[Home] [Site map] [Updates] [Quotes, Unposted, Unclassified, Classified]
The following are unclassified quotes posted in my email messages of June 2005. The date format is dd/mm/yy.
2/06/2005 "So, macromutations do happen. But do they play a role in evolution? People called saltationists believe that macromutations are a means by which major jumps in evolution could take place in a single generation. Richard Goldschmidt ... was a true saltationist. If saltationism were true, apparent 'gaps' in the fossil record needn't be gaps at all. For example, a saltationist might believe that the transition from sloping-browed Australopithecus to dome-browed Homo sapiens took place in a single macromutational step, in a single generation. The difference in form between the two species is probably less than the difference between a normal and an antennapaedic fruitfully, and it is theoretically conceivable that the first Homo sapiens was a freak child - probably an ostracized and persecuted one - of two normal Australopithecus parents. There are very good reasons for rejecting all such saltationist theories of evolution. One rather boring reason is that if a new species really did arise in a single mutational step, members of the new species might have a hard time finding mates." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," , Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.231) 2/06/2005 "We can well imagine such a non-Darwinian theory of discontinuous change- profound and abrupt genetic alteration luckily (now and then) making a new species all at once. Hugo de Vries, the famous Dutch botanist supported such a theory early in this century. But these notions seem to present insuperable difficulties. With whom shall Athena born from Zeus's brow mate? All her relatives are members of another species. What is the chance of producing Athena in the first place, rather than a deformed monster? Major disruptions of entire genetic systems do not produce favored or even viable creatures." (Gould S.J., "The Return of the Hopeful Monster," in "The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History," , Penguin: London, 1990, reprint, pp.158-159) 2/06/2005 "`Evolution' can mean anything from the uncontroversial statement that bacteria `evolve' resistance to antibiotics to the grand metaphysical claim that the universe and mankind `evolved' entirely by purposeless, mechanical forces. A word that elastic is likely to mislead, by implying that we know as much about the grand claim as we do about the small one. That very point was the theme of a remarkable lecture given by Colin Patterson at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981. Patterson is a senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and the author of that museum's general text on evolution. His lecture compared creationism (not creation-science) with evolution, and characterized both as scientifically vacuous concepts which are held primarily on the basis of faith. Many of the specific points in the lecture are technical, but two are of particular importance for this introductory chapter. First, Patterson asked his audience of experts a question which reflected his own doubts about much of what has been thought to be secure knowledge about evolution: `Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing . . . that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said "I do know one thing-it ought not to be taught in high school." Patterson suggested that both evolution and creation are forms of pseudo-knowledge, concepts which seem to imply information but do not. One point of comparison was particularly striking. A common objection to creationism in pre-Darwinian times was that no one could say anything about the mechanism of creation. Creationists simply pointed to the `fact' of creation and conceded ignorance of the means. But now, according to Patterson, Darwin's theory of natural selection is under fire and scientists are no longer sure of its general validity. Evolutionists increasingly talk like creationists in that they point to a fact but cannot provide an explanation of the means. Patterson was being deliberately provocative, and I do not mean to imply that his skeptical views are widely supported in the scientific community. On the contrary, Patterson came under heavy fire from Darwinists after somebody circulated a bootleg transcript of the lecture, and he eventually disavowed the whole business. Whether or not he meant to speak for public attribution, however, he was making an important point. We can point to a mystery and call it `evolution,' but this is only a label. The important question is not whether scientists have agreed on a label, but how much they know about how complex living beings like ourselves came into existence. ... Colin Patterson's 1981 lecture was not published, but I have reviewed a transcript and Patterson restated his position, which I would label "evolutionary nihilism," in an interview with the journalist Tom Bethell. (See Bethell, "Deducing from Materialism," National Review, Aug. 29, 1986, p. 43.) I discussed evolution with Patterson for several hours in London in 1988. He did not retract any of the specific skeptical statements he has made, but he did say that he continues to accept `evolution' as the only conceivable explanation for certain features of the natural world." (Johnson P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," , InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second edition, 1993, pp.9-10, 173) 3/06/2005 "Perhaps the most prevalent of the misconstruals of creationism involves the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There are several ways of stating the Second Law, but for present purposes the following intuitive characterizations will be adequate. In a system that neither loses nor gains energy from outside of itself (a closed system), although the total amount of energy within the system remains constant, the proportion of that energy which is no longer usable within the system (measured as entropy) tends to increase over time. An equivalent formulation is that in a closed system there is over time a spontaneous tendency toward erosion of a specified type of order within the system. Creationists nearly unanimously claim that this Second Law poses a nasty problem for evolution. Unfortunately, exactly what creationists have in mind here is widely misunderstood. Creationists are at least partly at fault for that confusion. One reason is that as noted earlier ... most popular creationists use the term evolution ambiguously-sometimes to refer to the cosmic evolutionary worldview (or model) and sometimes to refer to the Darwinian biological theory. Although a coherent position can be extracted from some of the major creationists (such as Morris, Gish, Wysong and Kofahl), this ambiguity has rendered some parts of their writings monumentally unclear. One has to read extremely carefully in order to see which evolution is being referred to, and some critics of creationism either have simply not noticed the ambiguity or perhaps have misjudged which meaning specific creationists have had in mind in specific passages. And critics are not the only people who have sometimes been bamboozled. Other creationists who take their cues from those above have also sometimes missed some of the key distinctions and have advanced exactly the original misconstrued arguments that critics have wrongly attributed to major creationists. In a word or two, we have a four-alarm mess here. But let's see if we can clear up at least some of it. First, when claiming that the Second Law flatly precludes evolution, major creationists almost invariably have in mind evolution in the overall cosmic, `evolution model' sense. The clues to that meaning are the almost invariable use (especially in Morris's writings) of phrases like philosophy of evolution or cosmic or universal or on a cosmic scale. The universe as a whole system is taken to be a closed system (classically), and according to the creationist definition of evolution model, that model is unavoidably committed to an internally generated overall increase in cosmic order, since on that view reality is supposed to be self-developed and self- governing. What Morris and others mean to be claiming is that any such view according to which the entire cosmos is itself in a process of increasing overall order is in violation of the Second Law. Critics of creationism almost without exception take this initial creationist claim to be about purely biological evolution on the earth and respond that the Second Law applies only to closed systems, whereas the earth, receiving energy from the sun, is thermodynamically open. But since the system actually in question here is the entire universe, which is the `prime example' of a closed system, the response that the Second Law only applies to closed systems is beside the point creationists mean to be making in this case. That is not to say that the creationist argument is ultimately correct here, but only that if it is defective the problem is not the one initially proposed. When discussion turns to evolution in the more restricted sense- biological evolution on the earth-then obviously it is highly relevant to point out that the earth is not a closed system and that thus the Second Law by itself does not directly preclude evolution. But Morris, Gish, Wysong and others admit that, and have for decades, although not always in a terribly clear manner. How does that admission emerge? Morris, for instance, claims in numerous of his writings that a system being open is not alone enough to cause a reversal of disorder or a decrease in entropy. There are, Morris claims, some additional requirements that must be met before that can happen For instance, the flow of energy coming into the system must be adequate, and there must be some already- existing `code' and `conversion mechanism' by which the incoming energy can be harnessed, turned into some form that is useful and usable in the system, and then properly directed and productively incorporated into the system experiencing increasing order. These additional requirements are not requirements of the Second Law itself but are requirements that Morris thinks we have good empirical grounds for accepting. Simply throwing raw energy into a system generally does not produce increased order but destroys some of the order already there. So the view is that special conditions-codes, conversion mechanisms and the like-are needed before growths in order can occur even in open systems. That raises the question, How do these codes and conversion mechanisms themselves arise? Some creationists may hold that the Second Law itself flatly precludes such codes and mechanisms arsing naturally. Others take the odds against the codes and mechanisms being generated naturally to be massively overwhelming. But Morris says that the natural development of such codes and mechanisms may, for all he knows, be possible, although it is unlikely. So although the Second Law does impose some conditions, and although other empirical experience seems to impose some additional constraints, at least in principle, according to Morris, all of those conditions and constraints can perhaps be met: `It is conceivable, although extremely unlikely, that evolutionists may eventually formulate a plausible code and mechanism to explain how both entropy and evolution could co-exist.' [Morris H.M., "King of Creation," 1980, p.117] `This objection does not preclude the possibility of evolution.' [Morris H.M., "The Troubled Waters of Evolution," 1974, p.101] `It may of course be possible to harmonize evolution and entropy.' [Morris H.M., "The Troubled Waters of Evolution," 1974, p.99] `This of course does not preclude temporary increases of order in specific open systems.' [Morris H.M., "The Biblical Basis for Modern Science," 1984, p.207; Morris H.M., "Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science," 1970, p.127]. Morris says similar things elsewhere-from at least 1966 on. [Morris H.M., "Studies in the Bible and Science," 1966, p.146; Morris H.M., "The Biblical Basis for Modern Science," 1984, p.207; Morris H.M., "King of Creation," 1980, p.114; Morris H.M., "Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?," Impact, 141, March 1985, pp.i-iv]. So what, then, is the problem? A major one, according to Morris, concerns the required codes and mechanisms: `No one yet has any evidence that any such things exist at all.' [Morris H.M., "Creation and the Modern Christian," 1985, pp.155-56]. `Neither of these has yet been discovered.' [Morris H.M., "The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth," 1972, p.20]. `So far, evolutionists have no answer.' [Morris H.M., "The Troubled Waters of Evolution," 1974, p.100]. `[The special conditions are] not available to evolution as far as all evidence goes.' [Morris H.M., "Science and the Bible," 1986, p.60]. Notice the invariable qualifications: `yet,' `so far' and so on. And what that all means, according to Morris, is that `the necessary `law' of evolution, if it exists, still remains to be discovered and evolutionists must in the meantime continue to exercise faith in their model in spite of entropy.' [Morris H.M., "The Troubled Waters of Evolution," 1974, p.101]. Those last five quotes, incidentally, come from four different books written from 1972 to 1986, hardly an obscure brief departure from Morris's usual views-and this same sort of view is found in Gish, Wysong, Pearcey, Bird, and Kofahl and Segraves, from 1976 to the present." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 1996, pp.91-93) 3/06/2005 "The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all energy systems run down like a clock and never rewind themselves. But life not only 'runs up,' converting low energy sea-water, sunlight and air into high-energy chemicals, it keeps multiplying itself into more and better clocks that keep 'running up' faster and faster. Why, for example, should a group of simple, stable compounds of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen struggle for billions of years to organize themselves into a professor of chemistry? What's the motive? If we leave a chemistry professor out on a rock in the sun long enough the forces of nature will convert him into simple compounds of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitroge n, calcium, phosphorus, and small amounts of other minerals. It's a one-way reaction. No matter what kind of chemistry professor we use and no matter what process we use we can't turn these compounds back into a chemistry professor. Chemistry professors are unstable mixtures of predominantly unstable compounds which, in the exclusive presence of the sun's heat, decay irreversibly into simpler organic and inorganic compounds. That's a scientific fact. The question is: Then why does nature reverse this process? What on earth causes the inorganic compounds to go the other way? It isn't the sun's energy. We just saw what the sun's energy did. It has to be something else. What is it?" (Pirsig R.M., "Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals," Bantam: London, 1991, pp.144-145) 3/06/2005 "Where is the Garden of Eden? In Gen 2:10-14 the exact location for the Garden of Eden are described. It was in the headwaters of the four rivers Pison, Gihon, Tigris and Euphrates. These rivers rise on the plateau heights of Eastern Turkey. Around it is a rim of mountains rising to 12,000ft with the main peak- Mount Ararat towering above them all. Eden was at the source of rivers and therefore has to be in a mountainous region. What about the four rivers- two are unheard of aren't they? Identity of Pison and Gihon are clearly given in the London Geographical Institute maps. They are now known as Halys and Araxes. The Halys rises in Eastern Turkey and flows north into the Black Sea. The river Araxes rises in Eastern Turkey and flows North East into the Caspian Sea. They along with the Euphrates and Tigris rose from a massive mountain lake on the plateau over a thousand metres high. This lake has long since dried up although it remains in a much smaller form known as Lake Van. Was there such a thing as rain? Archaeological evidence proves that this lake fed waterways all over the area. 'God did not cause it to rain upon the ground'. How then was the garden watered? Streams of water coming out of the rocks were kept in the garden by clay walls. The water of the ancient lake seeps through porous rock. This is called Flood water farming which is not dependant upon rain and is an accurate description in Genesis of the method. ... The name 'Eden' is very similar to the Babylonian word 'Edinnu' which denotes a plateau or steppe. This would be a piece of land in a mountainous region, which is flat. This would also relate to the 'cool evenings mentioned in Gen 3:8 which is typical of a high plateau climate. Even today the area is famed for the quality of it's soil which allows great amounts of plant growth due to the richness of plant nutrients." (Pearce E.K.V., "The Garden of Eden," Barnabas Youth, 2001. http://www.barnabasyouth.org/online/barnabas.nsf/Evidence4Truth?openform) 3/06/2005 "The question is not concerning evolution, but as to the main cause which has led to evolution in such and such shapes. To me it seems that the `Origin of Variation,' whatever it is, is the only true 'Origin of Species,' and that this must, as Lamarck insisted, be looked for in the needs and experiences of the creatures varying. Unless we can explain the origin of variations, we are met by the unexplained at every step in the progress of a creature from its original homogeneous condition to its differentiation, we will say, as an elephant; so that to say that an elephant has become an elephant through the accumulation of a vast number of small, fortuitous, but unexplained, variations in some lower creatures, is really to say that it has become an elephant owing to a series of causes about which we know nothing, whatever, or, in other words, that one does not know how it came to be an elephant." (Butler S., "Life and Habit," , Wildwood House: London, 1981, pp.263-264) 3/06/2005 "The advantageous micromutations postulated by neo-Darwinist genetics are tiny, usually too small to be noticed. This premise is important because, in the words of Richard Dawkins, `virtually all the mutations studied in genetics laboratories-which are pretty macro because otherwise geneticists wouldn't notice them-are deleterious to the animals possessing them.' (Dawkins R., `The Blind Watchmaker,' , Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.233) But if the necessary mutations are too small to be seen, there would have to be a great many of them (millions?) of the right type coming along when they are needed to carry on the long-term project of producing a complex organ. The probability of Darwinist evolution depends upon the quantity of favorable micromutations required to create complex organs and organisms, the frequency with which such favorable micromutations occur just where and when they are needed, the efficacy of natural selection in preserving the slight improvements with sufficient consistency to permit the benefits to accumulate, and the time allowed by the fossil record for all this to have happened." (Johnson P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," , Second Edition, InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1993, p.38) 3/06/2005 "Can blind watchmaker evolution as described by Dawkins actually produce complex adaptive improvements like the bat's wings? The answer depends on the validity of the factual assumptions that underlie the model. Several conditions must be met before evolution of the blind watchmaker sort can occur, and each one is highly problematical. First, gene mutations of the necessary complexity-building type must occur sufficiently frequently to build the improvement. Unfortunately, mutations having a favorable effect on the organism are extremely rare. Dawkins himself says that the mutations in question would probably have to be too small in effect to be observable, because "virtually all the mutations studied in genetics laboratories-which are pretty macro because otherwise geneticists wouldn't notice them-are deleterious to the animals possessing them." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," , Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.233) The mutations that the blind watchmaker model requires must be not only favorable, but favorable in the very strong sense that they provide exactly what is needed for the next stage of the wingbuilding project. That each individual mutation is supposed to produce only a slight effect in the desired direction implies that there will have to be an enormous number of exactly the right kind of mutations to finish the job-and wings are only one of myriad alterations needed to modify a tree climber into a bat. The only reason to believe that mutations of the kind and quantity needed for blind watchmaker evolution actually occur is that the theory requires them." (Johnson P.E.*, "Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1995, pp.80-81) 4/06/2005 "In 1926 the British biologist Heslop Harrison reported that the industrial melanism of moths was caused by a special substance which he alleged was present in polluted air. He called this substance a "melanogen," and suggested that it was manganous sulfate or lead nitrate. Harrison claimed that when he fed foliage impregnated with these salts to the larvae of certain species of light-colored moths, a proportion of their offspring were black. He also stated that this "induced melanism" was inherited according to the laws of Mendel. Darwin, always searching for missing evidence, might well have accepted Harrison's Lamarckian interpretation, but in 1926 biologists were skeptical. Although the rate of mutation of a hereditary characteristic can be increased in the laboratory by many methods, Harrison's figures inferred a mutation rate of 8 per cent. One of the most frequent mutations is nature is that which causes the disease hemophilia in man; its rate is in the region of .0005 per cent, that is, the mutation occurs about once in 50,000 births. It is, in fact, unlikely that an increased mutation rate has played any part in industrial melanism. At the University of Oxford during the past seven years we have been attempting to analyze the phenomenon of industrial melanism. We have used many different approaches. We are in the process of making a survey of the present frequency of light and dark forms of each species of moth in Britain that exhibits industrial melanism. We are critically examining each of the two forms to see if between them there are any differences in behavior. We have fed large numbers of larvae of both forms on foliage impregnated with substances polluted air. We have observed under various conditions the mating preferences and relative mortality of the two forms. Finally we have accumulated much information about the melanism of moths in parts of the world that are far removed from industrial centers, and we have sought to link industrial melanism with the melanics of the past. Our main guinea pig, both in the field and in the laboratory, has been the peppered moth Biston betularia and its me (Kettlewell H.B.D., "Darwin's Missing Evidence," Scientific American, Vol. 201, No. 3, March 1959, pp.48-53, p.48) 4/06/2005 "The peppered moth, Biston betularia, comes in various shades of gray. One hundred and fifty years ago, most peppered moths were "typical" forms, which have predominantly light gray scales with a few black scales scattered among them (hence the name, "peppered"). As early as 1811, however, the species also included some coal-black "melanic" forms. During the industrial revolution, the proportion of melanic forms increased, and by the turn of the century more than 90% of the peppered moths near the industrial city of Manchester, England, were melanic. A similar increase in melanic forms was reported in many other species of moths, ladybird beetles, and even some birds. It was also reported near other industrial cities such as Birmingham and Liverpool. Obviously, this was not an isolated phenomenon, and the name "industrial melanism" was used to denote all its manifestations. In 1896 British biologist J.W. Tutt suggested that industrial melanism in peppered moths might be due to differences in camouflage. Tutt theorized that in unpolluted woodlands, typicals are well camouflaged against the light-colored lichens that grow on tree trunks; but in woodlands where industrial pollution has killed the lichens and darkened the tree trunks, melanics are better camouflaged. Since predatory birds could be expected to find and eat the more conspicuous moths, the proportion of melanic forms would increase as a result of natural selection. In the 1920s another British biologist, J.W. Heslop Harrison, rejected Tutt's theory and proposed that melanism was induced directly by airborne industrial pollutants. Although he did not work on Biston betularia, Harrison reported that melanism could be produced in several other moth species if their larvae were fed on leaves contaminated with metallic salts. Critics were unable to reproduce Harrison's results, however, and pointed out that some of the species Harrison tested did not exhibit industrial melanism in the wild. There was a theoretical problem with Harrison's work, as well. If melanism could be induced it meant that the organism acquired it after birth. But there was also clear evidence that melanism was inherited, so Harrison's view implied that acquired characteristics could later be inherited. According to neo-Darwinian theory, however, the inheritance of acquired characteristics was impossible; all new heritable variations arose from genetic changes such as mutation. As neo-Darwinism rose in popularity, the influence of Harrison's ideas declined, and most biologists adopted the theory that industrial melanism in peppered moths was due to natural selection. It wasn't until the 1950s, however, that British physician and biologist Bernard Kettlewell set out to test the theory empirically." (Wells J., "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong," Regnery: Washington DC, 2000, pp.140-141) 4/06/2005 "The concept of natural selection had remarkable power for explaining directional and adaptive changes. Its nature is simplicity itself. It is not a force like the forces described in the laws of physics; its mechanism is simply the elimination of inferior individuals. This process of nonrandom elimination impelled Darwin's contemporary, philosopher Herbert Spencer, to describe evolution with the now familiar term `survival of the fittest.' (This description was long ridiculed as circular reasoning: `Who are the fittest? Those who survive.' In reality, a careful analysis can usually determine why certain individuals fail to thrive in a given set of conditions.)" (Mayr E.W., "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American, Vol. 283, No. 1, July 2000, pp.67-71, p.68. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/12776) 5/06/2005 "In Britain and America there were a small number of scientists who refused to accept evolution. Professor Fleeming Jenkin, an engineer, in an article on the Origin in the North British Review in 1867 remarked that Darwin's idea that a species could be modified by a favourable variation occurring in an individual was the same as arguing that the arrival of one ship-wrecked European sailor on an island populated by negroes would result in the population gradually turning white in the course of a century or two (vide Mivart's Genesis of Species, p. 58). Fleeming Jenkin said he did not anticipate this little difficulty would embarrass the `true believer' in evolution, for: `He can invent trains of ancestors of whose existence there is no evidence; he can call up continents, floods, and peculiar atmospheres; he can dry up oceans, split islands, and parcel out eternity at will; surely with all these advantages he must be a dull fellow if he cannot scheme out a series of animals and circumstances explaining our assumed difficulty quite naturally.' (Darwin's Life and Letters, iii, 108). Darwin in the next edition of the Origin set to work and tidily patched up this rent in his theory. He said there could be no doubt that owing to similar organisms being similarly acted on by external conditions, `the tendency to vary in the same manner has often been so strong that all the individuals of the same species have been similarly modified without the aid of any form of natural selection.' Any theory needed could be supplied on demand apparently. An analysis of the various repairs effected in the six editions of the Origin would be instructive." (Field A.N., "The Evolution Hoax," , Tan: Rockford IL., 1971, reprint, p.54) 6/06/2005 Col. 2:8 (NIV) "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." 6/06/2005 "The proliferation of wildly varying body plans during the Cambrian, scientists reason, therefore must have something to do with Hox genes. But what? To find out, developmental biologist Sean Carroll's lab on the University of Wisconsin's Madison campus has begun importing tiny velvet worms that inhabit rotting logs in the dry forests of Australia. Blowing bubbles of spittle and waving their fat legs in the air, they look, he marvels, virtually identical to their Cambrian cousin Aysheaia, whose evocative portrait appears in the pages of the Burgess Shale. Soon Carroll hopes to answer a pivotal question: Is the genetic tool kit needed to construct a velvet worm smaller than the one the arthropods use? Already Carroll suspects that the Cambrian explosion was powered by more than a simple expansion in the number of Hox genes. Far more important, he believes, were changes in the vast regulatory networks that link each Hox gene to hundreds of other genes. Think of these genes, suggests Carroll, as the chips that run a computer. The Cambrian explosion, then, may mark not the invention of new hardware, but rather the elaboration of new software that allowed existing genes to perform new tricks. Unusuallooking arthropods, for example, might be cobbled together through variations of the genetic software that codes for legs. `Arthropods,' observes paleoentomologist Jarmila Kukalova-Peck of Canada's Carleton University, `are all legs'-including the `legs' that evolved into jaws, claws and even sex organs. BEYOND DARWINISM Of course, understanding what made the Cambrian explosion possible doesn't address the larger question of what made it happen so fast. Here scientists delicately slide across data-thin ice, suggesting scenarios that are based on intuition rather than solid evidence. One favorite is the so- called empty barrel, or open spaces, hypothesis, which compares the Cambrian organisms to homesteaders on the prairies. The biosphere in which the Cambrian explosion occurred, in other words, was like the American West, a huge tract of vacant property that suddenly opened up for settlement. After the initial land rush subsided, it became more and more difficult for naive newcomers to establish footholds. Predation is another popular explanation. Once multicelled grazers appeared, say paleontologists, it was only a matter of time before multicelled predators evolved to eat them. And, right on cue, the first signs of predation appear in the fossil record exactly at the transition between the Vendian and the Cambrian, in the form Even more speculative are scientists' attempts to address the flip side of the Cambrian mystery: why this evolutionary burst, so stunning in speed and scope, has never been equaled. With just one possible exception-the Bryozoa, whose first traces turn up shortly after the Cambrian-there is no record of new phyla emerging later on, not even in the wake of the mass extinction that occurred 250 million years ago, at the end of the Permian period. Why no new phyla? Some scientists suggest that the evolutionary barrel still contained plenty of organisms that could quickly diversify and fill all available ecological niches. Others, however, believe that in the surviving organisms, the genetic software that controls early development had become too inflexible to create new life- forms after the Permian extinction. The intricate networks of developmental genes were not so rigid as to forbid elaborate tinkering with details; otherwise, marvels like winged flight and the human brain could never have a risen. But very early on, some developmental biologists believe, the linkages between multiple genes made it difficult to change important features without lethal effect. `There must be limits to change,' says Indiana University developmental biologist Rudolf Raff. `After all, we've had these same old body plans for half a billion years.' The more scientists struggle to explain the Cambrian explosion, the more singular it seems. And just as the peculiar behavior of light forced physicists to conclude that Newton's laws were incomplete, so the Cambrian explosion has caused experts to wonder if the twin Darwinian imperatives of genetic variation and natural selection provide an adequate framework for understanding evolution. `What Darwin described in the Origin of Species,' observes Queen's University paleontologist Narbonne, `was the steady background kind of evolution. But there also seems to be a non-Darwinian kind of evolution that functions over extremely short time periods- and that's where all the action is.'" (Nash J.M., "When Life Exploded", TIME, December 4, 1995, pp.77-78) 7/06/2005 "With the Bible playing a central role in Christianity, the question of Scripture's historic validity bears tremendous implications. Brown claims that Constantine commissioned and bankrolled a staff to manipulate existing texts and thereby divinize the human Christ. Yet for a number of reasons, Brown's speculations fall flat. Brown correctly points out that "the Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven." Indeed, the Bible's composition and consolidation may appear a bit too human for the comfort of some Christians. But Brown overlooks the fact that the human process of canonization had progressed for centuries before Nicea, resulting in a nearly complete canon of Scripture before Nicea or even Constantine's legalization of Christianity in 313. Ironically, the process of collecting and consolidating Scripture was launched when a rival sect produced its own quasi-biblical canon. Around 140 a Gnostic leader named Marcion began spreading a theory that the New and Old Testaments didn't share the same God. Marcion argued that the Old Testament's God represented law and wrath while the New Testament's God, represented by Christ, exemplified love. As a result Marcion rejected the Old Testament and the most overtly Jewish New Testament writings, including Matthew, Mark, Acts, and Hebrews. He manipulated other books to downplay their Jewish tendencies. Though in 144 the church in Rome declared his views heretical, Marcion's teaching sparked a new cult. Challenged by Marcion's threat, church leaders began to consider earnestly their own views on a definitive list of Scriptural books including both the Old and New Testaments. Another rival theology nudged the church toward consolidating the New Testament. During the mid- to late-second century, a man from Asia Minor named Montanus boasted of receiving a revelation from God about an impending apocalypse. The four Gospels and Paul's epistles achieved wide circulation and largely unquestioned authority within the early church but hadn't yet been collected in a single authoritative book. Montanus saw in this fact an opportunity to spread his message, by claiming authoritative status for his new revelation. Church leaders met the challenge around 190 and circulated a definitive list of apostolic writings that is today called the Muratorian Canon, after its modern discoverer. The Muratorian Canon bears striking resemblance to today's New Testament but includes two books, Revelation of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon, which were later excluded from the canon. By the time of Nicea, church leaders debated the legitimacy of only a few books that we accept today, chief among them Hebrews and Revelation, because their authorship remained in doubt. In fact, authorship was the most important consideration for those who worked to solidify the canon. Early church leaders considered letters and eyewitness accounts authoritative and binding only if they were written by an apostle or close disciple of an apostle. This way they could be assured of the documents' reliability. As pastors and preachers, they also observed which books did in fact build up the church-a good sign, they felt, that such books were inspired Scripture. The results speak for themselves: the books of today's Bible have allowed Christianity to spread, flourish, and endure worldwide." (Hansen C., "Breaking The Da Vinci Code: So the divine Jesus and infallible Word emerged out of a fourth-century power-play? Get real," Christian History, November 7, 2003. http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2003/nov7.html) 7/06/2005 "The ... release of a new Gallup Poll, reporting on the state of American opinion regarding evolution and creation. According to this survey, approximately 47 percent of Americans can be described as creationists, in that they say they believe that God created mankind in pretty much our present form sometime within the last 10,000 years. (The wording of the question did not rule out a long period of animal evolution before the appearance of man, however.) Another 40 percent agreed with the following statement: `Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.' Only 9 percent of the sample said that they accepted the naturalistic view of evolution, which in Gallup's wording was that man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, with God having no part in this process. ... When Darwinists speak of `evolution,' they mean the creed of the 9 percent. Science educators frequently obscure this point in order to avoid further arousing political opposition to the teaching of evolution as fact in the public schools, but they are perfectly explicit about it when candor suits their purpose. For example, one of the founders of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, explained the `meaning of evolution' in the following widely quoted language: `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 naturalistic or, in a proper sense of the sometimes abused word, 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... Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.' [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, pp.343,344] The literature of evolutionary biology contains countless statements to the same effect. `Evolution,' honestly understood, is not just a gradual process of development that a purposeful Creator might have chosen to employ. It is, by Darwinist definition. a purposeless and undirected process that produced mankind accidentally. ... Now, through an educational system insistent upon uncritical acceptance by students at all levels of the claim that purposeless material mechanisms were responsible for the creation of all forms of life, scientific naturalism is becoming the officially established religion of America." (Johnson P.E., "Creator or Blind Watchmaker?," Reprinted from First Things, January 1993, Access Research Network, November 2, 1998. http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/cre_bw98.htm) 8/06/2005 "In the weeks since the release of Mel Gibson's controversial film, The Passion of the Christ, critics have expressed outrage over what they claim is an overly bloody, brutal depiction of the sufferings of Christ. It makes you wonder if they understand what really took place during the scourging and crucifixion. Somebody who does know is former journalist Lee Strobel. A few years ago, Strobel researched one of the most persistent claims against Christianity: Did Jesus survive the scourging and crucifixion? Was it possible, he wondered, to examine 2,000-year-old medical evidence and determine if Jesus really died on the cross? Well, to get an expert opinion, Strobel went to Dr. Alexander Metherell, a research scientist. Metherell has studied the medical data concerning Christ's death, and he's convinced there's no way anyone could have survived what the Romans put him through. First, there was the flogging. Soldiers used whips of braided leather thongs. The metal balls woven into the lash caused deep bruises, which broke open during the torture. Often the victim's back, in such a beating, was so shredded that his spine was exposed. Those who didn't die from the flogging went into hypovolemic shock, brought on by blood loss. There would be a loss of blood pressure, leading to faintness and collapse. And the loss of fluids would result in tremendous thirst. The Gospels indicate that Jesus was in shock as He carried His cross to Calvary: He collapsed in the road, and Simon of Cyrene had to carry the cross for Him. Later, Jesus said, `I thirst.' And there was the agony of the crucifixion itself. The Romans drove spikes through the wrists and feet of Jesus-spikes that traveled through the median nerves. This caused such enormous pain that a new word was invented to describe it: excruciating, literally meaning, `out of the cross.' Metherell believes that Jesus, like other crucifixion victims, eventually died of asphyxiation. The stresses on the muscles and diaphragm put the chest in the inhaling position; in order to exhale, the victim had to push up on his feet to ease the tension in the muscles for just a moment. It would be enormously painful, and exhaustion would eventually set in. As his breathing slowed, the victim would go into respiratory acidosis, leading to an irregular heartbeat and eventual cardiac arrest. Then, in the case of Jesus, to ensure that He was dead, a Roman soldier thrust a spear into His side. The flogging, the massive blood loss, the shock, the crucifixion, the stabbing: Could Jesus have suffered all of this and survived? Not a chance, Metherell told Strobel." (Colson C.*, "Brutal and Bloody Is The Passion Too Violent?," BreakPoint, April 9, 2004. Emphasis in original. http://makeashorterlink.com/?A5374293B) 8/06/2005 "The truly outstanding achievement of the principle of natural selection is that it makes unnecessary the invocation of `final causes'-that is, any teleological forces leading to a particular end. In fact, nothing is predetermined. Furthermore, the objective of selection even may change from one generation to the next, as environmental circumstances vary." (Mayr E.W., "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American, Vol. 283, No. 1, pp.67-71, July 2000, p.68. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/12776) 9/06/2005 "Because of the importance of variation, natural selection should be considered a two-step process: the production of abundant variation is followed by the elimination of inferior individuals. This latter step is directional. By adopting natural selection, Darwin settled the several-thousand-year-old argument among philosophers over chance or necessity. Change on the earth is the result of both, the first step being dominated by randomness, the second by necessity." (Mayr E.W., "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American, Vol. 283, No. 1, pp.67-71, July 2000, p.68. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/12776) 13/06/2005 "But Naturalism, even if it is not purely materialistic, seems to me to involve the same difficulty, though in a somewhat less obvious form. It discredits our processes of reasoning or at least reduces their credit to such a humble level that it can no longer support Naturalism itself. The easiest way of exhibiting this is to notice the two senses of the word because. We can say, `Grandfather is ill to-day because he ate lobster yesterday.' We can also say, `Grandfather must be ill to-day because he hasn't got up yet (and we know he is an invariably early riser when he is well)' In the first sentence because indicates the relation of Cause and Effect: The eating made him ill. In the second, it indicates the relation of what logicians call Ground and Consequent. The old man's late rising is not the cause of his disorder but the reason why we believe him to be disordered. There is a similar difference between, ` He cried out because it hurt him ` (Cause and Effect) and ` It must have hurt him because he cried out' (Ground and Consequent). We are especially familiar with the Ground and Consequent because in mathematical reasoning: `A=C because, as we have already proved, they are both equal to B.' The one indicates a dynamic connection between events or ` states of affairs'; the other, a logical relation between beliefs or assertions. Now a train of reasoning has no value as a means of finding truth unless each step in it is connected with what went before in the Ground-Consequent relation. If our B does not follow logically for our A, we think in vain. If what we think at the end of our reasoning is to be true, the correct answer to the question, `Why do you think this?' must begin with the Ground-Consequent because. On the other hand, every event in Nature must be connected with previous events in the Cause and Effect relation. But our acts of thinking are events. Therefore the true answer to ` Why do you think this?' must begin with the Cause-Effect because. Unless our conclusion is the logical consequent from a ground it will be worthless and could be true only by a fluke. Unless it is the effect of a cause, it cannot occur at all. It looks therefore, as if, in order for a train of thought to have any value, these two systems of connection must apply simultaneously to the same series of mental acts. But unfortunately the two systems are wholly distinct. To be caused is not to be proved. Wishful thinkings, prejudices, and the delusions of madness, are all caused, but they are ungrounded. Indeed to be caused is so different from being proved that we behave in disputation as if they were mutually exclusive. The mere existence of causes for a belief is popularly treated as raising a presumption that it is groundless, and the most popular way of discrediting a person's opinions is to explain them causally.' You say that because (Cause and Effect) you are a capitalist, or a hypochondriac, or a mere man, or only a woman.' The implication is that if causes fully account for a belief, then, since causes work inevitably, the belief would have had to arise whether it had grounds or not. We need not, it is felt, consider grounds for something which can be fully explained without them." (Lewis C.S.*, "Miracles: A Preliminary Study," , Fontana: London, 1960, Revised edition, 1963, reprint, pp.18-20. Emphasis in original) 15/06/2005 "Darwin's theory clearly emerged as the victor during the evolutionary synthesis of the 1940s, when the new discoveries in genetics were married with taxonomic observations concerning systematics, the classification of organisms by their relationships. Darwinism is now almost unanimously accepted by knowledgeable evolutionists. In addition, it has become the basic component of the new philosophy of biology." (Mayr E.W., "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American, Vol. 283, No. 1, pp.67-71, July 2000, p.69. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/12776) 22/06/2005 "One way to explore the minimum complexity of independent life is to survey the microbial database for the smallest genome. .... The data indicate that the microbes possessing the smallest known genomes and capable of living independently in the environment are extremophilic archaea and eubacteria. ... These organisms also happen to represent what many scientists consider to be the oldest life on Earth. This crude estimate seems to suggest that, to exist independently, life requires a minimum genome size of about 1,500 to 1,900 gene products. (A gene product refers to proteins and functional RNAs, such as ribosomal and transfer RNA.) The late evolutionary biologist Colin Patterson acknowledges the 1,700 genes of Methanococcus are `perhaps close to the minimum necessary for independent life.' [Patterson C., "Evolution," Comstock: Ithaca NY, Second edition, 1999, p.23] ... So far, as scientists have continued their sequencing efforts, all microbial genomes that fall below 1,500 belong to parasites. Organisms capable of permanent independent existence require more gene products. A minimum genome size (for independent life) of 1,500 to 1,900 gene products comports with what the geochemical and fossil evidence reveals about the complexity of Earth's first life. ... Theoretical and experimental studies designed to discover the bare , minimum number of gene products necessary for life all show significant agreement. Life seems to require between 250 and 350 different proteins to carry out its most basic operations. That this bare form of life cannot survive long without a source of sugars, nucleotides, amino acids, and fatty acids is worth noting." (Rana F.R.* & Ross H.N.*, "Origins of Life: Biblical And Evolutionary Models Face Off," Navpress: Colorado Springs CO, 2004 pp.161-163) 26/06/2005 "The following illustration is my (Norman Geisler) updated version of William Paley's famous `watchmaker argument' in light of modern molecular biology and information theory. It deliberately borrows the format and language of Paley to make the point. `In crossing a valley, suppose I come upon a round stratified stone and were asked how it came to be such. I might plausibly answer that it was once laid down by water in layers which later solidified by chemical action. One day it broke from a larger section of rock and was subsequently rounded by the natural erosional processes of tumbling in water. Suppose then, upon walking further, I come upon Mount Rushmore where the forms of four human faces appear on a granite cliff. Even if I knew nothing about the origin of the faces, would I not come immediately to believe it was an intelligent production and not the result of natural processes of erosion? Yet why should a natural cause serve for the stone but not for the faces? For this reason, namely, that when we come to inspect the faces on the mountain we perceive-what we could not discover in the stone-that they manifest intelligent contrivance, that they convey specifically complex information. The stone has redundant patterns or strata easily explainable by the observed natural process of sedimentation. The faces, however, have specially formed features, not merely repeated lines. The stone has rounded features like those we observe to result from natural erosion. The faces, on the other hand, have sharply defined features contrary to those made by erosion. In fact, the faces resemble things known to be made by intelligent artisans. These differences being observed, we would rightly conclude there must have existed at some time and at some place some intelligence that formed them. Nor would it, I apprehend, weaken the conclusion if we had never seen such a face being chiseled in granite, if we had never known an artisan capable of making one, or if we were wholly incapable of executing such a piece of workmanship ourselves. All this is no more than what is true of some lost art or of some of the more curious productions of modern technology. Neither, secondly, would it invalidate our conclusion that upon closer examination of the faces they turn out to be imperfectly formed. It is not necessary that a representation be perfect in order to show it was designed. Nor, thirdly, would it bring any uncertainty in the argument if we were not able to recognize the identity of the faces. Even if we had never known of any such person portrayed, we would still conclude it took intelligence to produce them. Nor, fourthly, would any man in his senses think the existence of the faces on the rock was accounted for by being told that they were one out of many possible combinations or forms rocks may take, and that this configuration might be exhibited as well as a different structure. Nor, fifthly, would it yield our inquiry more satisfaction to be answered that there exists in granite a law or principle of order which had disposed it toward forming facial features. We never knew a sculpture made by such a principle of order, nor can we even form an idea of what is meant by such a principle of order distinct from intelligence. Sixthly, we would be surprised to hear that configurations like this on a mountainside were not proof of intelligent creation but were only to induce the mind to think so. Seventhly, we would be not less surprised to be informed that the faces resulted simply from the natural processes of wind and water erosion. Nor, eighthly, would it change our conclusion were we to discover that certain natural objects or powers were utilized in producing the faces. Still the managing of these forces, the pointing and directing them to form such specific faces, demands intelligence. Neither, ninthly, would it make the slightest difference in our conclusion were we to discover that these natural laws were set up by some intelligent Being. For nothing is added to the power of natural laws by positing an original Designer for them. Designed or not, the natural powers of wind and rain erosion never produce human faces like this in granite. Nor, tenthly, would it change the matter were we to discover that behind the forehead of a stone face was a computer capable of reproducing other faces on nearby cliffs by laser beams. This would only enhance our respect for the intelligence that designed such a computer. And, furthermore, were we to find that this computer was designed by another computer we would still not give up our belief in an intelligent cause. In fact, we would have an even greater admiration for the intelligence it takes to create computers that can also create. In addition, would we not consider it strange if anyone suggested there was no need for an intelligent cause because there might be an infinite regress of computers designing computers? We know that increasing the number of computers in the series does not diminish the need for intelligence to program the whole series. Neither would we allow any limitation on our conclusion (that it takes intelligence to create such specific and complex information) by the claim that this principle applies only to events of the near past but not the most remote past. For what is remote to us was near to those remote from us. And would we not consider it arbitrary for anyone to insist that the word science applies to our reasoning only if we assume the face had a natural cause, such as erosion, but not if we conclude it had an intelligent source? For who would insist that an archaeologist is scientific only if he posits a non-intelligent natural cause of ancient pottery and tools?' Neither, lastly, would we be driven from our conclusion or from our confidence in it by being told we know nothing at all about how the faces were produced. We know enough to conclude it took intelligence to produce them. The consciousness of knowing little need not beget a distrust of that which we do know. And we do know that natural forces never produce those kinds of effects. We know that the faces on the rock manifest a form such as is produced by intelligence. For as William Paley remarked, `Wherever we see marks of contrivance, we are led for its cause to an intelligent author. And this transition of the understanding is found upon uniform experience.'"(Geisler N.L.* & Bocchino P.*, "Unshakable Foundations," Bethany House: Minneapolis MN, 2000, pp.127-130) 26/06/2005 "If we want to postulate a deity capable of engineering all the organized complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution, that deity must already have been vastly complex in the first place. The creationist, whether a naive Bible-thumper or an educated bishop, simply postulates an already existing being of prodigious intelligence and complexity.: (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," , Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.316) 28/06/2005 "Imagine, says Darwin, that we extrapolate the tiny microevolutionary changes we see in domesticated breeding-a pea with extra-large pods made larger, or a short horse bred shorter. Imagine if we extend those slight changes caused by selection over millions of years; we add up all the minute differences until we see major change. This is what makes coral reefs and armadillos out of bacteria, Darwin said-accumulated microchange. Darwin asks that we extend the logic of microchange to cover the grand scale of Earth and Time. The argument that natural selection can be extended to explain everything in life is a logical argument. But human imagination and human experience know that what is logical is not always what is so. To be logical is a necessary but insufficient reason to be true. Every swirl on a butterfly wing, every curve of leaf, every species of fish is explained by adaptive selection in neodarwinism. There seems to be absolutely nothing that cannot be explained in some way as an adaptive advantage. But, as Richard Lewontin, a renowned neodarwinist, says, `Natural selection explains nothing, because it explains every thing. ` Biologists cannot (or at least they have not) ruled out the role of other forces at work in nature producing similar effects in evolution. Therefore, until evolution is duplicated under controlled conditions, in the wild, or in a lab, neodarwinism remains a nice `just-so' story-more like history than science. Philosopher of science Karl Popper said bluntly that neodarwinism is not a scientific theory at all, since it cannot be falsified. `Neither Darwin, nor any Darwinian, has so far given an actual causal explanation of the adaptive evolution of any single organism or any single organ. All that has been shown-and this is very much [sic]-is that such an explanation might exist-that is to say, [these theories] are not logically impossible." (Kelly K., "Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines," Fourth Estate: London, 1994, p.473. Emphasis in original) 28/06/2005 "Returning to the platypus, the sting in the tale is actually in the hind claws of the male platypus. True venomous stings, with hypodermic injection, are found in various invertebrate phyla, and in fish and reptiles among vertebrates - but never in birds or mammals other than the platypus (unless you count the toxic saliva of solenodons and some shrews that makes their bites slightly venomous). Among mammals, the male platypus is in a class of its own, and it may be in a class of its own among venomous animals too. The fact that the sting is found only in males suggests, rather surprisingly, that it is aimed not at predators (as in bees) nor at prey (as in snakes) but at rivals. It is not dangerous but is extremely painful, and is unresponsive to morphine. It looks as though platypus venom works directly on pain receptors themselves. If scientists could understand how this is done, there is a hope that it might give a clue to how to resist the pain caused by cancer. This tale began by chiding those zoologists who call the platypus `primitive' as though that were any kind of explanation for the way it is. At best it is a description. Primitive means `resembling the ancestor' and there are many respects in which this is a fair description of a platypus. The bill and the sting are interesting exceptions. But the more important moral of the tale is that even an animal that is genuinely primitive in all respects is primitive for a reason. The ancestral characteristics are good for its way of life, so th no reason to change. As Professor Arthur Cain of Liverpool University liked to say, an animal is the way it is because it needs to be." (Dawkins R., "The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 2004, p.242) 29/06/2005 "... The Da Vinci Code contains many more (equally dubious) claims about Christianity's historic origins and theological development. The central claim Brown's novel makes about Christianity is that `almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false.' Why? Because of a single meeting of bishops in 325, at the city of Nicea in modern-day Turkey. There, argues Brown, church leaders who wanted to consolidate their power base (he calls this, anachronistically, `the Vatican' or `the Roman Catholic church') created a divine Christ and an infallible Scripture-both of them novelties that had never before existed among Christians. Watershed at Nicea Brown is right about one thing (and not much more). In the course of Christian history, few events loom larger than the Council of Nicea in 325. When the newly converted Roman Emperor Constantine called bishops from around the world to present-day Turkey, the church had reached a theological crossroads. Led by an Alexandrian theologian named Arius, one school of thought argued that Jesus had undoubtedly been a remarkable leader, but he was not God in flesh. ... In The Da Vinci Code, Brown apparently adopts Arius as his representative for all pre-Nicene Christianity. Referring to the Council of Nicea, Brown claims that `until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless.' In reality, early Christians overwhelmingly worshipped Jesus Christ as their risen Savior and Lord. Before the church adopted comprehensive doctrinal creeds, early Christian leaders developed a set of instructional summaries of belief, termed the `Rule' or `Canon' of Faith, which affirmed this truth. To take one example, the canon of prominent second-century bishop Irenaeus took its cue from 1 Corinthians 8:6: `Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ.' The term used here-Lord, Kyrios-deserves a bit more attention. Kyrios was used by the Greeks to denote divinity (though sometimes also, it is true, as a simple honorific). In the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint, pre-dating Christ), this term became the preferred substitution for `Jahweh,' the holy name of God. The Romans also used it to denote the divinity of their emperor, and the first-century Jewish writer Josephus tells us that the Jews refused to use it of the emperor for precisely this reason: only God himself was kyrios. The Christians took over this usage of kyrios and applied it to Jesus, from the earliest days of the church. They did so not only in Scripture itself (which Brown argues was doctored after Nicea), but in the earliest extra-canonical Christian book, the Didache, which scholars agree was written no later than the late 100s. In this book, the earliest Aramaic-speaking Christians refer to Jesus as Lord. In addition, pre-Nicene Christians acknowledged Jesus's divinity by petitioning God the Father in Christ's name. Church leaders, including Justin Martyr, a second-century luminary and the first great church apologist, baptized in the name of the triune God-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-thereby acknowledging the equality of the one Lord's three distinct persons. The Council of Nicea did not entirely end the controversy over Arius's teachings, nor did the gathering impose a foreign doctrine of Christ's divinity on the church. The participating bishops merely affirmed the historic and standard Christian beliefs, erecting a united front against future efforts to dilute Christ's gift of salvation." (Hansen C., "Breaking The Da Vinci Code," Christian History, November 7, 2003. http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2003/nov7.html) 30/06/2005 "Hope of reconstructing the ancestor from its inferred genes received new impetus three years ago when the first full DNA, or genome, of a bacterium was decoded. Since then, the genomes of a dozen microbes have been sequenced, including at least one from each of the three main branches of the evolutionary tree. The three kinds of genome offered a broad basis for triangulating back to the ancestral genome. But the emerging picture is far more complicated than had been expected, and the ancestor's features remain ill-defined though not wholly elusive. `Five years ago we were very confident and arrogant in our ignorance,' said Dr. Eugene Koonin .... `Now we are starting to see the true complexity of life.' Despite the quagmire in which their present efforts have landed them, biologists have not in any way despaired of confirming the conventional thesis, that life evolved on earth from natural chemical processes. But a ferment of rethinking and regrouping is under way. Until now, searchers in the universal- ancestor treasure hunt have followed a hallowed chart known as the ribosomal RNA phylogenetic tree. This is a family tree drawn up by Woese and based on a gene used by all living cells to specify ribosomal RNA, or ribonucleic acid, a component of the machinery that translates genetic information into working parts. It was this tree that led Woese to recognize the tripartite division of living things and to realize that one of the three kingdoms belonged to the archaea, previously assumed to be a weird sort of bacteria. Many of the deepest branches in Woese's tree, those that join nearest to the three-way junction of the kingdoms, turned out to belong to organisms that live at high temperatures, as in the fuming springs in Yellowstone Park or the volcanic vents that gash the ocean floor. That clue fit well with new ideas holding that life originated at volcanolike temperatures. With the new ability to decode the full DNA of a microbe, it is these hightemperature microbes that biologists have chosen for some of their first targets. Aquifex aeolicus, a denizen of Yellowstone Park that lives at 5 degrees below the boiling point of water, is the deepest branching of all known bacteria. In the light of evidence suggesting that the oldest region of the ribosomal RNA tree lies on the branch leading into the bacterial kingdom, Aquifex provided grounds for the claim that it was the nearest living cousin of the universal ancestor. But the sequence of the Aquifex genome, reported last month in the journal Nature, has yielded only disappointments. For one thing, the microbe appears to have only one gene, called a reverse gyrase, that is not found in organisms that live at ordinary temperatures. ... A second blow is that with the full genome sequence in hand, for Aquifex and a dozen other microbes, biologists can draw up family trees based on other genes besides the ribosomal RNA gene that provided the original map. And the trees based on other genes show different maps that do not agree with the ribosomal RNA map. `Each picture is different, so there is tremendous confusion,' Woese said. A basic source of the confusion is that in the course of evolution whole suites of genes have apparently been transferred sideways among the major branches. Among animals, genes are passed vertically from parent to child but single-celled creatures tend to engulf each other and occasionally amalgamate into a corporate genetic entity. ... Horizontal transfer of genes between kingdoms would severely tangle up the lines in family trees. ... `It's possible that bacterial genes have swept all over the world and replaced everything else that existed, so some of the features of the last common ancestor may have been erased from the face of the planet,' Koonin said. But no one is abandoning the search for the ancestor. `My biggest fear is that evolution would be indecipherable because of all the random changes that took place,' said Craig Venter .... `The good news is that that is clearly not the case. I think it will be completely decipherable but because of horizontal transfer the tree may look more like a neural network,' he said, referring to the criss-cross pattern of a neural computing circuit. Venter, who pioneered the sequencing of microbial genomes, estimated that 50 to 100 more genomes needed to be sequenced to help triangulate back to the last common ancestor. Evolutionary biologists are working on several approaches for seeing beyond the confusion caused by lateral transfer. Computational biologists like Koonin believe that it is already possible to identify 100 or so genes that the common ancestor must have possessed -- mostly ones that manage DNA and its translation into proteins -- and that others can be added with varying degrees of certainty. Most biologists still favor the standard view that the universal ancestor, already a quite sophisticated organism that had come a long way since the origin of life, first branched into the bacteria and the archaea. Later the eukarya branched off from the archaea, but accepted many genes from the bacteria. Koonin describes the eukaryotic cell as a `palimpsest of fusions and gene exchanges,' referring to a manuscript that has been written over with new text. But some important eukaryotic genes have no obvious predecessors in either the archaean or the bacterial lines. The family of genes that make the stiff framework of eukaryotic cells, known as the cytoskeleton, seems to appear out of nowhere. `The absence of sequences closely related to the slowly changing proteins of the eukaryotic cytoskeleton remains unsettling,' Dr. Russell Doolittle ... wrote in the March 26 issue of Nature. Another evolutionary biologist, Dr. Ford Doolittle ... has an explanation, though one that he concedes does not yet enjoy the company of evidence. He argues there might have been many lost branches of the tree of life before the universal ancestor. One of these branches, a fourth kingdom of life, might have contributed the cytoskeleton genes to the eukarya before falling into extinction. A new and far- reaching theory about the universal ancestor has been developed by Woese. Though he declined to discuss it, because his article is due to be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [Woese C., "The universal ancestor," PNAS 95(12), 6854-6859, June 9, 1998. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/12/6854], colleagues said the theory envisages that all three kingdoms emerged independently from a common pool of genes. The pool was formed by a community of cells that frequently exchanged genes among themselves by lateral transfer. The price of membership in the community was to use the same genetic code, according to Woese's theory, which is how the code came to be almost universal. The community of proto-genomes quickly shared innovations among themselves, in Woese's new view, and the system evolved by producing more complicated proteins, the working parts of the cell. The genetic code was at first translated rather inaccurately, so the proteins it produced were short and limited in capability. But the code became more accurate, and the proteins more complex, driven by the advantage that more capable proteins conferred. At a certain stage of complexity, design decisions may have limited cells' ability to exchange genes, and the ancestral pool would have split into the three kingdoms seen today, the new theory suggests. It is possible, of course, that evolution's early traces have become too faint to decipher. And at the back of researchers' minds is another worry, one that makes them throw up their hands since it cannot be addressed scientifically: that life may have arrived on earth from elsewhere. Life seems to have popped up on earth with surprising rapidity. The planet is generally thought to have become habitable only some 3.85 billion years ago, after the oceans stopped boiling off from titanic asteroid impacts. Yet by 3.5 billion years ago, according to the earliest fossil records, living cells were flourishing, and there are indirect signs of life even earlier, in rocks that are 3.8 billion years old. `There's the gee-whiz point of view, how can life possibly have evolved in 300 million years, which I think is still a problem,' said [Russell] Doolittle .... But life arriving from outer space is a hypothesis, he said, that `leaves you stunned -- there is nothing more you can say after that.' This narrowing window of time may be less embarrassing than it seems. Biologists are warming to the view that the emergence of life from chemical precursors is a quite probable event which does not require billions of years to get under way. `You put a selective hammer on it and it happens fast,' said Norman Pace, an evolutionary biologist ... referring to the force of natural selection `It's shockingly fast, maybe just tens of millions of years.' Still, many more years of evolution presumably passed before the universal ancestor, a quite sophisticated genetic system, attained its final form. If the ancestor was a pool of organisms as Woese suggests, and not a definable species, it may be even harder to capture its likeness. But knowledge about this distant era at the dawn of life is moving so fast that few biologists are troubled by setbacks like the Aquifex dead end or the discordant family trees. `I'm unwilling to say we'll never know about anything, because we have come so far in the last two decades,' Pace said." (Wade N.J., "Tree of Life Turns Out to Have Complex Roots," The New York Times, April 14, 1998. http://www.samsloan.com/eukarya.htm) 30/06/2005 "Rejecting all these unseen, unmeasurable "forces," paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson wrote in his Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944): the progress of knowledge rigidly requires that no non- physical postulate ever be admitted in connection with the study of physical phenomena ... the researcher who is seeking explanations must seek physical explanations only ... Simpsons proscription excludes not only consciousness, spirit and God, but also Platonic ideals-patterns, types, archetypes-that such naturalists as Richard Owen and Lorenz Oken had believed to be as real as bones." " (Milner R., "Materialism," in "The Encyclopedia of Evolution: Humanity's Search for Its Origins," Facts On File: York NY, 1990, p.293) 30/06/2005 "As a matter of personal philosophy, I do not here mean to endorse an entirely mechanistic or materialistic view of the life processes. I suspect that there is a great deal in the universe that never will be explained in such terms and much that may be inexplicable on a purely physical plane. But scientific history conclusively demonstrates that the progress of knowledge rigidly requires that no nonphysical postulate ever be admitted in connection with the study of physical phenomena. We do not know what is and what is not explicable in physical terms, and the researcher who is seeking explanations must seek physical explanations only, or the two kinds can never be disentangled. Personal opinion is free in the field where this search has so far failed, but this is no proper guide in the search and no part of science." (Simpson G.G., "Tempo and Mode in Evolution," , Columbia University Press: New York NY, 1949, Third printing, pp.76-77) 30/06/2005 "But most scientists who adopted the Materialist postulate did not abandon Judeo-Christian values and many professed a belief in God. Newton himself spent more time studying the Book of Revelation than he did physics. Yet, Materialist scientists shocked Victorian lecture audiences by asserting that "thought is as much a secretion of brain as urine is of kidneys." Thomas Henry Huxley liked to compare the mind to the whistle on a steam engine-a noisy adjunct to the body, driven by the same force." (Milner R., "Materialism," in "The Encyclopedia of Evolution: Humanity's Search for Its Origins," Facts On File: York NY, 1990, p.293) 30/06/2005 "Physical explanation as the only scientific one is a legacy of Newtonian physics, which by the 19th century was the only accepted scientific model of the universe. However, modern physics has changed the picture drastically. Critic of anthropology William R. Fix writes: "quantum physicists have been led more and more to consider models of consciousness and theories of perception as part of the 'stuff' that the new physics is about." Subatomic particle behavior, uncertainty principles and other recent developments have led quantum physicists to "describe 'reality' in terms that are often restatements of Buddhist metaphysics." " (Milner R., "Materialism," in "The Encyclopedia of Evolution: Humanity's Search for Its Origins," Facts On File: York NY, 1990, p.293) 30/06/2005 "Fix's critique is that modern evolutionary biologists accept as their "reality" a "naive realism" based on outdated Victorian science: an old- fashioned Materialism that was daring and appropriate in Darwin's day but is no longer the model used in physics. (In one of his private notebooks, Darwin had written to himself: "Why is thought being a secretion of brain, more wonderful than gravity a property of matter? ... Oh, you materialist!")" (Milner R., "Materialism," in "The Encyclopedia of Evolution: Humanity's Search for Its Origins," Facts On File: York NY, 1990, p.293) 30/06/2005 "Now I quote all this not merely because Gould holds a chair at Harvard and I do not; although this made the target all therefore tempting, but because Gould represents a charming intelligence corrupted by a shallow system of belief. No distinction in kind rather than degree between ourselves and the chimps? No distinction? Seriously, folks? Here is a simple operational test: The chimpanzees invariably are the ones behind the bars of their cages. There they sit, solemnly munching bananas, searching for lice, aimlessly loping around, baring their gums, waiting for the experiments to begin. No distinction? Chimpanzees cannot read or write; they do not paint, or compose music, or do mathematics; they form no real communities, only loose-knit wandering tribes; they do not dine and cannot cook; there is no record anywhere of their achievements; beyond the superficial, they show little curiosity; they are born, they live, they suffer and they die. No distinction? No species in the animal world organizes itself in the complex, dense, difficult fashion that is typical of human societies. There is no such thing as animal culture; animals do not compromise and cannot count; there is not a trace in the animal world of virtually any of the powerful and poorly understood powers and properties of the human mind; in all of history no animal has stood staring at the night sky in baffled and respectful amazement. The chimpanzees are static creatures solemnly poking for grubs with their sticks, inspecting one another for fleas. No doubt, they are peaceable enough if fed, and looking into their warm brown eyes one can see the signs of a universal biological shriek (a nice maneuver that involves hearing what one sees) but what of it? One may insist, of course, that all this represents difference merely of degree. Very well. Only a difference of degree separates man from the Canadian Goose Individuals of both species are capable of entering the air unaided and landing some distance from where they started." (Berlinski D., "Good as Gould," in "Black Mischief: Language, Life, Logic, Luck," Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: Boston MA, Second Edition, 1988, pp.293- 295) 30/06/2005 "By the time of the Darwin Centennial celebrations at the University of Chicago in 1959, Darwinism was triumphant. At a panel discussion, Sir Julian Huxley (grandson of Thomas Henry) affirmed that `the evolution of life is no longer a theory; it is a fact.' He added sternly: `We do not intend to get bogged down in semantics and definitions.' At about the same time, Sir Gavin de Beer of the British Museum remarked that if a layman sought to `impugn' Darwin's conclusions it must be the result of `ignorance or effrontery.' Garrett Hardin of the California Institute of Technology asserted that anyone who did not honor Darwin `inevitably attracts the speculative psychiatric eye to himself.' Sir Julian Huxley saw the need for `true belief." (Bethell T., "Darwin's Mistake", in "The Electric Windmill: An Inadvertent Autobiography", Regnery Gateway: Washington DC, 1988, p.185) 30/06/2005 "Darwinian natural selection was based on a few concepts all obviously true true once they have been pointed out. After Darwin had pointed them out, honest biologists agreed they had been extremely stupid not to see them before. ... All organisms vary, some being more and others less fit for survival. Much of that variation is heritable by their offspring. All organisms tend to produce more offspring than can possibly survive in the long run. On an average, more offspring will survive from those parents whose heritable variations make them more fit. Therefore, on an average and in the long run, characteristics that adapt various lineages of organisms to the different environments available to them will accumulate progressively within them. Q.E.D. The conclusion follows from the objective facts of nature as inexorably as the proof of a theorem in Euclid follows from his subjective axioms. We now see clearly what Darwin also sensed, but more vaguely, that the essential point is differential success in contributing offspring to the next reproducing generation and that individual survival is only one of numerous factors contributing to that result. This broadening of the concept has only enhanced the importance of natural selection." (Simpson G.G., "This View of Life: The World of an Evolutionist," Harcourt, Brace & World: New York NY, 1964, pp.51-52) 30/06/2005 "Using Popper's criterion, we must conclude that evolutionary theory is not testable in the same way as a theory in physics, or chemistry or genetics, by experiments designed to falsify it. But the essence of scientific method is not testing a single theory to destruction; it is testing two (or more) rival theories, like Newton's and Einstein's, and accepting the one that passes more or stricter tests until a better theory turns up. So we must look at evolution theory and natural selection theory in terms of their performance against their competitors. I will deal with evolution first, the belief that all organisms are related by descent and have diverged through a natural, historical process. This theory has only one main competitor, creation theory, though there are different stories of how the Creator went about His work. All creation theories are purely metaphysical. They make no predictions about the activities of the Creator, except that life as we know it is the result of His plan. Since we do not know the plan, no observation can be inconsistent with it. At one extreme there is the fundamentalist view that evidence of evolution, such as fossils, was built into the newly-created rocks to tempt us or test our faith. At the other extreme is the person to whom evidence of evolution only pushes the activity of the Creator further and further into the past. Both these modifications of the original creation myths are typical evasive moves, avoiding refutation or confrontation by modifying the original theory, or erecting subsidiary defensive theories around it." (Patterson C., "Evolution," British Museum of Natural History: London, 1978, pp.147- 148) 30/06/2005 "To see that the Darwinian mechanism is incapable of generating specified complexity, it is necessary to consider the mathematical underpinnings of that mechanism, to wit, evolutionary algorithms. By an evolutionary algorithm I mean any well-defined mathematical procedure that generates contingency via some chance process and then sifts it via some law-like process. ... Given the popular enthusiasm for evolutionary algorithms, to claim that they are incapable of generating specified complexity may seem misconceived. But consider a well-known example by Richard Dawkins in which he purports to show how an evolutionary algorithm can generate specified complexity." He starts with the following target sequence, a putative instance of specified complexity: METHINKSoIToISo LIKEoAoWEASEL (he considers only capital Roman letters and spaces, spaces represented ... If we tried to attain this target sequence by pure chance ... the probability of getting it on the first try would be around 1 in 10^40 .... But consider next Dawkins's refraining of the problem. In place of pure chance, he considers the following evolutionary algorithm: (1) Start out with a randomly selected sequence of 28 capital Roman letters and spaces, such as WDLoMNLToDTJBKWIRZREZLMQCOoP; (2) randomly alter all the letters and spaces in the current sequence that do not agree with the target sequence; and (3) whenever an alteration happens to match a corresponding letter in the target sequence, leave it and randomly alter only those remaining letters that still differ from the target sequence. In very short order this algorithm converges to Dawkins's target sequence. ... ... in 43 steps. In place of 10^40 tries on average for pure chance to generate the target sequence, it now takes on average only 40 tries to generate it via an evolutionary algorithm. Although Dawkins and fellow Darwinists use this example to illustrate the power of evolutionary algorithms, in fact it raises more problems than it solves. For one thing, choosing a prespecified target sequence as Dawkins does here is deeply teleological (the target here is set prior to running the evolutionary algorithm and the evolutionary algorithm here is explicitly programmed to end up at the target ... A more serious problem then remains. We can see it by posing the following question: Given Dawkins's evolutionary algorithm, what besides the target sequence can this algorithm attain? ... Clearly, the algorithm is always going to converge on the target sequence (with probability 1 for that matter). ... 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, pp.181-183) Genesis 1-2:4a (NIV)  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.  And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.  God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.  God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.  And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water."  So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.  God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.  And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.  God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.  Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.  The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.  And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.  And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,  and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so.  God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.  God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth,  to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.  And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.  And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."  So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.  God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."  And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day.  And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.  God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.  Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."  So God created man in his own image, [in the image of God he created him; [male and female he created them.  God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."  Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.  And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so.  God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day. [2:1] Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.  By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.  And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done. [4a] This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." 30/06/2005 "The discovery of the principle of natural selection made evolution comprehensible; together with the discoveries of modern genetics, it has rendered all other explanations of evolution untenable. So far as we now know, not only is natural selection inevitable, not only is it an effective agency of evolution, but it is the only effective agency of evolution. " (Huxley J.S., "Evolution in Action," , Penguin: Harmondsworth, Middlesex UK, 1963, reprint, p.42. Emphasis in original) 30/06/2005 "Since the rise of genetics it has become important to emphasize that the phenotype of the individual as a whole is the target of selection. The emphasis on single genes in the work of most mathematical population geneticists and their definition of evolution as `a change in gene frequencies' has led to the unfortunate misunderstanding by certain outsiders, that the selection of individual genes is the basic thesis of neoDarwinism. It is not!" (Mayr E., "Darwin, intellectual revolutionary," in Bendall D.S., ed., "Evolution From Molecules to Men," , Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1985, reprint, pp.34-35) 30/06/2005 "Evidence and Bias Bias is a negative word for viewpoint. I have a rational viewpoint; you have a bias; he is hopelessly prejudiced. Consider this statement (from a Christian college science professor): Just as Phil is concerned with `naturalistic' biases which cause me to find the data convincing, theistic critics of Phil are concerned with his biases which cause him to find the data unconvincing. ... Whether my evaluation of the evidence is `biased' depends on whether TR as defined above is a `bias.' For example ... I do not think that the Cambrian explosion illustrates anything I would call `evolution.' I do not think that the variation illustrated by the peppered moth and finch-beak examples convincingly demonstrates a process that either could or did produce new body plans or complex organs. Each of these judgments is based on evidence-evaluated from the TR perspective. Everybody has a viewpoint. The negative word bias is appropriate for viewpoints that unduly constrict the possibilities that the mind may consider. Thus racial or religious bias may lead an employer to reject the most qualified employee. Science always has to fight the prevalent bias of the age if it is to be free to follow the evidence where it leads. In the past geology had to free itself from religious bias so that it could consider possibilities like an old earth or the occurrence of ice ages rather than a worldwide flood. That job was accomplished long ago, and now scientific thought is restricted by naturalistic bias. Methodological naturalism is a bias in the sense that it constricts the mind, by limiting the possibilities open to serious consideration. Theistic realism opens the mind to additional possibilities, without preventing the acceptance of anything that really is convincingly demonstrated by empirical evidence." (Johnson P.E.*, "Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1995, pp.217-218) 30/06/2005 "Lastly, you refer repeatedly to my view as a modification of Lamarck's doctrine of development and progression. If this is your deliberate opinion there is nothing to be said, but it does not seem so to me. Plato, Buffon, my grandfather before Lamarck, and others, propounded the obvious views that if species were not created separately they must have descended from other species, and I can see nothing else in common between the 'Origin' and Lamarck." (Darwin C.R., letter to Charles Lyell, 12 March, 1863, in Darwin F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," , Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, pp.198-199)* Authors with an asterisk against their name are believed not to be evolutionists.
Copyright © 2005, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. This page and its
contents may be used for non-commercial purposes only.
If used on the Internet, a link back to my home page at http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones would be appreciated.
Created: 21 May, 2005. Updated: 8 July, 2005.