you need wheat, apples, a pinch of this and that, and the heat of the oven. The 
ingredients are made of molecules-sugar, say, or water. The molecules, in turn, are made of atoms-carbon, 
oxygen, hydrogen and a few others. Where do these atoms come from? Except for hydrogen, they are all 
made in stars. A star is a kind of cosmic kitchen inside which atoms of hydrogen are cooked into heavier 
atoms. Stars condense from interstellar gas and dust, which are composed mostly of hydrogen. But the 
hydrogen was made in the Big Bang, the explosion that began the Cosmos. If you wish to make an apple pie 
from scratch, you must first invent the universe." (Sagan C.E., "Cosmos," [1980], Macdonald: London, 1981, 
reprint, p.218)

"ubiquitin A small protein (consisting of 76 amino acid residues), found universally in prokaryotes and 
eukaryotes, that tags proteins destined for degradation by proteasomes. It forms a covalent bond with 
lysine residues in an ATP-dependent reaction termed ubiquitination. Ubiquitin is important in both the 
normal life of the cell and in a cell's response to stress; it is considered to be a heatshock protein." (Martin E. 
& Hine R.S., eds., "Oxford Dictionary of Biology," [1985], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, Fourth 
edition, 2000, p.607)

"ANY TEXTBOOK of genetics or evolution will tell you that the genetic code-the relationship between the 
nucleotide sequence of a gene and the amino acid sequence of the protein it codes for-is universal. All 
creatures, from bacteria to flies to us, use the same genetic code. This neat simplicity was disturbed slightly 
a few years ago, when the small genomes of mitochondria were found to use slightly deviant codes-but of 
course mitochondria are not organisms. Now, however, some more deviations from the standard code have 
turned up in some free living ciliated protozoons and mycoplasmas. So the genetic code is really not 
universal after all (Nature, vol 314, p 132). The deviations from the standard code, which five separate 
groups of scientists in America, Europe and Japan have now found, are very small. In each case a series of 
three nucleotides (a codon) which normally marks the point on messenger RNA at which protein 
manufacture should stop, instead codes for the incorporation of an amino acid. ... Sydney Brenner, head of 
the Medical Research Council's Laboratory of Molecular Biology at Cambridge, and contributor to the 
breaking of the standard code ... emphasised that the deviations found so far are all very minor variations on 
the standard and still universal theme, rather than entirely novel codes in which all or most of the codons 
have their meanings changed." (Scott A., "Genetic code is not so universal," New Scientist, 11 April 1985, 

"Kenneth Miller, a Roman Catholic cell biologist and skilled platform debater for Darwinism, writes in his 
book Finding Darwin's God that a key doctrine in my own faith is that Jesus was born of a virgin, even 
though it makes no scientific sense-there is the matter of Jesus' Y-chromosome to account for. But that is 
the point. Miracles, by definition, do not have to make scientific sense. They are specific acts of God, 
designed in most cases to get a message across. Their very rarity is what makes them remarkable. [Miller 
K.R., "Finding Darwin's God," 1999, p.239] I suspect that most of Miller's materialist colleagues will wonder 
how serious he can be in claiming to believe in an event while saying that it makes no scientific sense, 
especially since he is vigorous in judging all other claims of supernatural influence on the natural world by 
the standards of science. If he makes this one exception then why not others, and how does he decide 
where to draw the line? They may also wonder what Miller could possibly mean by his quest to `find 
Darwin's God,' when it is so widely known in the scholarly world (and even to Miller himself) that Darwin in 
his later years was an agnostic." (Johnson, P.E.*, "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of 
Naturalism," Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 2000, p.91)

"Progressive creationism accepts much of the scientific picture of the development of the universe, 
assuming that for the most part it developed according to natural laws. However, especially with 
regard to life on earth, PCs hold that God intervened supernaturally at strategic points along the way. On 
their view, Creation was not a single six-day event but occurred in stages over millions of years. .... The PC 
view tends to overlap with other views, particularly with old-earth creationism. Hugh Ross is a progressive 
creationist and is attacked by YECs for that view as much as for his view regarding the age of the earth." 
(Pennock R.T., "Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism," MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 
1999, Fourth Printing, pp.26-27. Emphasis in original)

"phlogiston theory A former theory of combustion in which all flammable objects were supposed to contain 
a substance called phlogiston, which was released when the object burned. The existence of this 
hypothetical substance was proposed in 1669 by Johann Becher, who called it `combustible earth' (terra 
pinguis: literally `fat earth'). For example, according to Becher, the conversion of wood to ashes by burning 
was explained on the assumption that the original wood consisted of ash and terra pinguis, which was 
released on burning. In the early 18th century Georg Stahl renamed the substance phlogiston (from the 
Greek for `burned') and extended the theory to include the calcination (and corrosion) of metals. Thus, 
metals were thought to be composed of calx (a powdery residue) and phlogiston; when a metal was heated, 
phlogiston was set free and the calx remained. The process could be reversed by heating the metal over 
charcoal (a substance believed to be rich in phlogiston, because combustion almost totally consumed it). 
The calx would absorb the phlogiston released by the burning charcoal and become metallic again. The 
theory was finally demolished by Antoine Lavoisier, who showed by careful experiments with reactions in 
closed containers that there was no absolute gain in mass - the gain in mass of the substance was matched 
by a corresponding loss in mass of the air used in combustion. After experiments with Priestley's 
dephlogisticated air, Lavoisier realized that this gas, which he named oxygen, was taken up to form a calx 
(now called an oxide). The role of oxygen in the new theory was almost exactly the opposite of phlogiston's 
role in the old. In combustion and corrosion phlogiston was released; in the modern theory, oxygen is taken 
up to form an oxide." (Daintith J., ed., "Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry," [1985], Fourth Edition, Oxford 
University Press: Oxford UK, Fourth edition, 2000, pp.419-420)

 "Now I'm starting to feel -- I'm no more of a creationist now than I ever was, and I'm no less of an 
evolutionist now that I ever was -- but I'm inclined to think that we should move our debate now onto 
another level, or move on. And instead of just sort of, just -- I mean I realize that when one is dealing with 
people, say, at the school level, or these sorts of things, certain sorts of arguments are appropriate. But 
those of us who are academics, or for other reasons pulling back and trying to think about these things, I 
think that we should recognize, both historically and perhaps philosophically, certainly that the science side 
has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which -- it may not be a good thing to admit 
in a court of law -- but I think that in honesty that we should recognize, and that we should be thinking 
about some of these sorts of things. Certainly, I think that philosophers like myself have been much more 
sensitized to these things, over the last ten years, by trends and winds and whatever the right metaphor is, 
in the philosophy of science. ... So, as I say, historically I think, however we're going to deal with 
creationism, or new creationism, or these sorts of things, whether you think that this is -- that what I've just 
been saying means that we'd better put our house in order .... And it seems to me very clear that at some 
very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at 
some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things, come what may. ..But I am coming here 
and saying, I think that philosophically that one should be sensitive to what I think history shows, namely, 
that evolution ... akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at 
some level cannot be proven empirically. I guess we all knew that, but I think that we're all much more 
sensitive to these facts now. And I think that the way to deal with creationism, but the way to deal with 
evolution also, is not to deny these facts, but to recognize them, and to see where we can go, as we move on 
from there. ... Scott: Any questions? [There is a momentary silence.] Ruse: State of shock!" (Ruse M., 
"Transcript: Speech by Professor Michael Ruse," Symposium, "The New Antievolutionism," 1993 Annual 
Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, February 13, 1993. Access Research 

"During the period of nearly universal rejection, direct evidence for continental drift-that is, the data 
gathered from rocks exposed on our continents-was every bit as good as it is today. It was dismissed 
because no one had devised a physical mechanism that would permit continents to plow through an 
apparently solid oceanic floor. In the absence of a plausible mechanism, the idea of continental drift was 
rejected as absurd. The data that seemed to support it could always be explained away. If these explanations 
sounded contrived or forced, they were not half so improbable as the alternative-accepting continental drift. 
During the past ten years, we have collected a new set of data, this time from the ocean basins. With these 
data, a heavy dose of creative imagination, and a better understanding of the earth's interior, we have 
fashioned a new theory of planetary dynamics. Under this theory of plate tectonics, continental drift is an 
inescapable consequence. The old data from continental rocks, once soundly rejected, have been exhumed 
and exalted as conclusive proof of drift. In short, we now accept continental drift because it is the 
expectation of a new orthodoxy. I regard this tale as typical of scientific progress. New facts, collected in old 
ways under the guidance of old theories, rarely lead to any substantial revision of thought. Facts do not 
"speak for themselves"; they are read in the light of theory. Creative thought, in science as much as in the 
arts, is the motor of changing opinion. Science is a quintessentially human activity, not a mechanized, 
robotlike accumulation of objective information, leading by laws of logic to inescapable interpretation." 
(Gould, S.J., "The Validation of Continental Drift," in "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History," 
[1978], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, pp.161-162)

"Correction of error cannot always arise from new discovery within an accepted conceptual system. 
Sometimes the theory has to crumble first, and a new framework be adopted, before the crucial facts can be 
seen at all" (Gould, S.J., "Cordelia's Dilemma", in "Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History," 
[1995], Crown: New York NY, 1997, reprint, p.127)

"The new orthodoxy colors our vision of all data; there are no `pure facts' in our complex world. About five 
years ago, paleontologists found on Antarctica a fossil reptile named Lystrosaurus. It also lived in 
South Africa, and probably in South America as well (rocks of the appropriate age have not been found in 
South America). If anyone had floated such an argument for drift in the presence of Willis and Schuchert, he 
would have been howled down-and quite correctly. For Antarctica and South America are almost joined 
today by a string of islands, and they were certainly connected by a land bridge at various times in the past 
(a minor lowering of sea level would produce such a land bridge today). Lystrosaurus may well have 
walked in comfort, on a rather short journey at that. yet the New York Times wrote an editorial proclaiming, 
on this basis alone, that continental drift had been proved.Many readers may be disturbed by my argument 
for the primacy of theory. Does it not lead to dogmatism and disrespect for fact? It can, of course, but it 
need not. The lesson of history holds that theories are overthrown by rival theories, not that orthodoxies are 
unshakable" (Gould, S.J., "Continental Drift," in "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History," [1978], 
Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, pp.166-167)

"With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no 
intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to 
do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I 
cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the 
Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a 
cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly 
designed. On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially 
the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at 
everything as resulting from designed laws; with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of 
what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is 
too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man 
hope and believe what he can." (Darwin C.R., letter to Asa Gray, May 22, 1860, in Darwin F., ed., "The Life 
and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, p.105)

"T: This fear of giving the Creationists ammunition seems very real. N.M: Well, let me tell you of the most 
horrible anecdote of them all. A few minutes ago I mentioned Ron Brady's article on natural selection in 
`Systematic Zoology.' I will not name the man or the college in this case but it was an Ivy League college 
and a respectable man. One of the assistant professors of biology read Ron Brady's article and showed it to 
a couple of his colleagues, and they all agreed this was very interesting stuff. They put it on the reading list 
for biology courses. Then they had to arrange for a number of copies to be struck off for students to read. 
One student couldn't wait for the copies because he had other business and had to read it instantly. So they 
told him to go down to the library, get out `Systematic Zoology' for December of '79, and read it right there. 
He came back in half an hour and said, `I got out the December issue but the article isn't there, it's been 
scissored out.' Next day, the assistant professor of biology went into the office of the head of the 
department on some other business and on the head's table he saw the missing pages. He went out and got 
his two colleagues and they marched in together and asked for an explanation. The head of the department 
said, `Well, of course I don't believe in censorship in any form, but I just couldn't bear the idea of my 
students reading that article.'" (Macbeth N., "Darwinism: A time for funerals," Robert Briggs Associates: 
San Francisco CA, 1982, pp.10-12)

"The twentieth century would be incomprehensible without the Darwinian revolution. The social and 
political currents which have swept the world in the past eighty years would have been impossible without 
its intellectual sanction. It is ironic to recall that it was the increasingly secular outlook in the nineteenth 
century which initially eased the way for the acceptance of evolution, while today it is perhaps the 
Darwinian view of nature more than any other that is responsible for the agnostic and sceptical outlook of 
the twentieth century. What was once a deduction from materialism has today become its foundation." 
(Denton M.J., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," Burnett Books: London, 1985, p.359)

"Although many details remain to be worked out, it is already evident that all the objective phenomena of 
the history of life can be explained by purely materialistic factors. They are readily explicable on the basis of 
differential reproduction in populations (the main factor in the modern conception of natural selection) and 
of the mainly random interplay of the known processes of heredity." (Simpson G.G., "The Meaning of 
Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of its Significance for Man," [1949], Yale University Press: 
New Haven CT, 1960, reprint, p.343)

"[Mat. 7:]21-23. `Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one 
who puts into practice the will of my Father who (is) in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, 
in thy name did we not prophesy, and in thy name did we not cast out demons, and in thy name did we not 
perform many mighty works?' ... The people whom Jesus condemns are branded as false because in their 
case life and lip had not been in harmony. Their exclamation "Lord, Lord" had been deceitful. By means of it 
they also now, on this day of the Great Assize, present themselves as Christ's loyal servants ... But on this 
day of the last judgment they discover that, whatever may have been their previous success in deceiving 
others, and perhaps while on earth even themselves, they cannot fool the judge. From the kingdom 
in its final phase they are excluded.-The lesson is clear: let everyone examine himself!" (Hendriksen W., 
"The Gospel of Matthew: New Testament Commentary:," [1973], The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982, reprint, 
p.375. Emphasis in original)

"The souls of the natives held no interest for Huxley. What intrigued him was the fate of the man sent to 
save them. As always he had his eye on the sects of his own culture. For months Father Angelo had learned 
the aborigine's tongue and taught his bemused charges Latin prayers. Huxley learned that the man was 
'wholly without religious feeling, well acquainted with theology and a strong stickler for the doctrine of his 
church'. Nothing reinforced his prejudices about papism and its militia more. The priest was 'a soldier of his 
church, i.e. like most soldiers he did his duty religiously but cared not two straws for the quarrel in which he 
fought'. The military metaphor, honed by Huxley's anti-Catholicism and suspicion of the warring sects, was 
becoming pointed. Like the buildings, the priest had crumbled in this hell-hole. Just before the [H.M.S.] 
Rattlesnake arrived he had died, as MacGillivray put it, blasphemously denying God." (Desmond A., 
"Huxley: From Devil's Disciples to Evolution's High Priest," [1994], Perseus: Reading MA, 1999, reprint, 

"There is one further factor needed to delineate more precisely their [an extraterrestrial higher civilization] 
predicament. They would have known that in the long run and it may have been a very long run their own 
civilization was doomed. Of course, there may have been reasons for them to believe they could not even 
survive in the short run. Perhaps they had found that a neighboring star was set on a collision course with 
theirs not a very likely event in most parts of a galaxy but more than likely near the galactic center. Perhaps 
they had reason to suspect that their social system would not be stable definitely, as indeed ours may not 
be. But they would have known that in the very long run- meaning within billions of years-when its nuclear 
fuel began to run out their star would probably become a red giant and in doing so would engulf their planet 
and roast them beyond all reasonable hope of escape. Without doubt they would have planned to colonize 
neighboring planets, but this may have proved to be a technological achievement of extreme difficulty, 
especially if they were unlucky and the nearest suitable planet was many tens of light-years away. Even if 
they attempted to do this, they may have realized that their chances of success were small and that they had 
to make contingency plans against repeated failures of this kind. Whatever their reasons, we may expect 
them to have examined carefully other alternatives. ... There remained the obvious possibility of sending 
some other living creatures from their planet. Though necessarily lower in the evolutionary scale, the hope 
would have been that they might survive and multiply, and, with luck, evolve eventually into a higher form 
of life. If it was too difficult to send manlike creatures on that appalling journey, why not try to send mice? ... 
Obviously we need an organism which can be sent in fairly large numbers, which could survive the long 
journey in space fairly well and which would have some chance of surviving both the act of delivery onto 
the surface of the planet and the environmental conditions it would find there. Put this way, we see that 
microorganisms similar to our bacteria would have been a good choice to be the colonists sent to start life in 
a distant place." (Crick F.H.C., "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1981, 

"While I could relate to many of the objections that Templeton had raised, at the same time I wasn't naive 
enough to accept each of them at face value. It was clear that some of his obstacles to faith shouldn't be 
impediments at all. For example, Templeton was plain wrong about Jesus considering himself to be a mere 
human being. Even if you go back to the earliest and most primitive information about him-data that could 
not have been tainted by legendary development-you find that Jesus undoubtedly saw himself in 
transcendent, divine, and messianic terms. In fact, here's an irony: the very historical documents that 
Templeton relied upon for his information about the inspiring moral life of Jesus are actually the exact same 
records that repeatedly affirm his deity. So if Templeton is willing to accept their accuracy concerning Jesus' 
character, then he also ought to consider them trustworthy when they assert that Jesus claimed to be divine 
and then backed up that assertion by rising from the dead. In addition, the resurrection of Jesus could not 
have been a legend as Templeton claimed. The apostle Paul preserved a creed of the early church that was 
based on eyewitness accounts of Jesus' return from the dead-and which various scholars have dated to as 
early as twenty-four to thirty-six months after Jesus' death. [1 Cor. 15:3-8] That's far too quick for mythology 
to have tainted the record. The truth is that nobody has ever been able to show one example in. history of a 
legend developing that quickly and wiping out a solid core of historical truth." (Strobel, L.P.*, "The Case for 
Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 
2000, p.21)

"My own research and teaching have always been planned and interpreted in Darwinian terms; so have 
those of every other working biologist I know. We assume that animals and all other living creatures adapt 
to environments, that natural selection snaps at their heels to speed the process, that today's organisms are 
adapted through natural selection from different kinds of organisms that lived long ago, and that the fossil 
record, properly interpreted, can show us how it happened. This is all a useful framework for the mass of 
knowledge that modern biologists must acquire but ... there is a hidden danger. Like almost every other 
working biologist I rejoice (well, nod with mild approval) when one of my colleagues comes up with 
evidence, honestly acquired, that fits the Darwinian model. Like others I suspend judgement on evidence 
that seems not to fit, and feel better when, with further thought, I find it consistent after all. Like others I 
tend to test the evidence against the model, and never really find time to test the model itself. ... However, 
Michael Pitman has quite properly seized on the weaknesses that have always flawed the foundations of 
Darwinism, and he does us a service by worrying them to shreds. What are the weaknesses? ... The first is 
that evolution by natural selection is remarkably difficult to demonstrate by the kinds of experiments that 
scientists normally accept in evidence. The second is that, while micro-evolution (the genesis of varieties of 
plants or animals) by natural selection seems plausible enough, macro-evolution (the genesis of widely 
differing patterns of organisms) by an extension and elaboration of the same process is much more difficult 
to swallow. Accepting the implications of macro-evolution by natural selection is, in the author's view, 
unwarranted on the evidence. Could the human eye have been evolved by the trial-and error of natural 
selection? And the human brain? Could the complex biochemistry of even the simplest bacterium have 
arisen by a series of chances? To believe that they could, says Michael Pitman, is just as much a matter of 
faith as belief in Creationism or any other less scientifically pretentious alternative to natural selection. Is 
Darwinism, then, a scientific hypothesis or a religious experience? I have not found all the arguments of this 
book convincing, but I cannot disagree with its major proposition that, in measure of credulity, there is 
currently little to choose between Darwinist and Creationist. Michael Pitman may convince you ... that not 
all Creationists are mindlessly conforming to outworn myths, and that there is more in the Creationist 
argument than scientists are generally willing to concede. He may even convince you, as he has convinced 
me, that some fundamental truths about evolution have so far eluded us all, and that uncritical acceptance of 
Darwinism may be counterproductive as well as expedient." (Stonehouse, B., "Introduction," Pitman, M., 
"Adam and Evolution," Rider & Co., London, 1984, p.11-12)

"C.f. The Darwin upheaval. One circle of admirers who said: `Of course', and another circle [of enemies] who 
said: `Of course not'. Why in the Hell should a man say `of course'? (The idea was that of monocellular 
organisms becoming more and more complicated until they became mammals, men, etc.) Did anyone see this 
process happening? No. Has anyone seen it happening now? No. The evidence of breeding is just a drop in 
the bucket. But there were thousands of books in which this was said to be the obvious solution. 
People were certain on grounds which were extremely thin. Couldn't there have been an attitude 
which said: `I don't know. It's an interesting hypothesis which may eventually be well confirmed'? This 
shows how you can be persuaded of a certain thing. In the end you forget entirely every question of 
verification, you are just sure it must have been like that." (Wittgenstein, L.J.J., "Lectures and 
Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief," Barrett, C., ed., Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 
1966, pp.26-27. Emphasis in original)

* Authors with an asterisk against their name are believed not to be evolutionists. However, lack of
an asterisk does not necessarily mean that an author is an evolutionist.


Copyright © 2005-2010, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. These my quotes may be used
for non-commercial purposes only and may not be used in a book, ebook, CD, DVD, or any other
medium except the Internet, without my written permission. If used on the Internet, a link back
to this page would be appreciated.
Created: 1 January, 2005. Updated: 16 April, 2010.