Stephen E. Jones

Creation/Evolution Quotes: Unclassified quotes: October 2005

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

The following are unclassified quotes added to my database in October 2005. The date format is dd/mm/yy. See copyright conditions at end..

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

"This is a very grave philosophical and truly anthropomorphic error, making selection as an active 
and transcendental entity. ... Selection in nature acts upon species to eliminate the `not-so-good,' the flawed, 
the disabled. That is its chief role." (Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New 
Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.128-129. Emphasis original)

"The `evolution in action' of J. Huxley and other biologists is simply the observation of demographic facts, 
local fluctuations of genotypes, geographical distributions. Often the species concerned have remained 
practically unchanged for hundreds of centuries! ... The genic differences noted between separate 
populations of the same species that are so often presented as proof of ongoing evolution are, above all, a 
case of the adjustment of a population to its habitat and of the effects of genetic drift. The fruitfly 
(Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, 
urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times." 
(Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], 
Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.130)

"Julian Huxley ... compares selection to a god creating the best and the worst indifferently, the sublime and 
the horrible. To substantiate his interpretation, he writes: "We need only think of the ugliness of the 
Sacculina, or a bladder-worm, the stupidity of a rhinoceros, or a stegosaur, the horror of a female mantis 
devouring its mate or a brood of ichneumon flies slowly eating out a caterpillar" (Huxley, 1945, p. 485). 
Huxley's choice of examples does not demonstrate that evolution is defective; they shock our human 
preconceptions, logical, moral, or esthetic, but our value judgments have nothing to do with evolution." 
(Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], 
Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.137)

"According to Darwinism, which has adopted the dualistic concept of the body of multicellular organisms as 
enunciated by Weismann (1885, 1888), the reaction involves only the perishable part of the individual, the 
soma; the germ is inaccessible to alien influence except for the mutagenic agents; hence the notion that the 
germ is passive in evolution, registering the random blows which are struck against it. The bodily reaction 
leaves it unchanged. Its only possible, and passive, counterattack is that it contains mutated and randomly 
preadapted genes. Agreement between genes and environment is a matter of pure chance. The living 
creature submits to its fate. Like a rudderless boat, it floats on the ocean of time and docilely and indefinitely 
ohe aleatory movements of the waters supporting it. Such is the Darwinian concept. In my opinion, it 
does not correspond to reality."
(Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], 
Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.151)

"The link between homology and common descent was so central to Darwin's theory that his followers 
actually re-defined homology to mean features inherited from a common ancestor. Even after 
homology was re-defined, however, the Darwinian account remained incomplete without a mechanism to 
explain why homologous features were so similar in such different organisms. When neoDarwinism arose in 
the 1930s and 1940s, it seemed to have a solution to this problem: Homologous features were attributed to 
similar genes inherited from a common ancestor. Modern Darwinists continue to use homology as evidence 
for their theory. In fact, next to the Darwinian tree of life, homology in vertebrate limbs is probably the most 
common icon of evolution in biology textbooks. But the icon conceals two serious problems: First, if 
homology is defined as similarity due to common descent, then it is circular reasoning to use it as 
evidence for common descent. Second, biologists have known for decades that homologous 
features are not due to similar genes, so the mechanism that produces them remains unknown." (Wells, J.*, 
"Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong," 
Regnery: Washington DC, 2000, pp.61-62. Emphasis original)

"So before Darwin (and for Darwin himself), the definition of homology was similarity of structure and 
position (as in the bone patterns of vertebrate limbs). But similarity of structure and position did not explain 
the origin of homology, so an explanation had to be provided. For pre-Darwinian biologists, the explanation 
was derivation from an original pattern, or archetype. Darwin identified `derivation' with biological evolution, 
and `archetype' with a common ancestor. But for twentieth-century neo-Darwinists, common ancestry is the 
definition of homology as well as its explanation. According to Ernst Mayr, one of the 
principal architects of neo-Darwinism: "After 1859 there has been only one definition of homologous that 
makes biological sense.... Attributes of two organisms are homologous when they are derived from an 
equivalent characteristic of the common ancestor." [Mayr E., "The Growth of Biological Thought," Harvard 
University Press: Cambridge MA, 1982, pp.232, 465] In other words, with Charles Darwin evolution was a 
theory, and homology was evidence for it. With Darwin's followers, evolution is assumed to be 
independently established, and homology is its result. The problem is that now homology cannot be used 
as evidence for evolution except by reasoning in a circle. ... to turn around and argue that homologous limbs 
point to common ancestry is a vicious circle: Common ancestry demonstrates homology which 
demonstrates common ancestry." (Wells, J.*, "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?: Why Much of What 
We Teach About Evolution is Wrong," Regnery: Washington DC, 2000, pp.62-63. Emphasis original)

"I get support for my claim from an unexpected source, the famous British evolutionist, Sir Gavin de Beer. 
Writing as an evolutionist, de Beer (1971) titles his Oxford Biology Reader, Homology, An Unsolved 
Problem. In describing the first problem for evolution, de Beer notes that we have the same kind of 
pattern in our arm that we find in the leg of a dog and the wing of a bat. But, he adds, we also find that same 
pattern in the human leg. Sure enough, the upper leg has one bone like the upper arm. There are two bones 
in the lower leg like those in the lower arm, and the bones in the ankle, foot, and toes rare like those in the 
wrist, hand, and fingers. As a college biology major, I was supposed to consider this an evidence of 
evolution, called `serial homology.' De Beer says, in effect, `Don't do that.' He says you cannot call that 
evidence of evolution, because we cannot imagine that the arm evolved from the leg, or that the leg evolved 
from the arm, or that human beings evolved from some creature that had only one kind of limb. Repeated 
structures, de Beer says, (including appendages of insects and lobsters) can't be called evidence of 
evolution. They could not represent descent from common ancestor. That's the negative side. On the 
positive side, repeated structural plans can be explained in terms of creation according to a common plan. 
We see in serial homology the "theme and variation" pattern we so easily associate with human creativity, 
among both artists and engineers." (Parker, G.E.*, "Creation: the Facts of Life," [1980], Master Book 
Publishers: San Diego CA, 1984, Third printing, pp.17-19)

"The second problem for evolution that de Beer points out concerns corresponding parts between male and 
female reproductive systems, something biology students are aught to call `sexual homology.' De Beer 
wants to use 'homology" only for evolutionary relationships. He tells us, in effect, not to use that term for 
similarities in the basic plan of male and female anatomy. We can't even imagine, he argues, that females 
evolved into males, or vice versa, or that human beings evolved from an animal :hat had only one sex. On 
the positive side, we seem instead to see the `theme and variation' signature of one who created two 
complementary sexes of one flesh--creation according to a common plan." (Parker, G.E.*, "Creation: the 
Facts of Life," [1980], Master Book Publishers: San Diego CA, 1984, Third printing, p.19)

"In modern times, science is highly esteemed. Apparently it is a widely held belief that there is something 
special about science and its methods. The naming of some claim or line of reasoning or piece of research 
`scientific' is done in a way that is intended to imply some kind of merit or special kind of reliability. But 
what, if anything, is so special about science? What is this `scientific method' that allegedly leads to 
especially meritorious or reliable results? .. The high regard for science is not restricted to everyday life and 
the popular media. It is evident in the scholarly and academic world and in all parts of the knowledge 
industry. Many areas of study are described as sciences by their supporters, presumably in an effort to 
imply that the methods used are as firmly based and as potentially fruitful as in a traditional science such as 
physics. ... The mistaken view of science referred to above will be discussed and demolished in the opening 
chapters of this book. Even though some scientists and many pseudo-scientists voice their allegiance to 
that method, no modern philosopher of science would be unaware of at least some of its shortcomings. 
Modern developments in the philosophy of science have pinpointed and stressed deep-seated difficulties 
associated with the idea that science rests on a sure foundation acquired through observation and 
experiment and with the idea that there is some kind of inference procedure that enables us to derive 
scientific theories from such a base in a reliable way. There is just no method that enables scientific theories 
to be proven true or even probably true." (Chalmers,A.F., "What is this thing called Science?: An 
Assessment of the Nature and Status of Science and its Method," [1976], University of Queensland Press: 
St Lucia Qld, Australia, Second edition, 1994, reprint, pp.xv-xvi)

"The So-called Scientific Method. It is widely believed that the essence of science is its method. The earlier-
mentioned definition used in surveys of scientific literacy expresses commonly held notions of what the 
scientific method is: systematic, controlled observation or experiment whose results lead to hypotheses, 
which are found valid or invalid through further work, leading to theories that are reliable because they were 
arrived at with initial open-mindedness and continual critical skepticism. ... For our present purpose, it is 
sufficient to recognize that these are the salient acknowledged elements of the popular view of being 
scientifically methodical: empirical, pragmatic, open-minded, skeptical, sensitive to possibilities of falsifying; 
thereby establishing objective facts leading to hypotheses, to laws, to theories; and incessantly reaching 
out for new knowledge, new discoveries, new facts, and new theories. The burden of the following will be 
how misleading this view-which I shall call `"the myth of the scientific method'-is in many specific 
directions, how incapable it is of explaining what happens in science, how it is worse than useless as a guide 
to what society ought to do about science and technology." (Bauer, H.H., "Scientific Literacy and the Myth 
of the Scientific Method," [1992], University of Illinois Press: Urbana & Chicago IL, 1994, reprint, pp.19-20)

"So the classical and common view of science misconceives the actual relationship between theories and 
facts; and (consequently, inevitably) it misconceives the nature of the scientific method-the things that 
scientists actually do. It misconceives the behavior of science and of scientists in the face of surprising 
discoveries; and it misconceives much else about science, about technology, and about their interaction 
with one another and with the wider society. An important misconception is implicit in the very use of the 
terms `science,' `scientists,' `scientific.' To talk of scientists is to imply that astronomers, biologists, 
chemists, geologists, and physicists are all somehow much the same in some significant respect. To talk of 
science is to imply that astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics are all much the same sort of 
things. When there is talk about being scientific, it is commonly implied that one can be that, scientifically 
methodical, irrespective of the particular nature of what is being done; that one can be scientific about 
anything ... As soon as one looks in any depth, however, it becomes less and less clear what is really the 
same about astronomy and biology, say, or about what astronomers do and what biologists do. Sure 
enough, both astronomy and biology (and the other sciences as well) have to do with the study of selected 
aspects of nature. Sure enough, their findings are always subject to the commands of reality: false results 
are discarded (sooner or later, as their falsity becomes sufficiently obvious). Sure enough, each of the 
sciences now offers impressively detailed, coherent, and reliable insights, far more than they did fifty years 
ago, vastly more than a century ago, almost unrecognizably more than two centuries ago. But there, or 
about there, the identity among the sciences comes to an end. The diversity among them includes that they 
vary in the degree to which they use mathematics: physics and astronomy cannot do without high 
mathematics, whereas much of biology or geology needs little more than arithmetic, and various bits of 
chemistry fall into one or the other of those categories." (Bauer, H.H., "Scientific Literacy and the Myth of 
the Scientific Method," [1992], University of Illinois Press: Urbana & Chicago IL, 1994, reprint, p.24)

"Finally, consider the claim that to be scientific a theory must be testable. As we saw above, neither design 
nor descent can meet standards of testability that require strict verifiability. I have also emphasized that 
neither can meet standards of testability that depend on notions of repeatability. Yet both can meet alternate 
standards of testability, such as inference to the best explanation or `consilience,' that involve notions of 
comparative explanatory power. This equivalence was suggested again from the historical nature of the 
claims that design and evolutionary theorists make. Like other historical theorists, both make claims about 
events they believe occurred in the past that cannot be directly verified and may never recur. Yet like other 
historical theories these theories can be tested after the fact by reference to their comparative explanatory 
power. To impose stricter standards ignores the limitations inherent in all historical inquiry and thus again 
fails to provide grounds for distinguishing the status of competing historical or origins theories." (Meyer, 
S.C., "The Methodological 
Equivalence of Design & Descent: Can There be a Scientific `Theory of Creation'?," in Moreland J.P., 
ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer," InterVarsity Press: Downers 
Grove IL, 1994, p.89)

"In his testimony to you on July 9th, UT biology professor David Hillis claimed, `There is no debate about 
the existence of evolution in scientific circles.' That may be, depending on how you define evolution. But 
there is considerable debate in scientific circles about the mechanism of evolution, namely, how it happened. 
Cambridge paleontologist Simon Conway Morris, writing for the premier biology journal Cell, remarks: 
`When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, 
there is little consensus....' (Jan. 7, 2000) Despite that, the illusion of consensus is all we get in the textbooks. 
What's more, pro-Darwinian lobbyists, like Eugenie Scott, strive to maintain that illusion. In an interview 
with Salon (May 4, 2001), Scott tells us why. According to her, for textbooks to admit the lack of consensus 
over how evolution happened will "confuse kids about the soundness of evolution as a science." Whatever 
happened to science education nurturing the capacity of young minds for critical thought? Whatever 
happened to exposing students to as much information as required to form balanced scientific judgments? 
All the textbooks under consideration grossly exaggerate the evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution, 
pretending that its mechanism of natural selection acting on random genetic change is a slam-dunk. Not so." 
(Dembski W.A.*, "William Dembski Testimony for Textbook Hearing, Austin, Texas, September 10, 2003," 
Texas State Board of Education, September 10, 2003. Discovery Institute: Seattle WA.)

"John E Haught, professor of theology at Georgetown University, also uses ideas from process theology in 
his formulation of a theology of evolution. Like Miller, Haught professes to be a Christian and an 
evolutionist. Haught makes no attempt to justify evolution, for he takes evolution to be a fact that science 
has uncovered. Darwin's appeal to nature's evils is, for Haught, not an unscientific liability but a challenge 
for anyone trying to reconcile God and evolution. Evolution is a fact, so its metaphysics must be 
acknowledged and explained. Haught tries to do just that by constructing a complicated system based on 
the idea of an autonomous creation and a humble Creator. What science detects as evolution, according to 
Haught, is really the world's ongoing process of self-creation. The world is `self -ordering' and `self-creative' 
as it moves `into an always free and open future.' [Haught J.F., "God after Darwin," Westview: Boulder CO: 
2000, pp.53-54] This process appears random and unguided to evolutionists because God does not control 
his creation, for true love is not coercive but persuasive. God has more of a vision than a fixed plan as he 
entices the world with opportunity rather than manipulating the world with smothering love. The Scriptures 
speak of God's rescuing a fallen world, but for Haught the human sin condition is not particularly 
threatening. The sin so deplored in Scripture is not so much our actual evil acts as the `intractable situation 
that has come to prevail' as a result of humanity's `indifference to its creative mission in the cosmos.' [p.139] 
In Haught's system the biblical doctrine of original sin refers to how `each of us is born into a still 
unfinished, imperfect universe .' [p.138] Therefore God need not be seen as the take-charge sort of God who 
rescues the world. Instead the Christian view is better represented by a vulnerable, defenseless Creator who 
respects the world. `God's unobtrusive and self-absenting mode of being,' explains Haught, invites the world 
to swell forth continually.' [p.54] It is, paradoxically, the `hiddenness of God's power in a self-effacing 
persuasive love, that allows creation to come about and to unfold freely and indeterminately in evolution.' 
[p.97] In fact, God's love is so `outrageously 'irrational` that Haught wonders if intelligence might have first 
arisen in the evolution of humankind. [p.113] In Haught's system, God is in humble retreat.' He is 
unobtrusive, self -concealing, self withdrawing, and under eternal restraint. Haught has rescued God from 
evil, not by moving God upward toward transcendence but by moving him downward toward subservience. 
God's humility and selflessness are accompanied by a loss of control and responsibility. This is exactly what 
we should expect, argues Haught, because this is how true love works. One result of Haught's system is that 
science need not concern itself with the actions of God, for his account in no way interferes with purely 
scientific explanations of evolutionary events.' The `God hypothesis,' [p.53, 55.] Haught reassures the 
scientist, need not be considered." (Hunter, C.G., "Darwin's God Evolution and the Problem of Evil," Brazos 
Press: Grand Rapids MI, 2001, pp.172-173)

"The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press signaled ID's growing importance in January, issuing an 
805-page anthology titled `Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics.' That book title depicts ID as a 
variant of creationism, which reads Genesis literally and says the Earth was formed thousands of years ago - 
rather than billions - all species appeared immediately and a flood engulfed the globe. Yet ID actually insists 
on none of that. And while creationists are mostly conservative Protestants, ID theorists come from a wider 
range of faiths and some are nonreligious. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled creationism is too biblical for 
public schools, and ID proponents sought to distinguish themselves from that label in a long Utah Law 
Journal article arguing that ID is fit for public schools. University of Wisconsin historian Ronald L. 
Numbers, an ID opponent and author of `The Creationists,' agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it 
comes to the ID movement. But, he adds, its `the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.'" (Ostling R.N., 
"Ohio School Board 
Debates Teaching 'Intelligent Design'," The Washington Post, March 14, 2002)

"Other natural phenomena have fooled archaeologists into producing complicated explanations. For 
example, the suggestion of the cave bear cult was based upon the discovery of cave bear skulls in 
Drachenloch Cave (Chase 1987). Further examination of other caves and study of the natural behavioral 
patterns of modern bears indicated that the cave bear skulls were in fact natural cave accumulations, not 
evidence of prehistoric ritual (Jequier 1975)" (Pelcin,A., "A Geological Explanation for the Berekhat Ram 
Figurine", Current Anthropology, Vol. 35, December 1994, pp.674-675)

"During the years 1917 to 1921 Emil Bachler, of the museum in St. Gallen, Switzerland, dug the Drachenloch 
Cave ... The cave, at an altitude of 7,335 feet (2,240 meters) above sea level, forms a deep tunnel running 
more than 200 feet (70 meters) into the cliff. The deposit in the cave turned out to contain an immense 
number of cave bear remains, including several well-preserved skulls and complete limb bones. At that 
elevation, the site would have been inaccessible during the glaciation; thus the bears must date from the 
interglacial, the time of early Neandertal man in Europe. To his surprise, Bachler came to realize that the 
skulls and bones were by no means scattered haphazardly. On the contrary, they seemed to be oriented 
rigidly in certain preferred directions. Could they have been deliberately placed by man? Soon there were 
further discoveries that made Bachler sure. The finds in the Drachenloch were reported by Bachler ... The 
most remarkable find was that of a large stone coffin or chest, containing a group of cave bear skulls and 
covered by a large stone slab. All of the skulls were pointing the same way. The coffin was about three feet 
(1 meter) high; the sides consisted of limestone slabs, which, like the cover, had originally fallen down from 
the ceiling of the cave. Unfortunately, in the course of the excavation, workmen destroyed the chests, and 
no photographs were taken. ... Is there, then, any other evidence of the presence of man, apart from this 
curious arranging of the bones? In fact they are precious few. There are no flint implements. There are no 
burnt bones. There are no butchering cuts on the bones. All there is are some hearths, indicating that an 
occasional visitor or group made a brief stop. Any prolonged stay would certainly have been reflected in the 
sprinkling of numerous flints. But how could such elaborate structures as the suggested stone coffins have 
come about if not erected by man? And the alignment of the bones? ... It is evident that repeated pushing of 
such elongate objects as skulls, jaws, and long bones into niches or along walls will inevitably tend to align 
them in the same direction, suggesting that they were positioned by intent. In fact, all of the pushing, 
trampling, gnawing, biting, swallowing and regurgitating, pounding by falling rocks, and so on, which the 
bones undergo in a well-frequented cave ... is likely to produce, from time to time, the most peculiar results. 
And we must remember that such freaks or oddities are precisely the ones that tend to be selected for 
survival by natural agencies. For instance, skulls in niches are likely to be preserved, while skulls in the 
middle of the cave floor will be trampled to fragments and survive only as isolated teeth and pieces of bone 
pushed down into the earth. It is estimated that some 30,000 to 50,000 bears died in the Dragon Cave near 
Mixnitz, but only some 76 good skulls were found. One skull out of 500 or thereabouts! No wonder skulls in 
bear caves look as if somebody had put them in a safe place. Taking this possibility into account, it 
now seems impossible to accept the evidence for deliberate burials of bear skulls and other bones in the 
Drachenloch Cave near Vattis. The same goes for other sites, such as the Petershohle in southern Germany, 
the Dragon Cave near Mixnitz in Austria, and the Wildenmannisloch in Switzerland, where deliberate 
positioning of skulls and bones has been claimed though not in actual `chests.' ... Enthusiasm for the `bear 
cult' is naturally contagious. Secondhand and thirdhand quotations from the original works often tend to 
glorious embellishment-to be found even in the writings of such a sober prehistorian as the Abba Breuil 
himself, who once referred to the Petershohle as a Paleolithic `tabernacle.' ... The most trivial occurrences 
have been cited as evidence for the cult of the cave bear. ... I believe that we must conclude, with Koby, that 
there is no real evidence for a cave bear cult among the Neandertal men who inhabited Europe in the last 
interglaical and the earlier part of the last glaciation. There may have been a bear cult-but we have no 
proof." (Kurten,B., "The Cave Bear Story: Life and Death of a Vanished Animal," Columbia University Press: 
New York NY, 1976, pp.83-84, 86, 89-91. Emphasis original)

"The humblest creature often poses evolutionary problems in stark terms that cannot be escaped by mere 
rhetoric. None is more `antichance' than the ant lion larva, for it offers the naturalist an exceedingly rich 
collection of coaptations and in all its organs pushes specialization, both morphological and physiological, 
to an extreme. Its head is flat and its mouth has become a slit hermetically closed by a double lock, two 
astonishing coaptations of parts formed independently of one another during ontogeny. The 
forward edge of the head is bent back underneath to form the upper lip, while a hexagonal plate whose real 
edge is welded to the wall of the skull forms the lower. The roof of the buccal slit has a triangular projection 
that fits into a preexisting hollow of the lower lip, the whole forming a kind of pushbutton. A second, 
complementary locking device is a dovetail assembly in which a sideways and forward projection of the 
floor of the pharynx is lodged in a corresponding groove in the roof of the mouth. A closed mouth is 
admittedly not conducive to absorption of food, and rules out all solids, but the ant-lion larva has adopted a 
very special means of nourishment: It pumps out the body fluids of its victims. Because of the locking of the 
buccal orifice, the mandibles and maxillae are pushed laterally rearward from the oral cavity to the edges of 
the slot. They are highly elongated and their free extremities curve inward to form sharp-edged pincers. The 
mandibles have a longitudinal groove on their inner face running as far as the root of the appendix, thus 
communicating with the buccal cavity. The maxilla, reproducing on a smaller scale the curve of the mandible, 
runs parallel to its inner side; externally it has a gutter, which fits extremely snugly to the groove in the 
mandible. The superimposed trench and gutter form, edge to edge, a capillary channel: Coaptation is perfect. 
The ant lion larva ... digs its buccal pincers into the body of its prey. It first injects a paralyzing poison 
secreted by a gland and kept ready in a small basilar swelling of the maxilla; the poison travels not down the 
capillary channel but along a longitudinal gap between epidermis and cuticle; thus, it does not mingle with 
the digestive juices. Once the prey is paralyzed, the ant lion injects into it, via its maxillomandibular capillary 
tube, digestive juices that attack and liquefy viscera and muscles. The juices can be withdrawn and then the 
body juices of the prey sucked off by conversion of the pharynx to a reciprocating pump. The larva's 
sensory equipment includes numerous organs capable of recording the tiniest mechanical vibration of the 
support. Let but a grain of sand trickle down the walls of its tunnel, and the larva, instantly alerted, gets 
ready to leap on the possible prey with its mandibles gaping wide. To struggle with the prey, the hunter 
needs to get a firm grip on the substratum. It is able to do so because the rear end of its abdomen bears 
chitinous hooks that bite like teeth into the substratum and prevent slipping. The ant lion's habitat does not 
support a plentiful fauna, and starvation often occurs. For days on end the sedentary larvae lie hidden in the 
sand at the bottom of their funnel-shaped trap, on the lookout for possible prey, ant or other insect. But 
their physiology enables them to fast for long periods without dying. Since the larva lives in very dry sand, 
often sheltered from the rain, it can only survive by avoiding all losses of moisture. Its excretory function 
operates economically and resorbs the water containing its urine and other waste. What is more, the 
digestive tract ends at the junction of intermediate and lower intestines so that all defecation becomes 
impossible and the water absorbed with the food is totally conserved. In addition, the ant lion larva is 
protected against evaporation by exceedingly impermeable integuments Obliteration of the rectum from the 
digestive system enables it to be transformed into an organ having a new functions that of silk tank and 
spinner. It dilates into a blister whose tip forms a fold into which the free extremities of the excretory organs 
or Malpighian tubes (cryptonephridism) penetrate, an arrangement facilitating resorption of the water in the 
urine. The segments of the Malpighian tubes nearest to their insertion into the intestine alter in function, no 
longer excreting waste but secreting silk made of proteins and accumulated in the reservoir of if the ex-
rectum. Through the very narrow anus, which serves as a spinneret, the fully grown larva ejects the silk and, 
like a caterpillar, spins a cocoon in which, a few weeks later, it undergoes metamorphosis into a perfect 
imago. So we now have to turn to the Darwinians and ask: `Have you ever seen a mutation simultaneously 
affecting two separate components of the body and producing structures that fit one another precisely? Tell 
us, have you ever beheld three, four, or five simultaneous mutations with matching structures producing 
coordinated effects? And yet you have observed and described thousands upon thousands of mutations. 
The huge populations of animals and humans bear witness to their frequency. In any man the number of 
mutated genes is extremely high. The mutations are nondescript, monstrous, or pathological, and are 
invariably, repeat, invariably incoherent. And yet it is by that that you claim to explain the biological order, 
and make evolution intelligible?' These are vital questions that demand an answer. There is no way of 
getting around them, or evading the issue. Every biologist who wants to know the truth must answer them, 
or be considered a sectarian and not a scientist. In science there is no `cause' to be defended, only truth to 
be discovered. How many chance occurrences would it have taken to build this extraordinary creature that 
braves the burning sands of the Sahara, endures prolonged fasting, economizes water, detects the slightest 
vibration in the ground, lies in wait for days on end at the bottom of a funnel, or goes forth, freely, to hunt 
down its prey? It is not enough for a property to appear, it has to come at the right time. These accidents, 
always fortunate of course, produced their effects by occurring in a certain order, for, out of order and 
untimely, they would have remained imperative. What scientist would venture to estimate the chances of 
such a cascade, such an avalanche, of coordinated and mutually adjusted chance occurrences? The odds 
are infinitesimal. Please remember, too, that the case of the ant lion is not at all an exceptional one, chosen to 
support a thesis; such an accumulation of adaptations and coaptations is the rule." (Grassé, P.-P., 
"Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," Academic Press: New York 
NY, 1977, pp.161-163. Emphasis in original.)

"ANT LIONS, name given to the larvae of a group of insects belonging to the Neuroptera and related to the 
Lacewing flies. The larval Ant lion digs itself a small conical pit in sand or soft soil and buries itself at the 
bottom of it. Ants and other small insects wandering across the ground fall into the pit and are seized by the 
Ant lion before they are able to escape up the loose soil of the pit walls. Ant lions, Myrmeleon spp, 
are common in southern Europe and the family is very widely distributed in tropical and subtropical regions. 
The adult Ant lion fly bears a superficial resemblance to the thin-bodied dragonflies, from which it is easily 
distinguished, however, by its long clubbed antennae and two prominent parallel veins in the wings which 
have no cross veinlets between them. Some of the tropical species may have a wing-span of up to 4 or 5 in 
(10-12˝ cm). Their wings are usually of equal size, translucent with mottled patches. Some tropical species 
have enormously elongated hindwings drawn out at the ends so that they are shaped roughly like a squash 
racquet. Ant lions are nocturnal and their weak flight, achieved with their seemingly oversized wings, makes 
them conspicuous as they fly around lights. The larvae generally have pear-shaped bodies with enormous 
curved mandibles. Some species in Southeast Asia have a greatly elongated prothorax which gives the 
impression of a very long neck and therefore a rather bizarre appearance. FAMILY: Mymeleontidae, 
SUBORDER: Planipennia, ORDER: Neuroptera, CLASS: Insecta, PHYLUM: Arthropoda." (Fisher R.C., "Ant 
lions," in "Encyclopedia of the Animal World," [1977], Bay Books: Sydney NSW, Vol. 1, 1982, reprint, pp.84-

"How about things that have evolved only once, or not at all? ... I put the challenge to my Oxford colleague 
the entomologist and naturalist George McGavin, and he came up with a nice list, but still a short one 
compared with the list of things that have evolved many times. ... Ant lions are insect larvae of the order 
Neuroptera. Like many larvae, they look nothing like their adults. With their huge jaws, they could be good 
casting for a horror film. Each ant lion lurks in sand, just be the surface at the base of a conical pit trap which 
it digs itself. It digs by flicking sand vigorously outwards from the centre - this causes miniature landslides 
down the sides of the pit, and the laws of physics do the rest, neatly shaping the cone. Prey, usually ants, 
fall into the pit and slide down the steep sides into the ant lion's jaws. ... They are sometimes knocked down 
into the pit by the particles of sand." (Dawkins, R., "The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of 
Evolution," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 2004, pp.592-593)

"* I was interested by finding here the hollow conical pitfall of the lion-ant, or some other insect: first a fly 
fell down the treacherous slope and immediately disappeared; then came a large but unwary ant; its 
struggles to escape being very violent, those curious little jets of sand, described by Kirby and Spence 
(Entomol., vol. i., p. 425) as being flirted by the insect's tail, were promptly directed against the expected 
victim. But the ant enjoyed a better fate than the fly, and escaped the fatal jaws which lay concealed at the 
base of the conical hollow. This Australian pit-fall was only about half the size of that made by the European 
lion-ant." (Darwin C.R., "The Voyage of the 'Beagle'" [1845], Edito-Service: Geneva, n.d., reprint, p.442)

"All the great metaphysical `Arguments' which use aspects of the laws of Nature-the Design Argument, the 
Ontological Argument, the Cosmological Argument-are just arguments; that is they begin from some 
assumptions, and deduce a conclusion. That conclusion is worth no more and no less than the initial 
assumptions, and can never be independent of them. They are not disproved by counter-arguments of the 
Kantian sort, any more than they are proved by those of the Newtonians. Although, for example, the form of 
Newton's laws of motion excludes any teleological notions, and replaces final causes by initial causes and 
algorithms for computing the subsequent states which follow from them, one should not draw far-reaching 
metaphysical conclusions from this image. In 1748 Maupertuis showed that Newton's laws of motion could 
be derived by the application of a teleological principle. It is possible to define a mathematical quantity, the 
action, which involves the product of mass, velocity, and distance travelled by bodies. Maupertuis's 
Principle, which we now call the Principle of Least Action, was that `If there occurs some change in Nature, 
the amount of action necessary for this change must be as small as possible.'" (Barrow J.D. "The World 
Within the World," Oxford University Press: New York NY, 1988, pp.80-81. Emphasis original)

"Maupertuis's Principle, which we now call the Principle of Least Action, was that `If there occurs some 
change in Nature, the amount of action necessary for this change must be as small as possible.' This elegant 
idea turns out to be equivalent to the Newtonian laws of motion (although it is more powerful in the sense 
that it can be used to derive the equations of motion in other areas of physics once the appropriate action is 
identified). But, unlike the formulation of Newton, it is teleological. It says that, of all the paths that could be 
taken by a body moving from A to B, it actually takes that path for which the associated action is a 
minimum. This path is therefore determined by both the initial and the final states. Maupertuis attached 
great metaphysical significance to this result, regarding it as a 'proof of existence of Him who governs the 
world'. Formerly, arguments of the sort that we lived in the `best of all possible worlds' were open to the 
objection that we did not know any other worlds with which to draw such a comparison, but Maupertuis 
claimed that the other worlds were those in which motion occurred with non- minimal action. Our world was 
optimal in this well-defined sense, and moreover there existed a teleological aspect to the laws of Nature ..." 
(Barrow J.D. "The World Within the World," Oxford University Press: New York NY, 1988, p.81)

"The Design Argument would be overthrown, not by philosophical objections to its logical soundness, but 
by the idea of Darwinian evolution. Darwin was able to provide another explanation, itself rooted in detailed 
observations, for the mass of detailed observations supporting apparent design in the make-up of the 
natural world. It was because he provided an alternative explanation for the naturalists' observations that he 
carried the day, not because he undermined the logic of the Design Argument." (Barrow J.D. "The World 
Within the World," Oxford University Press: New York NY, 1988, p.82)

"In 1813 an expatriate American physician employed at St Thomas's Hospital in London read an 
extraordinary paper to the Royal Society. The name of the physician was William Wells, the title of the 
paper, An Account of a White Female, Part of Whose Skin resembles that of a Negro. In it Wells proposed 
what we now call the process of `natural selection' as an explanation for the existence of extant physical 
characteristics in living things. He derived the hypothesis from his case study of the adaption of human skin 
coloration to climate. He argued, in contradiction to the prevailing view, that artful design was unnecessary 
in order to explain the remarkable adaption of living things to their environments. If we could effect adaption 
by the artificial selection imposed by breeding then this adaption could be achieved `with equal efficiency, 
though more slowly, by nature'. Moreover, Wells appreciated that there was no such thing as the 
`uniformity of Nature'; the natural world was in a state of perpetual change, and the process of adaption 
could never be complete. Wells's paper was published in 1818. These views were both important and radical. 
One might have expected them to have fomented all manner of opposition and public comment. Not so: they 
influenced nobody; they were cited by nobody; they attracted neither praise nor approbation. It is difficult 
to determine why this was so. Wells was a respected scientist, a Fellow of the Royal Society, and the winner 
of the Society's Rumford medal in 1814 for his classic analysis of dew-drops. It is just possible that by 
publishing his paper on natural selection merely as an appendix to his Rumford prize-essay he actually 
ensured that it was overlooked, since the essay was widely cited by philosophers of science as a classic 
example of the scientific method at work. Whatever the reasons for Wells's original neglect, he appears 
eventually in the later editions of Darwin's Origin of Species, acknowledged as the originator of the idea of 
natural selection, after Darwin's attention was finally drawn to his work by an unknown American scientist 
in 1860." (Barrow J.D. "The World Within the World," Oxford University Press: New York NY, 1988, p.83)

"Darwin and Alfred Wallace went much further than Wells in gathering evidence for the mechanism of 
natural selection as an explanation for the existence of order in the organic world. Through their work a new 
type of explanation became legitimate. If all possible variants arise at random in a reproducing system, then 
those variations which most enable the system to reproduce will subsequently survive with greater 
probability than those which do not. Those reproductions that are best adapted to survive in the 
environment in which they find themselves will do so more readily that those that are ill-adapted. Hence, 
time and chance can produce the remarkable match between the living creature and its environment. By this 
means the spontaneous evolution of order can be explained without recourse to final causes or explicit 
supernatural design. This evolution through the `survival of the fittest' completely undermined the 
traditional argument from design in the biological realm, although it did not undermine those Design 
Arguments based upon the advantageous character of the laws of Nature themselves." (Barrow J.D. "The 
World Within the World," Oxford University Press: New York NY, 1988, pp.83-84)

"But even if continuous evolution could be proved as a fact, the significance of the evidence of intelligent 
order and contrivance would not be in the least affected. It would only establish a method or system of 
means, but could in no degree alter the nature of the effect, nor the attributes of the real cause disclosed by 
them. (1.) The laws of abiogenesis, of reproduction, of sexual differentiation and reproduction, of heredity, 
of variation, such as can evolve sensation, reason, conscience, and will out of atoms and mechanical 
energy, would all still remain. to be accounted for. (2.) Laws are never causes, but always complicated modes 
of action resulting from the co-action of innumerable unconscious agents. Instead, therefore, of being 
explanations they are the very complex effects for which reason demands an intellectual cause. (3.) All 
physical laws result from the original properties of matter acting under the mutual condition of certain 
complicated adjustments. Change the adjustments and the laws change. The laws which execute evolution, 
or rather into which the process of evolution is analyzed, must be referred back to the original adjustments 
of the material elements of the fire-mist. These adjustments, in which all future order and life is by 
hypothesis latent, must have been caused by chance or intelligence. Huxley in his `Criticisms on Origin of 
Species,' p. 330, founds the whole logic of Evolution on chance thus: It has been `demonstrated that an 
apparatus thoroughly well-adapted to a particular purpose, may be the result of a method of trial and error 
worked out by unintelligent agents, as well as of the direct application of the means appropriate to that end 
by .an intelligent agent.' `According to Teleology, each organism is like a rifle bullet fired straight at a mark; 
according to Darwin organisms are like grape-shot, of which one hits something and the rest fall wide.' The 
modern scientific explanation of the processes of the universe by physical causes alone, to the exclusion of 
mind, differs from the old long-exploded chance theory, only by the accidents (a) of the juggling use of the 
words `laws of nature,' (b) and the assumption that chance operating through indefinate duration can 
accomplish the work of intelligence. But as no man can believe that any amount of time will explain the form 
of flint knives and arrow heads, in the absence of human agents, or that any number of throws could cast a 
font of type into the order of letters in the plays of Shakespeare, so no man can rationally believe that the 
complicated and significantly intellectual order of the universe sprang from chance. (4.) In artificial breeding 
man selects. In `natural selection' nature selects. Hence, if the results are the most careful adjustments to 
effect purpose, it follows that that characteristic must be stamped upon the organisms by nature, and hence 
nature itself must therefore be intelligently directed, either (a) by an intelligence immanent in her elements, or 
in her whole as organized, or (b) by the original adjustment of her machinery by an intelligent Creator." 
(Hodge A.A., "Outlines of Theology," [1879], Banner of Truth: Edinburgh, Second edition, 1983, reprint, 

"Many scientists and others have regarded Christianity as an absurd belief system, or at best as a "religious 
" and by that they mean non-rational, faith. Why? Often it is because the book on which Christianity is 
based, the Bible, has been said to date the origin of the universe at 4004 B.C., or some such recent date. 
Seldom considered and discussed are the dozen or more different indicators from the Bible that a literal 
reading of Genesis demands an ancient, rather than a recent, creation date. early biblical scholarship Many 
of the early church fathers and other biblical scholars interpreted the creation days of Genesis 1 as long 
periods of time. The list includes the Jewish historian Josephus (1st century); Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, 
apologist, and martyr (2nd century); Origen, who rebutted heathen attacks on Christian doctrine (3rd 
century); Basil (4th century); Augustine (5th century); and, later, Aquinas (13th century), to name a few. 
The significance of this list lies not only in the prominence of these individuals as biblical scholars, 
defenders of the faith, and pillars of the early church (except Josephus), but also in that their scriptural 
views cannot be said to have been shaped to accommodate secular opinion. Astronomical, paleontological, 
and geological evidences for the antiquity of the universe, of the earth, and of life did not come forth until 
the nineteenth century. (Ross H.N., "The Fingerprint of God," [1989], Promise Publishing Co: Orange CA, 
Second Edition, 1991, pp.141)

"THE WHEEL is the proverbial human invention. Take apart any machine of more than rudimentary 
complexity and you'll find wheels. ... Whenever humans have a good idea, zoologists have grown 
accustomed to finding it anticipated in the animal kingdom. ... Why not the wheel? ... There is one revealing 
exception to my premise. Some very small creatures have evolved the wheel in the fullest sense of 
the word. The wheel may even have been the first locomotor device ever evolved, given that for most of its 
first 2 billion years, life consisted of nothing but bacteria. Many bacteria, of which Rhizobium is 
typical, swim using thread-like spiral propellors, each driven by its own continuously rotating propellor 
shaft. It used to be thought that these `flagella' were wagged like tails, the appearance of spiral rotation 
resulting from a wave of motion passing along the length of the flagellum, as in a wriggling snake. The truth 
is much more remarkable. The bacterial flagellum is attached to a shaft that rotates freely and indefinitely in a 
hole that runs through the cell wall. This is a true axle, a freely rotating hub. It is driven by a tiny molecular 
motor which uses the same biophysical principles as a muscle. But a muscle is a reciprocating engine, which, 
after contracting, has to lengthen again to prepare for a new power stroke. The bacterial motor just keeps on 
going in the same direction: a molecular turbine. ... Evolutionary improvement is like climbing a mountain. 
You can't jump from the bottom of a cliff to the top in a single leap. Sudden, precipitous change is an option 
for engineers, but in nature the summit of the evolutionary mountain can be reached only via a gradual ramp 
upwards from the starting point. The wheel may be one of those cases where the engineering solution can 
be seen in plain view, yet be unattainable in evolution because it lies on the other side of a deep valley: 
unevolvable by large animals but within the reach of bacteria because of their small size. ... " (Dawkins, R., 
"The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 2004, 
pp.543, 545,547-549. Emphasis original)

"How about things that have evolved only once, or not at all? As we learned from the Rhizobium's 
Tale, the wheel, with a true, freely rotating bearing, seems to have evolved only once, in bacteria, before 
being finally invented in human technology. Language, too, has apparently evolved only in us: that is to 
say at least 40 times less often than eyes. It is surprisingly hard to think of `good ideas' that have evolved 
only once." (Dawkins, R., "The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution," Houghton Mifflin 
Co: Boston MA, 2004, p.592)

"Many scientists and others have regarded Christianity as an absurd belief system, or at best as a "religious 
" and by that they mean non-rational, faith. Why? Often it is because the book on which Christianity is 
based, the Bible, has been said to date the origin of the universe at 4004 B.C., or some such recent date. 
Seldom considered and discussed are the dozen or more different indicators from the Bible that a literal 
reading of Genesis demands an ancient, rather than a recent, creation date. early biblical scholarship Many 
of the early church fathers and other biblical scholars interpreted the creation days of Genesis 1 as long 
periods of time. The list includes the Jewish historian Josephus (1st century); Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, 
apologist, and martyr (2nd century); Origen, who rebutted heathen attacks on Christian doctrine (3rd 
century); Basil (4th century); Augustine (5th century); and, later, Aquinas (13th century), to name a few. 
The significance of this list lies not only in the prominence of these individuals as biblical scholars, 
defenders of the faith, and pillars of the early church (except Josephus), but also in that their scriptural 
views cannot be said to have been shaped to accommodate secular opinion. Astronomical, paleontological, 
and geological evidences for the antiquity of the universe, of the earth, and of life did not come forth until 
the nineteenth century. (Ross H.N.*, "The Fingerprint of God," [1989], Promise Publishing Co: Orange CA, 
Second Edition, 1991, pp.141)

"Doesn't Genesis 2 present a different creation order than Genesis 1? Genesis 2 does not present a creation 
account at all but presupposes the completion of God's work of creation as set forth in chapter 1. The first 
three verses of Genesis 2 simply carry the narrative of chapter 1 to its final and logical conclusion, using the 
same vocabulary and style as employed in the previous chapter. It sets forth the completion of the whole 
primal work of creation and the special sanctity conferred on the seventh day as a symbol and memorial of 
God's creative work. Verse 4 then sums up the whole sequence that has just been surveyed by saying, 
`These are the generations of heaven and earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made 
heaven and earth.' Having finished the overall survey of the subject, the author then develops in detail one 
important feature that has already been mentioned: the creation of man. Kenneth Kitchen says, `Genesis 1 
mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the 
center of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. Failure to recognize the 
complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, 
and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on 
obscurantism (Ancient Orient, p. 117). ...  From the survey of the first fifteen verses of chapter 2, it 
becomes quite apparent that this was never intended to be a general creation narrative. Search all the 
cosmogonies of the ancient civilizations of the Near East, and you will never find among them a single 
creation account that omits all mention of the formation of sun, moon, and stars or ocean or seas-none of 
which are referred to in Genesis 2. It is therefore quite obvious that Genesis 1 is the only creation account to 
be found in the Hebrew Scripture and that it is already presupposed as the background of Genesis 2. ... The 
structure of Genesis 2 stands in clear contrast to every creation account known to comparative literature. It 
was never intended to be a creation account at all, except insofar as it related the circumstances of man's 
creation as a child of God, fashioned in His image, infused with His breath of life, and brought into an 
intimate personal relationship with the Lord Himself. Quite clearly, then, chapter 2 is built on the foundation 
of chapter 1 and represents no different tradition than the first chapter or discrepant account of the order of 
creation." (Archer,G.L.*, "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1982, pp.68-69)

"The `Wedge' Document Devours Bandwidth. In 1998, an inhouse draft document was stolen in some way 
from the Discovery Institute. It became known as the `Wedge' document because it outlined a strategy that 
followed up on Phillip Johnson's use of the term `the Wedge' in the mid-1990s. Johnson had described 
himself as a wedge because he was trying to open doors for younger scientists whose dissent from 
Darwinism raised career obstacles. One biologist explained it this way: `Phil is the 'sharp edge' and the rest 
of us are the ever-widening shank.' The document, a list of the sort of unrealizable goals that are typically 
generated by think tanks, was never published or formally accepted by Discovery, but it created a furore 
among Darwin pressure groups. For example it stated `Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of 
Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing 
together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the 
Center explores how new developments in biology, physics, and cognitive science raise serious doubts 
about scientific materialism and have reopened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.' Of 
course, most North Americans have never given up a `broadly theistic' understanding of nature, as polls 
consistently show. Discovery's real target is the metaphysical naturalism and narrow Darwinism of the 
current science establishment, which the author of the document hoped to replace within two decades by 
intelligent design theory. That is a pretty ambitious project. ... In any event, there is no conspiracy. 
Johnson's book, The Wedge of Truth, provides a public statement of his own social goals for the 
Wedge. For example: `The Wedge has important things to say about science, but it has much more 
important things to say about the nihilism that infects intellectual life outside of experimental science.... 
Technology is at the flood tide of rationalist optimism, whereas the fields we call `the humanities' are at the 
ebb tide of nihilism.' [p.168]" (O'Leary D., "By Design or by Chance?: The Growing Controversy on the 
Origins of Life in the Universe," 2004, pp.224-225)

"It should be noted that there are no contradictions between [Genesis] chapters 1 and 2. ... According to 
chapter 2 the order of creation is said to be man (v. 7), vegetation (v. 9), animals (v. 19), woman (v. 21f.). But 
in answer to this it should be noted that the order of statement is not chronological. Can we seriously think 
that the writer in intended us to understand that God formed man (v. 7) before there was any place to put 
him? To insist upon a chronological order in chapter 2 is to place a construction upon the writer's words that 
was never intended. In reality, chapter 2 declare nothing regarding the relative priority of man and 
vegetation. Nor does chapter 2 teach the creation of man before the animals. Here again, the chronological 
order is not stressed. The chapter has described the formation of Eden and the placing of man in the garden. 
It now speaks more particularly of man's condition, showing his need of a help meet for himself, and that 
such a help meet was not found among the animals. Verse 1 may rightly be paraphrased, `and the LORD 
GOD having formed out of the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of heaven, brought them unto 
the man.'" (Young, E.J.*, "An Introduction to the Old Testament," [1949], Tyndale Press: London, 1958, 
reprint, p.55)

"In order to interpret the primeval prologue with the same intent and purpose as the ancient author, one 
must examine its literary genre. What kind of literature is this? How does the author intend himself to be 
understood? These questions must be asked to avoid giving the author's words a meaning that was not in 
his mind. ... Literary device also is found in the names used. The correspondence of the name with the 
person's function or role is striking in several instances. Adam means `mankind' and Eve is `(she who gives) 
life.' Surely, when an author of a story names the principal characters Mankind and Life, something is 
conveyed about the degree of literalness intended! Similarly Cain means `forger (of metals)'; Enoch is 
connected with `dedication, consecration' (4:17; 5:18); Jubal with horn and trumpet (4:21); while Cain, 
condemned to be a nad, a `wanderer,' goes to live in the land of Nod, a name transparently 
derived from the same Hebrew root, thus the land of wandering! This suggests that the author is writing as 
an artist, a storyteller, who uses literary device and artifice. One must endeavor to distinguish what he 
intends to teach from the literary means employed." (La Sor W.S.*, Hubbard D.A.* & Bush F.W.*, "Old 
Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament," [1982], Eerdmans: Grand 
Rapids MI, 1987, reprint, pp.70,72)

"The Darwinians have coined the terms pseudoteleology [apparent design] and teleonomy to designate the 
finality which they at the same time deny. Appearances are deceptive, they say; the materials of life are 
always the work of chance. What some take for finality is only the result of the ordering of random materials 
by natural selection. ... Actually, the terms pseudoteleology and teleonomy are the homage paid to finality, 
as hypocrisy pays homage to virtue. Giard (1905), himself a shrewd scholar but blinded by a foolish 
anticlericalism, went so far as to abjure Lamarckism and write, `To account for the wondrous adaptations 
such as those we observe between orchids and the insects that fertilize them, we have hardly any choice but 
the bare alternative hypotheses: the intervention of a sovereignly intelligent being, and selection.' He 
cannot have seriously subjected his supposed dilemma to critical scrutiny or he would have seen that he 
was substituting for the dethroned divinity just such another, a sorting and finalizing, in sum 
transcendental, agent, natural selection. Paul Wintrebert, a convinced and even intractable atheist, did not 
fall into the same trap but realized perfectly that Giard's alternative involves, whatever opinion be held, 
recognizing the intervention of a purposive guiding agent." (Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: 
Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.165-166. 
Emphasis in original)

"With more modesty than the Darwinians, we do not claim to know the author of that finality, which in fact 
goes far beyond the putative work of natural selection since we encounter it at every level in every living 
creature. Life is seen to be dependent on the finalization of a complex and architected physicochemical 
system, which still does not exclude next-best things, or even failures. Without quibbling about its nature 
and justification, let us note that, far from abolishing or eluding determinism, immanent biological finality 
implies one that is strictly channeled and utterly opposed to chance. The notion of physiological function 
implies the performance by an organ or system of organs of something precise, definite, constant, on which 
the living creature's survival depends. If the function is not performed, life stops. Immanent finalization is, in 
our opinion, self-evident. ... Immanent finality is an intrinsic property of all living creatures; without it 
they would not exist. Regarded as autonomous functional units, their component parts (organs, tissues, or 
isolated cells), just as much as any other property (feeding, defense of the organism, growth, and 
reproduction), are subordinated to an end. In the case of these properties, there is no argument, but just 
pronounce the word finality and every biologist is up in arms, most likely because biologists do not 
distinguish between de facto, immanent, and transcendental finality. On the latter they have little or nothing 
to say; it is a matter of metaphysics." (Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New 
Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.166-167. Emphasis in original)

"Let us understand one another; the living creature is not a mere sum of physicochemical 
phenomena but, rather, much more nearly an integral of them. The architecture, the spatial and temporal 
organization, animate a whole which forms a coherent system of tightly coordinated parts. ... You cannot 
compare two states-inert matter and the living creature-that differ profoundly but yet conform to the same 
laws of physics and chemistry. It is a worse mistake than comparing a stone on the road with the Chateau of 
Versailles. ... The living creature, as an autonomous system with its parts rigorously integrated in a whole, 
born of another system identical with itself, functions by itself, with no need of any engineer or mechanic. 
Death, the differentiator, and the bonus of survival: these are the tools of natural selection, which, according 
to the Darwinian dogma, is a reasoning entity responsible for maintaining the well-made, the properly 
functional, in the world of living things. It separates the useless from the useful, the wheat from the chaff. It 
determines the end of every living creature, of every population. Here we are, up to our ears in 
transcendence: Any organization or function is controlled by it. The building blocks for making living 
creatures are utilized by it. Thus, the entire world of living beings is transcended by phenomena that create 
finality. Natural selection working for the continuance and welfare of animals, plants, and man himself, is 
seen to be the grand law which organizes the living universe. So the Darwinians, who fancied they had 
exorcized finalism and transcendency but forgot to analyze critically the idea of natural selection, failed to 
see its implications or metaphysical consequences. They thought they were absolved from giving any 
finalization or deistic interpretation by decreeing that on earth all is but deceptive appearances; finality is a 
sham, guided evolution illusory. How is it possible to understand such an attitude? We cannot pretend that 
nature (with a capital or a small "n") copies man, the latest of its creations. So we are forced to admit, 
according to the Darwinian view, that nature acts blindly, unintelligently, but by an infinitely benevolent 
good fortune builds mechanisms so intricate that we have not even finished with analysis of their structure 
and have not the slightest insight of the physical principles and functioning of some of them." (Grassé, P.-
P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: 
New York NY, 1977, pp.167-168. Emphasis in original)

"IMAGINE A NANOTECHNOLOGY MACHINE far beyond the state of the art: a microminiaturized rotary 
motor and propeller system that drives a tiny vessel through liquid. The engine and drive mechanism are 
composed of 40 parts, including a rotor, stator, driveshaft, bushings, universal joint, and flexible propeller. 
The engine is powered by a flow of ions, can rotate at up to 100,000 rpm ... and can reverse direction in a 
quarter of a rotation. The system comes with an automatic feedback control mechanism. The engine itself is 
about 1/100,000th of an inch wide -- far smaller than can be seen by the human eye. Most of us would be 
pleasantly surprised to learn that some genius had designed such an engineering triumph. What might come 
as a greater surprise is that there is a dominant faction in the scientific community that is prepared to defend, 
at all costs, the assertion that this marvelous device could not possibly have been designed, must have 
been produced blindly by unintelligent material forces, and only gives the appearance -- we said 
appearance! -- of being designed. As you may have guessed, these astonishingly complex, tiny, and 
efficient engines exist. Millions of them exist inside you, in fact. They are true rotary motors that drive the 
"bacterial flagellum," a whip-like propulsion device for certain bacteria, including the famous E. coli 
that lives in your digestive system." (Peterson D.*, "The Little Engine That Could...Undo 
Darwinism," The American Spectator," 8 May 2005)

"As a Catholic, Behe was taught that evolution could be viewed as God's way of creating. What forced 
Behe to change his mind about the truth of Darwinism and to propose intelligent design was not religion, 
but scientific discoveries in his own field. ... For his doctoral studies, Behe, Moved across town to the 
University of Pennsylvania. There he plugged away for four years and, after completing his Ph.D. in 
biochemistry in 1978, attained an appointment to the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. 
One of his colleagues in the genetics laboratory at the National Institutes of Health was a fellow Catholic 
biochemist, Jo Ann Nichols. Rarely did their work touch on evolution, but Behe recalls one day when the 
issue did arise, as a matter of joint speculation between them during a break. The question was this: `If the 
first life did arise by random naturalistic processes from a chemical soup, as all textbooks are saying, what 
exactly are the minimum systems that are required for life?' Together they ticked off a mental list of the 
minimum requirements: a functioning membrane, a system to build the DNA units, a system to control the 
copying of DNA, a system for energy processing. Suddenly, they broke off their speculation, looked at each 
other, and smiled, jointly muttering, `Naaah--too many systems; it couldn't have happened by chance.'" 
(Woodward T.*, "Meeting Darwin's 
Wager," Part 2 of 3, Christianity Today, April 28, 1997)

"From observable features of the natural world, intelligent design infers to an intelligence responsible for 
those features. The world contains events, objects and structures that exhaust the explanatory resources of 
undirected natural causes and that can be adequately explained only by recourse to intelligent causes. This 
is not an argument from ignorance. Nor is this a matter of personal incredulity. Precisely because of what we 
know about undirected natural causes and their limitations, science is now in a position to demonstrate 
design rigorously. " (Dembski W.A.*, "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology," 
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 1999, p.107)

"Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (argument from ignorance) The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam ... is 
committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved 
false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true. But our ignorance of how to prove or disprove a 
proposition clearly does not establish either the truth or the falsehood of that proposition. ... A qualification 
should be made at this point. In some circumstances it can safely be assumed that if a certain event had 
occurred, evidence for it would have been discovered by qualified investigators. In such a case it is 
perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its nonoccurrence. 
Of course, the proof here is not based on ignorance but on our knowledge that if it had occurred it would be 
known. For example, if a serious security investigation fails to unearth any evidence that Mr. X is a foreign 
agent, it would be wrong to conclude that their research has left us ignorant. It has rather established that 
Mr. X is not one. Failure to draw such conclusions is the other side of the bad coin of innuendo, as when 
one says of a man that there is `no proof' that he is a scoundrel. In some cases not to draw a conclusion is 
as much a breach of correct reasoning as it would be to draw a mistaken conclusion." (Copi I.M., 
Introduction to Logic," [1953], Macmillan: New York, Seventh Edition, 1986, pp.94-95)

"The Privatization of God. ... This leaves science free to go about its investigations without having to 
consider the God hypothesis, and it has the effect of separating God from the world. ... This separation of 
God and the world is one aspect of Gnosticism. It is not surprising that these ideas are encouraged by 
evolution. As I discussed in Darwin's God, Gnostic ideas predated and influenced the development 
of evolution, and the wide acceptance of evolution, in turn, strengthened modern Gnosticism. Today, these 
ideas have had the effect of privatizing God. Evolution has helped to advance the notion that matters of 
faith should be kept private and out of public life. The reason is that if God is separate from the world and 
cannot be objectively verified, then what we believe about God is strictly subjective-a matter of opinion. 
Those who promote this view claim it is neutral and fair to all, for those who wish to believe are free to do 
so. Likewise, those who wish not to believe are free from unsolicited exposure to religious ideas. God need 
not be acknowledged in public, for faith is a private affair. Indeed, God should not be acknowledged 
in public, for this inevitably would force one person's religion on another person. In America these ideas 
have resonated with the secularization of the government. There is now firmly entrenched a doctrine of 
separation of church and state. It is commonly interpreted as the idea that the government may not support 
or allow any type of religious activity. And the government includes everything from the White House to 
the local elementary school. God has now been privatized in America. The problem with this view is that it is 
not religiously neutral as claimed. It is in fact, wedded to its gnostic roots as firmly as ever. What is more, its 
advocates are not generally able to understand the religious bias that is woven into their view. They are 
apparently so deeply Gnostic that they cannot perceive their own religious position. To them their position 
seems to be religiously neutral. Why is the privatization of God not religiously neutral? The simple answer is 
that it presupposes that God can be privatized. While its advocates think they are being neutral 
because they are allowing for the existence of God, they are allowing only for a God who isn't involved in 
the daily matters of our lives. This is the god of Gnosticism, a god who is disjointed from the world. ... Far 
from embracing a separation of church and state, America has embraced a nonbiblical religion. And this is 
why the criticism of ID is so harsh. For the premise behind ID is that design is detectable in creation. Even 
though ID is careful not to describe a creator, it nonetheless violates Gnostic assumptions about God and 
the world. By claiming that design is detectable, ID violates the Gnostic premise that God must be separate 
from the world and not detectable, an object of pure faith. " (Hunter, C.G.*, "Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of 
Religion Over Science," Brazos Press: Grand Rapids MI, 2003, p.119. Emphasis original)

"The notion of biological necessity is further classified if viewed from an evolutionary standpoint. It is 
certainly a truism to say that the first living thing, formed of prebiotic materials, fully satisfied the 
"necessary" conditions for life, conditions immutable and fulfilled in both kingdoms. There is no harm in 
repeating this self-evident truth, because it shows where genuine necessity lies, the one which is a sine 
qua non for life. Once biogenesis occurred, evolution no longer dealt with the absolute but rather the 
contingent; in other words, what was useful took the place of what was necessary. Some biochemists who 
have written about evolution have failed to understand this. In all living things we distinguish three 
categories of characteristics: the necessary, the useful, and the indifferent (harmful, on occasion). The first 
is absolutely indispensable, the second contingent and inconstant, and the third scattered irregularly among 
the species populating the various environments of our planet. Thus, against an immutable and necessary 
backdrop evolution has diversified the two kingdoms ad infinitum. As to whether the diversity of 
plans of organization and forms was useful or not, that is something else. It enabled the various 
environments to be conquered ... but did it? Bacteria and Phanerogamia are found everywhere, regardless of 
the uniformity of their structure." (Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory 
of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.172-173. Emphasis original)

"Let us go a step further. What need do reptiles have for a secondary palate, a mandible reduced to a 
dentary only, suitable for mammals? Lizards, snakes, and tortoises have gone on living with no partition in 
their buccal cavity, no complexly structured mandible. Besides, the palate is found, with no other 
premammalian characteristics, in the crocodile, which is certainly out of place in the genealogy of mammals. 
Thus we see the difference, biologically speaking, between the necessary and the useful. There was no 
necessity for theriodonts to acquire a secondary palate, which really served a purpose only in the case 
of mammals by creating in the splanchnic skull two superimposed and separate stories, one for respiration 
and another for food. ... In the case of the theriodont we might speak, as Cuenot did with respect to other 
animals, about prophetic organs, whose genesis is chiefly due to internal factors." (Grassé, P.-P., 
"Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: 
New York NY, 1977, pp.173-174. Emphasis original)

"Evolution as revealed by fossil remains of plants and animals does not bear the characteristics attributed to 
it by theory. From one parental stock we get variants that are perpetuated in their offspring in one or more 
lines, but in numerous offshoots, classes, or orders the original stock or types also persist. 
This raises the following question: What necessity is there for the stock to vary since it flourishes and has 
persisted in its unvaried form from the most ancient times? Relict species insistently pose the same 
question. They cannot have been so badly adapted as is imagined, since they have endured. Sometimes 
the ancestor cohabits with its own progeny" (Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence 
for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.176. Emphasis original)

"The changeover from aquatic to terrestrial life was probably preceded, in the case of rhipidistian 
Crossopterygii, by a long evolution preparatory to adaptation to the new environment and involving 
internal factors. It had to affect not an isolated characteristic, but the organism as a whole, since the 
variations had to be coordinated if they were to be meaningful and effective, and consequently could not 
depend on chance." (Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of 
Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.180-181)

"We are that much less inclined to accept the story of the little `Magellan of evolution' fish since the 
mudskippers Periophthalmus and Boleophthalmus very specifically reproduce its 
`experiment'; they hop about on the mud, climb onto the roots of the mangroves, and stand upright on their 
pectoral fins, as if on short legs. For millions of years they have lived like this and although they are 
hopping around all the time, however clumsily, their fins are still fins and do not turn into legs. How terribly 
unaccommodating of these animals! Quite recently one of my colleagues drew my attention to the fact that 
Periophthalmus and Boleophthalmus, long accustomed to walking and skipping along on 
their fins beneath the mangroves, are completely satisfied to do so and will not at any price give up a 
tradition that suits them so nicely. Are they afraid that if they alter their ways they will get too big a boost 
from the pressure of selection?" (Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory 
of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.181)

"The action of the environment, even when associated with a change of habits, cannot, to my mind, set 
evolution in motion unless certain internal factors come into play ... Whoever regards necessity as the 
raison d'etre of evolution is liable to slip into anthropomorphism. Another problem is that of 
detecting and measuring the needs of beings living millions of years ago in an environment of which we 
have only a few fossils and the sediments in which they are enclosed, to help us in their reconstruction." 
(Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [973], 
Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.181)

"What need did the diploblastic animals have to acquire a third layer? We can try to find out, since we can 
put down on paper whatever we like, but arriving at the truth is quite another matter. And these 
diploblastics, although engendering triploblastics, still continue with no sign of abatement. Even the 
usefulness of the change remains obscure. Here we are back where we started from. From whatever angle 
one considers necessity as an efficient agent of evolution, its role is dubious, subject to the one reservation 
we have regarding the fundamental functions linked to the very manifestation of life (citric acid cycle, 
genesis of proteins, etc.)." (Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of 
Transformation," [973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.181)

"Our consideration of panchronic and artificial forms has shown the very serious difficulties which prevent 
us from assigning to necessity a determining role in evolution. There are many other obstacles to the 
theory." (Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," 
[1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.180-181. Emphasis original

"Evolution went on; the necessity inherent in the achievement of the living creature was fully satisfied. But 
who shall tell us what necessity there was for life to appear on earth at all? This question is not addressed to 
the biologists, for it concerns the transcendental: let the philosopher or theologian answer it, if he can." 
(Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], 
Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.180-181. Emphasis original)

"The search for a rigorous criterion for demarcating the scientific from the metaphysical and ungroundable 
has been a major quest in the philosophy of science in this century. Some would even say that the 
discovery of an ironclad method for severing the scientific from the metaphysical is the very purpose of the 
philosophy of science. Nonetheless, it is now generally accepted that we can never have a perfectly 
rigorous demarcation criterion. Similarly, it is generally agreed that science can never have at its disposal a 
method for arbitrating competing scientific theories possessing the persuasive force that logic possesses in 
mathematics. It may be that both the demarcation criterion and the method of arbitration owe their 
impossibility to the fact that science, unlike mathematics, does not derive its truthfulness solely from its own 
internal consistency, but from an external system (`nature') as well." (Goldberg S., "When Wish Replaces 
Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe Is False," Prometheus Books: New York NY, 1992, p.155)

"Classical Darwinian theory, in the view of many logicians, faces an even more severe problem: Its central 
hypothesis that the `fittest' species survive is ungroundable, and therefore `unscientific,' by virtue of 
tautology. (The summarization of Darwinian theory as `survival of the fittest' was Herbert Spencer's, but 
Darwin acknowledged the accuracy of this view and preferred it to his own, `natural selection.') The problem 
with Darwinian theory, according to these logicians, is the fact that `fittest' is defined in terms of survival. If 
dachshunds survive and dinosaurs don't, then dachshunds are declared to have been fit; if dinosaurs 
survive and dachshunds don't, then dinosaurs are declared to have been fit. The same problem obtains 
within species that does between species: those dachshunds, donkeys, and doves that survived-and 
passed on their genes-are claimed to have done so because they were `fit,' while those dachshunds, 
donkeys, and doves that did not failed because they were not `fit.' This logical criticism does grant 
as `scientific'-though of course incorrect-such hypotheses as `survival of the biggest' or smallest or 
greenest. These claims are clearly falsifiable; the fact that we can say that they are incorrect demonstrates 
this. The central problem with `survival of the fittest' is that its tautological nature precludes in 
principle its being tested. Similarly, when applied to specific species, such claims are clearly not 
only testable, but often correct. But such claims are not theories of evolutionary survival in general (as is 
Darwin's); they are theories that explain in terms of a specified, nontautological property why one or 
another specified species survived and another did not (or why some members of a specified species 
survived and other members of that species did not). In other words, no one questions the logical validity of 
a theory that dachshunds survived because they had specified property A, donkeys because they 
had specified property B, etc. (The same can be said for a theory that those dachshunds that 
possessed and passed on the gene for property A survived, while those that did not, did not.) Many 
attempts to rebut the logical criticism we discuss mistakenly invoke such theories of the survival of a 
specific species. Such rebuttals prove that which need not be proved; no one ever claimed that there is any 
logical problem with theories of the survival of specific species (or members of a specific species). Such 
theories are unobjectionable as long as the property seen as being responsible for survival is defined 
independently of survival. However, such theories do not validate Darwin because Darwin attempts to 
specify a property that claims to explain survival of species in general. Since no independent 
property is associated with species survival in general, so the criticism goes, Darwin had to select a 
`property' that was no more than a word for `those who survive.' This charge is not repelled by substituting 
`most adaptable' or `best designed,' etc., for `fittest,' because these too are determined by survival. (That is, 
how do we determine that a species, or members of a species, is `most adaptable' or `best designed'? By the 
fact that it survived.) As the reader might guess, the argument over the scientific validity of Darwinian 
theory has gotten increasingly convoluted over the past century. Suffice it to say here that biologists have 
tended to argue that it is groundable and scientifically valid, while logicians have tended argue that it is not 
scientifically meaningful as the umbrella theory it is usually accepted as being. (However, even these 
logicians acknowledge its value as an ordering model directing the biologist to examine the requirements of 
survival of specific species.) Contemporary geneticists tend to agree that there was a problem when 
the issue concerned macroscopic properties, but argue that there are testable genetic hypotheses that 
describe species in general. Some contemporary logicians accept this as stated. Others accept it but see 
such hypotheses as a far cry from anything that could be called `Darwinian.' Still others argue that close 
analysis of the genetic `property' alleged to explain the survival of species in general still exposes 
tautology. ... The key questions determining whether the Darwinian claim meets the logical requirements of 
science are: (1) Is the claim one attempting to explain the survival of species in general (or members of a 
species in general); if the claim is attempting merely to address a given species (and if the requirement of (2) 
is met), then there is clearly no logical problem; and (2) Is the property specified defined nontautologically 
(i.e., independently of `survival'); the evidence that this requirement is met is the ability of the claim to 
provide a way, at least in principle, in which it can be shown to be incorrect if it is incorrect? (If it can not, 
then it is tautological and scientifically unacceptable; in science, if you can't lose, you can't win.)" (Goldberg 
S., "When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe Is False," Prometheus Books: New 
York NY, 1992, pp.156-157. Emphasis original)

"tautology, n. (from Greek tautos the same, logos that which is said) a repetition of, or saying the same as, 
something already said. In propositional LOGIC (concerned with the connections between 
PROPOSITIONS), a tautology is any formula that comes out true for any distribution of truth-values for its 
constituents. Thus 'p or not-p' is a tautology, since it is true whether p be true or false. " (Vesey G. & 
Foulkes P., "Collins Dictionary of Philosophy," HarperCollins: Glasgow UK, 1990, p.281)

"tautology ... (Gr. to auto legein to say the same) n. 1 (in grammar) a pleonasm, redundancy of expression, 
needless repetition, as in `to descend down', `people's democracy', `binary dichotomization'. 2 (in logic) a 
formula which takes the value true for all assignments of truth-values to its atomic expressions. A 
simple example is the tautological formula (p v ~ p). Also, a statement in ordinary language which exemplifies 
a tautological formula can be called a tautology. Thus, `It is raining or it is not raining' is said to be a 
tautology, since it exemplifies (p v ~ p). All tautologies are necessary truths, but the view that all necessary 
truths are tautologies is open to serious doubt. 3 The theorems of propositional logic (p & p) = p and (p v p) 
= p are sometimes called laws of tautology." (Mautner T., "The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy," [1996], 
Penguin: London, Revised, 2000, pp.556-557. Emphasis original)

"tautology Technically, a formula of the propositional calculus that is true whatever the truth-value 
assigned to its constituent propositional variables. (A tautology is thus valid, or true in all interpretations.) 
In more informal contexts a tautology is often thought of as a proposition that `says nothing', or merely 
repeats a definition." (Blackburn S., "The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy," [1994], Oxford University Press: 
Oxford UK, 1996, p.373)

"Coyne's conclusion that design is unfalsifiable, however, seems to be at odds with the arguments of other 
reviewers of my book. Clearly, Russell Doolittle (Doolittle 1997), Kenneth Miller (Miller 1999), and others 
have advanced scientific arguments aimed at falsifying ID. (See my articles on blood clotting and the "acid 
test" on this web site.) If the results with knock-out mice (Bugge et al. 1996) had been as Doolittle 
first thought, or if Barry Hall's work (Hall 1999) had indeed shown what Miller implied, then they correctly 
believed my claims about irreducible complexity would have suffered quite a blow. And since my claim for 
intelligent design requires that no unintelligent process be sufficient to produce such irreducibly complex 
systems, then the plausibility of ID would suffer enormously. Other scientists, including those on the 
National Academy of Science's Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, in commenting on my book 
have also pointed to physical evidence (such as the similar structures of hemoglobin and myoglobin) which 
they think shows that irreducibly complex biochemical systems can be produced by natural selection: 
"However, structures and processes that are claimed to be 'irreducibly' complex typically are not on closer 
inspection." (National Academy of Sciences 1999, p. 22) Now, one can't have it both ways. One can't say 
both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and 
floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is 
therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether 
successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable." (Behe, M.J.*, "Philosophical 
Objections to Intelligent Design: Response to Critics," Discovery Institute, July 31, 2000)

"In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought 
experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin's Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum 
was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the 
flagellum can't be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent 
process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a 
flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a 
flagellum-or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly 
disproven.(1) How about Professor Coyne's concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of 
natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the 
objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain 
degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or 
lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty 
gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood 
clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design." (Behe, M.J.*, "Philosophical 
Objections to Intelligent Design: Response to Critics," Discovery Institute, July 31, 2000. Emphasis 

"Let's turn the tables and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced 
by Darwinian processes? (Professor Coyne's remarks about a Precambrian fossil hominid are irrelevant since 
I dispute the mechanism of natural selection, not common descent. I would no more expect to find a fossil 
hominid out of sequence than he would.) If a scientist went into the laboratory and grew a flagellum-less 
bacterial species under selective pressure for many generations and nothing much happened, would 
Darwinists be convinced that natural selection is incapable of producing a flagellum? I doubt it. It could 
always be claimed that the selective pressure wasn't the right one, or that we started with the wrong 
bacterial species, and so on. Even if the experiment were repeated many times under different conditions and 
always gave a negative result, I suspect many Darwinists would not conclude that the claim of its Darwinian 
evolution was falsified. Of complex biochemical systems Coyne himself writes "we may forever be unable to 
envisage the first proto-pathways. It is not valid, however, to assume that, because one man cannot imagine 
such pathways, they could not have existed." (Coyne 1996) If a person accepts Darwinian paths which are 
not only unseen, but which we may be forever unable to envisage, then it is effectively impossible to make 
him think he is wrong." (Behe, M.J.*, "Philosophical 
Objections to Intelligent Design: Response to Critics," Discovery Institute, July 31, 2000. Emphasis 

"Kenneth Miller announced an `acid test' for the ability of natural selection to produce irreducible 
complexity. He then decided that the test was passed, and unhesitatingly proclaimed intelligent design 
falsified ('Behe is wrong'; Miller 1999, 147). But if, as it certainly seems to me, E. coli actually fails the 
lactose-system `acid test,' would Miller consider Darwinism to be falsified? Almost certainly not. He would 
surely say that the experiment started with the wrong bacterial species, used the wrong selective pressure, 
and so on. So it turns out that his `acid test' was not a test of Darwinism; it tested only intelligent design. 
The same one-way testing was employed by Russell Doolittle. He pointed to the results of Bugge et 
al. (1996) to argue against intelligent design. But when the results turned out to be the opposite of what 
he had originally thought, Professor Doolittle did not abandon Darwinism. It seems then, perhaps 
counterintuitively to some, that intelligent design is quite susceptible to falsification, at least on the points 
under discussion. Darwinism, on the other hand, seems quite impervious to falsification. The reason for that 
can be seen when we examine the basic claims of the two ideas with regard to a particular biochemical 
system like, say, the bacterial flagellum. The claim of intelligent design is that `No unintelligent 
process could produce this system.' The claim of Darwinism is that `Some unintelligent process 
(involving natural selection and random mutation) could produce this system.' To falsify the first claim, one 
need only show that at least one unintelligent process could produce the system. To falsify the second 
claim, one would have to show the system could not have been formed by any of a potentially infinite 
number of possible unintelligent processes, which is effectively impossible to do. I think Professor Coyne 
and the National Academy of Sciences have it exactly backwards. A strong point of intelligent design is its 
vulnerability to falsification. (Indeed, some of my religious critics dislike intelligent design theory precisely 
because they worry that it will be falsified, and thus theology will appear to suffer another blow from 
science. See, for example, (Flietstra 1998).) A weak point of Darwinian theory is its resistance to falsification. 
What experimental evidence could possibly be found that would falsify the contention that complex 
molecular machines evolved by a Darwinian mechanism?" (Behe, M.J.*, "Philosophical 
Objections to Intelligent Design: Response to Critics," Discovery Institute, July 31, 2000. Emphasis 

"Professor J. C. Fentress of the University of Rochester observed that one species of vole (a mouse-like 
rodent) `froze' when it observed a moving object overhead, while another species ran for cover. The species 
that froze in its tracks lived in the woodland, while the species which ran for cover lived in the open field. 
Professor Fentress told his colleagues about his observation, but he purposely reversed the facts, telling 
them that the woodland species ran for cover and that the meadow voles froze in their tracks. The other 
zoologists were able to give very elaborate and satisfactory explanations why the woodland species ran and 
the meadow species froze, based upon conventional ideas of evolutionary theory." (Davidheiser B., 
"Evolution and the Christian Faith," Presbyterian & Reformed: Nutley NJ, 1969, p.194)

"Briefly, Darwinian evolution is concerned with the changes in form and function that arise over succeeding 
generations in populations of organisms. The crux of the theory is that these changes occur because, 
whatever is behind them, they ensure that individuals who possess the attributes tend to survive 
and reproduce successfully. Those that do not, tend to leave fewer surviving offspring or none at all. ... 
Life's progress entails a great deal more than battling for sustenance, the vulgar meaning put on `survival of 
the fittest'. Nor is fitness a sort of muscularity of the playing field cum cunning of the biological `market 
place'. Quite simply, an individual is fit with its environment if it survives long enough to produce offspring, 
if its progeny are similarly fit, and on and on, as the environment perpetually changes. ... All in all, fitness is 
expressed in how many fertile offspring are produced (the individual's fecundity) and how likely those 
offspring are to survive (their viability)." (Drury S.A., "Stepping Stones: The Making of Our Home World," 
Oxford University Press: New York NY, 1999, p.69. My emphasis)

"Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second. 
Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in 
biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown 
that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated 
could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent 
design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely 
natural causes will do. In that case Occam's razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely. On the other 
hand, falsifying Darwinism seems effectively impossible. To do so one must show that no conceivable 
Darwinian pathway could have led to a given biological structure. What's more, Darwinists are apt to retreat 
into the murk of historical contingency to shore up their theory. For instance, Allen Orr in his critique of 
Behe's work shortly after _Darwin's Black Box_ appeared remarked, `We have no guarantee that we can 
reconstruct the history of a biochemical pathway.' What he conceded with one hand, however, he was quick 
to retract with the other. He added, `But even if we can't, its irreducible complexity cannot count against its 
gradual evolution.' The fact is that for complex systems like the bacterial flagellum no biologist has or is 
anywhere close to reconstructing its history in Darwinian terms. Is Darwinian theory therefore falsified? 
Hardly. I have yet to witness one committed Darwinist concede that any feature of nature might even in 
principle provide countervailing evidence to Darwinism. In place of such a concession one is instead always 
treated to an admission of ignorance. Thus it's not that Darwinism has been falsified or disconfirmed, but 
that we simply don't know enough about the biological system in question and its historical context to 
determine how the Darwinian mechanism might have produced it." (Dembski W.A.*, "Is Intelligent Design Testable?," 
Access Research Network, January 24, 2001)

"tautology, a proposition whose negation is inconsistent, or (self-) contradictory, e.g. 'Socrates is Socrates', 
'Every human is either male or non-male' ... Tautologies are logically necessary ... Epistemically, every 
proposition that can be known to be true by purely logical reasoning is a tautology ... a tautology is said to 
be true in virtue of form ... Since tautologies do not exclude any logical possibilities they are 
sometimes said to be `empty' or `uninformative'; and there is a tendency even to deny that they are genuine 
propositions and that knowledge of them is genuine knowledge. ... Tautologies ... are sometimes said to be 
`useless,' ... " (Corcoran J., "tautology," in Audi R., ed., "The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy," [1995], 
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1996, reprint, pp.788-789. Emphasis original)

"Intelligent Design. In the past decade, many groups advocating different forms of creationism (than we 
have previously discussed) have become popular. These groups argue that science and science education 
should include concepts that they call, among other things, `intelligent design theory,' `initial complexity 
theory,' and `theistic science.' Similar to groups that advocate some form of scientific creationism or 
progressive creationism, the intelligent design (ID) groups contend that there are compelling scientific 
arguments and evidence that would lead rational thinking people to conclude that evolution did not occur in 
the manner normally taught in science classes. However, unlike the typical proponents of the creationisms 
discussed previously, most ID proponents strongly distance themselves from the label `creationist' and 
often from any overt connections to religious motivations or rationales for their ID conclusions. ... To some 
extent, the strategy of intelligent design groups has already been successful. Financial support of their 
endeavors appears to be growing. Large numbers of people have attended talks by ID leaders, who 
sometimes draw audiences of up to nearly one thousand. Copies of Phillip Johnson's book Darwin on 
Trial, an anti-evolution book that has been praised by leaders of the ID movement, have been sent to 
biology teachers throughout the state of Alabama, courtesy of the state's governor. And for the first time in 
recent history, a major trade book publisher (The Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster Inc.) has 
published overt intelligent design material. The book is Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box. In 
summary, all creationisms are not alike. Creationists' ideas vary significantly with regard to both their 
religious and nonreligious rationales for rejecting evolution. Likewise, creationists' ideas vary considerably 
in the extent to which they reject evolution. A better knowledge of these views may provide science 
instructors with a deeper understanding of their students' rejection of the fundamental concept in the life 
sciences, which in turn should allow for improved pedagogy." (Alters B.J. & Alters S.M., "Defending 
Evolution in the Classroom: A Guide to the Creation/Evolution Controversy," Jones & Bartlett Publishers: 
Sudbury MA, 2001, pp.54-55)

"Major Features of the Fossil Record. In the absence of eyewitness testimony the fossil record provides 
circumstantial evidence to paleontologists and biologists. There are three notable features of the fossil 
record that must be considered in attempting to find out how life began and came to exist in its profusion of 
forms. 1. The vast majority of the known animal phyla (over 95%) are either known or believed to have 
appeared within a geologically `brief ' period (estimates range from 10 to 40 million years). Thereafter, new 
phyla stop appearing throughout the geological record. The phyla are the major groups of life forms, based 
upon large differences in morphology, especially basic body plans. 2. After fossils first appear in the record 
they persist largely unchanged through many strata (a phenomenon called stasis)..., then frequently they 
suddenly disappear from the record. 3. Fossil species are fully formed and functional when they first appear 
in the record. There is a conspicuous lack of evidence for graded series of in-between fossils. Instead, 
numerous gaps exist throughout the fossil record. " (Davis P.* & Kenyon D.H.*, "Of Pandas and People: 
The Central Question of Biological Origins," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, Second 
Edition, 1993, p.92)

"New species have been obtained by upsetting the chromosomal set, either by hybridization or by 
treatments breaking down the chromosomes. Most such novelties occur in the plant kingdom; they are due 
to hybrids of different species or genera. The classic instance is the kohlrabi created by Karpechenko (1928). 
This hybrid of two crucifers (cabbage and radish) is sturdy; it has the large, smooth leaves of the cabbage 
but is sterile. It has 18 chromosomes, 9 from the cabbage and 9 from the radish, which, not being strictly 
uniform, do not pair off during meiosis; hence, the production of normal reproductive cells is not possible. 
But among them Karpechenko found one or two fertile plants that yielded seeds with 4n chromosomes and 
thus originated a systematic unit reproduced in no other case and constituting a new species. The doubling 
of the number of chromosomes (called allopolyploidy in the case of hybrids) occurs accidentally before 
meiosis in the ovary and parent cells of the pollen or, alternatively, in the growing point of a bud. ... In 
animals, tetraploid or, more generally, polyploid breeds seem to originate accidentally during meiosis or a 
fusion of nuclei right at the start of embryogenesis. So far, we know of no authentically allopolyploid animal 
species. ... These new species studied are the product of a combination of preexisting characteristics and 
not of creation. They do not involve creative evolution. They show that under certain conditions 
(compatibility of chromosomes with cytoplasm in parents of differing species), with hybridization followed 
by man-controlled selection, new combinations of genes can be achieved that correspond to systematic 
units of a lower order, subspecies and species. The mechanisms described here are not operative in creative 
evolution. Evolutionary strains remain pure throughout history. Paleontology provides no examples of 
interphyletic hybridization." (Grassé, P.P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of 
Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.200-201)

"Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory 
doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either 
in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved." (Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution 
of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 
1977, p.202)

"Nobody can be sure that evolution consists of acquiring characteristics by use or direct influence of the 
environment. Nobody can prove that phyla, classes, orders, and families have their origin in random 
mutations similar to those undergone, at all times and in all places, by living plants and animals. Nobody can 
assert that the organizational schemes are the work of natural selection." (Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living 
Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, 

"Confining our attention exclusively, and for the sake of sound logic, to panchronic species, which abound 
and which for tens and even thousands of millions of years have been mutating without any noteworthy 
change, we should still be forced to deny any evolutionary value whatever to the mutations we observe in 
the existing fauna and flora." (Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of 
Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.202)

"After impartial investigation, which I have carried on for years, I am in a position to conclude that: 1. The 
Lamarckian and Darwinian theories, in whatever form, do not resolve the major evolutionary problem-that of 
the genesis of the main systematic units, the fundamental organizational schemes. 2. They fail to account for 
a great many fundamental aspects and phenomena of evolution. 3. We have not yet obtained from the fossil 
record all the information it is capable of yielding." (Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence 
for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.203)

"Freeing our minds of theoretical notions, wherever they may have come from, let us take an honest look at 
the phenomenon of evolution and, in all objectivity, set aside the accepted doctrines, notably every form of 
Darwinism. I have provided [proved?] that evolution is not ... the product of natural selection." (Grassé, P.-
P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: 
New York NY, 1977, p.203)

"Moreover, it may be taken as proved that since adaptation is seldom perfect, the living creature makes do 
with a compromise in respect to its environment (in the broadest sense); it survives, despite its comparative 
inadaptation, provided its physiological balance sheet is sound .. interspecific competition is very far from 
being universal ... death is more often blind and unselective than it is discriminating." (Grassé, P.-P., 
"Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: 
New York NY, 1977, p.203. Ellipses mine)

"It is untrue to claim that evolution, guided by natural selection, is always favorable to the species or 
lineage. It leaves in its aftermath a huge graveyard of failures and mistakes. The `better adapted' no more 
displaces the `ill adapted' than the higher necessarily eliminates the lower. Panchronic species, as variable as 
those of more recent times, demonstrate that evolution and mutagenesis are two independent phenomena. 
The latter is continuous, the former is not.." (Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a 
New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.203)

"... I have shown with a great many facts how far mutations fall short of the evolutionary variations that 
gave rise to phyla, classes, orders, etc. ... In order to create, evolution demands new materials, such as genes 
formed de novo, or untried patterns of overprinted codons. It is not at all the same gene that, from 
one class of vertebrates to another, induces the tegumentary ectoblast and its mesenchymatous lining to 
form ganoid, placoid, or cycloid scales in fishes, epidermal osseous scales in reptiles, feathers in birds, hair 
in mammals. Every novelty demands its own genes, which are themselves also novelties.(Grassé, P.-P., 
"Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: 
New York NY, 1977, pp.203-204)

"Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to force) The argumentum ad baculum is the fallacy committed 
when one appeals to force or the threat of force to cause acceptance of a conclusion. It is usually resorted 
to only when evidence or rational arguments fail. The ad baculum is epitomized in the saying `might makes 
right.' The use or threat of `strong-arm' methods to coerce political opponents provides contemporary 
examples of this fallacy. Other appeals to nonrational methods of intimidation may of course be more subtle 
than the open use or threat of concentration camps or `goon squads.' The lobbyist uses the ad baculum 
when he reminds a representative that he (the lobbyist) can influence so many thousands of voters in the 
representative's constituency, or so many potential contributors to campaign funds. Logically these 
considerations have nothing to do with the merit of the legislation the lobbyist is attempting to influence. 
But they may be, unfortunately, very persuasive. On the international scale, the arguments ad baculum 
means war or the threat of war. " (Copi I.M., Introduction to Logic," [1953], Macmillan: New York, Seventh 
Edition, 1986, pp.91-92. Emphasis original)

"The fallacy of appeal to fear [As the Latin word for stick or staff is baculum, this argument is 
known in Latin as argumentum ad baculum] is an argument that uses the threat of harm to advance 
one's conclusion. It is an argument that people and nations fall back on when they are not interested in 
advancing relevant reasons for their positions. Also known as swinging the big stick, this argument seldom 
resolves a dispute. This argument should be distinguished from an all-out threat. If someone should hold a 
gun to your back and say, `Your money or your life,' it would not do to reply, `Ah ha! That's a fallacy!' It is 
not a fallacy because it is not an argument. Although the gunman is appealing to your sense of fear, and 
even offering a reason why you should do what he tells you, he is not offering evidence in support of the 
truth of some statement. He is not arguing with you; he is simply ordering you. ... An appeal to fear 
therefore offers fallacious evidence. In some cases the evidence will be brief and implicit ... in other cases it 
may run to pages or even volumes. ... We may encounter the appeal to fear in language like the following: ... 
Don't argue with me. Remember who pays your salary. ... You don't want to be a social outcast, do you? 
Then you'd better join us tomorrow. ... This university does not need a teacher's union, and faculty members 
who think it does will discover their error at the next tenure review. These arguments are crude forms of the 
fallacy. They are explicit about the threats being issued. The fallacy also lends itself to veiled threats. ... 
Appeals to fear tend to multiply during periods of stress or conflict, both among nations and among 
individuals. ... As in all fallacies of irrelevance, the object of the argument is an appeal to emotion rather than 
to reason." (Engel S.M., "With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies," St. Martin's Press: New 
York NY, Fourth edition, 1990, pp.216-220. Emphasis original)

"Argument ad Baculum (appeal to force). This type of argument does not even attempt to be 
relevant. It simply says, `Accept this argument, or I'll beat you up!' It seeks to persuade by force. It is a 
threat, reasoning through blackmail, argument by intimidation. It assumes that might makes right. What does 
that have to do with logic? "... they had nothing to say in reply.... And when they had threatened them 
further, they let them go (finding no basis on which they might punish them).... and after calling the apostles 
in, they flogged them and ordered them to speak no more in the name of Jesus...." [Acts 4:14, 21; 5:40]" 
(Geisler N.L.* & Brooks R.M.*, "Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking," Baker Book 
House: Grand Rapids MI, 1990, p.93. Emphasis original)

"Creeping toward Clotting. Why is the blood clotting system incompatible with a nonintelligent 
evolutionary view of nature? Macroevolution means a change from a simpler to a more complex state. Let us 
try to envision such a change for blood clotting. Assume that we initially start with an organism that 
contains just a primitive version of thrombin and fibrinogen. The thrombin would immediately cut all the 
fibrin, causing a massive clot and the speedy death of the organism. Suppose instead we started with 
fibrinogen and prothrombin. In this case there is nothing to initiate clotting when a cut occurs and the 
organism would bleed to death. We may try many smaller sets of components to get started-fibrinogen, 
prothrombin, activated Stuart factor and proaccelerin, or inactive Stuart factor and 
proaccelerin, or inactive Stuart factor or proaccelerin, or fibrinogen plus an imaginary protein that 
cleaves fibrinogen to fibrin-death is nearly always the certain result. In fact, having a primitive, poorly 
controlled clotting system would probably be more dangerous to an animal, and therefore less 
advantageous, than having no such system at all! Thus the blood clotting system cannot have emerged 
piecemeal. Like a car or a sentence, it requires the cooperative interaction of pre-existing components to 
work. How do Darwinists explain the origin of the blood clotting system? They don't, at least not in any 
detailed, step-by-step fashion. It is important to realize that no one has ever offered a credible hypothesis to 
explain how the blood clotting system could have started and subsequently evolved. Nor have they 
explained how a single protein molecule could be formed by gradual chance events. Instead, Darwinists are 
content to point to resemblances in protein sequences, as discussed earlier and simply assume that such 
resemblances mean that gradual evolution somehow occurred. This is the same defense that Darwinists 
offer at the whole-organism level: similarities among different types of animals are assumed to support the 
occurrence of Darwinian evolution, but no detailed, testable explanation is offered for how the many 
integrated biological systems may have arisen. No answer has been forthcoming to the person who asks for 
details. We have closely examined the blood clotting system in this chapter and shown that it exhibits 
characteristics strongly suggestive of intelligent design. It is not unique in this respect: virtually all 
biochemical systems, large and small, exhibit coherent integration of distinct parts to give a whole entity 
with a separate purpose. This includes photosynthesis, cell replication, carbohydrate, protein, and lipid 
metabolism, vision, the immune system, and numerous others. Like a car engine, biological systems can only 
work after they have been assembled by someone who knows what the final result will be. There is both 
elegance and astonishing complexity in even one such biochemical system. Each of these specialized 
functions traces back to the molecule's amino acid sequence. The amino acids in the suite of blood clotting 
proteins vary from roughly 300 to 3,000 residues. Some of them share discrete regions of their sequences 
with some others. Does this mean that they derived from one another? It may, but consider that even if this 
were the case, all of the proteins had to be present simultaneously for the blood clotting system to 
function. (Davis P. & Kenyon D.H., "Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological 
Origins," [1989], Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, Second Edition, 1993, pp.145-146. 
Emphasis original)

"To many the notion of the Big Bang was loaded with overtones of a supernatural event-the creation, the 
beginning of the universe. The prominent physicist A.S. Eddington probably spoke for many in voicing his 
utter disgust with such an idea: `Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of 
Nature is repugnant to me, as I think it must be to most; and even those who would welcome a proof of the 
intervention of a Creator will probably consider that a single winding-up at some remote epoch is not really 
the kind of relation between God and his world that brings satisfaction to the mind.' [Eddington A.S., "The 
End of the World from the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics," Nature, Vol. 127, 1931, p.450] Nonetheless, 
despite its religious implications, the Big Bang was a scientific theory that flowed naturally from 
observational data, not from holy writings or transcendental visions. Most physicists adopted the Big Bang 
theory and set their research programs accordingly. ... Scientists such as Einstein, Eddington, and Hoyle 
fudged and twisted in their efforts to resist a scientific theory that flowed naturally from the data because 
they thought they would be forced to accept unpleasant philosophical or theological conclusions. They 
weren't; they had other options. ... The success of the Big Bang model had nothing to do with its religious 
implications. It seemed to agree with the Judaeo-Christian dogma of a beginning to the universe; it seemed 
to disagree with other religions that believed the universe to be eternal. But the theory justified itself by 
reference to observational data - the expansion of the universe - and not by invoking sacred texts or the 
mystical experiences of holy men. The model came straight from the observational evidence; it was not fit to 
a Procrustean bed of religious dogma. But it should also be noticed that the Big Bang, although friendly to a 
religious point of view, does not forcibly compel that belief. No person is required by dint of logic to reach 
any particular supernatural conclusion solely on the basis of scientific observations and theories. This is 
seen initially in Einstein's and Hoyle's attempt to come up with alternative models that would fit the 
observational data and avoid the unpleasant thought of a start to the universe. ... The point of the above 
discussion is that even though the Big Bang hypothesis may appear at first blush to support a particular 
religious idea, no scientific theory can compel belief in a positive religious tenet by sheer force of logic. 
Thus, to explain the universe a person can postulate unobservables, like the theory that there are infinitely 
many universes and the theory that ours is just a bubble in a larger universe. Or one can hold out the hope 
that theories that look implausible today, such as the steady-state theory or the theory of the oscillating 
universe, might look more plausible tomorrow when calculations are redone or new measurements are taken. 
Or one can simply abandon the principle of causation, as seen in theories that propose that the universe 
came into being uncaused. Most other people may regard the ideas as pretty giddy; nonetheless, they don't 
violate the observational evidence." (Behe, M.J.*, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to 
Evolution," Free Press: NY, 1996, pp.244-248)

"By creation we mean the bringing into being of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of 
sudden, or fiat, creation described in the first two chapters of Genesis. Here we find the creation by God of 
the plants and animals, each commanded to reproduce after its own kind using processes which were 
essentially instantaneous. We do not know how God created, what processes He used, for God used 
processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to divine 
creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative 
processes used by God." (Gish D.T.*, "Evolution: The Fossils Say No!," [1972], Creation-Life: San Diego 
CA, Second edition, 1973, Third printing, 1976, pp.24-25)

"Compared with mousetraps, biochemical systems are incredibly intricate, as illustrated by the blood-
clotting system. Clots are meshworks of one protein, fibrin, whose molecules rapidly link together into a fine 
web. To prevent inappropriate clotting, fibrin is made as an inactive precursor. Another protein, thrombin, 
cleaves the precursor to liberate fibrin when clotting is needed. As a fail-safe backup, thrombin itself is made 
as an inactive precursor whose activation in response to tissue damage requires a cascade of half a dozen 
proteins, sequentially cleaving and activating each other. There are also additional regulatory factors which 
either stimulate or inhibit the activation cascade. A schematic illustration of these biochemical interactions 
resembles the wiring diagram for an electronic circuit. This apparently baroque complexity is essential 
because, for circulation to be maintained, clotting must occur only at the right time and place. For Professor 
Behe, only intelligent design could explain such a complex, sophisticated, interdependent mechanism for 
sealing leaks in the circulatory system. The argument that random variation and Darwinian gradualism may 
not be adequate to explain complex biological systems is hardly new. Behe quotes Darwin himself 
considering this possibility: `If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not 
possibly have been formed by numerous, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' 
Surely, then, contemporary Darwinists have answers to rebut critics like Professor Behe. In fact, there are no 
detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a 
variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for 
such a vast subject -- evolution --with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in 
illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity." (Shapiro J.A., "Darwin's Black Box: The 
Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. book reviews," National Review, September 16, 1996)

"Darwinists object to the view of intelligent design because it does not give a natural cause explanation of 
how the various forms of life started in the first place. Intelligent design means that various forms of life 
began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact-fish with fins and 
scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. Some scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms 
first appear in the rock record with their distinctive features intact, and apparently fully functional, rather 
than gradually developing. No creatures with a partial wing or partial eye are known. Should we close our 
minds to the possibility that the various types of plants and animals were intelligently designed? This 
alternative suggests that a reasonable natural cause explanation for origins may never be found, and that 
intelligent design best fits the data." (Davis P. & Kenyon D.H., "Of Pandas and People: The Central 
Question of Biological Origins," [1989], Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, Second 
Edition, 1993, pp.99-100)

"Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of his 
day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch 
and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind 
forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his 
cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural 
selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is 
the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no 
mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can 
be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind 
Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W Norton & Co: 
New York NY, 1986, p.5. Emphasis original)

21/10/2005 "Some critics of intelligent design claim that it is not scientific because it is not testable and thus 
cannot be falsified. But since Miller and Doolittle (among others) claim that ID has been tested and proven 
false, this is clearly wrong. A theory cannot be both untestable and tested, both unfalsifiable and falsified. 
Other critics of intelligent design claim that the designer had to be supernatural, therefore ID is inherently 
religious rather than scientific. But some ID proponents maintain that the designer does not have to be 
supernatural. And even if the designer were supernatural, ID in this respect would be no more religious than 
Darwinism; both have implications for theism. According to Richard Dawkins, by showing that design is an 
illusion Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist; on the other hand, by showing that 
design is real ID makes it possible for some people to be intellectually fulfilled theists. If the former is 
scientific, why isn't the latter? (Wells, J., "The case for intelligent design in the 
classroom, "Insight on the News, October 13, 2005)

"Why should not Nature take a sudden leap from structure to structure? On the theory of natural selection, 
we can clearly understand why she should not; for natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight 
successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, 
though slow steps." (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], 
Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.180)

"SEATTLE, DEC. 14 - The policy on teaching evolution recently adopted by the Dover, PA School Board 
was called `misguided' today by Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, which advised that the 
policy should be withdrawn and rewritten. `While the Dover board is to be commended for trying to teach 
Darwinian theory in a more open-minded manner, this is the wrong way to go about it,' said Dr. John G. 
West, associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC). `Dover's current 
policy has a number of problems, not the least of which is its lack of clarity. At one point, it appears to 
prohibit Dover schools from teaching anything about 'the origins of life.' At another point, it appears to both 
mandate as well as prohibit the teaching of the scientific theory of intelligent design. The policy's 
incoherence raises serious problems from the standpoint of constitutional law. Thus, the policy should be 
withdrawn and rewritten.' Apart from questions about its constitutionality, West expressed reservations 
about the Dover School Board's directive on public policy grounds. `When we first read about the Dover 
policy, we publicly criticized it because according to published reports the intent was to mandate the 
teaching of intelligent design,' explained West. `Although we think discussion of intelligent design should 
not be prohibited, we don't think intelligent design should be required in public schools. `What should be 
required is full disclosure of the scientific evidence for and against Darwin's theory,' added West, `which is 
the approach supported by the overwhelming majority of the public." ("Discovery Calls 
Dover Evolution Policy Misguided, Calls For its Withdrawal," Discovery Institute, December 14, 2004)

"Seemingly, they're would-be allies. But a disagreement last week over legal representation means three 
experts with connections to the pro-intelligent design Discovery Institute will not be testifying in a federal 
court case on behalf of the Dover Area School Board. The three experts - William Dembski, Stephen Meyer 
and John Campbell - were slated for testimony on the debate over intelligent design. But last week, their 
names were removed from the list before they could give depositions in the case. Eric Rothschild, plaintiffs' 
attorney with Pepper Hamilton, said he was baffled by the decision. Meyer is the director of Discovery 
Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, which funds research projects related to intelligent 
design. Dembski and Campbell are senior fellows there. ... Even though Discovery is probably the country's 
leading proponent of intelligent design, it opposes the Dover Area School Board's decision to make the 
concept regarding life's origins part of its science curriculum. Its members say they don't oppose intelligent 
design being taught in the schools, they merely oppose it being mandated. ... While Dembski said he 
disagrees with many aspects of Darwinism, `there is still a long way at hammering out ID as a full-fledged 
research program. That said, there is nobody I know that says intelligent design should be mandated. I think 
this is the problem with Dover. It's not a way you build consensus and help education along." (Lebo L., "Experts won't back Dover School district," York 
Daily Record, June 19, 2005)

"The Dover Area School District and its board will likely walk into a First Amendment court battle next week 
without the backing of the nation's largest supporter of intelligent design.The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-
based nonprofit that describes itself as a `nonpartisan policy and research organization,' recently issued a 
policy position against Dover in its upcoming court case. John West, associate director of Discovery's 
Center for Science & Culture, calls the Dover policy `misguided' and `likely to be politically divisive and 
hinder a fair and open discussion of the merits of intelligent design.' ... Though the Discovery Institute 
promotes the teaching of intelligent design, it has been critical of school boards that have implemented 
intelligent design policies ... Dover is the only school district that Discovery has publicly spoken out 
against. West said that's because they mandated the policy. Discovery Institute supports teaching 
intelligent design, but not requiring it through a school board policy. .... `They really did it on their own and 
that's unfortunate,' West said..... Discovery also spoke out against Pennsylvania legislators who wanted to 
give school boards the option of mandating the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution." 
(Kauffman C., "Intelligent designers down on 
Dover: Theory's largest national supporter won't back district," The York Dispatch, September 23, 

"Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University who argues in favor of Darwinian evolution, made a splash 
when he announced ... that `the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex.' Miller cited a cellular structure 
known as the type III secretory system (TTSS) that allows certain bacteria to inject toxins through the cell 
walls of their hosts. This `nasty little device,' in Miller's words, is a feature of several bacteria, including Y. 
pestis, the bacterium that is responsible for bubonic plague. According to research cited by Miller, the TTSS 
is made up of several proteins that are `homologous' to a set of proteins from the base of the flagellum. 
Miller argued that the injector pump is probably an `evolutionary precursor' to the flagellum, and it is fully 
functional although it has fewer parts. Therefore, `the claim of irreducible complexity has collapsed, and with 
it any 'evidence' that the flagellum was designed.' The `flagellum has been unspun,' Miller concluded. But 
there was a little problem with Miller's declaration of victory. As it turns out, the bubonic plague bacterium 
already has the full set of genes necessary to make a flagellum. Rather than making a flagellum, Y. pestis 
uses only part of the genes that are present to manufacture that nasty little injector instead. As pointed out 
in a recent article by design theorist Stephen Meyer and microbiologist Scott Minnich (an expert on the 
flagellar system), the gene sequences suggest that `flagellar proteins arose first and those of the pump came 
later.' If evolution was involved, the pump came from the motor, not the motor from the pump. Also, `the 
other thirty proteins in the flagellar motor (that are not present in the [pump]), are unique to the motor and 
are not found in any other living system.' Undirected evolutionary processes do not produce 30 novel 
proteins, of just the needed kind, to laze around idly in the cell for millennia so that a pump could some day 
transform itself into a motor. In short, the proteins in the TTSS do not provide a `gradualist' Darwinian 
pathway to explain the step-by-step evolution of the irreducibly complex flagellar motor. Miller's spin has 
been unspun." (Peterson D., "The Little 
Engine That Could...Undo Darwinism," The American Spectator, June 2005)

"A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century 
has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a 
video released Thursday. At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has 
concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence 
is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone 
interview from England. Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not 
actively involved in people's lives. `I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far 
and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam 
Husseins,' he said. `It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I 
suppose.'" ("Famous Atheist Now Believes 
in God," ABC News/AP, December 9, 2004)

"So what ... do you think we are missing? What would tie the whole picture together? That's right. String. 
`Superstring, actually,' said the Space Hopper. `If you want to bring gravity into the scheme of things, you 
can't keep the Standard Model exactly as it is. You have to be prepared to modify it a little. ... but that "little" 
includes a complete rethink of the structure of spacetime. Not just a supersymmetric add-on. Something 
more significant than that.' It seemed to Vikki that this was going Over The Top. `Why does spacetime have 
to change, Hopper?' 'Because when you try to quantize gravity, it turns out that particles can't actually 
remain particles. That just doesn't work - pointlike objects just don't fit all the requirements. So they 
have to be replaced by something else.' `What?' 'Like I said: superstrings.' `Yes, I know that's what you said, 
but it made no sense then and it doesn't make any more now!' The Space Hopper gave the criticism due 
consideration. `Very well,' he said. `A particle is a point or, at least, it looks like a point, with no internal 
structure. It's a pointlike object, yes?' 'Sure. `Moving up in dimensions, you could replace a pointlike particle 
by a curve - a string. ... So what happens to quantum strings without ends?' 'They loop round and form a 
closed loop. A topological circle.' `Ah.' `That's most of them, actually.' `Tidier that way. Otherwise the ends 
would flap around.' `They can, in some string theories. Anyway, curves are intrinsically one-dimensional. 
The next step up from curves leads to two-dimensional surfaces membranes. Perhaps with exotic topologies, 
like Moobius, or the Projective Plain, or a doughnut.' ... `Beyond membranes,' the Space Hopper said ... `are 
three-dimensional analogues of surfaces, which the Planiturthian physicists insist on calling 3-branes. And 
then come 4-branes, 5-branes and so on. They also insist on using the symbol p for an arbitrary number of 
dimensions, rather than the customary N ... and I think I know why. Guess what you get in dimension p?' 'Oh 
no! p-branes?' 'Absolutely.' `So a surface is a 2-brane?' 'Yes.' `And a string is a 1-brane?' 'Naturally.' `Which 
makes an ordinary particle, with dimension zero, into a no-brane?' 'I had a feeling that's where you were 
headed', said the Space Hopper. `You said "superstrings",' Vikki remembered. `You've only explained 
strings.' `Well, you remember that particles - no-branes in your terminology - are accompanied by ghost 
extensions into superspace?' `Yes. You mean superstrings are strings that extend into superspace as well as 
ordinary space?' 'Correct. It's quantum string, it can do that.' `Quantum things can do anything you want, it 
seems to me. Where do you find these superstrings? At a superstationers?' 'In yet another extension of 
ordinary space, Vikki. Good job I updated the VUE's HyperZoom facility. .... Follow me!' And down they 
went, into the smallest scales of the Planiturthian universe - into a world where an electron was too huge to 
contemplate, where its component quarks glistened like tiny jewelled specks. `Right now we're at the limits 
of the VUE's spatial resolution,' said the Space Hopper. `Down at the Planck length, where quantum effects 
make space so fuzzy that it's not even clear that space really exists at all.' `It's frothy,' said Vikki, `not fuzzy.' 
`That's quantum foam - particles springing into and out of existence, creating space and time along with 
themselves. Try some, it's quite tasty.' `No thanks!' `Go on. It's a bit like chicken.' `I'm not hungry.' `Suit 
yourself. See those bright specks?' 'Yes. They're quarks, aren't they?' 'Among other things, yes. What do 
they look like on this scale?' 'Dots. Points. Nobranes' `Yes. And yet, those points have to support all sorts 
of quantum states. Spin, charge ... would there be room for such diversity on a no-brane?' That thought 
hadn't occurred to Vikki before. 'In what sense?' she asked, cagily. `All will shortly become clear. I'll use the 
HyperZoom to improve the resolution in any other dimensions that may be around-' 'Like superspace?' 'Yes, 
but there might be others - there's more to a particle than its spin, you know. Ah, yes ... coming into focus 
now ... Look at that!' 'It's - hey, that quark's not a point at all! It's a tiny loop!' `Yes.' 'And ... isn't it 
vibrating?' `A little bit, maybe. This one's in its ground state, lowest energy. But if I give it a-' 
TWANGGGGGGGG! `-then something really interesting happens. Zoom out for a moment, and you'll see.' 
`Oh. It's changed colour!' `Yes. That's the VUE's way of showing us that it's actually become a different 
particle altogether. A much more massive relative of a standard quark, as it happens. Doesn't have a name. 
Anyway, the main thing here is that anything from a 1-brane up can vibrate in all sorts of different ways, 
whereas a no-brane can't. That means that a 1-brane or a 2-brane or a 3-brane or a zillion-brane can easily 
support all sorts of different quantum states. Whereas for your traditional point particle the states are just 
some kind of unexplained add-on. `So here's the idea. On really small scales, spacetime isn't 4D at all. What 
looks like a tiny point in 4D spacetime is really something else - some kind of p-braned topological 
hypersurface in a higher-dimensional space.' `How many? Dimensions, I mean? Equal to p?' 'No, could be 
bigger. For a while 7D and 22D were hot favourites, making the revised spacetime come to 11D or 26D. Right 
now, though, the consensus is settling on 6D for the extra dimensions - a total of 10D altogether.' `Spacetime 
is really ten-dimensional?' `That's what every well-informed Planiturthian thinks right now.' `You mean 
there's a choice?' The Space Hopper laughed. `Oh, yes! A huge choice. The range of n-dimensional spaces 
is inexhaustible! The problem, Vikki dear, is cutting that number down enough to be able to fix the exact one. 
Not just the value of n the number of dimensions - but the topological shape of the corresponding space.' 
`Put that way, I see the difficulty. So how do they sort out all those possibilities?' `Still working on it. 
But they're making progress. Turned out that the original 11D model - supergravity, it was called - had a fatal 
flaw. It couldn't encompass the broken symmetry of the weak nuclear force. A People called Edwitten 
pointed that out in 1984, by their calendar. The way to deal with that was to reduce the dimensionality to 
10D. `Now, when you do quantum theoretic calculations, as often as not you get stupid answers.' ... `Easy to 
make mistakes?' 'No, even when they get the calculations right, they still get stupid answers. Infinity, 
usually.' `That's bad?' 'It's nonsense. When a physical theory gives you infinity as an answer, it's always a 
sign of trouble. The real universe doesn't have infinities.' `Hang on, Hopper - we went to infinity in the 
Projective Plain.' `Yes, but that wasn't a real universe, OK?' `Only an idealization, that's true.' `And in a sense 
Infinityville wasn't a real infinity, either. But you're distracting me. There is a way to get round these 
quantum infinities, and it's called renormalization. Doesn't matter exactly what it is - just take my word that 
it's not an easy trick to pull off. So most potential superstring theories don't work because they're not 
renormalizable. It turned out that for a 10D superstring theory to be renormalizable it has to be one of five 
competing possibilities. These are known by their symmetries. One is called SO(32), another is E8 x E8, and 
they both have an extra 16 dimensions of `internal' states, as well as the 10D of the string itself. See? 26D in 
all. And the other three are known as Type I, Type IIA, and Type IIB.' 'Imaginative terminology.' `Very. The 
fascinating thing - a strong hint that such theories could unify gravity and quantum theory, the physicists' 
Holy Grail - was that they all predicted the occurrence of a particle with spin 2 and mass 0. In quantum 
theory by itself, that would have been an embarrassment because no such particles are known. But-' 
`The graviton, if it exists, has to be a particle with spin 2 and mass 0!' yelled Vikki, caught up in the 
excitement. 'Precisely. String theory seemed to be telling physicists that if they wanted an effective theory of 
quantum particles, then gravity would be a necessary consequence. All consistent string theories 
include gravitons.' `It would have been more satisfactory if only some had,' said Vikki. 'To help pick the right 
one.' `True. But it didn't work out that way ... and it may not be necessary. You see, that People named 
Edwitten has recently discovered that all five superstring theories fit into a bigger 11D picture, known as M-
theory.' The Space Hopper noticed Vikki hopping up and down. `Yes, Vikki, I agree - that's a very 
imaginative name too, isn't it? But back to my story. There are five different ways to shrink away one of the 
11 dimensions of M-theory, and they lead to those five 10D superstring theories. So all five competing 
theories are actually part of the same Big Picture. Maybe it's the Big Picture that really matters.' He paused. 
`There's only one problem with all this stuff', he said. `Which is a pity, because it's so beautiful.' `What's the 
problem with it?' 'It may not be true,' said the Space Hopper sadly. `There's no experimental evidence, you 
see,' he explained. `Hard to come by desperately hard to come by. For that matter, the calculations are so 
difficult that there aren't many theoretical predictions, either. So there's precious little to experiment 
on.' `But couldn't the Planiturthians tell if they really lived in a 10D universe?' 'Couldn't the 
Flatlanders tell that their 2D world was really just part of 3D Spaceland?' 'Touche. Even so, surely there are 
experiments that would reveal a whole six extra dimensions? For that matter, why didn't they notice them 
ages ago?' 'Because, Vikki, they didn't have a HyperZoom. Think about a sheet of paper. What's its 
dimensionality?' `Two.' `Really?' `Oh. In Flatland, yes. In Spaceland, say, it would really be 3D, but very thin 
along the third dimension.' `Quite. And the Planiturthian universe looks like a 4D spacetime, but in 
Superstring Territory it is really 10D, but very thin along the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth 
dimensions.' `So thin that the Planiturthians didn't notice?' 'So thin, Vikki, that the Planiturthians can't 
notice. The structure is below the Planck length - the smallest size their instruments can detect. `That's a 
pity. Convenient for the theorists, though.' `Suspiciously so. But there might be other ways to find out 
whether they're right. Indirect ones. For instance, in M-theory there is a class of branes called Dirichlet 
branes, because they look rather like a surface discovered long before by a People named Peterdirichlet. 
They turn out to be black branes - branes from which light can't escape. You can even interpret a 
superstring with ends as a superstring that forms a closed loop, part of which is covered by a black brane. 
And by doing that, you can reformulate black holes in terms of intersecting black branes wrapped round 
inside a 7D space.' `And what good does all that do?' asked Vikki. `It makes very accurate predictions about 
evaporating black holes. But that kind of evidence is just circumstantial. So right now, all anyone can really 
do is point to the elegance of the theory, and the beautiful way in which it unifies Relativity and quantum 
theory.' `Which makes it right?' `Not at all. Lots of physicists don't like that approach. They say that beauty 
could be totally irrelevant. And there are lots of other possibilities in the Mathiverse that don't roll up the 
extra dimensions of spacetime into very tiny shapes, and there are all sorts of other reasons why the 
Planiturthians wouldn't notice them, either ... Beauty can be a trap, Vikki. `Anyway, 
everything in the Mathiverse is beautiful, if you get used to it.' The Space Hopper's U faded 
momentarily, then renewed itself in a dazzling display of teeth. `None the less, the idea that the extra 
dimensions are curled up really tightly, so you can observe them only on the extraordinarily small scale of 
the Planck length, is still the most appealing explanation of why Planiturthians don't observe ten 
dimensions.' He paused. For once, the bouncy creature seemed at a loss for words. `Um - you know 
something?' `What?' 'Back in Flatland, Vikki, it's the eve of a new century. Your tour of the Mathiverse has 
reached its climax. You've learned as much as I can teach you and as much as your brain can digest at one 
sitting ... I think it's time I took you home. Don't you?' ... Vikki wanted to ask one last question, to make sure 
she'd understood the essence of the Planiturthian universe. 'You're saying that when the extra dimensions of 
spacetime get so thin that they're only one Planck length across, they become undetectable?' 'That's 
right.' `So the only features of the universe that Planiturthians can observe are those that are ... as thick as 
two short Plancks?' 'You have it exactly,' declared the Space Hopper." (Stewart I., "Flatterland: Like 
Flatland, Only More So," Macmillan: London,2001, pp.280-287. Emphasis original)

"In supporting his hypothesis, Nopcsa called attention to the early existence of birds called ratites, which 
are good runners but poor fliers. Included in this category are the living ostriches, rheas, cassowaries, emus, 
and kiwis and the extinct moas and elephant birds. Since remains of ratites are known from the beginning of 
the Tertiary period, Nopcsa regarded these terrestrial birds as primitive forms, closely related to the cursorial 
avian stock in which he thought flight had first appeared. He was not alone in judging the ratites to be 
archaic types. Huxley had upheld this idea in the 1860s, saying that the structure of the ratite palate was 
more primitive than that of flying birds. In ratites, he pointed out, the pterygoid bones extend straight 
forward to meet large vomers, whereas in other avians the pterygoids articulate only with the palatine bones, 
the vomers having fused completely and diminished in size. So convinced was Huxley of the significance of 
the structure of the palate that he based his classification of the birds upon it. The ratites he placed in the 
superorder Palaeognathae, and the birds without the pterygoid-vomerine articulation he housed in the super 
order Neognathae. The separation of the ratites from the supposedly more advanced birds was broadly 
accepted. More than 60 years after Huxley published his theory, P.R. Lowe reviewed and defended the 
thesis that the flightless birds were relicts of avian populations whose members had not yet evolved the 
ability to sustain themselves in the air. He argued that in addition to having a primitive palate, ratites like the 
ostrich fail to develop certain of the traits that characterize the advanced birds. They produce only downy 
plumage, akin to that which in neognathous birds is hidden by the contour feathers as the animals mature, 
and they continue to show the sutures between the skull bones that vanish in neognathous forms as 
growth is completed. Lowe believed that the absence of the clavicles in the ostrich and the short coracoid 
elements in all the ratites proved their direct relationship to the flightless, bipedal archosaurs." (Stahl, B.J., 
"Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution," [1974], Dover: New York NY, Revised Edition, 1985, pp.370-371)

"As we have seen, many of the most important assumptions underlying the idea that life originated by 
nonintelligent processes do not correspond to the facts of science, and are not supported by sound 
reasoning from those facts. Some scientists protest such statements, maintaining that in the future 
discoveries will be made that will essentially circumvent present findings. This idea has been called 
`promissory materialism' And while no one can say for sure that this won't happen, science cannot 
confidently proceed by discounting what is known in favor of hoped-for future discoveries. On the other 
hand, the experimental work on the origin of life and the molecular biology of living cells is consistent with 
the hypothesis of intelligent design. What makes this interpretation so compelling is the amazing correlation 
between the structure of informational molecules (DNA, protein) and our universal experience that such 
sequences are the result of intelligent causes. This parallel strongly suggests that life itself owes its origin 
to a master intellect." (Davis P.* & Kenyon D.H.*, "Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of 
Biological Origins," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, Second edition, 1993, p.58)

"THE ORIGIN of life was necessarily the beginning of organic evolution and it is among the greatest of all 
evolutionary problems. Yet its discussion here will be brief, almost parenthetical. Our concern here is with 
the record of evolution, and there is no known record bearing closely on the origin of life. The first living 
things were almost certainly microscopic in size and not apt for any of the usual processes of fossilization. It 
is unlikely that any preserved trace of them will ever be found, or recognized. Indeed it is improbable that the 
discovery of such remains, if any do exist, would greatly advance knowledge of how life originated. At this 
lowest level little could be learned from the preserved form: the problem is physiological, not morphological, 
and it seems that form must develop above the molecular level before it can serve as a particularly useful 
clue to function. " (Simpson G.G., "The Meaning of Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of its 
Significance for Man," [1949], Yale University Press: New Haven CT, 1960, reprint, p.14)

"Even though he is transcendent, God `has never left himself without witness' (Acts 14:17). No-one can 
honestly say that he does not know what the term `God' refers to. The Bible tells us that God's eternal power 
and deity can be clearly perceived in the things God made (Rom. 1:20)." (Pinnock C.H., "Revelation," in 
Ferguson S.B., Wright D.F. & Packer J.I., eds., "New Dictionary of Theology," Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester 
UK, 1988, p.585)

"Yes, but you must wager. There is no choice, you are already committed. Which will you choose then? Let 
us see: since a choice must be made, let us see which offers you the least interest. You have two things to 
lose: the true and the good; and two things to stake: your reason and your will, your knowledge and your 
happiness; and your nature has two things to avoid: error and wretchedness. Since you must necessarily 
choose, your reason is no more affronted by choosing one rather than the other. That is one point cleared 
up. But your happiness? Let us weigh up the gain and the loss involved in calling heads that God exists. Let 
us assess the two cases: if you win you win everything, if you lose you lose nothing." (Pascal B., 
"Pensées," 418, [1670], Krailsheimer A.J., Transl., Penguin: London, Revised edition, 1966, p.123)

"My observation is that the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something 
very close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict 
between science and religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this position is pragmatic. In the 
United States, elected members of Congress all proclaim to be religious. Many scientists believe that 
funding for science might suffer if the atheistic implications of modern science were widely understood." 
(ProvineW.B., Review of "Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution," by 
Edward J. Larson, Oxford University Press: New York, 1985, Academe, Vol. 73, January/February 
1987, pp.50-52, p.52.)

"But there is a bigger problem. Most biochemists have only a meagre understanding of, or interest in, 
evolution. As Behe points out, for the thousandplus scholarly articles on the biochemistry of cilia, he could 
find only a handful that seriously addressed evolution. This indifference is universal. Pick up any 
biochemistry textbook, and you will find perhaps two or three references to evolution. Turn to one of these 
and you will be lucky to find anything better than `evolution selects the fittest molecules for their biological 
function.'" (Pomiankowski A., "The God of the tiny gaps." Review of "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael 
Behe, New Scientist, Vol 151, 14 September 1996, pp.44-45, p.45)

"I want to continue to examine biochemical evolution because Behe's central contention is one that I 
enthusiastically endorse. If Darwinism cannot explain the interlocking complexity of biochemistry, then it is 
doomed. " (Miller, K.R., "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and 
Evolution," [1999], HarperCollins: New York NY, 2000, reprint, p.143)

"THE BRILLIANT theoretical physicist Richard Feynman is rumoured to have said, `If you think you 
understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory.' I am tempted by an evolutionist's 
equivalent: `If you think you understand sex, you don't understand sex: The three modern Darwinians from 
whom I believe we have the most to learn - John Maynard Smith, W D. Hamilton and George C. Williams - all 
devoted substantial parts of their long careers to wrestling with sex. Williams began his 1975 book Sex and 
Evolution with a challenge to himself: `This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual 
reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory ... there is a kind 
of crisis at hand in evolutionary biology ..:' [Williams G.C., "Sex and Evolution," Princeton University Press: 
Princeton, 1975, p.v] Maynard Smith and Hamilton said similar things. It is to resolve this crisis that all three 
Darwinian heroes, along with others of the rising generation, laboured. I shall not attempt an account of 
their efforts, and certainly I have no rival solution to offer myself." (Dawkins, R., "The Ancestor's Tale: A 
Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 2004, p.424)

"The fundamental postulate is that unduplipodia and other multimolecular mechanisms arose, like the human 
eye, by the progressive accretion of ancillary proteins onto some rudiment or foundation that was 
functionally useful but need not have been an organ of motility. This amplification took place, one gene at a 
time, under the guidance of natural selection: each modification conferred at least a small selective benefit. 
On this premise, one can construct schemes that sound plausible and account, in principle, for the origins of 
crawling motility, mitosis or the secretory pathway. We have no better alternative to offer the inquirer, and 
in the absence of time travel we may never discover what actually happened; and so a modicum of doubt 
necessarily persists. We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the 
dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian 
accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." 
(Harold, F.M., "The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms, and the Order of Life," Oxford University Press: 
New York NY, 2003, pp.204-205)

"No biologist worthy of his reputation can limit himself to criticism of accepted doctrine, however necessary 
and valuable it may be; he has to construct, and is able to do so if he can discard accepted ideas and view 
evolutionary phenomena from new angles in the light of recent advances in paleontology and molecular 
biology." (Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," 
[1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.204)

"The true course of evolution is and can only be revealed by paleontology. The pioneers in this science, led 
by Cope, were ardent Lamarckians, but nowadays we realize that the environment does not have the direct 
influence that used to be attributed to it. Yet the living creature is not a passive object, it reacts and fashions 
itself according to the information reaching it, which it processes, as well as that containing within itself.." 
(Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], 
Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.204)

"When we consider as a whole the evolution of a major systematic unit-class, order, or superfamily-certain 
phenomena become visible and force themselves upon us. In this respect the genesis of mammals is most 
instructive. Comparing the different lines of theriodonts, we notice that every one of them has acquired 
mammalian characteristics, not always the same ones and not at the t at the same points in time. These 
characteristics have been wrongly attributed to the outward signs of a convergent or 
ecological evolution which occurs when animals belonging to very different groups and unrelated to 
one another live in the same environment and adopt similar if not identical modes of living, acquire 
comparable organs, and similar habits. ... The appearance of mammalian characteristics in the various strains 
of theriodonts sharing the same evolutionary trend is not in the slightest a repetition of mutations 
occasionally observed in natural populations. ... The lines of theriodonts born of the same ancestral stock 
have three types of characteristics: those common to all, those specific to each, and mammalian 
characteristics unevenly distributed among them ... For example, a mammalian characteristic A exists in three 
of them and is missing in another two. The tritylodonts and ictidosaurs are the two sublines richest in 
mammalian characteristics, but the other families of theriodonts, gorgonopsians, therocephalic 
bauriamorphs, and cynodonts are never entirely devoid of them. The cynodonts even appear to have been 
the privileged line from which the first mammals may have been born. Hominization, operating through the 
four main lines of primates-tarsiers, lemurs, simians, and hominids-follows the same rules as `mammalization' 
among the lines of theriodonts. Achievement of elephantine and equine forms derive from the same process; 
we can say as much of many other zoological groups." (Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: 
Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.204-205. 
Emphasis original)

"It is likely that, at the beginning, the lines of descent (which did not evolve synchronously) that formed 
high-ranking systematic units (class, order, superfamily) had access to roughly the same genome. 
According to neo- Darwinist doctrine, as they adopted separate ecological niches they did not retain the 
same mutations and diverged increasingly as time went on. But, if their separation became more and more 
pronounced, why is it that among theriodont reptiles all lines acquired mammalian characteristics, among 
Equoidea equine characteristics, among mastodons and elephants elephantine characteristics, among 
primates hominoid characteristics? In most theriodont reptiles, the mammalian characteristics are very similar 
and affect the same organs, or practically so (bone of the mandible and of the skull; masticator muscles; 
sinews of these; differentiation, shape, and insertion of teeth). Suppose there are three mammalian 
characteristics unevenly shared among four lines of Theriodontia of the same stock S: A, formation of a 
secondary palate; B, lengthening of the dentary; C, displacement of the insertions of the masticator muscles. 
A appears in lines 1 and 3 at different times, and is missing in 2 B appears in 2 and is missing in 3. A, B occur 
in 4, but B before A. C occurs in 3 and 4, and after A and B. First Possibility. The genes A, B, C 
corresponding to these characteristics exist in stock S, in which they are inhibited or latent; nothing 
discloses their presence. They come into action at different times in the lines descending from S ...Second 
Possibility. The genes A, B, C are not present in stock S; they are present in it in other forms-A', B', C'-
which, in the lines of descent, mutate at different times but identically, to become genes A, B, C ... Third 
Possibility. The mammalian genes do not exist in stock S; they appear at different times but identically in all 
four lines of descent. ... After the first possibility, questions of the following type arise: Where do the 
mammalian genes A, B, and C come from? What causes inhibitions in S and activates them in the lines of 
descent? If in stock S, genes A, B, C are identical to what they are in the lines where they are expressed, we 
are bound to conclude that evolution takes place in advance in the ancestor, without any external 
sign of its having done so-that it is inscribed in the DNA and remains there in a latent state, until such time 
as circumstances are favorable for it to be expressed in the phenotype of succeeding generations. Such 
cryptic evolution, owing to its wholly internal character, escapes natural selection unless the old 
idea of a germinal selection as first imagined by Roux and renewed by Weismann (vide supra) is 
resuscitated. The second and third possibilities presuppose, without saying so, that evolutionary 
phenomena, mutations for the Darwinian school, occur in identical form in all lines of descent despite the 
low probability of their doing so. That several adequate mutations should occur in the same line is 
an amazing, almost unbelievable, stroke of fortune; but if repeated in all lines it ceases to be a stroke of 
fortune. Is a repetitive phenomenon a matter of chance? Is it not rather firmly established, a law? But in that 
case, what physicochemical agents dominate chance and cause genes A, B, and C to mutate indentically in 
lines often separated for tens of millions of years?" (Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence 
for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.204-205, 207. 
Emphasis original)

"The truth is that contemporary Darwinism is in worse condition than appears at first sight. So far I have 
criticized it lightly by arguing as if the variations observed in fossils were mutations, but in fact they are 
no such thing. I have already stated my case; let us simply recall that these are not nondescript 
variations, but arise by successive additions in the same direction at an infinitely slower pace than the 
random modifications caused by mutation-selection in natural populations (see Ford, 1971), that the new 
characteristics are correlated with one another and with those preexisting." (Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of 
Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 
1977, pp.207-208. Emphasis original)

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


Copyright © 2005-2010, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. These my quotes may be used
for non-commercial purposes only and may not be used in a book, ebook, CD, DVD, or any other
medium except the Internet, without my written permission. If used on the Internet, a link back
to this page would be appreciated.
Created: 30 September, 2005. Updated: 16 April, 2010.