Stephen E. Jones

Creation/Evolution Quotes: Unclassified quotes: December 2005

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

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

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

"Though it is now no longer probable, that the individual watch which our observer-had found, was made 
immediately by the hand of an artificer, yet doth not this alteration in any wise affect the inference, that an 
artifices had been originally employed and concerned in the production. The argument from design remains 
as it was. Marks of design and contrivance are no more accounted for now, than they were before. In the 
same thing, we may ask for the cause of different properties. We may ask for the cause of the colour of a 
body, of its hardness, of its heat; and these causes may be all different. We are now asking for the cause of 
that subserviency to an use, that relation to an end, which we have embarked in the watch before us. No 
answer is given to this question by telling us that a preceding watch produced it. There cannot be design 
without a designer; contrivance without a contriver; order without choice; arrangement, without any thing 
capable of arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose; without that which could intend a purpose; 
means suitable to an end, and executing their office in accomplishing that end, without the end ever having 
been contemplated, or the means accommodated to it. Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of 
means to an ends relation of instruments to an use, imply the presence of intelligence and mind. No one, 
therefore, can rationally believe, that the insensible, inanimate watch from which the watch before us issued, 
was the proper cause of the mechanism we so much admire in it; could be truly said to have constructed - 
the instrument, disposed its parts, assigned their office, determined their order, action, and mutual 
dependency, combined their several motions into one result, and that also a result connected with the 
utilities of other beings. All these properties, therefore, are as much unaccounted for, as they were before." 
(Paley, W.*, "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from 
the Appearances of Nature," [1802], St. Thomas Press: Houston TX, 1972, reprint, pp.8-9. Evidence original)

"Evolution ... does not result from random, incoherent variation, occurring without order. In reality, it 
proceeds in a continuous and orderly manner, in line with trends which become more and more pronounced 
with the passing of generations; it thus establishes lines of descent and large families. ... If the variations of 
plants and animals were not subject to rules ... Evolution would not exist. The impression of disorder which 
sometimes follows a superficial study of past and present faunas fades away when forms are studied in 
depth, when chronology is explicitly defined, and when evolutionary lines are established. If the variation of 
the living world were nothing but chaos aorder, it could not possibly be the subject matter of a 
science. ... Paleontology reveals the existence of lines, defines their tendencies, analyzes their features, and, 
by measuring the various degrees of evolution, assigns to each genus, to each species, its corresponding 
rank. Paleontology even goes one step further: it reveals certain characteristics common to several lines, and 
thereby establishes affinities. Paleontology became a science the day Cuvier, noticing the jaw of a mammal 
imbedded in a block of gypsum, studied its features and predicted the structure of the other bones ... Only 
the predictable can belong to an order. Paleontology exists solely because chaos is banned from the living 
world. One sees the keenest scorners of oriented evolution proceed in Cuvier's manner and spend the 
greatest part of their time discovering natural lines, bringing to light systematic affinities between animals, 
and drawing up family trees. However, when they conduct their research as paleontologists, they forget 
their refutations and theories and work in a constructive manner." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living 
Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, 

"The heterogeneous character of the class of living mammals is obvious. One can reasonably think that the 
first mammals were not all descended from the same line of theriodonts and that monotremes have an 
ancestry distinct from that of therians, but their monophyletic or polyphyletic origin has little bearing on our 
discussion. What is essential here is the diversity of orders and suborders, which favors the attainment of 
the mammalian idiomorphon; this organization does not involve rectigradation or orthogenesis and occurs 
gradually along numerous paths from a common archaic stock. Evolution is oriented, there can be no doubt 
about it, but it follows varied routes: All the subgroups lead to the idiomorphon. The history of mammals is 
proof of this." (Grassť, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of 
Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.55)

"A lineage is a series of species descending one from another and heading toward a given type. If oriented 
lines did not exist, the living world would be chaos. There would be no need for evolutionists since what is 
incoherent does not fall into the sphere of science. It is worth mentioning that the concept of evolution is 
historically related to that of orientation. Lamarck (1809) proclaimed that the animal kingdom progresses from 
the simple to the complex (see Lamarck, 1873 edition, Vol. II, p. 424, his table showing the phylogeny of the 
animal kingdom). Darwin (1859) considered natural selection to be the agent of biological progress for the 
greatest benefit of the individual and the species. When reference is made to fossils, evolution always 
appears as a continuous approach toward a given form. It occurs in a single line, by the adding of 
successive, complementary variations going in the same direction for millions and millions of years. For 
instance, the genesis of mammals from reptiles lasted more than 50 million years. Paleontological evidence 
does not support the evolutionary randomness doctrine: evolution follows the same general direction and 
keeps to it as long as the line concerned has not fully attained a certain form, its idiomorphon. Yet, some 
paleontologists (e.g., G. G. Simpson) are unconditional advocates of the randomness doctrine, and oppose 
the concept of oriented evolution which they wrongly mistake for orthogenesis. ... We wish to stress 
that the existence of oriented lines is a fact, and not a theoretical view; a line can only be identified and 
exists solely because it embodies a given trend appearing in individuals which derive from one another and 
succeed one another in time.... evolution is highly branching; however, it is not disorderly. Each branch 
follows its own trend while respecting the general evolutionary theme of the entire order (Primates, 
Proboscidia), superfamily (Equoidea), etc. The lesson to be learned from paleontology is that no 
phylogenesis has taken place in a disorderly manner. ... It must be understood that to discard oriented 
evolution means discarding simultaneously progressive, regressive, or coordinated evolution. How could 
the wings of insects and birds have formed without going through initial imperfect forms? The least we can 
say is that the idea that they could have appeared at random and have been functional from the outset is 
preposterous." (Grassť, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of 
Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.102. Emphasis original)

"Moreover, from what we know of the mechanism of mutations, invention in biology has never been the 
product of a genetic variation; it can occur only through the combination of several changes. Thanks to the 
coordination of parts, the whole is fully functional. It materializes a structural plan, the origin of which is 
totally unknown; natural selection could not have conceived it, and even less constructed it since adequate 
materials were lacking. Simpson's opposition to oriented evolution leads ultimately to the denial of 
evolution: in the living world, everything would be subject to randomness or change and would occur in 
just any fashion, and at any time. Simpson offers chaos whereas in fact the living world has evolved and 
perpetuates itself in an orderly manner." (Grassť, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New 
Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.103)

"What gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution? The probability of dust 
carried by the wind reproducing Durer's `Melancholia' is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors 
in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship 
whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There is no 
law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it. Thus, preadaptation, according to Darwinian 
theory, is equivalent to a potential preestablished harmony in certain animals and certain plants. 
Throughout the living world, mechanisms, organs, and enzymes, scattered in organisms, are at battle 
stations waiting for an event, random of course, to complete what is missing, to protect what must be 
protected and to neutralize what must be neutralized. Philosophers will draw from this picture the 
conclusions that suit them. Leibniz would probably find in it support for his conception of life." (Grassť, P.-
P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: 
New York NY, 1977, p.104. Emphasis original)

"Evolution's relationship to finality is multiple and sometimes hard to trace. The advance of evolution 
toward greater complexity, more psychic insight, and refinement is undoubtedly finalized. Where disorder 
and the unoriented reign, evolution ceases. As we have demonstrated, within each line a certain form, a 
certain plan of organization or idiomorphon, will tend to be achieved, determining failure or success. 
Biological finality is no all-wise Providence, watching over nature to prevent it from blundering and making 
mistakes. It is independent of what, by a value judgment, we call useful, harmful, or indifferent to the 
individual or the species. The animal or plant follows an evolutionary path and remains faithful to it, to its 
own salvation or damnation." (Grassť, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of 
Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.169. Emphasis original)

"As regards future eschatology, amillennialism affirms the following: 1. The `signs of the times' have both 
present and future relevance. Amillennialists believe that the return of Christ will be preceded by certain 
signs: for example, the preaching of the gospel to all the nations, the conversion of the fullness of Israel, the 
great apostasy, the great tribulation and the coming of the Antichrist. These signs, however, must not be 
thought of as referring exclusively to the time just preceding Christ's return. They have been present in 
some sense from the very beginning of the Christian era and are present now. This means that we must 
always be ready for the Lord's return and that we may never in our thoughts push the return of Christ off 
into the far-distant future. Amillennialists also believe, however, that these `signs of the times' will have a 
climactic final fulfillment just before Christ returns. This fulfillment will not take the form of phenomena 
which are totally new but will rather be an intensification of signs which have been present all along." 
(Hoekema, A.A.*, "Amillennialism: Part III - A Brief Sketch of Amillennial Eschatology," Grace Online 

"Nor is any thing gained by running the difficulty further back, i.e. by supposing the watch before us to 
have been produced from another watch, that from a former, and so on indefinitely. Our going back ever so 
far brings us no nearer to the least degree of satisfaction upon the subject. Contrivance is still unaccounted 
for. We still want a contriver. A designing mind is neither supplied by this supposition, nor dispensed with. 
... There is no difference in this respect (yet there may be a great difference in several respects) between a 
chain of a greater or less length, between one chain and another, between one that is finite and one that is 
indefinite. This very much resembles the case before us. The machine, which we are inspecting, 
demonstrates, by its construction, contrivance and design. Contrivance must have had a contriver; design, 
a designer; whether the machine immediately proceeded from another machine, or not. That circumstance 
alters not the case. That other machine may, in like manner, have proceeded from a former machine: nor does 
that alter the case: contrivance must have had a contriver. That former one from one preceding it: no 
alteration still: a contriver is still necessary. No tendency is perceived, no approach towards a diminution of 
this necessity. It is the same with any and every succession of these machines; a succession of ten, of a 
hundred, of a thousand; with one series as with another; a series which is finite, as with a series which is 
infinite. In whatever other respects they may differ, in this they do not. In all equally, contrivance and 
design are unaccounted for." (Paley, W.*, "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes 
of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature," [1802], St. Thomas Press: Houston TX, 1972, 
reprint, pp.9-11)

"[Luke 21:25-28] In the previous portion Jesus foretold the dreadful fate awaiting the people of Jerusalem in 
the destruction of their city and temple. It will be so terrible (and actually was so) that the Saviour held it up 
as a clear foreshadowing of the Last Days and the Final judgment, as appears from Mark xiii, where the 
predictions concerning the fate of the city Jerusalem are constantly expanded into prophecies concerning 
the Last Days. In Luke's shorter report of the prophetic discourse the predictions are far more clearly marked 
off from each other. After referring in verse 24 to the period when the times of the nations will be fulfilled, i.e. 
to the end of the present age ... there is in verse 25 an immediate transition to the predictions concerning the 
Last Things before and at Jesus' second advent. [25, 26] While before the fall of Jerusalem there were only a 
few miraculous signs (cf. verse 11 ` in divers places `), before the end of the age all creation and the whole of 
the human world will be plunged into dreadful commotions-in the sun, the moon and the stars there will 
appear miraculous and alarming signs, the whole life of the nations on earth will be disrupted through the 
anxiety and terror that will overwhelm the people and render them desperate. [27] In the midst of these 
circumstances of utmost distress the Son of Man, the exalted Christ, will come in His divine power and 
majesty, and in such a manner that every eye will see Him. [28] While the onset of the great oppression of 
the Last Days; throwing the impenitent into terror and despair, will be the sign that the judgments of God are 
finally visiting the rejecters of His Son, it will be to believers the signal that their full redemption (in soul and 
body) is at hand. So Jesus commands His followers (He addresses the disciples as representing the faithful 
of all ages, including those of the Last Days), when they see the beginning of these predicted things, to be 
inspired with courage and faith in the knowledge that His second advent, and with it their redemption, are at 
hand. Although they do not know the precise day and hour of His coming, they will know that His coming is 
no longer far off. 29-31 Just as, when the trees in nature begin to bud, one knows that spring is near, so 
assuredly Christ's followers must know that when the prophesied events begin to occur His second advent 
and likewise the visible and full revelation of the sovereign dominion of God are close at hand. His coming 
will indeed be like a thief in the night (xii. 40) and no one will be able to determine beforehand when it will be, 
and unbelieving mankind will indeed be engaged in their ordinary secular activities in spite of all the 
portents of His coming (xvii. 26-30), but none the less the predicted events will be a sign to the faithful 
believers when His coming is at hand, so that they will not be taken unawares by that day (xxi. 34)." 
(Geldenhuys, J.N.*, "Commentary on the Gospel of Luke," Marshall, Morgan & Scott: London, 1950, 
Reprinted, 1961, pp.537-538)

"Our observer would further also reflect, that the maker of the watch before him, was, in truth and reality, the 
maker of every match produced from it; there being no difference (except that the latter manifests a more 
exquisite skill) between the making of another watch with his own hands .by the mediation of files, laths, 
chisels, &c. and the disposing, fixing, and inserting, of these instruments, or of others equivalent to them, in 
the body of the watch already made, in such a manner, as to form a new watch in the course of the 
movements which he had given to the old one. It is only working by one set of tools, instead of another. 
The conclusion which the first examination of the watch, of its works, construction, and movement 
suggested, was, that it must have had, for the cause and author of that construction, an artificer, who 
understood its mechanism, and designed its use, This conclusion is invincible. A second 
examination presents us with a new discovery. The watch is found, in the course of its movement, to 
produce another watch, similar to itself: and not only so, but we perceive in it a system of organization, 
separately calculated for that purpose. What effect would this discovery have, or ought it to have, upon our 
former inference? What, as hath already been said, but to increase, beyond measure, our admiration of the 
skill, which had been employed in the formation of such a machine?" (Paley, W.*, "Natural Theology: or, 
Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature," [1802], 
St. Thomas Press: Houston TX, 1972, reprint, p.13. Emphasis original)

"The term `scientific creationism' first gained currency around 1965 following publication of The Genesis 
Flood in 1961 by Whitcomb and Morris. ... In the 1960's and early 1970's, several Fundamentalist 
organizations were formed to promote the idea that the Book of Genesis was supported by scientific data. 
The terms `creation science' and `scientific creationism' have been adopted by these Fundamentalists as 
descriptive of their study of creation and the origins of man. ... The unusual circumstances surrounding the 
passage of Act 590, as well as the substantive law of the First Amendment, warrant an inquiry into the 
stated legislative purposes. The ... Act ... was simply and purely an effort to introduce the Biblical version of 
creation into the public school curricula." (Geisler, N.L.*, "The Judge's Decision Against the Creation-
Evolution Act," in "The Creator in the Courtroom `Scopes II': The 1981 Arkansas Creation-Evolution Trial," 
Mott Media: Milford MI, 1982, pp.170-172)

"If the defendants are correct and the Court is limited to an examination of the language of the Act, the 
evidence is overwhelming that both the purpose and effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion in the 
public schools. Section 4 of the Act provides: Definitions. As used in this Act: (a) `Creation-science' means 
the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science 
includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: (1) Sudden creation of the universe, 
energy, and life from nothing; (2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about 
development of all living kinds from a single organism; (3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally 
created kinds of plants and animals; (4) Separate ancestry for man and apes; (5) Explanation of the earth's 
geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and (6) A relatively recent 
inception of the earth and living kinds. (b) `Evolution-science' means the scientific evidences for evolution 
and inferences from those scientific evidences. Evolution-science includes the scientific evidences and 
related inferences that indicate: (1) Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered 
matter and emergence of life from nonlife; (2) The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing 
about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds; (3) Emergence by mutation and natural 
selection of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds; (4) Emergence of man from a common ancestor 
with apes; (5) Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and 
(6) An inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life. The evidence establishes 
that the definition of `creation science' contained in 4(a) has as its unmentioned reference the first 11 
chapters of the Book of Genesis. Among the many creation epics in human history, the account of sudden 
creation from nothing, or creatio ex nihilo, and subsequent destruction of the world by flood is 
unique to Genesis. The concepts of 4(a) are the literal Fundamentalists' view of Genesis. Section 4(a) is 
unquestionably a statement of religion, with the exception of 4(a)(2) which is a negative thrust aimed at what 
the creationists understand to be the theory of evolution. Both the concepts and wording of Section 4(a) 
convey an inescapable religiosity. Section 4(a)(2) describes `sudden creation of the universe, energy and life 
from nothing.' Every theologian who testified, including defense witnesses, expressed the opinion that the 
statement referred to a supernatural creation which was performed by God. " (Geisler N.L.*, "The Judge's 
Decision Against the Creation-Evolution Act," in "The Creator in the Courtroom `Scopes II': The 1981 
Arkansas Creation-Evolution Trial," Mott Media: Milford MI, 1982, pp.172-173)

"Defendants argue that: (1) the fact that 4(a) conveys ideas similar to the literal interpretation of Genesis 
does not make it conclusively a statement of religion; (2) that reference to a creation from nothing is not 
necessarily a religious concept since the Act only suggests a creator who has power, intelligence, and a 
sense of design and not necessarily the attributes of love, compassion, and justice; and (3) that simply 
teaching about the concept of a creator is not a religious exercise unless the student is required to make a 
commitment to the concept of a creator. The evidence fully answers these arguments. The ideas of 4(a)(1) 
are not merely similar to the literal interpretation of Genesis; they are identical and parallel to no other story 
of creation. The argument that creation from nothing in 4(a)(1) does not involve a supernatural deity has no 
evidentiary or rational support. To the contrary, `"creation out of nothing' is a concept unique to Western 
religions. In traditional Western religious thought, the conception of a creator of the world is a conception 
of God. Indeed, creation of the world `out of nothing' is the ultimate religious statement because God is the 
only actor. As Dr. Langdon Gilkey noted, the Act refers to one who has the power to bring all the universe 
into existence from nothing. The only `one' who has this power is God. The leading creationist writers, 
Morris and Gish, acknowledge that the idea of creation described in 4(a)(1) is the concept of creation by God 
and make no pretense to the contrary. The idea of sudden creation from nothing, or creatio ex nihilo, 
is an inherently religious concept. ... The facts that creation science is inspired by the book of Genesis and 
that Section 4(a) is consistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis leave no doubt that a major effect of the 
Act is the advancement of particular religious beliefs." (Geisler N.L.*, "The Judge's Decision Against the 
CreationEvolution Act," in "The Creator in the Courtroom `Scopes II': The 1981 Arkansas Creation-
Evolution Trial," Mott Media: Milford MI, 1982, pp.173-174)

"Whatever happened to Archaeopteryx? Some biology textbooks continue to present 
Archaeopteryx as the classic example of a missing link. Mader's 1998 Biology calls it "a 
transitional link between reptiles and birds," and William Schraer and Herbert Stoltze's 1999 Biology: The 
Study of Life tells students that "many scientists believe it represents an evolutionary link between 
reptiles and birds." But both sides in the current controversy over bird origins agree that modern birds are 
probably not descended from Archaeopteryx. And although the two factions disagree about the 
ancestry of Archaeopteryx, neither one has really solved the problem. Following the logic of 
Darwin's theory to sometimes silly extremes, cladists insist that the ancestors of Archaeopteryx were 
bird-like dinosaurs that do not appear in the fossil record until tens of millions of years later. Their critics 
look to animals that clearly lived earlier, but have not yet found one similar enough to Archaeopteryx 
to be a good candidate. As a result, both sides are still looking for the missing link. Isn't it ironic that 
Archaeopteryx, which more than any other fossil persuaded people of Darwin's theory in the first 
place, has been dethroned largely by cladists, who more than any other biologists have taken Darwin's 
theory to its logical extreme? The world's most beautiful fossil, the specimen Ernst Mayr called 'the almost 
perfect link between reptiles and birds," has been quietly shelved, and the search for missing links 
continues as though Archaeopteryx had never been found." (Wells, J.*, "Icons of Evolution Science 
or Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong," Regnery: Washington DC, 2000, 

"In cladistics, character comparisons take precedence over everything else. `The anatomical details or 
characters,' writes paleontologist Pat Shipman, `constitute the evidence, which ultimately adds up to a 
certainty approaching proof' [Shipman, P., "Taking Wing: Archaeopteryx and the Evolution of Bird 
Flight," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998, p.33] of evolutionary relationships. Other factors are 
discounted. For example, physical difficulties inherent in the `ground up' theory of the origin of flight are 
unimportant; what matters is that birds are anatomically more similar to two-legged running dinosaurs than 
to four- legged climbing reptiles. To a `cladist' (someone who uses the cladistic method), the debate over the 
origin of flight is secondary, if not irrelevant. The order in which animals appear in the fossil record also 
becomes secondary or irrelevant. If evolutionary relationships are inferred solely on the basis of character 
comparisons, an animal can be the descendant of another even if the supposed ancestor doesn't appear 
until millions of years later. The fossil record is simply re-arranged to fit the results of cladistic analysis. ... 
Applying cladistics to the evolution of birds leads to the conclusion that the ancestor of Archaeopteryx was 
a two-legged dinosaur. Ironically, once cladistics took over and similarity became the only criterion for 
relationships, paleontologists found that the most likely candidates for the ancestor of archaeopteryx lived 
tens of millions of years later. .... According to cladists, the animals with the right features were bird-
like dinosaurs that lived in the Cretaceous period, long after Archaeopteryx had become extinct. But then, in 
order to make bird-like dinosaurs the ancestors of birds, the fossil evidence must be re-arranged. ... The 
obvious objection that an animal cannot be older than its ancestor is discounted by assuming that the 
ancestral form must have been there before its descendant, but its fossil remains cannot be found. In other 
words, advocates of cladistics cite the imperfection of the geological record the very same reason Darwin 
gave for the troubling absence of transitional forms. As a result, however, the gaps in the fossil record 
become more pronounced than ever before. Immense stretches of time are left with no fossil evidence to 
support cladistic phylogenies. Critics of cladistic methodology argue that the features on which cladists 
base their analyses may have evolved independently, and don't necessarily point to common ancestry. 
Critics also argue that although the fossil record is incomplete, it is not as incomplete as Cladistic analyses 
imply. Cladists disagree, and the result has been a raging controversy." (Wells, J.*, "Icons of Evolution 
Science or Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong," Regnery: Washington DC, 
2000, pp.119-120. Emphasis original)

"1. What is the theory of intelligent design? The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain 
features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected 
process such as natural selection. Note: Intelligent design theory does NOT claim that science can 
determine the identity of the intelligent cause. Nor does it claim that the intelligent cause must be a `divine 
being' or a `higher power' or an `all-powerful force.' All it proposes is that science can identify whether 
certain features of the natural world are the products of intelligence." ("Top Questions and Answers 
About Intelligent Design Theory," Discovery Institute, September 8, 2005. Emphasis original)

"My secular colleagues usually assume that a book which challenges the central pillar of scientific 
naturalism must have been received with wild enthusiasm in the Christian world. It is true that many 
Christian readers are enthusiastic, but there are also many with serious reservations. There is a very wide 
range of opinion among Christians about evolution, ranging from `young-earth' creation-scientists to liberal 
theologians who embrace naturalistic evolution with enthusiasm. One group with which I have been 
particularly engaged in discussion and debate consists of the Christian professors of science and 
philosophy who attempt to accommodate science and religion by embracing `theistic evolution.' Reviewers 
in this category include William Hasker, Nancey Murphy, Howard Van Till, and Owen Gingerich." (Johnson, 
P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, p.166)

"That atheists discourage empirical criticism of Darwinism is only to be expected. What is more surprising, 
at least to me, is that there is also a tendency in Christian academic circles to regard criticism of Darwinism 
with suspicion. There is even a theistic version of naturalism. This takes the form of arguing that God 
refrains from interference with the natural realm, which is the realm accessible to science. Naturalism in 
scientific explanation is thus seen as appropriate for that activity, and as fully consistent with a robust 
Christian theism in the metaphysical or religious realm. This `accomodationist' position has been advanced 
by many scientists, philosophers, and theologians." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Evolution and Theistic 
Naturalism," 1992 Founder's Lectures, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, February 17, 1992)

"Ironically, while my critique of Darwinism and scientific naturalism has gained a hearing in secular academic 
debates, it has met with surprising resistance from theistic evolutionists in the Christian academic world. 
That many Christian college and seminary professors are ardent defenders of Darwinism may seem 
astonishing, but it is true. There are many reasons for this, including the powerful indoctrination aspiring 
professors receive in graduate schools. Perhaps the most important factor is that the reigning assumption 
among Christian intellectuals in recent years has been that, given the futility of fighting a war with science, 
the best hope for saving Christianity in modern culture is to show that Christian theism can coexist with 
scientific knowledge, including the theory of evolution. This assumption gave theistic evolutionists an 
enormous stake in believing that what the rulers of science tell us about evolution is true (and hence 
unbeatable), and that it is religiously neutral (and hence acceptable). Neither of those beliefs is correct. 
What theistic evolutionists have failed above all to comprehend is that the conflict is not over `facts' but 
over ways of thinking. The problem is not just with any specific doctrine of Darwinian science, but with the 
naturalistic rules of thought that Darwinian scientists employ to derive those doctrines. If scientists had 
actually observed natural selection creating new organs, or had seen a step-by-step process of fundamental 
change consistently recorded in the fossil record, such observations could readily be interpreted as 
evidence of God's use of secondary causes to create. But Darwinian scientists have not observed anything 
like that. What they have done is to assume as a matter of first principle that purposeless material processes 
can do all the work of biological creation because, according to their philosophy, nothing else was available. 
They have defined their task as finding the most plausible-or least implausible-description of how biological 
creation could occur in the absence of a creator. The specific answers they derive may or may not be 
reconcilable with theism, but the manner of thinking is profoundly atheistic. To accept the answers as 
indubitably true is inevitably to accept the thinking that generated those answers. That is why I think the 
appropriate term for the accommodationist position is not `theistic evolution,' but rather theistic naturalism. 
Under either name, it is a disastrous error." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of 
Darwin," Christianity Today, Vol. 38, No. 12, October 24, 1994, pp.22-26)

"Liberal religious leaders and theologians, who also proclaim the compatibility of religion and evolution, 
achieve this unlikely position by two routes. First, they retreat from traditional interpretations of God's 
presence in the world, some to the extent of becoming effective atheists. Second, they simply refuse to 
understand modern evolutionary biology and continue to believe that evolution is a purposive process. We 
are now presented with the specter of atheistic evolutionists and liberal theologians, whose understanding 
of the evolutionary process is demonstrable nonsense, joining together with the ACLU and the highest 
courts in the land to lambast creationists, who are caught in an increasing bind. Evolutionary biology, as 
taught in public schools, shows no evidence of a purposive force of any kind. This is deeply disturbing to 
creationists. Yet in court, scientists proclaim that nothing in evolutionary biology is incompatible with any 
reasonable religion, a view also supported by liberal theologians and religious leaders of many persuasions. 
Not only are creationists unable to have their "creation science" taught in the schools, they cannot even 
convince the court system that evolution is in any significant way antithetical to religion; thus the courts 
are effectively branding their religious views as terribly misguided. No wonder creationists (somewhere near 
half of the population!) are frustrated with the system and want equal time for their own views, or at least to 
be spared bludgeoning with evolution. Contrary to Larson's thesis, the conflict between evolution and 
religion has hanged significantly since the 1920s. He missed the golden opportunity to explore the 
fascinating situation that as developed in the last three decades." (Provine W.B., "Trial and Error: The 
American Controversy over Creation and Evolution." Review of "Trial and Error: The American Controversy 
over Creation and Evolution," by Edward J. Larson, New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. Academe, Vol. 
73, January-February 1987, pp.50-52, p.52)

"I also feel particularly sensitive about this issue because, as I wrote this book in the summer of 1998, a 
deluge of media hype enveloped the syncretist position, as though some startlingly new and persuasive 
argument had been formulated, or some equally exciting and transforming discovery had been made. In fact, 
absolutely nothing of intellectual novelty had been added, as the same bad arguments surfaced into a glare 
of publicity because the J. M. Templeton Foundation, established by its fabulously wealthy eponym to 
advance the syncretist program under the guise of more general and catholic (small c) discussion about 
science and religion, garnered a splash of media attention by spending 1.4 million bucks to hold a 
conference in Berkeley on "science and the spiritual quest:" In a genuine example of true creation ex 
nihilo - that is, the invention of an issue by fiat of media reports, rather than by force of argument or 
content of material-at least three major sources preached the syncretist gospel in their headlines and vapidly 
uncritical reports: "Faith and Reason, Together Again" (The Wall Street Journal, June 12); "Science 
and Religion: Bridging the Great Divide" (The New York Times, June 30); and a cover story in 
Newsweek (July 20) simply titled "Science Finds God." Scientists could only be mystified by this last 
claim, but at least we can now be certain about one of God's attributes: he sells newspapers and magazines. 
The Times article admitted the intellectual torpor of the proceedings: "A kind of Sunday school politeness 
pervaded the meeting, with none of the impassioned confrontations expected from such an emotionally 
charged subject ... The audience politely applauded after each presentation. But there was little sense of 
intellectual excitement." But from whence could such excitement arise in principle? ... Indeed, if we look at 
the so-called arguments for syncretism, as described in these reports, they all devolve into a series of fuzzy 
statements awash in metaphor and illogic." (Gould S.J., "Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the 
Fullness of Life," The Library of Contemporary Thought, Ballantine: New York NY, 1999, pp.214-215)

"Many creationists and Christian evolutionists would say that intelligent design detracts from the idea of 
God, though they have very different reasons for their conclusions. Let's start with the creationists. ... Many 
members of the young earth creation movement emphatically do not think that intelligent design is good 
theology. They are sharply critical of the ID advocates, even though they sometimes adopt the arguments 
that the latter advance. From the YEC point of view, ID is almost as wrong as evolution, and for the exact 
same reason: IDers do not start with the Bible, and their science is not driven by a need to provide support 
for a literal reading of Genesis. That is the express purpose of young earth creationism, as we have seen. ... 
The most support that the biggest popular creation organization, Answers in Genesis, offers ID is to say 
that `we neither count ourselves a part of this movement nor campaign against it,' according to spokesman 
Carl Wieland, CEO of Answers in Genesis, Australia. He also notes: `God, who used even the pagan king 
Cyrus for His purposes, may use the IDM in spite of the concerns we have raised,' [Wieland C., "AiG's 
views on the Intelligent Design Movement," Answers in Genesis, 30 August 2002] which, considering 
that Cyrus was a famous old tyrant, is hardly a ringing endorsement. Kurt Wise adds: `Being compatible 
with virtually all worldviews, ID gives very little insight into God, thus gives very little (to no) glory to Him, 
and is thus of very little use to me.'[Email interview with the author, July 2003]" (O'Leary, D., "By Design or 
by Chance?: The Growing Controversy on the Origins of Life in the Universe," Augsburg: Minneapolis MN, 
2004, p.208)

"To say that natural selection is not directed because you cannot see anyone or anything directing it is not 
an acceptable objection. Indeed, if selection is unintentional, it is found to be random. Darwinians and their 
molecular biologist disciples conceive of it as making use of aleatory material for the benefit of the species; 
thus, it sorts out and directs. It would be a strange intellectual position to replace one chance by another 
one. But we can be quite formal; selection is not a random phenomenon. It is by its very nature a teleological 
one. Since no one can be seen directing it, the Darwinians think this sufficient proof to declare it to be 
undirected. This is a very grave philosophical and truly anthropomorphic error, making selection as 
an active and transcendental entity." (Grassť, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New 
Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.128. Emphasis original)

"How is it possible, in that case, to speak of pseudoteleology, or teleonomy (which, etymologically, means 
the laws of purpose)? To factual or immanent finality the Darwinians add a finality of a higher order, 
inherent in life and constantly active; in the biosphere it presents the characteristics of a 
transcendental finality. No biological or philosophical system has gone farther toward the finalization of 
living creatures. The selective act is inseparable from an end, whether directed by man in the case of artificial 
selection, or in the case of natural selection by death-death which never strikes at random, but, on the 
contrary is an efficient agent in natural selection. In reality, the very purpose of selection is to finalize life. ... 
When we venture into the living world, as we must, the immanent finality shows itself in practically all 
structures or functions and control mechanisms, and natural selection and the capacity for adaptation are 
seen as the agents of a finality of a transcendental type. To eradicate finality from biology is a vain attempt 
because it goes against reality, and those who try to do it are inspired by philosophical theories or theses 
which act as blinders to the facts." (Grassť, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New 
Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.129. Emphasis original)

"Since the mid-19th century, Christian scientists in the Western world have largely accepted Darwinism as 
the way God worked. Many of these scientists are members of organizations, such as American Scientific 
Affiliation (ASA) and Canadian Christian and Scientific Affiliation (CSCA), that promote Christian 
evolutionism. Young earth creationism has become a significant force in evangelical Christian circles, but 
the majority of Christians in science are still solidly with Darwin. And not with intelligent design. 
Generally, Christian evolutionists argue that God's work in creating and sustaining the universe cannot be 
distinguished from the natural forces of law and chance and can be recognized only by the eye of faith. 
They are deeply skeptical of the intelligent design movement because they believe that it is wrong both 
scientifically and theologically. One of their strongest spokesmen is Howard Van Till, professor emeritus of 
physics and astronomy at Calvin College, who has often argued against intelligent design. He says: `If the 
universe is a creation, as ... Christians profess, then its natural capabilities are part of its God-given nature. 
That being the case, I am more inclined to look for the Creator's signature in the generosity with which the 
creation's formational gifts have been conferred.' [Van Till H., "What good is stardust," Christianity Today, 
August 6, 2001] In other words, God gifted the universe to create the life forms we see, apparently by law 
and chance, but we know by faith that that is not true. ... Theologian Rikki E. Watts of Vancouver's Regent 
College is skeptical of the invisible god of Christian evolutionism, challenging Denis Lamoureux on this 
precise point: `I am at a loss to understand how the presence of design could be evident to all and yet those 
points at which guidance intervened be inherently inaccessible always and forever except to the eyes of 
faith. My question to Lamoureux is straightforward: in what observable respect does his theistic 
teleological evolution through guided natural processes differ from an atheistic purposeless evolution 
through unguided natural processes? ' [Watts R.E.*, "Of Apples and Star Treks, Guidance and Gaps," in 
Johnson, P.E. & Lamoureux D.O., eds., "Darwinism Defeated?: The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on 
Biological Origins," Regent College Publishing: Vancouver, 1999, p.159]." (O'Leary D., "By Design or by 
Chance?: The Growing Controversy on the Origins of Life in the Universe," Augsburg: Minneapolis MN, 
2004, pp.210-211. Emphasis original)

"The theme of evolution is not at the center of interest for all of biology. As I pointed out in 1961, there are 
two biologies, functional and evolutionary biology. Functional biologists deal with proximate causes and 
ask `how' questions; they study (mostly physiological) processes, favor the reductionist approach, and 
have no particular interest in the history or meaning of the genetic programs of the organisms investigated. 
Conclusions are, in the main, reached by means of experimentation. That part of biology has never been my 
special field of interest." (Mayr, E.W., "General Introduction," in "Evolution and the Diversity of Life: 
Selected Essays," Belknap: Cambridge MA, 1976, p.1)

"Because intelligent design is a fledgling science, it is still growing and developing and thus cannot be 
characterized in complete detail. Nonetheless, its broad outlines are clear enough. I place the start of the 
intelligent design movement with the publication in 1984 of The Mystery of Life's Origin by Charles 
Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen. The volume is significant in two ways. First, though written by 
three Christians and critiquing origin-of-life scenarios, it focused purely on the scientific case for and 
against abiogenesis. Thus it consciously avoided casting its critique as part of a Bible-science controversy. 
Second, though highly critical of non-telic naturalistic origin-of-life scenarios and thus a ready target for 
anti-creationists, the book managed to get published with a secular publisher. It took well over 100 
manuscript submissions to get it published. MIT Press, for instance, had accepted it, subsequently went 
through a shake-up of its editorial board, and then turned it down. The book was finally published by 
Philosophical Library, which had published books by eight Nobel laureates." (Dembski W.A.*, "Intelligent 
Design Coming Clean," Originally in Metaviews 098, Leadership U., 13 July 2002)

"THIS is atheism: for every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the 
watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater and more, 
and that in a degree which exceeds all computation. I mean that the contrivances of nature surpass the 
contrivances of art, in the complexity, subtlety, and curiosity of the mechanism; and still more, if possible, 
do they go beyond them in number and variety: yet, in a multitude of cases, are not less evidently 
mechanically not less evidently contrivances, not less evidently accommodated to their end, or suited to 
their office, than are the most perfect productions of human ingenuity." (Paley, W.*, "Natural Theology: or, 
Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature," [1802], 
St. Thomas Press: Houston, TX, 1972, reprint, p.14)

"A chicken-and-egg problem ... There is a further problem (although this affects all the theories, not just the 
"genes-first" hypothesis) in explaining how the relationship between RNA and proteins originated. In the 
process of translation whereby proteins are produced ... it is the order of bases on the messenger RNA that 
determines the order of amino acids in the protein. But there is no inherent attraction between the codons on 
the mRNA and the amino acids-translation occurs via a code, and in order to interpret that code, both a 
transfer molecule and a synthetase enzyme (a protein) are needed. Since the synthetase enzyme itself is a 
product of translation, it is very difficult to imagine how the system could have originated. ... How did the 
relationship between DNA (or RNA) and proteins begin? The basis of all life today is the ability of DNA and 
RNA to produce specific proteins. But they do this via a code, and the translation of that code requires two 
principal factors, a synthetase enzyme and a transfer RNA, as well as the help of the ribosomes. It is very 
difficult to imagine a simple version of the system from which the translation mechanism seen today could 
have evolved." (Gamlin L. & Vines G., eds, "The Structure of Living Organisms," Guild Publishing: London, 
1989, p.23)

"I know no better method of introducing so large a subject, than that of comparing a single thing with a 
single thing; an eye, for example, with a telescope. As far as the examination of the instrument goes, there is 
precisely the same proof that the eye was made for vision, as there is that the telescope was made for 
assisting it. They are made upon the same principles; both being adjusted to the laws by which the 
transmission and refraction of rays of light are regulated. I speak not of the origin of the laws themselves; 
but, such laws being fixed, the construction, in both cases, is adapted to them. For instance; these laws 
require, in order to produce the same effect, that the rays of light, in passing from water into the eye, should 
be refracted by a more convex surface, than when it passes out of air into the eye. Accordingly we find, that 
the eye of a fish, in that part of it called the crystalline lense, is much rounder than the eye of terrestrial 
animals. What plainer manifestation of design can there be than this difference? What could a mathematical 
instrument-maker have done more, to shew his knowledge of his principle, his application of that knowledge, 
his suiting of his means to his end; I will not say to display the compass or excellency of his skill and art, for 
in these all comparison is indecorous, but to testify counsel, choice, consideration, purpose?" (Paley, W.*, 
"Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the 
Appearances of Nature," [1802], St. Thomas Press: Houston, TX, 1972, reprint, pp.14-15)

"It is important to stress that the purpose forbidden by Lemon is the purpose to `advance religion.' 
...'promote' religion ... `endorse religion' ... Our cases in no way imply that the Establishment Clause forbids 
legislators merely to act upon their religious convictions. We surely would not strike down a law providing 
money to feed the hungry or shelter the homeless if it could be demonstrated that, but for the religious 
beliefs of the legislators, the funds would not have been approved. Also, political activism by the religiously 
motivated is part of our heritage. Notwithstanding the majority's implication to the contrary ... we do not 
presume that the sole purpose of a law is to advance religion merely because it was supported strongly by 
organized religions or by adherents of particular faiths. ... To do so would deprive religious men and women 
of their right to participate in the political process. Today's religious activism may give us the Balanced 
Treatment Act, but yesterday's resulted in the abolition of slavery, and tomorrow's may bring relief for 
famine victims." (Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 594 (1987). Dissenting Opinion by Justice Scalia
and Chief Justice Rehnquist)

"Burke's key insight in this connection is a neglected doctrine of recalcitrance. What does this term mean? 
Recalcitrance, `the state of being recalcitrant,' says Webster's Dictionary, is to be `obstinately defiant of 
authority or restraint,' `difficult to manage,' or `resistant.' My mental picture for recalcitrant - comes from a 
recent visit to our good friends John and Ruth in New Hampshire who had arduously cleared their backyard 
of the hundreds of granite stones embedded in the soil to plant a new lawn and garden. With great effort the 
boulders were dug up, one by one, and placed along the back of the property to create a crude stone wall. 
However, one rock was `recalcitrant'-stubbornly resistant to extensive efforts to dig it up. Soon the 
excavators realized that it was like the tip of an iceberg. The little recalcitrant rock was actually an incredibly 
gigantic boulder, perhaps thirty feet or more in diameter. In this analogy, the stubborn, unyielding rock is a 
symbol of a brick wall that scientific rhetoric hits-the recalcitrance of nature. McGuire and Melia use the 
phrase `the states-ofaffairs in nature' to describe this recalcitrant network of objective factual realities. Thus, 
they conclude, `scientific texts encounter a special `recalcitrance' from the world they hope to describe'-a 
stubborn tacticity that does not permit a promiscuous or unlimited range of textual construction, as 
scientists routinely intervene in nature." (Woodward, T.E.*, "Doubts about Darwin: A History of Intelligent 
Design," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 2003, pp.193-194)

"In [Gen 4:]22 the translation forger (RV, RSV) implies more than the Hebrew lotes, 'hammerer' 
or 'sharpener'. Meteoric iron and surface deposits of copper were hammered and filed long before smelting 
and forging were heard of. Perishable as these metals are, some examples have survived from the third 
millennium BC (iron) and even the fifth or earlier (copper); cf. JASA, XVIII, 1966, pp. 31f." (Kidner D., 
"Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale Press: London, 1967, p.77)

"To the present author various converging lines point to an Adam much nearer our own times than the early 
tool-makers and artists, let alone their remote forbears. On the face of it, the ways of life described in Genesis 
4 are those of the neolithic and first metalworking cultures alluded to above, i.e., of perhaps eight or ten 
thousand years ago, less or more. The memory of names and genealogical details also suggests a fairly 
compact period between Adam and Noah rather than a span of tens or hundreds of millennia, an almost 
unimaginable stretch of time to chronicle. Yet this seems to widen the gap still further between Genesis and 
current chronologies. The answer may lie in our definition of man. Man in Scripture is much more than 
homo faber, the maker of tools: he is constituted man by God's image and breath nothing less. It 
follows that Scripture and science may well differ in the boundaries they would draw round early humanity: 
the intelligent beings of a remote past, whose bodily and cultural remains give them the clear status of 
'modern man' to the anthropologist, may yet have been decisively below the plane of life which was 
established in the creation of Adam. If, as the text of Genesis would by no means disallow, God initially 
shaped man by a process of evolution it would follow that a considerable stock of near-humans preceded 
the first true man, and it would be arbitrary to picture these as mindless brutes." (Kidner D., "Genesis: An 
Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale Press: London, 1967, p.28)

"The view I want to present can be called, succinctly, if possibly somewhat misleadingly, `the two-minds 
view of Christ'. It is an ancient view which has been relatively neglected for a long time. ... we can begin to 
appreciate the early view that in the case of God Incarnate, we must recognize something like two distinct 
ranges of consciousness." There is first what we can call the eternal mind of God the Son with its 
distinctively divine consciousness, whatever that might be like, encompassing the full scope of 
omniscience. And in addition there is a distinctly earthly consciousness that came into existence and grew 
and developed as the boy Jesus grew and developed. It drew its visual imagery from what the eyes of Jesus 
saw, and its concepts from the languages he learned. The earthly range of consciousness, and self-
consciousness, was thoroughly human, Jewish, and first-century Palestinian in nature. We can view the two 
ranges of consciousness (and, analogously, the two noetic structures encompassing them) as follows: The 
divine mind of God the Son contained, but was not contained by, his earthly mind, or range of 
consciousness. That is to say, there was what can be called an asymmetricaccessing relation between the 
two minds. ... The divine mind had full and direct access to the earthly, human experience resulting from the 
Incarnation, but the earthly consciousness did not have such full and direct access to the content of the 
overarching omniscience proper to the Logos, but only such access, on occasion, as the divine mind 
allowed it to have. There thus was a metaphysical and personal depth to the man Jesus lacking in the case 
of every individual who is merely human. This account allows for the apparent intellectual and spiritual 
growth of Jesus in his humanity to be a real development. It can also help to explain, or at least to allow for, 
the cry of dereliction. [Mark 15:34] When this view is used to augment the apparatus of the previous 
chapter, we have in principle a full and adequate account of the basic features of the metaphysics of the 
Incarnation. In particular, it allows us to avoid the absurdities to which orthodoxy has always seemed 
vulnerable. On it, we have in the person of Jesus no case of a God merely dressed up as a man. We have an 
individual who is fully human, and who shares in the human condition, experiencing the world in a human 
perspective. No Docetic absurdities are implied by the view. Nor is it Nestorian. Nor Appolinarian. There is 
one person with two natures and two ranges of consciousness. He is not the theological equivalent of a 
centaur, half God and half man. He is fully human, but not merely human. He is also fully divine." (Morris 
T.V.*, "The Logic of God Incarnate," [1986], Cornell University Press: Ithaca NY, 1987, reprint, p.102-104)

12/12/2005 The two-minds hypothesis. This may seem a promising way to understand the 
incarnation, but Morris knows the real test comes when trying to make sense of how Jesus can exemplify 
very human qualities at the same time that he has similar divine attributes that contradict those 
human qualities. 20 In particular, Jesus as divine is omniscient, but as human he has limited knowledge. 
Hence the properties of omniscience and of limited knowledge are both predicated of one and the same 
person, and that is a contradiction. Moreover, one wonders whether at any moment of his earthly life 
the person Jesus knew everything or only some things. If everything, then how can Scripture say 
(Lk 2:52) that he grew in wisdom and knowledge? Morris answers that in Christ there were two minds (two 
distinct ranges of consciousness), one divine and one human. Christ possessed the eternal mind of God the 
Son, which knows all things. But he also possessed a "distinctly earthly consciousness that came into 
existence and grew and developed as the boy Jesus grew and developed." [Morris T.V., "The Logic of God 
Incarnate," Cornell UP, 1986, p.103] The relation between the two minds was asymmetrical. That is, the 
divine mind knew and had access to everything the human mind knew, but the human mind had access to 
the divine only when the divine mind allowed it access. What Jesus knew through his human mind alone 
and apart from any access it had to his divine mind was only what was available to any other human living 
at that time. But since he was not merely human, Jesus had access to information that no mere human could 
know apart from divine revelation.[Ibid] If this sounds strange, Morris thinks some analogies help. For 
example, sometimes a person has a dream with himself in it. But at the same time, "the dreamer 'as sleeper' is 
somehow aware, in what could be called an overarching level of consciousness, that it is just a dream that is 
going on, in which he is playing a role as one of the characters." [Ibid, pp.104-105] These two levels of 
consciousness operating at once in the same person are analogous to what Morris means with his two-
minds theory of Christ." (Feinberg J.S.*, "The Incarnation of Jesus Christ," in Geivett R.D. & Habermas G.R., 
eds., "In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God's Action in History," Apollos: Leicester UK, 
1997, p.234. Emphasis original)

"Darwin could not possibly have predicted that the hereditary material (of which he knew nothing) would 
turn out to be littered with ... meaningless repeated sequences like the shared Alu sequences in apes and 
humans ... An interesting argument is that in the law courts (where proof `beyond reasonable doubt' is 
required), cases of plagiarism or breach of copyright will be settled in the plaintiff's favour if it can be shown 
that the text (or whatever) is supposed to have been copied contains errors present in the original. Similarly, 
in tracing the texts of ancient authors, the best evidence that two versions are copies one from another or 
from the same original is when both contain the same errors. A charming example is an intrusive colon within 
a phrase in two fourteenth-century texts of Euripides: one colon turned out to be a scrap of straw embedded 
in the paper, proving that the other text was a later copy. Shared pseudogenes, or shared Alu sequences, 
may have the same significance - like shared misprints they can have come about only by shared descent." 
(Patterson C., "Evolution," [1978], Cornell University Press: Ithaca NY, Second edition, 1999, p.117)

"An artist uses brush strokes, composition, style, and coloring that are often unique to that artist. The 
chance combination of these features by any other painter would be most unlikely. The similarity of highly 
complex features is strong evidence that they derive from a common source, since similarity is unlikely to 
result just by chance. There must be some common cause for the similarity. In this case the common cause is 
the original artist. This same reasoning applies to life. Diverse life forms display strikingly similar characters. 
For example, there is the nearly universal use of: DNA as the carrier of inheritance; the expression of that 
information as proteins via an RNA intermediate; the genetic code; the use of left-handed amino acids in 
proteins; and the bi-layered phosphatide construction of cell membranes. [Wilson J.H., "The Origin of Life," 
in Wilson D.B., ed., "Did the Devil Make Darwin do it?," Iowa State University Press: Ames IO, 1983, pp.87-
90] The biochemical similarities extend to proteins and to the cellular metabolism of the most diverse living 
beings. Adenosine tri-phosphate (ATP), biotin, riboflavin, hemes, pyridoxin, vitamins B12 and K, and folic 
acid are used in metabolic processes everywhere. [Dobzhansky T.G., "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense 
Except in the Light of Evolution," in Zetterberg J.P., ed., "Evolution Versus Creationism," Oryx Press: 
Phoenix AZ, 1983, p.23] Furthermore, amino acid sequences of common proteins are similar among different 
organisms. For example, the protein cytochrome-c contains 104 amino acids, yet 64 of these are identical 
between yeast and horses. [Gould S.J., Luria S.E. & Singer S., "A View Of Life," Benjamin/Cummings: Menlo 
Park CA, 1981, p.680] Even more impressive is a protein, appropriately called ubiquitin, present in all 
organisms, tissues, and cells so far studied - and it has an absolutely identical amino acid sequence in each 
case. [Margulis L. & Sagan D., "Origins of Sex:: Three Billion Years of Genetic Recombination," Yale 
University Press: New Haven CT, 1986, p.119] These similarities have been uncovered by the research of 
twentieth-century molecular biology, yet the unity of life was recognized long ago. Darwin (and Buffon 
nearly a century before Darwin [Edey and Johanson, 1989, p.14]) saw the unity based on evidence from 
morphology, behavior, ecology, mimicry, and mutualism. There is a crisscrossing web of such factors 
uniting smaller groups together into a larger and larger whole. [P]lants and animals, most remote in the scale 
of nature, are bound together by a web of complex relations. (Darwin, 1859, pp.124-125) Before Darwin, the 
predominant creationist theory was the Great Chain of Being. Though it is no longer tenable, it did have 
some important insights. Central to that theory was a recognition that all life is linked together by a chain of 
similarities. Even ancients such as Aristotle (350 B.C.) were aware of the vast unity of life. The unity of life 
could not possibly result from chance, nor from multiple sources, nor from multiple designers acting 
independently. Life must have come from some single common source. Evolutionists say "common 
descent." Creationists say "common designer." Life could have looked like an art gallery with many artists - 
yet it does not. This is not happenstance. It is premeditated design. It is a major factor in message theory. 
All life is linked together by a complex web of similarities. Life looks like the product of a single 
designer. (This single designer can be a single being or design team.) Message theory says nature was 
intentionally constructed to look this way." (ReMine, W.J.*, "The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus 
Message Theory," St. Paul Science: Saint Paul MN, 1993, pp.18-19. Emphasis original)

"In July 1995 the entire DNA sequence of the bacterium Haemophilus influenzae, 1.8 million base-
pairs, was elucidated, followed three months later by the sequence of a second parasitic bacterium. In April 
1996 the complete sequence (12 million base-pairs) of yeast was announced, and in August 1996 the first 
complete sequence of a free-living bacterium, Methanococcus, which has 1.7 million base-pairs and 
about 1700 genes, perhaps close to the minimum necessary for independent life." (Patterson C., "Evolution," 
[1978], Cornell University Press: Ithaca NY, Second edition, 1999, p.23)

"Dan-E. Nilsson is persuaded that I wrote my essay because I am moved to reject `uncomfortable scientific 
results.' He is mistaken. The length of time required to form an eye is a matter of perfect indifference to me; 
had he and Susanne Pelger been able to demonstrate that the eye was in fact formed over the course of a 
long weekend in the Hamptons, I would have warmly congratulated them. As I have many times remarked, I 
have no creationist agenda whatsoever and, beyond respecting the injunction to have a good time all the 
time, no religious principles, either. Evolution long, evolution short-it is all the same to me. I criticized their 
work not because its conclusions are unwelcome but because they are absurd." (Berlinski, D., "A Scientific 
Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics," Commentary July 8, 2003)

"Scientists are fond of running the evolutionary clock backward, using DNA analysis and the fossil record 
to figure out when our ancestors stood erect and split off from the rest of the primate evolutionary tree. But 
the clock is running forward as well. So where are humans headed? Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins 
says it's the question he's most often asked, and "a question that any prudent evolutionist will evade." But 
the question is being raised even more frequently as researchers study our past and contemplate our 
future." (Boyle, A., "Human evolution at the crossroads: Genetics, cybernetics complicate forecast for 
species," MSNBC May 2, 2005)

"The ear, it is probable, is no less artificially and mechanically adapted to its office, than the eye. But we 
know less about it; we do not so well understand the action, the use, or the mutual dependency of its 
internal parts. Its general form, however, both external and internal, is sufficient to shew that it is an 
instrument adapted to the reception of sound; that is to say, already knowing that sound consists in pulses 
of the air, we perceive in the structure of the ear, a suitableness: to receive impressions from this species of 
action, and, to propagate these impressions to the, brain. For of what does this structure consist? An 
external ear (the concha), calculated, like an ear-trumpet, to catch and collect the pulses of which we have, 
spoken;- in large quadrupeds, turning to the sound, and possessing a configuration, as well as, motion, 
evidently, fitted for the office: of a tube which leads into the head, lying at the root of this outward ear; the 
folds and sinuses thereof tending and conducting the air towards it: of a thin membrane, like the pelt of a 
drum, stretched across this passage upon a bony rim: of a chain of moveable, and infinitely curious, bones, 
forming a communication, and the only communication that can be observed, between the membrane last 
mentioned and the interior channels and recesses of the skull: of cavities, similar in shape and form to wind 
instruments of music, being spiral or portions of circles.. of the eustachian tube, like, the hole in a drum, to 
let the air pass freely into and out of the barrel of the ear, as the covering membrane vibrates, or as the 
temperature may be altered: the. whole labyrinth hewn out of a rock: that is, wrought into the substance of 
the hardest bone, of the body: This assemblage of connected parts constitutes together an ; apparatus, 
plainly enough relative to the transmission of sound, or of the impulses received from sound, and only to be 
lamented in not being better understood. The communication within, formed by the small bones of the ear, 
is, to look upon, more like what: we are accustomed to call machinery, than any thing I am acquainted with in 
animal bodies." (Paley, W.*, "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, 
Collected from the Appearances of Nature," [1802], St. Thomas Press: Houston TX, 1972, reprint, pp.30-31)

"THE generation of the animal no more accounts for the contrivance of the eye or ear, than, upon the 
supposition stated in a preceding chapters the production of a watch by the motion and mechanism of a 
former watch, would account for the skill and intention evidenced in the watch so produced; than it would 
account for the disposition of the wheels, the catching of their teeth, the relation of the several parts of the 
works to one another and to their common end, for the suitableness of their forms and places to their offices, 
for their connections their operation, and the useful result of that operation. I do insist most strenuously 
upon the correctness of this comparison; that it holds as to every mode of specific propagation; and that 
whatever was true of the watch, under the hypothesis above mentioned is true of plants and animals. ... To 
begin with the fructification of plants. Can it be doubted but that the seed contains a particular 
organization? Whether a latent plantule with the means of temporary nutrition, or whatever else it be, it 
incloses an organization suited to the germination of a new plant. Has the plant which produced the seed 
any thing more to do with that organization, than the watch would have had to do with the structure of the 
watch which was produced in the course of its mechanical movement? I mean, Has it any; thing at all to do 
with the contrivance? The maker and contriver of one watch, when he inserted within it a mechanism suited 
to the production of another watch, was in truth, the maker and contriver of that other watch. All the 
properties of the new watch were to be referred to his agency: the design manifested in it, to his intention: 
the art, to him as the artist: the collocation of each part, to his placing: the action, effect, and use, to his 
counsel, intelligence, and workmanship. In producing it by the intervention of a former watch, he was only 
working by one set of tools instead of another: So it is with the plant, and the seed produced by it. Can any 
distinction be assigned between the two cases; between the producing watch, and the producing plant? 
both passive; unconscious substances; both, by the organization which was given to them, producing their 
like, without understanding or design; both, that is, instruments." (Paley, W.*, "Natural Theology: or, 
Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature," [1802], 
St. Thomas Press: Houston, TX, 1972, reprint, pp.36-37)

"When we are inquiring simply after the existence of an intelligent Creator, imperfection, inaccuracy, 
liability to disorder, occasional irregularities, may subsist, in a considerable degree, without inducing any 
doubt into the question: just as a watch may frequently go wrong, seldom perhaps exactly right, may be 
faulty in some parts, defective in some, without the smallest ground of suspicion from thence arising, that it 
was not a watch; not made; or not made for the purpose ascribed to it. When faults are pointed out, and 
when a question is started concerning the skill of the artist, or the dexterity with which the work is executed 
... these are different questions from the question of the artist's existence ... and the questions ought always 
to be kept separate in the mind. So likewise it is in the works, of nature. Irregularities and imperfections are of 
little or no weight in the consideration, when that consideration relates simply to the existence of a Creator. 
When the argument respects his attributes, they are of weight; but are then to be taken in conjunction ... 
with the unexceptionable evidences which we possess, of skill, power, and benevolence, displayed in other 
instances; which evidences .may, in strength, number, and variety be such, and may so overpower apparent 
blemishes, as to induce us, upon the most reasonable ground, to believe, that these last ought to be referred 
to some cause, though we be ignorant of it, other than defect of knowledge or of benevolence in the 
author." (Paley, W.*, "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, 
Collected from the Appearances of Nature," [1802], St. Thomas Press: Houston TX, 1972, reprint, pp.41-42. 
Emphasis original)

"Section 4. Definitions. As used in this Act: (a) `Creation-science' means the scientific evidences for 
creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences 
and related inferences that indicate: (1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; (2) 
The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a 
single organism; (3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals; (4) 
Separate ancestry for man and apes; (5) Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the 
occurrence of a worldwide flood; and (6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds. (b) 
`Evolution-science' means the scientific evidences for evolution and inferences from those scientific 
evidences. Evolution-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: (1) 
Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from 
nonlife; (2) The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present 
living kinds from simple earlier kinds; (3) Emergence by mutation and natural selection of present living 
kinds from simple earlier kinds; (4) Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes; (5) Explanation of 
the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and (6) An inception several billion 
years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life." (Zetterberg J.P., ed., "The Arkansas Creationism Act 
(1981)," in "Evolution Versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy," Oryx Press: Phoenix AZ, 
1983, p.398)

"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. ...,' he said. `It could be a person in the sense of a being that has 
intelligence and a purpose, I suppose.' ... Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while 
teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and 
Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates. There was no one moment of change but a 
gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife. Yet 
biologists' investigation of DNA `has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements 
which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved,' Flew says in the new video, 
`Has Science Discovered God?' .... The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September 
issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. `It has become inordinately difficult even to begin 
to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism,' he 
wrote. ... if his belief upsets people, well `that's too bad,' Flew said. `My whole life has been guided by the 
principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.' ... Flew told The Associated Press his 
current ideas have some similarity with American `intelligent design' theorists, who see evidence for a 
guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain 
the ultimate origins of life." (Ostling, R.N., "Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God," 
Livescience/Associated Press, 10 December 2004)

"A U.S. appeals court today upheld the decision of a lower court in allowing the inclusion of the Ten 
Commandments in a courthouse display, hammering the American Civil Liberties Union and declaring, `The 
First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.' Attorneys from the 
American Center for Law and Justice successfully argued the case on behalf of Mercer County, Ky., and a 
display of historical documents placed in the county courthouse. The panel voted 3-0 to reject the ACLU's 
contention the display violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The county display the ACLU 
sued over included the Ten Commandments, the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the 
Magna Carta, the Star Spangled Banner, the national motto, the preamble to the Kentucky Constitution, the 
Bill of Rights to the U. S. Constitution and a picture of Lady Justice. Writing for the 6th Circuit Court of 
Appeals, Judge Richard Suhrheinrich said the ACLU's `repeated reference 'to the separation of church and 
state' ... has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church 
and state.' Suhrheinrich wrote: `The ACLU, an organization whose mission is 'to ensure that ... the 
government [is kept] out of the religion business,' does not embody the reasonable person.' The court said a 
reasonable observer of Mercer County's display appreciates `the role religion has played in our 
governmental institutions, and finds it historically appropriate and traditionally acceptable for a state to 
include religious influences, even in the form of sacred texts, in honoring American traditions." ("1st 
Amendment 'doesn't create church-state wall of separation': Court whacks civil-liberties group, OKs 
Ten Commandments display, WorldNetDaily, December 20 2005)

"Nature's recalcitrance is the ultimately determinative factor (or limiting factor) in the shredding, shaping, or 
vindicating of any cosmological narrative. The reader will have noted that certain stubborn realities of 
nature keep coming up time after time, and they serve as the main fuel in the evidentiary debate: (1) the 
Cambrian explosion, now underscored and heightened in the recent discoveries in China, (2) the general 
absence of transitional fossils between the higher taxonomic categories outside of the Cambrian, (3) the 
cell's molecular systems of breathtaking complexity, recently elucidated, and (4) the quiet experiment-driven 
collapse of confidence in `chemical soup' scenarios for the origin of life. These four sets of brute facts, of 
course, mean nothing by themselves, as Gross has reminded us; they must be interpreted and woven by 
rhetorical skill into some explanatory scheme. Yet, such facts are ultimately stubborn; they surprise and 
confound; they often trigger a heightened sense of mystery. They are the stuff of anomalies, which of 
course in the Kuhnian vision of science may lead eventually to a genuine paradigm crisis. The four scientific 
realities cited above (a list that could easily be expanded) cannot be ignored in their foundational role as 
rhetorical weapons in the hands of Design. They and their range of possible interpretations have become 
the turf on which some of the fiercest battles are now fought. So the recalcitrance of nature, I propose, is the 
foundation of. the Design assault on the Darwinian paradigm. In dramatic terms, it is cast as the ultimate 
protagonist in all of the major scenes. Phillip Johnson refers to the power of recalcitrant nature (without 
using that name) in his `sinking ship' projection theme, found in the `How to Sink a Battleship' essay in Mere 
Creation. The key reference to recalcitrance is in the final line-'reality.' To appreciate the context, I will quote 
the entire projection theme: `When I finished the epilogue to Darwin on Trial in 1993, I compared 
evolutionary naturalism to a great battleship afloat on the ocean of reality. The ship's sides are heavily 
armored with philosophical and legal barriers to criticism, and its decks are stacked with 16-inch rhetorical 
guns to intimidate would-be attackers. In appearance it is as impregnable as the Soviet Union seemed a few 
years ago. But the ship has sprung a metaphysical leak, and that leak widens as more and more people 
understand it and draw attention to the conflict between empirical science and materialist philosophy. The 
more perceptive of the ship's officers know that the ship is doomed if the leak cannot be plugged. The 
struggle to save the ship will go on for a while, and meanwhile there will even be academic wine-and-cheese 
parties on the deck. In the end the ship's great firepower and ponderous armor will only drag it to the 
bottom. Reality will win ' The deciding factor in the defeat of the battleship-in Johnson's view-is the power 
of `reality,' which is, at root, recalcitrant nature itself." (Woodward, T.E.*, "Doubts about Darwin: A History 
of Intelligent Design," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 2003, p.200)

"In the meanwhile, Dawkins went on to produce a series of brilliant and provocative books, each of which I 
devoured with interest and admiration. Dawkins followed The Selfish Gene with The Extended 
Phenotype (1981), The Blind Watchmaker (1986), River out of Eden (1995), Climbing 
Mount Improbable (1996), Unweaving the Rainbow (1998), and finally the collection of essays 
A Devil's Chaplain (2003). Yet the tone and focus of his writing changed. As philosopher Michael 
Ruse pointed out in a review of The Devil's Chaplain, Dawkins' `attention has swung from writing 
about science for a popular audience to waging an all-out attack on Christianity.' The brilliant scientific 
popularizer became a savage anti-religious polemicist, preaching rather than arguing (or so it seemed to me) 
his case. I find fundamentalism of all kinds equally repugnant, religious or anti-religious, and was deeply 
distressed at this development in someone I had admired. Dawkins' account of religion tends to amount to 
little more than freak-pointing, with the extreme portrayed as the typical. Religious people were dismissed as 
anti-scientific, intellectually irresponsible, or existentially immature - on a good day." (McGrath, A.E.*, 
"Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life," Blackwell: Malden MA, 2005, pp.8-9)

"Yet while Dawkins' atheism became more strident in its tone and more aggressive in its assertions, it did not 
become noticeably more sophisticated in terms of the arguments offered. Religious folk are demonized as 
dishonest, liars, fools, and knaves, incapable of responding honestly to the real world, and preferring to 
invent a false, pernicious, and delusionary world into which to entice the unwary, the young, and the naive. 
It is a line of thought that has led many to suggest, not entirely without reason, that Dawkins might have 
fallen victim to the kind of self-righteousness that biblical writers associated with the Pharisees. The writer 
Douglas Adams recalls Dawkins once remarking: `I really don't think I'm arrogant, but I do get impatient with 
people who don't share with me the same humility in front of the facts.' Yet the awkward fact, which Dawkins 
seems reluctant to concede, is that there are many sane and intelligent individuals who draw conclusions 
which differ completely from his through precisely that same humble engagement with the scientific 
evidence. Perhaps they are mad; perhaps they are bad; but then again, perhaps they are neither." (McGrath 
A.E.*, "Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life," Blackwell: Malden MA, 2005, p.9)

"Dawkins writes with erudition and sophistication on issues of evolutionary biology, clearly having 
mastered the intricacies of his field and its vast research literature. Yet when he comes to deal with anything 
to do with God, we seem to enter into a different world. It is the world of a schoolboy debating society, 
relying on rather heated, enthusiastic overstatements, spiced up with some striking oversimplifications and 
more than an occasional misrepresentation (accidental, I can only assume) to make some superficially 
plausible points - the sort of arguments that once persuaded me that atheism was the only option for a 
thinking person when I was a schoolboy." (McGrath, A.E.*, "Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the 
Meaning of Life," Blackwell: Malden MA, 2005, p.9)

"Having wrestled with the implications of the scientific method for belief in God throughout my late teens, I 
was more than a little puzzled by the quality of the arguments offered for atheism in Dawkins' writings of the 
1980s. It clearly seems self-evident to Dawkins that the natural sciences must lead to an atheist worldview 
on the part of any honest, intelligent person. Those who believe in God are therefore dishonest, deluded, or 
stupid. Yet the arguments he proposed in his published works of the late 1970s and 1980s simply did not 
lead to that conclusion. Dawkins' atheism seemed to be tacked onto his evolutionary biology with 
intellectual velcro. I had hoped that his writings would produce a new, intellectually reinvigorated atheism - 
something that would be really exciting and engaging. Instead, I found the same plodding rhetoric and tired 
old cliches that I knew well from my schoolboy days. Dawkins was preaching to the choir, recycling rather 
than renewing the case for atheism." (McGrath, A.E.*, "Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of 
Life," Blackwell: Malden MA, 2005, pp.9-10)

"Disappointed, I duly waited for the works of the 1990s, hoping to see new and more persuasive arguments 
developed. Instead, I found the same stale old atheist equivalents of the `mad, bad, or God' arguments used 
by some Christians to prove the divinity of Christ, linked rather tenuously to some interesting developments 
in evolutionary biology. It became increasingly clear to me that the grounds of Dawkins' atheism might 
ultimately lie beyond the sciences, not within them. The year 2003 dawned, and with it came the publication 
of A Devil's Chaplain. It is not one of Dawkins' best works, not least because it consists of a 
collection of essentially unrelated essays, often so brief as to be quite inadequate to deal properly with the 
questions under consideration. In any case, the book exudes intellectual weariness, as if its author had run 
out of intellectual steam.." (McGrath, A.E.*, "Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life," 
Blackwell: Malden MA, 2005, p.10)

"From the Galileo case, what we really learn is that a man who thinks for himself is apt to get in trouble with 
his other professors and the people who control the funding. The problem was not only with the Catholic 
Church. Galileo's scientific colleagues were also to blame. Of course, at the time, the Catholic Church was the 
ruling intellectual power; the problem was that all the professors of natural science happened to be affiliated 
with the church. But today, the equivalent of the College of Cardinals is not a group of guys in red hats who 
sit in Rome, but the National Academy of Sciences in Washington DC and their equivalent bodies in other 
countries. In other words, these people are the academic elite. And the academic elite is never really in 
favour of freedom of thought. Why? Because the academic elite is the people who get a name for 
themselves by establishing their theories. And so naturally, I guess, they don't want to see them 
overturned. That's the lesson from Galileo." (Hastie, P.*, "Designer genes: Phillip E. Johnson talks to Peter 
Hastie," Australian Presbyterian, October 2001, p.5. Emphasis original)

"H: Why do you think the argument from intelligent design is more compelling, than the argument from 
naturalistic evolution? J: I think it's intuitive. When people see evidence of design, they automatically think 
of a designer. ... By the way, the atheist knows this too. Richard Dawkins says that biology is the study of 
complex things that look as if they were designed for a purpose. He sees it. Francis Crick, another arch-
materialist, says that biologists have to remind themselves constantly that what they study was not created; 
it evolved. You see, if they didn't remind themselves constantly that there is no Designer, then the facts that 
stare them in the face might get their attention. This is exactly what Paul says in Romans 1:18. He tells us 
that God's eternal, invisible attributes, namely His eternal power and majesty, have always been visible in 
the things that are made. I think this is just plain common-sense that everybody recognises. That's why Paul 
goes on to say we are without excuse. The fact is that people know that God is there; they just don't want to 
honour Him as such. And so their foolish minds are darkened. And that's exactly what happens when you 
refuse to acknowledge design in the creation. So what the scientific naturalists have to do is keep design, or 
intelligent design, off the table; Because, once it is on the table, it will inevitably triumph. And the more you 
look at the Darwinian mechanism that's supposed to fill the role of a Creator, the more obvious it is that it 
doesn't have what it takes." (Hastie, P.*, "Designer genes: Phillip E. Johnson talks to Peter Hastie," 
Australian Presbyterian, October 2001, pp.4-8, p.8. Emphasis original)

"On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin's theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I 
regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, 
too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can 
Darwinian theory offer in comparison?" (Berlinski, D., "A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & 
Critics," Commentary, July 8, 2003)

"IN BOTH SCHOLARLY and popular literature one frequently I finds references to `Darwin's theory of 
evolution,' as though it were a unitary entity. In reality, Darwin's `theory' of evolution was a whole bundle of 
theories, and it is impossible to discuss Darwin's evolutionary thought constructively if one does not 
distinguish its various components. ... One particularly cogent reason why Darwinism cannot be a single 
monolithic theory is that organic evolution consists of two essentially independent processes, as we have 
seen: transformation in time and diversification in ecological and geographical space. The two processes 
require a minimum of two entirely independent and very different theories. That writers on Darwin have 
nevertheless almost invariably spoken of the combination of these various theories as `Darwin's theory' in 
the singular is in part Darwin's own doing. He not only referred to the theory of evolution by common 
descent as `my theory,' but he also called the theory of evolution by natural selection `my theory,' as if 
common descent and natural selection were a single theory." (Mayr, E.W., "One Long Argument: Charles 
Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought," Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 
1991, pp.35-36)

"Discrimination among his various theories has not been helped by the fact that Darwin treated speciation 
under natural selection in ... the Origin and that he ascribed many phenomena, particularly those of 
geographic distribution, to natural selection when they were really the consequences of common descent. 
Under the circumstances I consider it necessary to dissect Darwin's conceptual framework of evolution into 
a number of major theories that formed the basis of his evolutionary thinking. For the sake of convenience I 
have partitioned Darwin's evolutionary paradigm into five theories, but of course others might prefer a 
different division. The selected theories are by no means all of Darwin's evolutionary theories; others were, 
for instance, sexual selection, pangenesis, effect of use and disuse, and character divergence. However, 
when later authors referred to Darwin's theory they invariably had a combination of some of the following 
five theories in mind: (1) Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant nor recently 
created nor perpetually cycling but rather is steadily changing and that organisms are transformed in time. 
(2) Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor 
and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a 
single origin of life on earth. (3) Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous 
organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by 
"budding," that is, by the establishment of geographically isolated founder populations that evolve into 
new species. (4) Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual 
change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a 
new type. (5) Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about through the 
abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, 
owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation. 
For Darwin himself these five theories were apparently a unity, and someone might claim that indeed these 
five theories are a logically inseparable package and that Darwin was quite correct in treating them as such. 
This claim, however, is refuted by the fact ... that most evolutionists in the immediate post-1859 period-that 
is, authors who had accepted the first theory- rejected one or several of Darwin's other four theories. This 
shows that the five theories are not one indivisible whole." (Mayr, E.W., "One Long Argument: Charles 
Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought," Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 
1991, pp.36-37)

"The difference is one of complexity of design. Biology is the study of complicated things that give the 
appearance of having been designed for a purpose. Physics is the study of simple things that do not tempt 
us to invoke design. " (Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a 
Universe Without Design," W.W Norton & Co: New York NY, 1986, p.1. Emphasis original)

"Although the idea that the universe has an order that is governed by natural laws that are not immediately 
apparent to the senses is very ancient, it is only in the last three hundred years that we have discovered a 
method for uncovering that hidden order- the scientific-experimental method. So powerful is this method 
that virtually everything scientists know about the natural world comes from it. What they find is that the 
architecture of the universe is indeed built according to invisible universal rules, what I call the cosmic code-
the building code of the Demiurge. Examples of this universal building code are the quantum and relativity 
theory, the laws of chemical combination and molecular structure, the rules that govern protein synthesis 
and how organisms are made, to name but a few. Scientists in discovering this code deciphering the 
Demiurge's hidden message, the tricks he used in creating the universe. No human mind could have 
arranged for any message so flawlessly coherent, so strangely imaginative, and sometimes downright 
bizarre. It must be the work of an Alien Intelligence! ... One of the odd features of the cosmic code is that, as 
far as we can tell, the Demiurge has written himself out of the code-an alien message without evidence of an 
alien. ...Whether God is the message, wrote the message, or whether it wrote itself is unimportant in our 
lives. We can safely drop the traditional idea of a Demiurge, for there is no scientific evidence for a Creator 
of the natural world, no evidence for a will or purpose in nature that goes beyond the known laws of 
nature." (Pagels H.R., "The Dreams of Reason: The Computer and the Rise of the Sciences of Complexity," 
Simon and Schuster: New York NY, 1988, pp.156-157)

"The Problem of Prediction. The third great problem of causality in biology is that of prediction. In the 
classical theory of causality the touchstone of the goodness of a causal explanation was its predictive 
value. This view is still maintained in Bunge's modern classic (1959): `A theory can predict to the extent to 
which it can describe and explain.' It is evident that Bunge is a physicist; no biologist would have made 
such a statement. The theory of natural selection can describe and explain phenomena with considerable 
precision, but it cannot make reliable predictions, except through such trivial and meaningless circular 
statements as, for instance: `The fitter individuals will on the average leave more offspring.' Scriven (1959) 
has emphasized quite correctly that one of the most important contributions to philosophy made by the 
evolutionary theory is that it has demonstrated the independence of explanation and prediction." (Mayr, 
E.W., "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist," [reprint of Mayr, E.W., 
"Cause and effect in biology," Science, Vol. 134, 1961, pp.1501-1506], Harvard University Press: Cambridge 
MA, 1988, pp.31-32)

"PD: ... The question that we have to ask is if the earth was hit by an asteroid tomorrow and everything but 
simple microbes were destroyed and we came back in another 3 or 4 billion years, would we expect to find 
homo sapiens here again. Well, of course not. RD: Of course we wouldn't! PD: No, of course not. But the 
question is would we expect to find any intelligent life and I think most biologists would say no. McK: 
Richard Dawkins, I know you're bursting to say something there. RD: Yes. It is not in my view sensible to 

invoke fundamental laws of physical improvement for the biological improvement of complexity or running 
speed or anything else. If you wiped our life and started again-no, you would not get homo sapiens. I tell 
you what you would get, you would probably get a great diversity of living form . You'd probably get 
plants, animals, you'd probably get parasites, you'd probably get predators, you'd probably get large 
predators, small predators. You might well get flight, you might well get sight. There are all sorts of things 
that you can guess that you might get. You would certainly not get a re-run of what we've got." (McKew 
M., "The Origin of the Universe," Interview with Richard Dawkins & Paul Davies, Lateline, Australian 
Broadcasting Commission, 19 June 1996, in Australian Rationalist, No. 41, Spring 1996, pp.72-73)

"The fact is, of course, that we do not fail when we try to shape evolution by selectively breeding animals 
and plants in captivity, nor do we experience a period of initial difficulty. Animal and plant species are 
usually immediately amenable to selective breeding, and breeders detect no evidence of any intrinsic, anti-
evolution forces. If anything, selective breeders experience difficulty after a number of generations of 
successful selective breeding. This is because after some generations of selective breeding the available 
genetic variation runs out, and we have to wait for new mutations. It is conceivable that coelacanths 
stopped evolving because they stopped mutating - perhaps because they were protected from cosmic rays 
at the bottom of the sea! - but nobody, as far as I know, has seriously suggested this, and in any case this is 
not what punctuationists mean when they talk of species having built-in resistance to evolutionary 
change." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.247)

"To commit the fallacy of equivocation is to allow a key word in an argument to shift its meaning in the 
course of the argument. 'Equivocation is from the Latin for, literally, "equal" (equi) "voice" 
(vox). A word is used univocally if it has the same meaning throughout a given context, equivocally 
if one or more other meanings are equally possible. ...W hen the change in meaning of a key word during an 
argument is especially subtle, the conclusion will seem to follow clearly from the premises and the argument 
will appear considerably more sound than it is. ... The fallacy of equivocation is especially easy to commit 
when a key term in an argument happens to be a figure of speech or a metaphor. By interpreting the 
metaphor literally we sometimes persuade ourselves that an argument is sounder than it is. ...Equivocation is 
not confined to figurative expressions, for the vast majority of our words have more than one meaning, any 
of which can occasion the fallacy. " (Engel, S.M., "With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal 
Fallacies," St. Martin's Press: New York, Fourth Edition, 1990, pp.97-98)

"Recent news accounts about controversies over evolution in Ohio and Georgia have contained references 
to the scientific theory of `intelligent design.' Some advocates of Darwinian evolution try to conflate 
`intelligent design' (ID) with `creationism,' sometimes using the term `intelligent design creationism.' [e.g. 
Pennock R.T., ed., "Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics," MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 2001] In fact, 
intelligent design is quite different from `creationism,' as even some of its critics have acknowledged. 
University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according 
to the Associated Press, he `agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement.' 
Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to identify ID with creationism? According to Numbers, it is 
because they think such claims are `the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.' [Ostling R.N., "Ohio 
School Board Debates Teaching 'Intelligent Design'," The Washington Post, March 14, 2002] In other 
words, the charge that intelligent design is `creationism' is a rhetorical strategy on the part of those who 
wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case." (West, J.G.*, 
"Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same," Discovery Institute-Center for Science and 
Culture: Seattle WA, December 1, 2002)

"Unlike creationism, intelligent design is based on science, not sacred texts. Creationism is focused on 
defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical 
God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic 
regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred 
text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the `apparent design' in 
nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the 
product of chance and mechanical natural laws." (West, J.G.*, "Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't 
the Same," Discovery Institute-Center for Science and Culture: Seattle WA, December 1, 2002)

"Creationists know that intelligent design tis not creationism. The two most prominent creationist 
groups, Answers in Genesis Ministries (AIG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have criticized the 
intelligent design movement (IDM) because design theory, unlike creationism, does not seek to defend the 
Biblical account of creation. AIG specifically complained about IDM's `refusal to identify the Designer with 
the Biblical God' and noted that `philosophically and theologically the leading lights of the ID movement 
form an eclectic group.' Indeed, according to AIG, `many prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to 
Biblical creation, especially the notion of recent creation.' [Wieland, C.*, "AiG's views on the Intelligent 
Design Movement," August 30, 2002] Likewise, ICR has criticized ID for not employing `the Biblical 
method,' concluding that `Design is not enough!' [Morris H.M., "Design is not Enough!", Institute for 
Creation Research, July 1999] Creationist groups like AIG and ICR clearly understand that intelligent design 
is not the same thing as creationism." (West, J.G.*, "Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the 
Same," Discovery Institute-Center for Science and Culture: Seattle WA, December 1, 2002)

"Is creationism the same thing as intelligent design? No, although many critics of Intelligent Design conflate 
the two. Creationism usually refers to the theory or belief that God created the universe and human beings in 
six days as recorded in the Bible's first book, Genesis. In the United States today, some creationists--called 
Young Earth Creationists--accept the Genesis account literally and believe the earth is less than 10,000 years 
old, basing their calculations on the genealogies in the Hebrew scriptures. Young Earth creationists believe 
God created humans directly; humans did not evolve from other species. Others, seeking to reconcile the 
Bible with modern science, believe that each Genesis day may have represented several billion years. (Gerald 
Schroeder, a physicist and Orthodox Jewish scholar, has calculated what the time spans may be.) Intelligent 
design does not posit that the universe was created in six days; it does not contradict the commonly-held 
scientific view that the universe has been in existence for about 15 billion years. ID also does not challenge 
the idea that humans developed over time as a result of evolution. ("FAQs: What Is Intelligent 
Design?," Beliefnet, May 9, 2005)

"What then is Intelligent Design? Intelligent Design begins with the observation that intelligent causes can 
do things which undirected natural causes cannot. Undirected natural causes can place scrabble pieces on a 
board, but cannot arrange the pieces as meaningful words or sentences. To obtain a meaningful 
arrangement requires an intelligent cause. This intuition, that there is a fundamental distinction between 
undirected natural causes on the one hand and intelligent causes on the other, has underlain the design 
arguments of past centuries. ... What has emerged is a new program for scientific research known as 
Intelligent Design. Within biology, Intelligent Design is a theory of biological origins and development. Its 
fundamental claim is that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures 
of biology, and that these causes are empirically detectable. To say intelligent causes are empirically 
detectable is to say there exist well-defined methods that, on the basis of observational features of the 
world, are capable of reliably distinguishing intelligent causes from undirected natural causes. Many special 
sciences have already developed such methods for drawing this distinction-notably forensic science, 
cryptography, archeology, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (as in the movie Contact)." 
(Dembski, W.A.*, "The Intelligent Design Movement," Reprinted from Cosmic Pursuit, Spring 
1998. Access Research Network, November 15, 1998)

"Called intelligent design (ID), to distinguish it from earlier versions of design theory ... this new 
approach is more modest than its predecessors. Rather than trying to infer God's existence or character from 
the natural world, it simply claims `that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-
rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable.'" (Hartwig, M.*, "What is 
Intelligent Design?," Frequently Asked Questions about Intelligent Design, Access Research Network, 

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best 
explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as 
Darwinian evolution." ("Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell," IDEA Center, 2005)

"The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best 
explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a 
scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems 
is an illusion." ("Intelligent Design," Intelligent Design Network, Inc.)

"But what exactly is the theory of intelligent design? Contrary to media reports, intelligent design is not a 
religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins-one that challenges 
strictly materialistic views of evolution. ... the theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale 
features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does 
not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does 
dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected." (Meyer, S.C.*, 
"What is Intelligent Design?," National Post of Canada. December 1, 2005. Discovery Institute News, 
December 18, 2005)

"We see in bone starkly the compromise that any structure, be it natural or produced by humans must 
confront. The compromise is not always the same, but it is always there. In the case of bone, the 
compromise is usually between stiffness and toughness, both qualities that any bone would, were it 
possible, carry to an extreme. But stiffness requires mineral, and mineral produces brittleness. So, too, we 
often see in the design of whole bones answers to problems that an engineer might set the system, say, 
`Produce a structure of least weight that is stiff enough to do such and such.' " (Currey J.D., "Bones: 
Structure and Mechanics," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 2002, p.380)

"Natural selection, which has over the last few hundreds of millions of years produced the bone material and 
bones that we see now, has been able to work only by choosing what happens to survive. This is an 
extraordinarily inefficient way to proceed, but that's all there is; there is no other way." (Currey J.D., "Bones: 
Structure and Mechanics," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 2002, p.380)

"Both estimates indicate that the average human protein is more than 99 percent identical in amino acid 
sequence to its chimpanzee homolog ... the nucleic acid sequence difference of human and chimpanzee DNA 
is about 1.1 percent." (King M.-C. & Wilson A.C., "Evolution at Two Levels in Humans and Chimpanzees," 
Science, 11 April 1975, Vol. 188, p.112)

"Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant conclusion). This is the more subtle of the two tactics, but the effect is 
the same. An irrelevant conclusion gets the focus off of the point to be proved by substituting a related, but 
logically irrelevant, point for it. `Accept this because a loosely associated (but irrelevant) premise is true.' 
The two subjects are similar, but proving one does not say anything about the other. This type of argument 
is a kind of positive guilt by association. It changes the subject by proving a different conclusion (an 
irrelevant one) from the one that needs to be proven." (Geisler, N.L. & Brooks, R.M., "Come, Let Us Reason: 
An Introduction to Logical Thinking," Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, MI, 1990, p.103)

"Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant conclusion). The fallacy of ignoratio elenchi is committed when 
an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion is instead directed to proving a different 
conclusion. ... How do such arguments ever fool anybody? Once it is seen that the conclusion is logically 
irrelevant, why should anyone be misled by it? In the first place, it is not always obvious that a given 
argument is an instance of ignoratio elenchi. ... The other part has to do with the fact that language 
may serve to evoke emotion as well as to communicate information. ... Although every emotional appeal is 
logically irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of one's conclusion, not every case of ignoratio elenchi 
need involve an emotional appeal. An argument may be stated in cold, aseptic, neutral language and still 
commit the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. It does so if its premisses are directed toward a conclusion 
different from the one that is supposed to be established by them." (Copi, I.M., Introduction to Logic," 
[1953], Macmillan: New York, Seventh edition, 1986, pp.103-104)

"The fallacy of irrelevant thesis, therefore, is an argument in which an attempt is made to prove a 
conclusion that is not the one at issue. This fallacy assumes the form of an argument that, while seeming to 
refute another's argument, actually advances a conclusion different from the one at issue in the other's 
argument. Of all the fallacies studied thus far none is potentially more deceptive-or, for that matter, more 
interesting-than irrelevant thesis. This fallacy goes by a variety of names: irrelevant conclusion, ignoring 
the issue, befogging the issue, diversion, and red herring. Red herring may seem a puzzling name. It 
derives from the fact that escapees sometimes smear themselves with a herring (which turns brown or red 
when it spoils) in order to throw dogs off their track. To sway a red herring in an argument is to try to throw 
the audience off the right track onto something not relevant to the issue at hand. The fallacy of irrelevant 
thesis derives its persuasive power from the fact that it often does prove a conclusion or thesis (though not 
the one at issue)." (Engel, S.M., "With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies," St. Martin's 
Press: New York NY, Fourth Edition, 1990, pp.162-163. Emphasis original)

"The Manifold Meanings of `Evolution' ... Darwin's Origin of Species established five major theories 
relating to different aspects of variational evolution: (1) that organisms steadily evolve over time (this we 
might designate as the theory of evolution as such), (2) that different kinds of organisms descended from a 
common ancestor (the theory of common descent), (3) that species multiply over time (the theory of the 
multiplication of species, or speciation), (4) that evolution takes place through the gradual change of 
populations (the theory of gradualism), (5) and that the mechanism of evolution is the competition among 
vast numbers of unique individuals for limited resources, which leads to differences in survival and 
reproduction (the theory of natural selection)." (Mayr, E.W., "This is Biology: The Science of the Living 
World," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1997, Sixth printing, 1998, pp.176-178. Emphasis original)

"I want to be explicit about what I am, and am not, questioning. The word `evolution' carries many 
associations. Usually it means common descent - the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by 
common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains 
similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among 
species." (Behe, M.J.*, "Darwin Under the Microscope," New York Times, October 29, 1996) 

* 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.
would be appreciated.
Created: 1 December, 2005. Updated: 16 April, 2010.