[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [Quotes, Unclassified, Classified]
The following are quotes added to my Unclassified Quotes database in March 2007. The date format is dd/mm/yy.
See copyright conditions at end.
[Index: Jan; Feb (1), (2); Apr; May; Jun; Jul; Aug; Sep; Oct; Nov; Dec]
2/03/2007 "All this makes a much more complex picture of hominoid evolution than we once imagined. It no longer resembles a ladder but is, instead, more like a bush. ... Hominids evolved, as did many other mammal groups, with diverse and overlapping, radiations. There is no clearcut cut and inexorable pathway from ape to human being." (Pilbeam, D., "Rearranging Our Family Tree," Human Nature, June 1978, pp.39-45, pp.44-45. In Morris, H.M.*, "Evolution in Turmoil: An Updated Sequel to The Troubled Waters of Evolution," Creation-Life: San Diego CA, 1982, pp.76-77) 2/03/2007 "Still, doubts about the sequence of man's emergence remain. Scientists concede that even their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments, and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record. Anthropologists, ruefully says Alan Mann of the University of Pennsylvania, "are like the blind men looking at the elephant, each sampling only a small part of the total reality." His colleagues agree that the picture of man's origins is far from complete." (Mann, A., in "Puzzling Out Man's Ascent," TIME, November 7, 1977, p.77 ). 2/03/2007 "The simple idea of evolution, which it is no longer thought necessary to examine, spreads like a tent over all those ages that lead from primitivism into civilization. Gradually, we are told, step by step, men produced the arts and crafts, this and that, until they emerged in the light of history. Those soporific words `gradually' and `step-by-step,' repeated incessantly, are aimed at covering an ignorance which is both vast and surprising. One should like to inquire: Which steps? But then one is lulled, overwhelmed, and stupefied by the gradualness of it all, which is at best a platitude, only good for pacifying the mind, since no one is willing to imagine that civilization appeared in a thunderclap." (de Santillana, G. & von Dechend, H., "Hamlet's Mill," Gambit: Boston, 1969, p.68. In Morris, H.M.*, "Evolution in Turmoil: An Updated Sequel to The Troubled Waters of Evolution," Creation-Life Publishers: San Diego CA, 1982, p.77) 2/03/2007 "The fossil record has been elastic enough, the expectations sufficiently robust, to accommodate almost any story." [Pilbeam, D., "Patterns of Hominoid Evolution," in ,Delson, E., ed., "Ancestors: The Hard Evidence," Alan R. Liss: New York NY, 1985, p.53.. In Lubenow, M.L.*, "Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils," , Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth Printing, 1994, p.182) 2/03/2007 "... in the present state of our knowledge, I do not believe it is possible to fit the known hominid fossils into a reliable pattern." (Leakey, M., "Disclosing the Past: An Autobiography," Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1984, p.214. In Lubenow, M.L.*, "Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils," , Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth Printing, 1994, p.182) 2/03/2007 "The human fossil record is no exception to the general rule that the main lesson to be learned from paleontology is that evolution always takes place somewhere else." (Jones, J.S. & Rouhani, S., "How Small Was the Bottleneck?" Nature, Vol. 319, 6 February 1986, p.449. In Lubenow, M.L.*, "Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils," , Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth Printing, 1994, p.182) 2/03/2007 "So one is forced to conclude that there is no clearcut scientific picture of human evolution." (Martin, R., "Man Is Not An Onion," New Scientist 4, August 1977, p.285. In Lubenow, M.L.*, "Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils," , Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth Printing, 1994, p.182) 3/03/2007 "Interestingly, despite almost a decade of technically sophisticated analyses of australopithecine remains, there is still considerable controversy over their functional and phylogenetic significancein particular whether they are too divergently specialized to be considered suitable ancestors for Homo. (Hopson, J.A. & Radinsky, L.B., "Vertebrate Paleontology: New Approaches and New Insights," Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 3, Summer 1980, pp.250-270, p.263. In Morris, H.M.*, "Evolution in Turmoil: An Updated Sequel to The Troubled Waters of Evolution," Creation-Life Publishers: San Diego CA, 1982, p.78) 3/03/2007 "Although most studies emphasise the similarity of the australopithecines to modern man, and suggest, therefore, that these creatures were bipedal tool-makers at least one form of which (Australopithecus africanus -'Homo habilis', `Homo africanus') was almost directly ancestral to man, a series of multivariate statistical studies of various postcranial fragments suggests other conclusions. Their locomotion may not have been like that of modern man, and may, though including a form or forms of bipedality, have been different enough to allow marked abilities for climbing. Bipedality may have arisen more than once, the Australopithecinae displaying one or more experiments in bipedality that failed. The genus Homo may, in fact, be so ancient as to parallel entirely the genus Australopithecus thus denying the latter a direct place in the human lineage." (Oxnard, C.E., "The place of the australopithecines in human evolution: grounds for doubt?," Nature, Vol. 258, 4 December 1975, pp.389-395, p.389) 3/03/2007 "The uneroded footprints show a total morphological pattern like that seen in modern humans .... Spatial relationships of the footprints are strikingly human in pattern .... The Laetoli hominid trails at site G do not differ substantially from modern human trails made on a similar substrate." (Busse, P.H. & Heikes, K.E., "Evolutionary Implication of Pliocene Hominid Footprints," Science, Vol. 208, April 11, 1980, pp.175-176, p.175. In Morris, H.M.*, "Evolution in Turmoil: An Updated Sequel to The Troubled Waters of Evolution," Creation-Life Publishers: San Diego CA, 1982, pp.79-80) 3/03/2007 "University of Chicago anthropologist Russell Tuttle says that the Laetoli footprints are `virtually human,' that they `do not match the foot bones found in Hadar,' and that, in fact, Lucy's pelvis was `better suited for climbing than for walking.'" (W. Herbert, "Was Lucy a Climber? Dissenting Views of Ancient Bones," Science News, Vol. 122, August 1982, p.116. In Morris, H.M.*, "Evolution in Turmoil: An Updated Sequel to The Troubled Waters of Evolution," Creation-Life Publishers: San Diego CA, 1982, p.80) 3/03/2007 "The basic features of galaxies, stars, planets and the everyday world are essentially determined by a few microphysical constants and by the effects of gravitation. Many interrelations between different scales that at first sight seem surprising are straightforward consequences of simple physical arguments. But several aspects of our Universe-some of which seem to be prerequisites for the evolution of any form of life-depend rather delicately on apparent 'coincidences' among the physical constants." (Carr, B.J. & Rees, M.J., "The anthropic principle and the structure of the physical world," Nature, Vol. 278, 12 April 1979, pp.605-612) 3/03/2007 "BIOLOGY'S understanding of how evolution works, which has long postulated a gradual process of Darwinian natural selection acting on genetic mutations, is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years. At the heart of the revolution is something that might seem a paradox. Recent discoveries have only strengthened Darwin's epochal conclusion that all forms of life evolved from a common ancestor. Genetic analysis, for example, has shown that every organism is governed by the same genetic code controlling the same biochemical processes. At the same time, however, many studies suggest that the origin of species was not the way Darwin suggested or even the way most evolutionists thought after the 1930's and 1940's, when Darwin's ideas were fused with the rediscovered genetics of Gregor Mendel." (Rensberger, B.C., "Recent Studies Spark Revolution in Interpretation of Evolution," The New York Times, 4 November 1980, p.C3. Emphasis original) 3/03/2007 "Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists. Although the debate has been under way for several years, it reached a crescendo last month, as some 150 scientists specializing in evolutionary studies met for four days in Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History to thrash out a variety of new hypotheses that are challenging older ideas. The meeting, which was closed to all but a few observers, included nearly all of the leading evolutionists in paleontology, population genetics, taxonomy (the science of classifying organisms) and related fields. ... No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight." (Rensberger, B.C., "Recent Studies Spark Revolution in Interpretation of Evolution," The New York Times, 4 November 1980, p.C3) 3/03/2007 "At issue during the Chicago meeting was macroevolution, a term that is itself a matter of debate but which generally refers to the evolution of major differences, such as those separating species or larger classifications. Macroevolution, many would agree, is, for example, what made crustaceans different from mollusks. It is the process by which birds and mammals evolved out of reptiles. It is also what gave rise to major evolutionary innovations shared by many groups, such as the flower in higher plants or the eye in vertebrates. Darwin suggested that such major products of evolution were the results of very long periods of gradual natural selection, the mechanism that is widely accepted today as accounting for minor adaptations. These small variations, considered products of microevolution, account for such things as the different varieties of finches Darwin found in the Galapagos Islands. Under human control, or `artificial selection,' microevolution has produced all the varieties of domestic dog, all of which remain members of a single species. Darwin, however, knew he was on shaky ground in extending natural selection to account for differences between major groups of organisms. The fossil record of his day showed no gradual transitions between such groups but he suggested that further fossil discoveries would fill the missing links." (Rensberger, B.C., "Recent Studies Spark Revolution in Interpretation of Evolution," The New York Times, 4 November 1980, p.C3) 3/03/2007 "`The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist,' declared Niles Eldredge, a paleontologist from the American Museum of Natural History in New York. Dr. Eldredge reminded the meeting of what many fossil hunters have recognized as they trace the history of a species through successive layers of ancient sediments. Species simply appear at a given point in geologic time, persist largely unchanged for a few million years and then disappear. There are very few examples - some say none - of one species shading gradually into another. ... Dr. Eldredge, along with Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard University paleontologist, reiterated the hypothesis that new species arise not from gradual changes but in sudden bursts of evolution. As they see it, species remain largely stable for long periods and then suddenly change dramatically. The transition happens so fast, they suggest, that the chance of intermediate forms being fossilized and found is nil. Drs. Eldredge and Gould represent a school of thought called `'punctuated equilibrium,' and although many paleontologists are adherents, many evolutionists from other backgrounds still consider themselves gradualists closer to the traditional Darwinian mold." (Rensberger, B.C., "Recent Studies Spark Revolution in Interpretation of Evolution," The New York Times, 4 November 1980, p.C3. "Eldridge" corrected to "Eldredge") 3/03/2007 "Others who dispute the punctuated equilibrium idea include population geneticists, who breed vast colonies of fruit flies, following the course of mutations to see how they change the species over many generations. After some 40 years of manipulating the evolution of fruit flies, which spawn generations in days, many bizarre changes have been seen, but fruit flies always remain fruit flies. John Maynard Smith of the University of Sussex, England, attempted to bridge one gap between the rival schools. He noted that paleontologists and geneticists have very different perceptions of evolutionary time. Fifty thousand years - a period that Dr. Gould said could easily be considered an instantaneous `punctuation' in his hypothesis - is plenty of time for much gradual change to accumulate in the eyes of a geneticist, Dr. Smith said. Still, Dr. Gould asserted, 50,000 years of change might be only 1 percent of the total time a species existed. If its hard parts remained unchanged for the other 99 percent of a five-million-year existence, he maintained, that stasis was a phenomenon at great variance with the traditional Darwinian view." (Rensberger, B.C., "Recent Studies Spark Revolution in Interpretation of Evolution," The New York Times, 4 November 1980, p.C3) 3/03/2007 "A related controversy involved a kind of inverse of the mystery that originally confronted Darwin. Evolution and natural selection were originally postulated to explain the bewildering diversity of life forms. Nowadays it is seen as an equally great mystery that the diversity is confined within only a few basic types of organisms. As Richard Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist, put it, `Most conceivable organisms don't exist.' Even if one includes all the known extinct species, it is still possible to imagine other forms of life that would seem to be biologically plausible but which are unknown in reality. "Why are there no organisms with wheels?" Dr. Lewontin said, citing what he conceded was a trivial example. More significantly, why are there no six-legged vertebrates? The answers to such questions, many evolutionists felt, might well be tied in with the problem of the origin of species. The classic Darwinian answer is that such things could well arise but only if they improved an organism's ability to flourish in its habitat. The fact that certain conceivable organisms are unknown reflects either the selection bias of the environment or simply the fact that the requisite mutations have never occurred. Most biologists today feel the answer must be more complex or something else entirely. One widely mentioned factor involved constraints inherent in the embryological development of an organism. There appear to be natural laws that govern the way cells assemble themselves into specialized tissues. No one knows what the laws are, but they appear to channel embryological development into certain patterns. Bilateral symmetry may be one pattern that applies to many groups." (Rensberger, B.C., "Recent Studies Spark Revolution in Interpretation of Evolution," The New York Times, 4 November 1980, p.C3) 3/03/2007 "Closely related is the idea that there are macromutations. These are alterations in the genetic message that have unexpectedly large consequences for the organism. Fruit fly breeders have observed mutations that in one step convert eyes to wings, head to genitals or mouth parts to legs. The `misplaced' structures are complete in every detail. Such oddities, according to Stuart A. Kauffman of the University of Pennsylvania, suggest that a single `point mutation' may sometimes trigger a cascade of effects that alter the expression of entire sets of genes. Although most evolutionists reject the idea that new species arise as such one- generation macromutants - sometimes called `hopeful monsters' - many suspect that certain kinds of mutations may indeed cause much larger changes than early geneticists believed possible." (Rensberger, B.C., "Recent Studies Spark Revolution in Interpretation of Evolution," The New York Times, 4 November 1980, p.C3) 3/03/2007 "On this issue, as on several others, evolutionists are in dispute. This is partly caused by the complexity of the processes of life, which involve everything from molecular interactions to the behavior of social groups. It is also the result of so many disciplines being involved since evolution is a factor in every life science. But it also reflects a more fundamental problem - the great difficulty of formulating a testable hypothesis that can resolve some differences. The fact of evolution is well established. But after four days of what Dr. Gould called `a healthy and joyous debate,' there seemed to be little agreement on how anybody could establish with some certainty that it happened one way and not another." (Rensberger, B.C., "Recent Studies Spark Revolution in Interpretation of Evolution," The New York Times, 4 November 1980, p.C3) 3/03/2007 The creativity of evolution How did the glorious complexity of the living world ever come into being? As we examine the molecular mechanisms of life we uncover a baffling array of chemical systems whose integrated intricacy makes us feel we are looking at a masterpiece of purposeful design. Who, or what, was the designer? The dogma of modern biology says that there was no purposeful designer. It says that, like all the molecular mechanisms which sustain life, the creation and continuing diversification of life proceeds automatically, powered by the blind laws of physics and chemistry. The process by which living things give rise to new and often more complex living things has become known as `evolution', and the central working principle of evolution is known as `natural selection'." (Scott, A., "Vital Principles: The Molecular Mechanisms of Life," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1988, p.171) 3/03/2007 "The final conflict (20:7-10) When the thousand years are finished, Satan is released from his prison. Then it becomes very clear that the final and most terrible persecution, by means of which antichristian forces are going to oppress the Church, is instigated, in a most direct manner, by Satan himself. The devil musters Gog and Magog for a final attack upon 'the camp of the saints, the beloved city'. The expression 'Gog and Magog' is borrowed from the book of Ezekiel [Eze 38:2], where the term undoubtedly indicates the power of the Seleucids especially as it was revealed in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, the bitter enemy of the Jews. The centre of his kingdom was located in Northern Syria. Seleucus established his residence there in the city of Antioch on the Orontes. To the east his territory extended beyond the Tigris. To the north the domain over which the Seleucids ruled included Meshech and Tubal, districts in Asia Minor. Accordingly, Gog was the prince of Magog, that is, Syria. Therefore the oppression of God's people by 'Gog and Magog', refers, in Ezekiel, to the terrible persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, ruler of Syria. The book of Revelation uses this period of affliction and woe as a symbol of the final attack of Satan and his hordes upon the Church." (Hendriksen, W.*, "More than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation," , Tyndale Press: London, Reprinted, 1966, p.193) 3/03/2007 "In preparing for my interview with Craig, I had gone to the Internet sites of several atheist organizations to see the kind of arguments they were raising against the Resurrection. For some reason few atheists deal with this topic. However, one critic raised an objection that I wanted to present to Craig. Essentially, he said a major argument against the empty tomb is that none of the disciples or later Christian preachers bothered to point to it. He wrote, `We would expect the early Christian preachers to have said: "You don't believe us? Go look in the tomb yourselves! It's at the corner of Fifth and Main, third sepulcher on the right." Yet, he said, Peter doesn't mention the empty tomb in his preaching in Acts 2. Concluded this critic, `If even the disciples didn't think the empty tomb tradition was any good, why should we?' Craig's eyes widened as I posed the question. `I just don't think that's true,' he replied, a bit of astonishment in his voice, as he picked up his Bible and turned to the second chapter of Acts, which records Peter's sermon at Pentecost. `The empty tomb is found in Peter's speech,' Craig insisted. `He proclaims in verse 24 that `God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death.' `Then he quotes from a psalm about how God would , not allow his Holy One to undergo decay. This had been written by David, and Peter says, `I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day.' But, he says, Christ `was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.' Craig looked up from the Bible. `This speech contrasts David's tomb, which remained to that day, with the prophecy in which David says Christ would be raised up-his flesh wouldn't suffer decay. It's clearly implicit that the tomb was left empty.' Then he turned to a later chapter in the book of Acts. `In Acts 13:29-31, Paul says, `When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead, and for many days he was seen by those who had traveled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. Certainly the empty tomb is implicit there.' He shut his Bible, then added, `I think it's rather wooden and unreasonable to contend that these early preachers didn't refer to the empty tomb, just because they didn't use the two specific words empty tomb. There's no question that they knew-and their audiences understood from their preaching-that Jesus' tomb was vacant." (Strobel, L.P.*, "The Evidence of the Missing Body," in "The Case For Christ: A Journalist's Personal Testimony of the Evidence for Jesus," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1998, pp.294-296. Emphasis original) 3/03/2007 "I had spent the first part of our interview peppering Craig with objections and arguments challenging the empty tomb. But I suddenly realized that I hadn't given him the opportunity to spell out his affirmative case. While he had already alluded to several reasons why he believes Jesus' tomb was unoccupied, I said, `Why don't you give me your best shot? Convince me with your top four or five reasons that the empty tomb is a historical fact.' Craig rose to the challenge. One by one he spelled out his arguments concisely and powerfully. `First,' he said, `the empty tomb is definitely implicit in the early tradition that is passed along by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, which is a very old and reliable source of historical information about Jesus. `Second, the site of Jesus: tomb was known to Christian and Jew alike. So if it weren't empty, it would be impossible for a movement founded on belief in the Resurrection to have come into existence in the same city where this man had been publicly executed and buried. `Third, we can tell from the language, grammar, and style that Mark got his empty tomb story-actually, his whole passion narrative-from an earlier source. In fact, there's evidence it was written before A.D. 37, which is much too early for legend to have seriously corrupted it. `A. N. Sherwin-White, the respected Greco-Roman classical historian from Oxford University, said it would have been without precedent anywhere in history for legend to have grown up that fast and significantly distorted the gospels. `Fourth, there's the simplicity of the empty tomb story in Mark. Fictional apocryphal accounts from the second century contain all kinds of flowery narratives, in which Jesus comes out of the tomb in glory and power, with everybody seeing him, including the priests, Jewish authorities, and Roman guards. Those are the way legends read, but these don't come until generations after the events, which is after eyewitnesses have died off. By contrast, Mark's account of the story of the empty tomb is stark in its simplicity and unadorned by theological reflection. `Fifth, the unanimous testimony that the empty tomb was discovered by women argues for the authenticity of the story, because this would have been embarrassing for the disciples to admit and most certainly would have been covered up if this were a legend. `Sixth, the earliest Jewish polemic presupposes the historicity of the empty tomb. In other words, there was nobody who was claiming that the tomb still contained Jesus' body. The question always was, 'What happened to the body?' `The Jews proposed the ridiculous story that the guards had fallen asleep. Obviously they were grasping at straws. But the point is this: they started with the assumption that the tomb was vacant! Why? Because they knew it was!" (Strobel, L.P.*, "The Evidence of the Missing Body," in "The Case For Christ: A Journalist's Personal Testimony of the Evidence for Jesus," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1998, pp.296-298) 4/03/2007 "It is now rather generally agreed by anthropologists that australopithecines were contemporaries of Homo erectus, even though some believe the latter had evolved from the former. If that is the case, why could not Homo sapiens have where fossils of Homo erectus and Australopithecus were found at the same level. But then he also reminds us of the following discovery, originally noted by his father Louis Leakey, but thereafter mostly ignored. At one locality, remains of a stone structure-perhaps the base of a circular hut-were uncovered; there is an excellent date of 1.8 million years for this. [Leakey, R.E., "Hominids in Africa," American Scientist, March/April 1976, p.177] Now a circular stone hut could hardly have been constructed by anyone but a true human being, but the stratigraphic level of this structure was below the levels of fossils of both Australopithecus and Homo erectus!" (Morris, H.M.*, "Evolution in Turmoil: An Updated Sequel to The Troubled Waters of Evolution," Creation-Life Publishers: San Diego CA, 1982, pp.80-81) 4/03/2007 "What I describe in this book is evidence that evolution is not quite what neatly all of us thought it to be a decade or two ago. This evidence comes largely from the record of fossils--a record that until recently was not well scaled against absolute time. The record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a million or more, without evolving very much. We seem forced to conclude that most evolution takes place rapidly, when species come into being by the evolutionary divergence of small populations from parent species. After their origins, most species undergo little evolution before becoming extinct." (Stanley, S.M., "The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species," Basic Books: New York NY, 1981, p.xv) 4/03/2007 "It is only fair to report that, while this `punctuational' view has displaced the traditional `gradualistic' view in the minds of many evolutionists, there remain dissenters. Among these are some physical anthropologists, who continue to assert that modern humans have evolved by the gradual, persistent modernization of an apelike ancestor. In chapter 7 I offer opposition to this traditional portrayal of our ancestry." (Stanley, S.M., "The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species," Basic Books: New York NY, 1981, p.xv) 4/03/2007 "I also explore the history of the traditional, gradualistic view. Among the most fundamental questions here is why Charles Darwin was a gradualist. I hope that my explanations for Darwin's position will be given due consideration by historians of science, and I do not mean to be critical of Darwin here. For many reasons, he could only have been a gradualist." (Stanley, S.M., "The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species," Basic Books: New York NY, 1981, p.xv) 4/03/2007 "The emergence of the punctuational model of evolution during the past decade has at times caused acrimonious debate. This is an exciting time in the history of evolutionary science, and those of us laboring in this complex discipline can only hope that, during the next few years, important truths will float to the top of our collective crucible without occasioning undue rancor. I do not violate this wish by attacking the biblical creationists in chapter 8 of this book. The fact is, the fundamentalist creationists are parading antiscientific views falsely under a counterfeit banner of science. The recent antievolutionary efforts of the creationists constitute a grievous insult to natural science to astronomy, as well as to geology and biology, and even to physics and chemistry, on which the other three sciences are partly founded. It is, after all, the behavior of atoms that reveals the earth to be more than four billion years old." (Stanley, S.M., "The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species," Basic Books: New York NY, 1981, pp.xv- xvi) 5/03/2007 "During the present century, the idea that adaptive innovations arise by rapid speciation has appeared sporadically in paleontology, without taking hold. Otto Schindewolf (1936, 1950) was a prime mover here, but as described earlier his views were extreme, in part reflecting the influence of DeVries and Goldschmidt. Schindewolf believed that a single Grossmutation could instantaneously yield a form representing a new family or order of animals. This view engendered such visions as the first bird hatching from a reptile egg. However unacceptable his explanations may have seemed, Schindewolf at least confronted the failure of the fossil record to document slow intergradations between higher taxa. As discussed above, Simpson addressed the same problem in 1944 with his less heterodox idea of quantum evolution. In his second book on large-scale evolution, Simpson (1953) cited the work of Schindewolf more frequently than that of any other author, but with strong expressions of disagreement." (Stanley, S.M., "Macroevolution: Pattern and Process," , The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore MD, Reprinted, 1998, p.35) 5/03/2007 "Early in this chapter, it was noted that there has recently been renewed expression of support for the importance in macroevolution of what Goldschmidt (1940) termed the hopeful monster (Frazzetta, 1970; Gould, 1977c; Bush, 1975). Goldschmidt's monster was a single animal that served as the progenitor of a new higher taxon. At least in principle, Goldschmidt accepted Schindewolf's extreme example of the first bird hatching from a reptile egg. The problem with Goldschmidt's radical concept is the low probability that a totally monstrous form will find a mate and produce fertile offspring. For this reason, it may be that the hopeful monster sensu stricto will find no place in the modern punctuational view. In fact, some of the authors who have purported to resurrect the hopeful monster seem actually to be softening Goldschmidt's concept somewhat. The degree of freakishness that is permissible in generational transitions can only be considered in terms of probability. At present, we have no means of rigorously assessing the matter in morphologic terms, but two guidelines seem appropriate: (1) If strange new phenotypic traits emerge in a single individual, they cannot be fixed, even within a small population, if the individual is so bizarre that it cannot find a mate and produce fertile offspring (only after the first generation is inbreeding of bizarre individuals possible). (2) Somewhat more aberrant traits may be fixed, however, if they result from the germinal mutation of a female, but only if her offspring interbreed, a qualification that reduces the probability." (Stanley, S.M., "Macroevolution: Pattern and Process," , The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore MD, Revised, 1998, p.159) 5/03/2007 "The Origin of Differences Between Higher Taxa The second question raised above has more substantive implications than the first. Can the microevolutionary processes studied by population geneticists account for macroevolutionary phenomena or do we need to postulate new kinds of genetic processes? The large morphological (phenotypic) changes observed in evolutionary history, and the rapidity with which they appear in the geological record, is one major matter of concern. Another issue is stasis-the apparent persistence of species, with little or no morphological change, for hundreds of thousands or millions of years. The apparent dilemma is that microevolutionary processes apparently yield small but continuous changes, while macroevolution as seen by punctualists occurs by large and rapid bursts of change followed by long periods without change." (Stebbins, G.L. & Ayala, F.J., "Is a New Evolutionary Synthesis Necessary?" Science, Vol. 213, 28 August 1981, pp.967-971, p.969) 5/03/2007 "Forty years ago Goldschmidt argued that the incompatibility is real: `The decisive step in evolution, the first step towards macroevolution, the step from one species to another, requires another evolutionary method than that of sheer accumulation of micromutations.' [Goldschmidt, R.B., "The Material Basis of Evolution," Yale University Press: New Haven CT, 1940, p.183] The specific solution postulated by Goldschmidt, that is, the occurrence of systemic mutations, yielding hopeful monsters, can be excluded in view of current genetic knowledge, but the issue raised by him deserves attention. Single-gene or chromosome mutations may have large effects on the genotype because they act early in the embryo and their effects become magnified through development. Single-gene -macromutations- have been carefully analyzed, for example, in Drosophila melanogaster mutations such as `bithorax' and the homeotic mutants that transform one body structure, for example, antennae, into another, such as legs. These large effect mutations are not incompatible with the synthetic theory. Whether the kinds of morphological differences that characterize different taxa are due to such `macromutations' or to the accumulation of several mutations with small effect has been examined particularly in plants where fertile interspecific, and even intergeneric, hybrids can be obtained. The results of numerous studies do not support the hypothesis that the establishment of macromutations is necessary for divergence at the macroevolutionary level ... . In animals, even a familial character, the presence of three ocelli in drosophilids, can be changed by artificial selection, demonstrating that a family-distinctive trait can be produced by the accumulation of small mutations present in natural populations ... . Moreover, Lande has convincingly shown that major morphological changes, such as in the number of digits or limbs, can occur in a geologically rapid fashion through the accumulation of mutations each with a small effect ... . In general, the evidence from plants as well as from animals supports Fisher's [Fisher, R.A., "The Genetic Theory of Natural Selection," Clarendon: Oxford, 1930] theoretical argument that the probability of incorporation of a mutation in a population is inversely proportional to the magnitude of the mutation's effect on the phenotype." (Stebbins, G.L. & Ayala, F.J., "Is a New Evolutionary Synthesis Necessary?" Science, Vol. 213, 28 August 1981, pp.967-971, p.969) 5/03/2007 "Nevertheless, rapid phenotypic evolution may be caused by relatively slight genetic changes that affect critical stages of development. ... How often mutations with large phenotypic effects are involved in the origin of new taxa is also an unsolved question. The punctualists' thesis that such mutations may have been largely responsible for macroevolutionary change is based on the rapidity with which morphological discontinuities appear in the fossil record ... . But the alleged evidence they present does not necessarily support the proposition. Microevolutionists and macroevolutionists use different time scales. The `geological instants' during which speciation and morphological shifts occur may involve intervals of the order of 50,000 years. There is little doubt that the gradual accumulation of small-effect mutations may yield sizable morphological changes during periods of that length. Anderson's study of body size in Drosophila pseudoobscura may serve as an example ... . Large populations, derived from a single set of parents, were set up at different temperatures and allowed to evolve on their own. A gradual, genetically determined, change in body size ensued, with flies kept at lower temperature becoming larger than those kept at higher temperatures. After 12 years, the mean size of the flies from the population kept at 16°C had become, when tested under standard conditions, approximately 10 percent greater than the size of the flies from the populations at 27°C; the change of mean value being greater than the standard deviation in size at the time when the tests were made. Assuming ten generations per year, the populations diverged at an average rate of 8 x 10-4 of the mean value per generation." (Stebbins, G.L. & Ayala, F.J., "Is a New Evolutionary Synthesis Necessary?," Science, Vol. 213, 28 August 1981, pp.967-971, p.969) 5/03/2007 "Paleontologists have emphasized the `extraordinary high net rate of evolution that is the hallmark of human phylogeny' [Stanley, S.M., "Macroevolution, Pattern and Process," Freeman: San Francisco, 1979]. Interpreted in terms of the punctualist hypothesis, human phylogeny would have occurred as a succession of jumps, or geologically instantaneous saltations, interspersed by long periods without morphological change. Could these bursts of phenotypic evolution be due to the gradual accumulation of small changes? Consider cranial capacity, the character undergoing the greatest relative amount of change. The fastest rate of net change occurred between 500,000 years ago, when our ancestors were represented by Homo erectus, and 75,000 years ago, when Neanderthal man had acquired a cranial capacity similar to that of modern humans. In the intervening 425,000 years, cranial capacity evolved from about 900 cubic centimeters in Peking man to about 1400 cubic centimeters in Neanderthal people. Let us assume that the increase in brain size occurred in a single burst at the rate observed in Drosophila pseudoobscura of 8 x 10-4 of the mean value per generation. The change from 900 to 1400 cubic centimeters could have taken place in 540 generations or, if we assume 25 years per generation, in 13,500 years. Thirteen thousand years are, of course, a geological instant. Yet, this evolutionary "burst" could have taken place by gradual accumulation of small-effect mutations at rates compatible with those observed in microevolutionary studies ... ." (Stebbins, G.L. & Ayala, F.J., "Is a New Evolutionary Synthesis Necessary?" Science, Vol. 213, 28 August 1981, pp.967-971, pp.969-970) 6/03/2007 "The reorganization required for the origin of the highest categories may seem so great that only "hopeful monsters" will do. here, however, we must consider the size and complexity of the organisms. Such changes would probably have been impossible except in an organism of very small size and simple anatomy. I have recorded more than 100,000 newborn guinea pigs and have seen many hundreds of monsters of diverse sorts, but none were remotely `hopeful,' all having died shortly after birth if not earlier." [Wright, S.G., "Character Change, Speciation, and the higher Taxa," Evolution, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1982, p. 440. In Morris, H.M., "Evolution in Turmoil: An Updated Sequel to The Troubled Waters of Evolution," Creation-Life Publishers: San Diego CA, 1982, p.87) 7/03/2007 "Another example of unnecessary complexity is the blood clotting cascade. When you cut your finger, blood proteins immediately begin to clump together, the wound is soon dammed up, and the cut stops bleeding within five to ten minutes. The initial injury sets off a waterfall of from eight to thirteen separate chemical reactions in two chain reactions, with each chemical transformation giving rise to the next chemical transformation in an orderly sequence. At least thirteen different proteins - coagulation factors - form the normal clotting cascades in humans, and if one of these factors is missing the person can have a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia. The complete blood clotting cascade is quite complex, and an armchair biologist would be hard pressed to predict its details from a priori considerations, from first principles, or from the requirements of the blood clotting system. One of the factors - Hageman Factor or Factor XII - even appears to be unnecessary: those people, who through genetic disorders, develop without any Factor XII do not have bleeding problems; and whales, dolphins and porpoises, which normally do not have any Factor XII, survive injuries quite normally (Katz, M.J., "Templets and the Explanation of Complex Patterns," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1986, p.52) 7/03/2007 "The Ultimate Coincidence Perhaps we should call it the First Coincidence. Or the Last Coincidence. Either would suit, but 'Ultimate' most fits its superlative significance. It's the most important coincidence in our life, in everybody's life; in the life of our planet, our Solar System and our Universe. To begin with, it brought us all together. It's the reason we are. And if ever its felicitous consonance should alter, we won't be around to speculate whether it was a happy accident or part of a grand unified design. Nothing will be around. We're talking about fundamental here; the fundamental physical laws pertaining to the day-to-day running of the Universe. Physicists call them the fundamental constants - things like the masses of atomic particles, the speed of light, the electric charges of electrons, the strength of gravitational force ... They're beginning to realise just how finely balanced they are. One flip of a decimal point either way and things would start to go seriously wrong. Matter wouldn't form, stars wouldn't twinkle, the Universe as we know it wouldn't exist and, if we insist on taking the selfish point of view in the face of such epic, almighty destruction, nor would we." (Plimmer, M. & King, B., "Beyond Coincidence: Stories of Amazing Coincidences and the Mystery and Mathematics that Lie Behind Them," , Allen & Unwin: Crows Nest NSW, Australia, Extended Edition, 2005, p.303. Emphasis & ellipses original) 7/03/2007 "The cosmic harmony that made life possible exists at the mercy of what appear, on the face of it, to be unlikely odds. Who or what decided at the time of the Big Bang that the number of particles created would be one-in-a-billion more than the number of anti-particles, thus rescuing us by the width of a whisker from annihilation long before we even existed (because when matter and anti-matter meet, they cancel each other out)? Who or what decided that the number of matter particles left behind after this oversized game of cosmic swapsy would be exactly the right number to create a gravitational force that balanced the force of expansion and didn't collapse the Universe like a popped balloon? Who decided that the mass of the neutron should be just enough to make the formation of atoms possible? That the nuclear force that holds atomic nuclei together, in the face of their natural electromagnetic desire to repulse each other, should be just strong enough to achieve this, thus enabling the Universe to move beyond a state of almost pure hydrogen? Who made the charge on the proton exactly right for the stars to turn into supernovae? Who fine-tuned the nuclear resonance level for carbon to just delicate enough a degree that it could form, making life, all of which is built on a framework of carbon, possible?" (Plimmer, M. & King, B., "Beyond Coincidence: Stories of Amazing Coincidences and the Mystery and Mathematics that Lie Behind Them," , Allen & Unwin: Crows Nest NSW, Australia, Extended Edition, 2005, pp.303-304) 7/03/2007 "The list goes on. And on. And as it goes on - as each particularly arrayed and significantly defined property, against all the odds, and in spite of billions of alternative possibilities, combines exquisitely, in the right time sequence, at the right speed, weight, mass and ratio, and with every mathematical quality precisely equivalent to a stable universe in which life can exist at all - it adds incrementally in the human mind to a growing sense, depending on which of two antithetical philosophies it chooses to follow, of either supreme and buoyant confidence, or humble terror. The first philosophy says this perfect pattern shows that the Universe is not random; that it is designed and tuned, from the atom up, by some supreme intelligence, especially for the purpose of supporting life. The other says it's a one in a trillion coincidence." (Plimmer, M. & King, B., "Beyond Coincidence: Stories of Amazing Coincidences and the Mystery and Mathematics that Lie Behind Them," , Allen & Unwin: Crows Nest NSW, Australia, Extended Edition, 2005, p.304. Emphasis original) 8/03/2007 "In Down's day, the theory of recapitulation embodied a biologist's best guide for the organization of life into sequences of higher and lower forms. (Both the theory and `ladder approach' to classification that it encouraged are, or should be, defunct today. ... This theory, often expressed by the mouthful `ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,' held that higher animals, in their embryonic development, pass through a series of stages representing, in proper sequence, the adult forms of ancestral, lower creatures. Thus, the human embryo first develops gill slits, like a fish, later a three-chambered heart, like a reptile, still later a mammalian tail. Recapitulation provided a convenient focus for the pervasive racism of white scientists: they looked to the activities of their own children for comparison with normal, adult behavior in lower races." (Gould, S.J., "Dr. Down's Syndrome," in "The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History," , Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1990, pp.135-136) 8/03/2007 "Fetoscopy makes it possible to observe directly the unborn child through a tiny telescope inserted through the uterine wall .... The development of the child- from the union of the partners' cells to birth-has been studied exhaustively. As a result, long-held beliefs have been put to rest. We now know, for instance, that man, in his prenatal stages, does not go through the complete evolution of life- from a primitive single cell to a fishlike creature to man. Today it is known that every step in the fetal developmental process is specifically human." (Schwabenthan, S., "Life Before Birth," Parents, Vol. 54, October 1979, pp. 44-50, p.50. In Morris, H.M.*, "Evolution in Turmoil: An Updated Sequel to The Troubled Waters of Evolution," Creation-Life Publishers: San Diego CA, 1982, pp.96-97) 8/03/2007 "The position of Homo habilis was more contentious. Many people felt that he was an advanced form of Australopithecus africanus and that the term Homo was unjustified, but it seemed to us that his bigger brain and association with a diverse tool kit merited the term. Subsequently, when chimpanzees were discovered to use 'tools' for certain purposes, some doubt was again cast on whether tool making could be used as one of the criteria for Homo. But in my view the objects used by chimpanzees are in a very different category from the stone tools of Homo habilis. They are merely grass stalks and other things modified for their required use by biting or breaking by hand, and cannot be compared to a diverse tool kit requiring considerable manual dexterity to shape each tool to a preconceived pattern." (Leakey, M.D., "Disclosing the Past," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, 1984, p.214) 8/03/2007 "Many of my colleagues expend a great deal of time and mental energy in reconstructing trees of hominid evolution. They juggle with Miocene apes, the various australopithecines, and with types of early Homo, sometimes making a simple evolutionary pattern and sometimes ones that are extremely complex. It is good fun, and an entertaining pastime if not taken too seriously, but in the present state of our knowledge I do not believe it is possible to fit the known hominid fossils into a reliable pattern. There are too many gaps, and some of the specimens are not sufficiently well dated for their position to be determined with accuracy. Added to this there is the matter of nomenclature. Given an entire skull it is likely that most anatomists and anthropologists would agree on what type of being it represented, but with incomplete specimens, sometimes mere scraps of bones or a few teeth, the position is very different. Moreover, the circumstances attending the discovery of many fossil hominids have often been far from ideal. Some have been surface finds that have been attributed to the deposits on which they were found without sufficient emphasis being given to the possibility that they might have been derived from another level and therefore not be of the age claimed for them. If there were more specimens to fill the gaps, and better-documented evidence, there would certainly be much closer agreement about the evolutionary pattern. Needless to say, on my lecture tours I am often asked to express my opinion, but I invariably decline. My reply is that we require a great deal more evidence before we can hope to formulate a reliable reconstruction. We do not know, for example, whether some of the fossils we have are in the main line of hominid evolution or relics of unsuccessful side branches like the robust australopithecines. This factor alone is of vital importance in arriving at a correct solution. For the present we would do well to concentrate on discovering new, firmly dated specimens and spend less time in putting forward our own, personal interpretations." (Leakey, M.D., "Disclosing the Past," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, 1984, pp.214-215) 8/03/2007 "The extent of the universe's fine-tuning makes the Anthropic Principle perhaps the most powerful argument for the existence of God. It's not that there are just a few broadly defined constants that may have resulted by chance. No, there are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an intelligent Designer. [Ross, H.N.*, "Why I Believe in Divine Creation," in Geisler, N.L. & Hoffman, P., eds., "Why I Am a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 2001] We've already identified five of them. Here are ten more: 1. If the centrifugal force of planetary movements did not precisely balance the gravitational forces, nothing could be held in orbit around the sun. 2. If the universe had expanded at a rate one millionth more slowly than it did, expansion would have stopped, and the universe would have collapsed on itself before any stars had formed. If it had expanded faster, then no galaxies would have formed. 3. Any of the laws of physics can be described as a function of the velocity of light (now defined to be 299,792,458 meters per second). Even a slight variation in the speed of light would alter the other constants and preclude the possibility of life on earth. 4. If water vapor levels in the atmosphere were greater than they are now, a runaway greenhouse effect would cause temperatures to rise too high for human life; if they were less, an insufficient greenhouse effect would make the earth too cold to support human life. 5. If Jupiter were not in its current orbit, the earth would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter's gravitational field acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that might otherwise strike earth. 6. If the thickness of the earth's crust were greater, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life. If it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make life impossible. 7. If the rotation of the earth took longer than twenty-four hours, temperature differences would be too great between night and day. If the rotation period were shorter, atmospheric wind velocities would be too great. 8. The 23-degree axil [sic] tilt of the earth is just right. If the tilt were altered slightly, surface temperatures would be too extreme on earth. 9. If the atmospheric discharge (lightning) rate were greater, there would be too much fire destruction; if it were less, there would be too little nitrogen fixing in the soil. 10. If there were more seismic activity, much more life would be lost; if there was less, nutrients on the ocean floors and in river runoff would not be cycled back to the continents through tectonic uplift. (Yes, even earthquakes are necessary to sustain life as we know it!) Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has calculated the probability that these and other constants-122 in all-would exist today for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e., without divine design). Assuming there are 1022 planets in the universe (a very large number: 1 with 22 zeros following it), his answer is shocking: one chance in 10138-that's one chance in one with 138 zeros after it! 6 There are only 1070 atoms in the entire universe. In effect, there is zero chance that any planet in the universe would have the life-supporting conditions we have, unless there is an intelligent Designer behind it all." (Geisler, N.L.* & Turek; F.*, "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist," Crossway Books: Wheaton IL, 2004, pp.104-106. Emphasis original) 9/03/2007 "Hitler believed in struggle as a Darwinian principle of human life that forced every people to try to dominate all others; without struggle they would rot and perish ... Even in his defeat in April 1945 Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the stronger and declared the Slavic peoples to have proven themselves the stronger. (Hoffman, P., "Hitler's Personal Security: : Protecting the Führer, 1921-1945," Pergamon Press: London, 1979, p.264. In Morris, H.M.*, "Evolution in Turmoil: An Updated Sequel to The Troubled Waters of Evolution," Creation-Life Publishers: San Diego CA, 1982, p.98) 9/03/2007 "Why do creationists seem to be the consistent winners in public debates with evolutionists? ... we biologists are our own worst enemies in the creationist-evolutionist controversies. We must no longer duck this and other issues related to biology and human affairs, and when we do face them we must think clearly and express ourselves accordingly. We may still not be consistent winners in the creationist-evolutionist debates, but let the losses that occur be attributable to other than lapses in professional standards." (Dubay, D., "Evolution/Creation Debate," Bioscience, Vol. 30, January 1980, pp.4-5. In Morris, H.M.*, "Evolution in Turmoil: An Updated Sequel to The Troubled Waters of Evolution," Creation-Life Publishers: San Diego CA, 1982, p.118) 9/03/2007 "Ideally, prebiotic chemists should imitate the conditions of the early Earth as best they can in their laboratory, then step aside and observe what happens. What they have done instead is attempt a total synthesis of RNA, in the style I have just described. One early target for synthesis, for example, is adenosine, a combination of the sugar ribose with the base adenine. ... ribose can be prepared by heating formaldehyde, usually in alkali. Unfortunately, the mixture produced is a total mess. You get some ribose, but in small amounts along with scores of closely related substances. The same is true for adenine production from solutions of cyanide; hordes of products are produced. Prebiotic chemists, however, then take pure adenine and heat it with pure ribose under a new set of conditions. The reaction goes poorly, but some adenosine may be produced. This result qualifies as a prebiotic synthesis of adenosine. It is now legitimate to use high concentrations of pure adenosine for the next step. Adenine, ribose, and adenosine have been used as a relay, a tactic that is permissible in total synthesis but ludicrous as a model for our early planet. It would be much more realistic to heat together the entire formaldehyde and cyanide products, which would furnish the mother of all messes. Better yet, the chemist should simply mix the cyanide and formaldehyde starting materials. But we know what happens in that case; the two substances have a great affinity for each other and their reaction takes off in a direction that bears no resemblance to life as we know it. This example does not represent an isolated lapse. If one digs into the literature behind almost any of the prebiotic claims that buttress RNA world, one finds no greater degree of merit." (Shapiro, R., "Planetary Dreams: The Quest to Discover Life beyond Earth," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1999, p.111) 9/03/2007 "Miller's Lagoon The news reached me first at home as I read my New York Times on Independence Day, 1996. The headline proclaimed, `Chemist Adds Missing Pieces to Theory on Life's Origins,' while the subhead added, `All four chemical bases of RNA can arise in nature.' A box associated with the article echoed the message: `It is now known that all four components of RNA can be produced by natural processes on the face of the earth, a finding that has profound implications for scientists' thinking about the origins of life.' ... My attention had certainly been caught. I had just published a review about the `prebiotic' claims for adenine, one of the four RNA bases. I had come to the conclusion that only traces of it, at best, would be found on our planet before life began. ... There was no new information about adenine, however. The New York Times account announced a new `prebiotic' synthesis for two other RNA bases, cytosine and uracil: `Both substances might have been produced by the lifeless young oceans in ample quantities by a process involving the evaporation of sea water in tropical lagoons, the freezing of sea water in polar regions and the mixing of their products in the open ocean.... The evaporative part of the process, Dr. Miller said, could have concentrated the traces of urea that accumulate in sea water as a result of reactions in the atmosphere caused by lightning flashes.' ... Had a vexing problem in the origin of life been solved so readily? .... My conclusions, which were highly pessimistic, have been sent to an appropriate journal ... Miller and Robertson did not experiment with lagoon simulations, however. They ran their reactions in the laboratory using pure, concentrated chemicals and sought the highest possible yield by varying the conditions." (Shapiro, R., "Planetary Dreams: The Quest to Discover Life beyond Earth," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1999, pp.111-113. Emphasis original) 9/03/2007 "To start, I questioned first why lagoons were required. Most descriptions of the prebiotic soup have allowed it to cover the globe. Why not assume that the reaction took place in open ocean? Unfortunately, this would not work. Miller himself and other scientists have calculated that concentrations of most chemicals in the ocean would be very low. Urea is ... produced only in modest amounts by lightning spark discharges. We would not expect much of it to accumulate on a global basis. For the new reaction to succeed, we need very high concentrations of urea. To get them, we would need to evaporate an amount of ocean water sufficient to fill a pond down to the size of a bathtub, concentrating it to one-millionth of its initial volume. The concept of drying lagoons comes immediately to mind. ... " (Shapiro, R., "Planetary Dreams: The Quest to Discover Life beyond Earth," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1999, p.113) 9/03/2007 "One advantage of urea is its great solubility, which would protect it from this fate. But this benefit was counterbalanced by a disadvantage. Urea is unstable over long time periods, forming ammonia and carbon dioxide. ... If the evaporation of the lagoon went slowly, and was occasionally reversed by rain and the incursion of rivers, all would be lost. The synthesis would require a very broad, shallow lagoon, in a very arid and rainless climate, with continuous winds to speed the evaporation. If partial evaporation could take place under such circumstances, why didn't it go further to provide the extreme concentration needed for the reaction? One reason was that the rate of fluid loss slowed as the liquid grew more thick. But also, as the liquid grew more dense, its level simply sank below the sandy floor of the lagoon, protecting it from further evaporation. We have to specify further that the lagoon have a rocky, impermeable floor rather than a porous one. There are no data on the occurrence of such lagoons today, but since little is known about the early Earth, we can imagine one there. ... But my reading led me to another hazard in the evaporative process. ... the simple amino acid, glycine, reacts with urea more quickly than the chemical that forms cytosine. If glycine were present in the lagoon, then, it would spoil the pudding. But would it be there? The answer would definitely be yes, if we are stocking our ocean by the product of lightning storms. Amino acids were the most prominent products of the Miller-Urey electric spark experiment. So interference by glycine appears a formidable roadblock, until prebiotic chemists devise some way to produce urea without glycine." (Shapiro, R., "Planetary Dreams: The Quest to Discover Life beyond Earth," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1999, pp.114-115) 9/03/2007 "We have concentrated our glycine-free urea solution in just a few years and are ready for the reaction. How much time will we need to carry it out? That will depend on the actual circumstances. If we assume a nice summer temperature of about 30°C (88°F), and fairly concentrated urea, it might take twenty-five years to get a good deal of reaction. This is much longer than the time permitted for rapid concentration. If our bathtub full of solution were spread over a large area, it would almost certainly dry up completely, killing the reaction. But a few modifications to the lagoon should alter that. We can give the lagoon a gentle slope draining toward the center, with a small crevasse or pocket to hold the final fluid. But now we need the other partner, to combine with the urea. The partner's name, cyanoacetaldehyde, was furnished previously, but for the sake of the readers, I will call it CAT for short. The Miller and Robertson paper implied that CAT had been waiting patiently alongside the urea as the evaporation proceeded. In the New York Times article, CAT was called `another quite common component of sea water that also owes its formation partly to lightning bolts.' But I knew of no reference documenting that fact. My own search on CAT turned up some other alarming news about its behavior, however: It more resembles a prowling tiger than a sleeping kitten. It pounces avidly on almost every type of molecule that might inhabit a primordial soup: cyanide, amines, sulfur compounds, you name it. If deprived of any prey, it self-destructs. At the temperature we mentioned previously, half of it would be gone in thirty years (another reason why the evaporation has to be run quickly). For CAT to be common, some source must be pouring it into the oceans at a substantial rate. I turned to the Nature article for instruction. This document only stated, however, that CAT came from the reaction of another substance, cyanoacetylene (I will call it CECIL), with water, and referred me to another paper. I learned that CAT is a tame pussy compared to CECIL. The latter can be produced in spark discharge experiments but reacts very rapidly with the other products. To demonstrate the production of CECIL at all, you need to use a special atmosphere unlike those proposed for the early Earth. We can flag this as another problem, but we will assume that CECIL got into the lagoon somehow, and cytosine was made. We can check off the successful preparation of another raw material needed for RNA world." (Shapiro, R., "Planetary Dreams: The Quest to Discover Life beyond Earth," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1999, pp.115-116. Emphasis original) 9/03/2007 "But we have barely begun the job of creating RNA. Our cytosine supply, which we have left sitting in a crevasse in a rock, must return to the sea so that it can meet the other components. Furthermore, this liaison must take place within a limited period of time. When it is left alone in water, cytosine selfdestructs in a reaction that was discovered in my own laboratory some years ago. At room temperature, half of it will be gone in 300 years. To avoid this problem, we will specify that an earthquake ruptures the barrier and floods the lagoon basin soon after the cytosine has been prepared. A batch of cytosine has been prepared and released into the sea in a warm temperate area. Other RNA components, according to the New York Times article, were prepared in polar regions. Each of them would diffuse out into the oceans that covered the planet, and there is a danger that the various pieces of RNA would simply get lost in that huge volume. We would need to produce much more cytosine if we need to stock the entire ocean with a sufficient concentration of it. But a calculation showed me that even if we lined all of the oceans of the Earth with Miller-type lagoons and had them churning out cytosine continually on a batchwise basis, we could not produce enough for that purpose. Fortunately, other prebiotic chemists have tackled that problem. They have abolished the ocean model of the soup and replaced it with a plan for the early Earth in which the various tasks needed for RNA construction are placed in separate locations that are conveniently close to one another. One such illustration placed a glacier, a lava flow, hot springs, a pond formed by a soft comet impact, a lake named for Charles Darwin, and several other features in the same environment, as an aurora flickered overhead. Such a combination hardly seems common or likely, but we are compelled to adopt it if we maintain that pathways to RNA must have existed on the early Earth." (Shapiro, R., "Planetary Dreams: The Quest to Discover Life beyond Earth," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1999, p.116) 10/03/2007 "Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!" (Bozarth, G.R., "The Meaning of Evolution," American Atheist, February 1978, pp.19, 30, p.30. In Morris, H.M.*, "That Their Words May Be Used Against Them: Quotes from Evolutionists Useful for Creationists," Master Books: Green Forest AR, 1997, p.375) 10/03/2007 "After the general Darwinian theory of the evolution of prehuman life was accepted, there were many poorly thought-out attempts to apply pure Darwinian ideas to human affairs: the struggle for existence, for instance, must be a good thing; therefore, highly competitive economic systems were good, war was good, and so on. At one time, even child labor was justified on such grounds. But the more one looks into it, the clearer it becomes that man does not operate primarily by natural selection, because he has a new method for evolving. Man is able to transmit the results of his experience, his knowledge, his ideas, cumulatively from generation to generation, which no animal can do. So human evolution occurs primarily in the realm of ideas and their results-in what anthropologists call culture-with natural selection playing a minor role, so that evolution proceeds much faster and is not always related merely to survival. (Huxley, J.S., "At Random: A Television Preview," in Tax, S. & Callender, C., eds., "Evolution After Darwin: Issues in Evolution," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Vol. III, 1960, p.45. Emphasis original) 10/03/2007 "Darwinism has come of age, so to speak. We are no longer having to bother about establishing the fact of evolution, and we know that natural selection is the major factor causing evolutionary change. Our problems now concern working out in detail how natural selection operates, defining what we mean by `increase of organization,' tracing the general trends that appear in the course of evolution, and so on." (Huxley, J.S., "At Random": A Television Preview," in Tax, S. & Callender, C., eds., "Evolution After Darwin: Issues in Evolution," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Vol. III, 1960, p.45) 10/03/2007 "Of course, the most striking phenomenon in biological evolution is the emergence of mind out of an apparently mindless universe. ... I should like to stress this fundamental point: the real nub of evolution, the aspect which is still the most mysterious, is the fact of subjective experience, which is assuming increasing importance." (Huxley, J.S., "`At Random': A Television Preview," in Tax, S. & Callender, C., eds., "Evolution After Darwin: Issues in Evolution," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Vol. III, 1960, pp.45,48) 10/03/2007 "Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion. Before Darwin, people like Paley with his famous Evidences could point to the human hand or eye and say: `This organ is beautifully adapted; it has obviously been designed for its purpose; design means a designer; and therefore there must have been a supernatural designer.' Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any known form of life, there was no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution." (Huxley, J.S., "`At Random': A Television Preview," in Tax, S. & Callender, C., eds., "Evolution After Darwin: Issues in Evolution," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Vol. III, 1960, pp.45-46) 10/03/2007 "There was no sudden moment during evolutionary history when `spirit' was instilled into life, any more than there was a single moment when it was instilled into you. I know that certain theological doctrines say it is suddenly pumped into the human embryo at-isn't it the third month?-but that is a completely arbitrary theological postulate. I think we can dismiss entirely all idea of a supernatural overriding mind being responsible for the evolutionary process." (Huxley, J.S., "`At Random': A Television Preview," in Tax, S. & Callender, C., eds., "Evolution After Darwin: Issues in Evolution," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Vol. III, 1960, p.46) 10/03/2007 "I am an atheist, in the only correct sense, that I don't believe in the existence of a supernatural being who influences natural events. ... . At present, the fundamental barrier between most theologians and most scientists is that scientists see no evidence of a supernatural agency interfering with the course of nature, or any need to postulate one." (Huxley, J.S., "`At Random': A Television Preview," in Tax, S. & Callender, C., eds., "Evolution After Darwin: Issues in Evolution," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Vol. III, 1960, pp.46,48) 10/03/2007 "This morning I was talking about religion in an age of science. This religion would suit you very nicely, Julian, because it gets away from superstition and miracles. Science can strengthen religion, and not upset it. There is no need of that. I've learned from anthropologists that every primitive tribe, without exception, has a religion. They thought one group up the Orinoco was without religion, but that has been checked, and it was a misunderstanding. So religious belief is built into us as part of a reaction against mysteries we can't solve easily. To make ourselves comfortable, we turn to miracles and the supernatural.." (Shapley, H., "`At Random': A Television Preview," in Tax, S. & Callender, C., eds., "Evolution After Darwin: Issues in Evolution," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Vol. III, 1960, p.48) 10/03/2007 "Evolution encompasses changes of vastly different scales - from something as insignificant as an increase in the frequency of the gene for dark wings in beetles from one generation to the next, to something as grand as the evolution and radiation of the dinosaur lineage. These two extremes represent classic examples of micro- and macroevolution. Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change." ("Evolution at different scales: micro to macro," Understanding Evolution, University of California, Berkeley) 10/03/2007 "Gould vs. Johnson: The Campion Debate Just fourteen months after the Berkeley colloquium, Phillip Johnson's plane began its descent into Logan Airport in Boston, carrying him on a collision course with Stephen Jay Gould. In a matter of hours Johnson would be meeting the prestigious Harvard evolutionist for the first time at a private gathering of experts called together to discuss the problem of `Science and Creationism in Public Schools.' ... What he did not quite expect was the ferocious attack and intense duel that would break out. Gould had already established his reputation as one of the twentieth century's most prolific masters of scientific prose and was undoubtedly America's most popular and widely read spokesperson for evolution. ... On Saturday morning as the participants were gathering for the second session, Johnson and Gould met briefly. Their chat was polite, but Gould signaled to Johnson that, having read the material shipped from Berkeley, his response to Johnson was going to be an urgent polemic. He told Johnson, `You're a creationist, and I've got to stop you.' As the morning session got underway, Johnson was first given an opportunity to summarize the gist of his Berkeley paper and the much shorter `Campion Summary.' For over an hour Johnson reviewed point after point of his thesis. Near the end of his presentation, paleontologist David Raup briefly interjected his own evaluation of Johnson's work. He said that he had read the Berkeley paper and had even distributed it and discussed it with his students in one of his graduate seminars at the University of Chicago. Raup said he and his students agreed that Johnson's scholarship was fully accurate in its scientific detail and contained a clear understanding of macroevolution's anomalies and empirical gaps. In fact, said Raup, the various lines of evidence for Darwinian macroevolution were not nearly as strong as one would hope. The key point was clear-Raup had briefly but unmistakably certified the empirical quality of Johnson's critique. At this point, Gould immediately seized the floor and `donned the mantle of Darwin.' Displaying agitation in voice and shaking bodily, he began to set the record straight. In what one observer described as an `obliteration attack,' Gould started pelting Johnson's thesis with vehement criticisms. Oddly, Gould argued that there is plenty of scientific evidence in the fossil record for Darwinian evolution and cited a number of fossil series that allegedly supported the validity of step-by-step Darwinian macroevolution. On this point, Gould was clearly backing away from the critical stance that had made him famous-that gradualistic neo-Darwinism was incapable of accounting for the rarity of transitional fossils. On the contrary Gould implied that the branches of evolutionary trees could be reasonably traced in the fossil record. Very early in the attack, Johnson stepped in with strong rebuttals of a number of Gould's points, and immediately the two were engaged in a furiously paced seesaw debate that lasted for nearly an hour before a spellbound audience. The rhetorical purpose of Gould was clear-to so bury Johnson's criticism in a torrent of contrary evidence that the net effect would be to illegitimize both the logos and ethos of Johnson's critique while defending classic neo-Darwinism. However ... many felt the emotional intensity of Gould's all-out attack clashed with the spirit of the meeting and somewhat undermined his credibility. ... In the final analysis, many who attended described the private debate as a draw." (Woodward, T.E., "Doubts about Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 2003, pp.79,82-83. Emphasis original) 10/03/2007 "In this early stage of circulating copies of his paper to wider circles of scientific critics, there looms one other huge milestone: the private 1989 meeting of a dozen scholars at the Campion Center in Boston. Again, for details I will refer the reader to chapter four of Doubts About Darwin, but one highlight stands out: an impromptu debate with Stephen Jay Gould. To appreciate the debate, one must grasp the surprising (though quiet) certification of empirical accuracy that immediately preceded it. The unexpected defender of Johnson here, shortly before the debate erupted, was David Raup, a well-known evolutionary paleontologist with a reputation of brutal honesty about empirical gaps in the neo-Darwinian scenario. Raup had already read Johnson's original Berkeley paper and had used it in a graduate seminar at the University of Chicago. He and his students had found no factual errors as they reviewed the paper. As an open-minded scientist, he came to respect Johnson's scholarship, although he was not persuaded to abandon hope that evolutionary explanations would ultimately be found for the nagging anomalies. ... Raup's interjection seems to have provoked his long-time friend Stephen Jay Gould to launch a verbally intense, argumentative assault on Johnson. His line of argument, in effect, retreated from his previous outspoken criticism of evolutionary gradualism, into a defense of classic neo-Darwinism. This surprised several in the audience. Yet Johnson was not surprised at the attack. Gould had told him that morning after shaking hands, `You're a creationist, and I've got to stop you.'" (Woodward, T.E., "Putting Darwin on Trial: Phillip Johnson Transforms the Evolutionary Narrative," in Dembski, W.A., ed., "Darwin's Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2000, pp.64-65. Emphasis original) 10/03/2007 "Our confidence in the fact of evolution rests upon copious data that fall, roughly, into three great classes. First, we have the direct evidence of small-scale changes in controlled laboratory experiments of the past hundred years (on bacteria, on almost every measurable property of the fruit fly Drosophila), or observed in nature (color changes in moth wings, development of metal tolerance in plants growing near industrial waste heaps), or produced during a few thousand years of human breeding and agriculture. Creationists can scarcely ignore this evidence, so they respond by arguing that God permits limited modification within created types, but that you can never change a cat into a dog (who ever said that you could, or that nature did?)." (Gould, S.J., "Darwinism Defined: The Difference Between Fact and Theory," Discover, January 1987, pp.64-70, pp.65,68) 10/03/2007 "Second, we have direct evidence for large-scale changes, based upon sequences in the fossil record. The nature of this evidence is often misunderstood by non-professionals who view evolution as a simple ladder of progress, and therefore expect a linear array of `missing links.' But evolution is a copiously branching bush, not a ladder. Since our fossil record is so imperfect, we can't hope to find evidence for every tiny twiglet. (Sometimes, in rapidly evolving lineages of abundant organisms restricted to a small area and entombed in sediments with an excellent fossil record, we do discover an entire little bush-but such examples are as rare as they are precious.) ... In other words, we usually find sequences of structural intermediates, not linear arrays of ancestors and descendants. Such sequences provide superb examples of temporally ordered evolutionary trends. Consider the evidence for human evolution in Africa. What more could you ask from a record of rare creatures living in terrestrial environments that provide poor opportunity for fossilization? We have a temporal sequence displaying clear trends in a suite of features, including threefold increase of brain size and corresponding decrease of jaws and teeth. (We are missing direct evidence for an earlier transition to upright posture, but wide-ranging and unstudied sediments of the right age have been found in East Africa, and we have an excellent chance to fill in this part of our story.) What alternative can we suggest to evolution? Would God-for some inscrutable reason, or merely to test our faith- --create five species, one after the other (Australopithecus afarensis, A. africanus, Homo habilis, H. erectus, and H. sapiens), to mimic a continuous trend of evolutionary change?" (Gould, S.J., "Darwinism Defined: The Difference Between Fact and Theory," Discover, January 1987, pp.64-70, p.68) 10/03/2007 "Or, consider another example with evidence of structurally intermediate stages-the transition from reptiles to mammals. The lower jaw of mammals contains but a single bone, the dentary. Reptiles build their lower jaws of several bones. In perhaps the most fascinating of those quirky changes in function that mark pathways of evolution, the two bones articulating the upper and lower jaws of reptiles migrate to the middle ear and become the malleus and incus (hammer and anvil) of mammals. Creationists, ignorant of hard evidence in the fossil record, scoff at this tale. How could jaw bones become ear bones, they ask. What happened in between? An animal can't work with a jaw half disarticulated during the stressful time of transition. ', The fossil record provides a direct answer. In an excellent series of temporally ordered structural intermediates, the reptilian dentary gets larger and larger, pushing back as the other bones of a reptile's lower jaw decrease in size. We've even found a transitional form with an elegant solution to the problem of remaking jaw bones into ear bones. This creature has a double articulation-one between the two bones that become the mammalian hammer and anvil (the old reptilian joint), and a second between the squamosal and dentary bones (the modern mammalian condition). With this built-in redundancy, the emerging mammals could abandon one connection by moving two bones into the ear, while retaining the second linkage, which becomes the sole articulation of modern mammals." (Gould, S.J., "Darwinism Defined: The Difference Between Fact and Theory," Discover, January 1987, pp.64-70, p.68) 10/03/2007 "Third, and most persuasive in its ubiquity, we have the signs of history preserved within every organism, every ecosystem, and every pattern of biogeographic distribution, by those pervasive quirks, oddities, and imperfections that record pathways of historical descent. These evidences are indirect, since we are viewing modern results, not the processes that caused them, but what else can we make of the pervasive pattern? Why does our body, from the bones of our back to the musculature of our belly, display the vestiges of an arrangement better suited for quadrupedal life if we aren't the descendants of four-footed creatures? Why do the plants and animals of the Galapagos so closely resemble, but differ slightly from, the creatures of Ecuador, the nearest bit of land 600 miles to the east, especially when cool oceanic currents and volcanic substrate make the Galapagos such a different environment from Ecuador (thus removing the potential argument that God makes the best creatures for each place, and small differences only reflect a minimal disparity of environments)? These similarities can only mean that Ecuadorian creatures colonized the Galapagos and then diverged by a natural process of evolution." (Gould, S.J., "Darwinism Defined: The Difference Between Fact and Theory," Discover, January 1987, pp.64-70, p.68) 15/03/2007 "In fact, most people mistakenly believe that the creation account in Genesis is directly antithetical to the theory of evolution by natural selection, but this simply isn't the case. The opposite of evolution is most definitely not the six-day creation story in Genesis; it is an instantaneous creation by fiat that takes no time at all. On this view, any type of stepwise creation event that takes more than a split second is itself `evolutionary' by its very nature, since evolution by its very nature is merely `change with respect to time.' This being the case, the Genesis account turns out to be just as `evolutionary' as modern Darwinian theory, insofar as it describes a stepwise process of creation that took place in six major stages or `days.' Thus, the true issue here isn't the character or number of evolutionary stages that led to humanity. It is whether or not a larger Designer was actually involved in the evolutionary process. And since most people (including most scientists) mistakenly associate atheism with evolution and God with Genesis, they can't seem to fathom that the biblical creation account could itself be evolutionary in nature, just as they also find it hard to believe that God could ever be the cause of the evolutionary process itself." (Corey, M.A.*, "The God Hypothesis: Discovering Design in Our `Just Right' Goldilocks Universe," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, 2001, p.22) 15/03/2007 "A similar rationale can also be applied to the common belief that humans descended from apes. Most religious individuals are deeply offended by such rhetoric, but the Bible itself tells us that God created humans out of the moistened dust of the earth (which is mud), and surely mud is much lower on the ontological scale of being than any ape! Accordingly, the true question that is at issue here isn't the underlying medium that we were created out of, but whether or not God had anything to do with it. If God is involved, it doesn't seem to matter what He fashioned us out of, but if God is left out of the equation, many people will tend to be offended even if we're told that humans descended from a superhuman race of extraterrestrials." (Corey, M.A.*, "The God Hypothesis: Discovering Design in Our `Just Right' Goldilocks Universe," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, 2001, p.22. Emphasis original) 15/03/2007 "What we're finding is that many of the historical facts of science have been skewed in favor of a nontheistic view of reality. The unsuspecting student of science isn't generally told that the modern scientific movement was initially founded by devout believers or that there can be no such thing as natural laws without a Divine Lawgiver to create them. Instead, he or she is quietly duped into believing that scientific truth has nothing at all to do with the existence of a Divine Creator. For the most part, this subtle form of brainwashing has been remarkably successful. That is, until now-because for the first time in human history, we finally have at our disposal a genuine scientific proof for the existence of God ... . This is due to the fact that the theistic explanation for the Big Bang accounts for the known scientific facts much better than any type of nontheistic explanation. Indeed, this evidence is so compelling that one prominent researcher has blatantly declared, `If you're religious, it's like looking at God.' [Smoot, G. in Maugh, T.H., "Relics of 'Big Bang' Seen for First Time," Los Angeles Times, 24 April 1992, pp.A1, A30] A great many other scientists have openly shared this sentiment. Sir Fred Hoyle, the physicist who discovered the mechanism by which carbon is generated inside the stars, has even gone so far as to say that the existing physical evidence reveals the tinkering of a `Supercalculating Intellect,' who has clearly `monkeyed' with the basic features of chemistry and physics [Hoyle, F., "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections", in Engineering and Science, November 1981, p.12]. In fact, Hoyle believes that this conclusion is inescapable: `I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside the stars. If this is so, then my apparently random quirks have become part of a deep-laid scheme. If not then we are back again at a monstrous sequence of accidents.' [Hoyle, F. in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the University Church, Cambridge," SCM Press: London, 1959, p.82] This confession is all the more remarkable because Hoyle was once a committed atheist who openly admitted that his Godless theories were designed to explain God away once and for all." (Corey, M.A.*, "The God Hypothesis: Discovering Design in Our `Just Right' Goldilocks Universe," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, 2001, pp.22-23. Emphasis original) 15/03/2007 "Other scientists are beginning to follow suit. The British author and physicist Paul Davies, for instance, has openly admitted to believing in a grand `cosmic blueprint,' [Davies, P.C.W., "The Cosmic Blueprint," , Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1995, p.200] and in his most recent book, The Mind of God, he concludes that the evidence for Intelligent Design is truly overwhelming. Even John Gribbin and Martin Rees have gone so far as to ask the following `heretical' questions on the back of their book, Cosmic Coincidences: `Was the universe made for man?' and `What was in the mind of God 15 billion years ago?' The great Stephen Hawking, whom many consider to be the most gifted physicist since Einstein, openly admitted that his goal is to `know the mind of God.' [Hawking, S.W., "A Brief History of Time," . Bantam: London, Reprinted, 1991, p.185] Of course, one can't know the mind of a being that doesn't exist, so Hawking must also be counted amongst those scientists who believe in some type of Creator. Now, it doesn't take a genius to see that the evidence must be overwhelmingly in favor of an Intelligent Designer in order for so many scientists to be openly talking about Him. Indeed, lengthy discussion about the possible existence of God can be found in many otherwise nontheistic treatises, such as those written by Richard Dawkins or Stephen Jay Gould. But why would these individuals devote even a single page to a being whose possible existence they believe is absurd? Again, it's because the scientific evidence for Design is truly that compelling." (Corey, M.A.*, "The God Hypothesis: Discovering Design in Our `Just Right' Goldilocks Universe," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, 2001, p.23) 15/03/2007 "The specific resonances within atomic nuclei are something like that, except in this case the particular energy enables the parts to stick together rather than to fly apart. In the carbon atom, the resonance just happens to match the combined energy of the beryllium atom and a colliding helium nucleus. Without it, there would be relatively few carbon atoms. Similarly, the internal details of the oxygen nucleus play a critical role. Oxygen can be formed by combining helium and carbon nuclei, but the corresponding resonance level in the oxygen nucleus is half a percent too low for the combination to stay together easily. Had the resonance level in the carbon been 4 percent lower, there would be essentially no carbon. Had that level in the oxygen been only half a percent higher, virtually all of the carbon would have been converted to oxygen. Without that carbon abundance, neither you nor I would be here now. I am told that Fred Hoyle, who together with Willy Fowler found this remarkable nuclear arrangement, has said that nothing has shaken his atheism as much as this discovery. ... in the November 1981 issue of the Cal Tech alumni magazine ... he wrote: `Would you not say to yourself, "Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule." Of course you would.... A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.' [Hoyle, F., "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections", in Engineering and Science, November 1981, p.12]" (Gingerich, O., "Dare a Scientist Believe in Design", in Templeton, J.M, ed., "Evidence of Purpose: Scientists Discover the Creator," Continuum: New York NY, 1994, pp.24-25) 15/03/2007 "Perhaps the best-known example of an additional organizing principle in nature is the so-called cosmological principle, which asserts that matter and radiation are distributed uniformly in space on a large scale. As we saw in Chapter 9 there is good evidence that this is the case. Not only did the matter and energy which erupted from the big bang contrive to arrange itself incredibly uniformly, it also orchestrated its motion so as to expand at exactly the same rate everywhere and in all directions. This uncanny conspiracy to create global order has baffled cosmologists for a long while. The cosmological principle is really only a statement of the fact of uniformity. It gives no clue as to how the universe achieved its orderly state. Some cosmologists have been content to explain the uniformity by appealing to special initial conditions (i.e. invoking a weak organizing principle), but this is hardly satisfactory. It merely places responsibility for the uniformity with a metaphysical creation event beyond the scope of science. An alternative approach has been a search for physical processes in the very early stages of the universe that could have had the effect of smoothing out an initially chaotic state. This idea is currently very popular, especially in the form of the inflationary universe scenario ... . Nevertheless, whilst inflation does have a dramatic smoothing effect, it still requires certain special conditions to operate. Thus one continues to fall back on the need for either God-given initial conditions, or a cosmological organizing principle in addition to the usual laws of physics. (Davies, P.C.W., "The Cosmic Blueprint: Order and Complexity at the Edge of Chaos," , Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1995, pp.152-153. Emphasis original) 15/03/2007 "Another set of `meaningful coincidences' have recently attracted the attention of scientists. This time the coincidences do not refer to events but to the so-called constants of nature. These are numbers which crop up in the various laws of physics; examples include the mass of the electron, the electric charge of the proton and Newton's gravitational constant (which fixes the strength of the gravitational force). So far the values of these various constants are unexplained by any theory, so the question arises as to why they have the values that they do. Now the interesting thing is that the existence of many complex structures in the universe, and especially biological organisms, is remarkably sensitive to the values of the constants. It turns out that even slight changes from the observed values suffice to cause drastic changes in the structures. In the case of organisms, even minute tinkering with the constants of nature would rule out life altogether, at least of the terrestrial variety. Nature thus seems to be possessed of some remarkable numerical coincidences. The constants of nature have, it appears, assumed precisely the values needed in order that complex self-organization can occur to the level of conscious individuals. Some scientists have been so struck by this contrivance, that they subscribe to something called the strong anthropic principle, which states that the laws of nature must be such as to admit the existence of consciousness in the universe at some stage. In other words, nature organizes itself in such a way as to make the universe self-aware. The strong anthropic principle can therefore be regarded as a sort of organizing meta-principle, because it arranges the laws themselves so as to permit complex organization to arise." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Cosmic Blueprint: Order and Complexity at the Edge of Chaos," , Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1995, p.163. Emphasis original) 15/03/2007 "I believe that science is in principle able to explain the existence of complexity and organization at all levels, including human consciousness, though only by embracing the 'higher-level' laws. Such a belief might be regarded as denying a god, or a purpose in this wonderful creative universe we inhabit. I do not see it that way. The very fact that the universe is creative, and that the laws have permitted complex structures to emerge and develop to the point of consciousness - in other words, that the universe has organized its own self-awareness - is for me powerful evidence that there is 'something going on' behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming. Science may explain all the processes whereby the universe evolves its own destiny, but that still leaves room for there to be a meaning behind existence." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Cosmic Blueprint: Order and Complexity at the Edge of Chaos," , Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1995, p.203. Emphasis original) 15/03/2007 "Those who would appeal to holism must distinguish between two claims. The first is the statement that as matter and energy reach higher, more complex, states so new qualities emerge that can never be embraced by a lower-level description. Often cited are life and consciousness, which are simply meaningless at the level of, say, atoms. Examples of this sort seem to be, quite simply, incontrovertible facts of existence. Holism in this form can only be rejected by denying the reality of the higher-level qualities, e.g. by claiming that consciousness does not really exist, or by denying the meaningfulness of higher-level concepts, such as a biological organism.Since I believe that it is the job of science to explain the world as it appears to us, and since this world includes such entities as bacteria, dogs and humans, with their own distinctive properties, it seems to me at best evasive, at worst fraudulent, to claim that these properties are explained by merely defining them away." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Cosmic Blueprint: Order and Complexity at the Edge of Chaos," , Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1995, pp.198-199. Emphasis original) 15/03/2007 "Strong organizing principles - additional laws of physics that refer to the cooperative, collective properties of complex systems, and which cannot be derived from the underlying existing physical laws - remain a challenging but speculative idea. Mysteries such as the origin of life and the progressive nature of evolution encourage the feeling that there are additional principles at work which somehow make it `easier' for systems to discover complex organized states. But the reductionist methodology of most scientific investigations makes it likely that such principles, if they exist, risk being overlooked in current research." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Cosmic Blueprint: Order and Complexity at the Edge of Chaos," , Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1995, p.199) 15/03/2007 "The emerging picture of cosmological development is altogether less gloomy. Creation is not instantaneous; it is an ongoing process. The universe has a life history. Instead of sliding into featurelessness, it rises out of featurelessness, growing rather than dying, developing new structures, processes and potentialities all the time, unfolding like a flower. The flower analogy suggests the idea of a blueprint - a pre-existing plan or project which the universe is realizing as it develops. This is Aristotle's ancient teleological picture of the cosmos. ... In this more canalized picture, matter and energy have innate self-organizing tendencies that bring into being new structures and systems with unusual efficiency. Again and again we have seen examples of how organized behaviour has emerged unexpectedly and spontaneously from unpromising beginnings. In physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, biology, computing - indeed, in every branch of science - the same propensity for self-organization is apparent." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Cosmic Blueprint: Order and Complexity at the Edge of Chaos," , Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1995, p.200. Emphasis original) 15/03/2007 "The latter philosophy has been called `predestinist' by the biologist Robert Shapiro, because it assumes that the present form and arrangement of things is an inevitable outcome of the operation of the laws of nature. I suspect he uses the term pejoratively, and I dislike the mystical flavour it conveys. I prefer the word predisposition. Who are the predestinists? Generally speaking, they are those who are not prepared to accept that certain key features of the world are simply `accidents' or quirks of nature. Thus, the existence of living organisms does not surprise a predestinist, who believes that the laws of nature are such that matter will inevitably be led along the road of increasing complexity towards life. In the same vein, the existence of intelligence and conscious beings is also regarded as part of a natural progression that is somehow built into the laws. Nor is it a surprise to a predestinist that life arose on Earth such a short period of time (geologically speaking) after our planet became habitable. It would do so on any other suitable planet. The ambitious programme to search for intelligent life in space, so aptly popularized by Carl Sagan, has a strong predestinist flavour. Predestiny - or predisposition - must not be confused with predeterminism. It is entirely possible that the properties of matter are such that it does indeed have a propensity to self-organize as far as life, given the right conditions. This is not to say, however, that any particular life form is inevitable. In other words, predeterminism (of the old Newtonian sort) held that everything in detail was laid down from time immemorial. Predestiny merely says that nature has a predisposition to progress along the general lines it has. It therefore leaves open the essential unknowability of the future, the possibility for real creativity and endless novelty. In particular it leaves room for human free will. ... There is also a strong element of predestiny, or predisposition, in the recent work on the so-called anthropic principle. Here the emphasis lies not with additional laws or organizing principles, but with the constants of physics. ... the values adopted by these constants are peculiarly felicitous for the eventual emergence of complex structures, and especially living organisms." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Cosmic Blueprint: Order and Complexity at the Edge of Chaos," , Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1995, pp.200-201. Emphasis original) 15/03/2007 "If one accepts predisposition in nature, what does that have to say about meaning and purpose in the universe? Many people will find in the predestinist position support for a belief that there is indeed a cosmic blueprint, that the present nature of things, including the existence of human beings, and maybe even each particular human being, is part of a preconceived plan designed by an all-powerful deity. The purpose of the plan and the nature of the end state will obviously remain a matter of personal preference. Others find this idea as unappealing as determinism. A plan that rigidly legislates the detailed course of human and nonhuman destiny seems to them a pointless charade. If the end state is part of the design, they ask, why bother with the construction phase at all? An all-powerful deity would be able to simply create the finished product at the outset. A third point of view is that there is no detailed blueprint, only a set of laws with an inbuilt facility for making interesting things happen. The universe is then free to create itself as it goes along. The general pattern of development is 'predestined', but the details are not. Thus, the existence of intelligent life at some stage is inevitable; it is, so to speak, written into the laws of nature. But man as such is far from preordained." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Cosmic Blueprint: Order and Complexity at the Edge of Chaos," , Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1995, p.202) 15/03/2007 "The question remains, however: How or why were the laws and the initial state of the universe chosen? ... According to the general theory of relativity, there must have been a state of infinite density in the past, the big bang, which would have been an effective beginning of time. Similarly, if the whole universe recollapsed, there must be another state of infinite density in the future, the big crunch, which would be an end of time. Even if the whole universe did not recollapse, there would be singularities in any localized regions that collapsed to form black holes. These singularities would be an end of time for anyone who fell into the black hole. At the big bang and other singularities, all the laws would have broken down, so God would still have had complete freedom to choose what happened and how the universe began." (Hawking, S.W., "A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes," , Bantam: London, Reprinted, 1991, pp.183-184) 15/03/2007 "When we combine quantum mechanics with general relativity, there seems to be a new possibility that did not arise before: that space and time together might form a finite four-dimensional space without singularities or boundaries like the surface of the earth but with more dimensions. It seems that this idea could explain many of the observed features of the universe, such as its large-scale uniformity and also the smaller-scale departures from homogeneity, like galaxies-, stars,- and even human beings. It could even account for the arrow of time that we observe. But if the universe is completely self-contained, with no singularities or boundaries, and completely described by a unified theory, that has profound implications for the role of God as Creator. Einstein once asked the question: "How much choice did God have in constructing the universe?" If the no boundary proposal is correct, he had no freedom at all to choose initial conditions. He would, of course, still have had the freedom to choose the laws that the universe obeyed. This, however, may not really have been all that much of a choice; there may well be only one, or a small number, of complete unified theories, such as the heterotic string theory, that are self-consistent and allow the existence of structures as complicated as human beings who can investigate the laws of the universe and ask about the nature of God." (Hawking, S.W., "A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes," , Bantam: London, Reprinted, 1991, p.184) 15/03/2007 "However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason-for then we would know the mind of God." (Hawking, S.W., "A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes," , Bantam: London, Reprinted, 1991, p.185) 16/03/2007 "To avoid the ludicrous, we must write: ... ---> ????? ---> ???? ---> ??? ---> ??-? ---> man ---> ... The dilemma of religion is that the sequence is meaningless unless we attach explicit significance to at least one of its members (to the left of man) and yet attempts to do so have always led in the past to absurdities. The position of most scientists can, we think, be said to accord with one or other of the following three points of view: (1) there is no such sequence; (2) the correct sequence is the simplistic one, God-man; (3) there is such a sequence, but since we know nothing about it there is no point in discussing it. Our opinion is that all of these are wrong. The correct position we think is: there is such a sequence, and among the question marks to the left of man there is a term in the sequence, an intelligence, which designed the biochemicals and gave rise to the origin of carbonaceous life. Still further to the left there is another still higher level of intelligence that controlled the coupling constants of physics. This may seem a grey form of religion, not at all suited to the wearing of gaudy clothes or to parades in the streets on saints' days, but it is far better to be in with a chance of being modestly right, instead of being faced by the absolute certainty of being overwhelmingly wrong. Where does the sequence going to the left stop? It doesn't. It goes on and on and on, with ever- rising levels denoted by more and more question marks. But like a convergent mathematical sequence of functions it has an idealized limit, with the property that by going far enough to the left the terms differ by as little as one pleases from the idealized limit. It is this idealized limit that is God, and God is the universe: God = universe." (Hoyle, F. & Wickramasinghe, N.C., "Evolution from Space," , Granada: London, Reprinted, 1983, p.158. Emphasis original) 17/03/2007 "Bitter experience has taught us that fundamentalist religion, which in its aggressive form is one of the unmitigated evils of the world, cannot be quickly replaced by benign skepticism and a purely humanistic world view, even among educated and well-meaning people .... Liberal theology can serve as a buffer." (Wilson, E.O., "The Relation of Science to Theology," Zygon, Vol. 15, No. 4, September/December 1980, pp.425-434. In Morris, H.M.*, "Evolution in Turmoil: An Updated Sequel to The Troubled Waters of Evolution," Creation-Life Publishers: San Diego CA, 1982, pp.147-148) 17/03/2007 "As were many persons in Alabama, I was a born-again Christian. When I was fifteen, I entered the Southern Baptist Church with great fervor and interest in the fundamentalist religion; I left at seventeen when I got to the University of Alabama and heard about evolutionary theory." (Wilson, E.O., "Toward a Humanistic Biology," The Humanist, Vol. 42, September/October 1982, pp. 38-41, 56-58, p.40. In Morris, H.M.*, "Evolution in Turmoil: An Updated Sequel to The Troubled Waters of Evolution," Creation-Life Publishers: San Diego CA, 1982, p.150) 17/03/2007 "In addition to being logically flawed, neo-Darwinism has unfortunate psychological consequences. Yet it is being taught as `gospel truth'; the lip service being paid to science's fallibility does little to lessen neo- Darwinism's impact. The upshot is that the civil liberties of those who disagree with the theory are being compromised. Of this situation the ACLU and its backers seem to have little inkling. Before I proceed to the central issue, three short quotations will set out the psychological consequences of teaching neo- Darwinism. First, `If anything characterizes `modernity,' it is loss of faith in transcendence' (Chronicle of Higher Education, January 9, 1978). Second, `There is no doubt that in developed societies education has contributed to the decline of religious belief' (Edward Norman, in Christianity and the World Order [Oxford University Press, 1976]). Third, one reason education undoes belief is its teaching of evolution; Darwin's own drift from orthodoxy to agnosticism was symptomatic. Martin Lings is probably right in saying that `more cases of loss of religious faith are to be traced to the theory of evolution ... than to anything else' (Studies in Comparative Religion, Winter 1970). The Civil Liberties Union's handling of the creationist case abets the historical drift these quotations point to with logic that runs roughly as follows: Major premise: Creationism is religion rather than science; therefore, according to the principle of separation of church and state, creationism may not be taught in public schools. Minor premise: The science which is and should be taught our children `must be explanatory [and] rely exclusively upon the workings of natural law' (ACLU's witness Michael Ruse, a Canadian philosopher of science, as quoted in Civil Liberties, February 1982). Unspoken conclusion: The only explanation for human existence that public schools may teach is a natural-law theory which precludes in principle, as we shall see, even the possibility of (a) purpose and (b) intervention in the workings of the observable universe. Restated to bring out its practical import, the ACLU position is that it is science's responsibility to explain things by natural laws. The alternative to such natural explanations is supernatural ones. Thus, insofar as religion involves the supernatural, church- state separation requires that only irreligious explanations of human origins may be taught our children. Already we may be wondering if this is what our forebears intended by the First Amendment." (Smith, H., "Evolution and Evolutionism," Christian Century, July 7-14, 1982, p.755. Emphasis original) 17/03/2007 "Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgement of which I am capable, that -the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained - namely, that each species has been independently created - is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification." (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," First Edition, 1859, Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1985, p.69) 17/03/2007 "Once again, Sam Harris put the point with percipient bluntness, taking the example of the Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden ... Why would anyone want to destroy the World Trade Center and everybody in it? To call bin Laden `evil' is to evade our responsibility to give a proper answer to such an important question. Why would anyone want to destroy the World Trade Center and everybody in it? To call bin Laden `evil' is to evade our responsibility to give a proper answer to such an important question. `The answer to this question is obvious - if only because it has been patiently articulated ad nauseam by bin Laden himself. The answer is that men like bin Laden actually believe what they say they believe. They believe in the literal truth of the Koran. Why did nineteen well-educated middle-class men trade their lives in this world for the privilege of killing thousands of our neighbors? Because they believed that they would go straight to paradise for doing so. It is rare to find the behavior of humans so fully and satisfactorily explained. Why have we been so reluctant to accept this explanation? [Harris, S., "The End of Faith," W.W. Norton & Co: New York, 2004, p.29]" (Dawkins, R., "The God Delusion," Bantam Press: London, 2006, pp.303-304. Emphasis original) 17/03/2007 "The respected journalist Muriel Gray, writing in the (Glasgow) Herald on 24 July 2005, made a similar point, in this case with reference to the London bombings. `Everyone is being blamed, from the obvious villainous duo of George W. Bush and Tony Blair, to the inaction of Muslim `communities'. But it has never been clearer that there is only one place to lay the blame and it has ever been thus. The cause of all this misery, mayhem, violence, terror and ignorance is of course religion itself, and if it seems ludicrous to have to state such an obvious reality, the fact is that the government and the media are doing a pretty good job of pretending that it isn't so.' Our Western politicians avoid mentioning the R word (religion), and instead characterize their battle as a war against `terror', as though terror were a kind of spirit or force, with a will and a mind of its own. Or they characterize terrorists as motivated by pure `evil'. But they are not motivated by evil. However misguided we may think them, they are motivated, like the Christian murderers of abortion doctors, by what they perceive to be righteousness, faithfully pursuing what their religion tells them. They are not psychotic; they are religious idealists who, by their own lights, are rational. They perceive their acts to be good, not because of some warped personal idiosyncrasy, and not because they have been possessed by Satan, but because they have been brought up, from the cradle, to have total and unquestioning faith." (Dawkins, R., "The God Delusion," Bantam Press: London, 2006, p.303. Emphasis original) 17/03/2007 "Dawkins would, I think, protest that religious world views offer motivations for violence that are not paralleled elsewhere - for example, the thought of entering paradise after a suicidal attack. [Dawkins, "God Delusion," pp.303-304] Yet this conclusion is a little hasty and poorly argued. The God Delusion is to be seen as one of a number of books to emerge from the events now universally referred to as '9/11' - the suicide attacks on buildings in Washington and New York. For Dawkins, it is obvious that it is religious belief that leads to suicide bombings. It's a view that his less critical secular readers will applaud, provided they haven't read the empirical studies of why people are driven to suicide bombings in the first place. As Robert Pape showed in his definitive account of the motivations of such attacks, based on surveys of every suicide bombing since 1980, religious belief of any kind is neither necessary nor sufficient to create suicide bombers - despite Dawkins' breezy simplifications. [Pape, R.A., "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism," Random House: New York, 2005] (Remember, the infamous `suicide vest' was invented by Tamil Tigers back in 1991.) Pape's evidence is that the fundamental motivation is political: the desire to force the withdrawal of foreign forces occupying land believed to belong to an oppressed people, who have seriously limited military resources at their disposal. This isn't what Dawkins will want to hear, but it is an important element in reflecting on how this phenomenon arose, and what might need to be done to end it." (McGrath, A.* & McGrath, J.C.*, "The Dawkins Delusion?," SPCK: London, 2007, pp.49-50. Emphasis original) 17/03/2007 "ASK someone to sketch a personality profile of a typical suicide bomber and the chances are it would not come close to describing the four young men who, it seems, blew themselves up in London two weeks ago. Even from their friends and families the refrain has been, `I can't believe he would have done such a thing - not him.' And when you look at who they were, it is hard to believe. There was Mohammad Sidique Khan, father and teaching assistant, loved by the children he taught and well respected by his community; Hasib Hussain, the `nice lad' from a close-knit family; Shehzad Tanweer, the cricket-loving sports science graduate; and Germaine Lindsay, a young father described as `dead brainy' by a schoolmate. None of them had a criminal record, none was mentally ill, none was especially poor, and they were mostly well educated. All of them grew up in the UK. In short, they were not what you'd expect in a suicide bomber. Except you'd be wrong. Most suicide bombers anywhere in the world appear to be normal. Study after study has shown that suicide terrorists are better off than average for their community and better educated. They are also rarely suicidal in the pathological sense. Ariel Merari, a psychologist at Tel Aviv University who has traced the background of every suicide bomber in the Middle East since 1983, has found symptoms of mental illness or drug and alcohol abuse in very few. They don't have to be Islamic extremists either, or even radicalised by faith. True, the London bombers were all Muslims, as are the vast majority of suicide attackers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel. Yet many of the suicide bombers in Lebanon in the 1980s were from secular Christian backgrounds. And one of the modern pioneers of suicide terrorism, the Tamil Tigers, are secular Marxist-Leninists." (Bond, M., "Turning ordinary people into suicide bombers," New Scientist, 23 July 2005) 18/03/2007 "Colin Patterson ... is a senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum, in London. Dr. Patterson is the author of the book Evolution and is recognized as the world's leading paleoichthyologist. On November 5, 1981, Dr. Patterson delivered a speech before a group of experts on evolutionary theory at the American Museum of Natural History. Dr. Patterson dared to suggest to his colleagues that the scientific theory that he and they had devoted a lifetime to was mere speculation, without any significant evidence to back it up. Here's how Dr. Patterson explained his change of mind concerning the theory of evolution: `Last year I had a sudden realization. For over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. one morning I woke up and something had happened in the night; and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock, to learn that one can be so misled so long.... So for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.... Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?...All I got ... was silence.... The absence of answers seems to suggest that...evolution does not convey any knowledge, or, if so, I haven't yet heard it.... I think many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you have experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that it's true of me and I think it is true of a good many of you here.... Evolution not only conveys no knowledge but seems somehow to convey antiknowledge.' [Patterson, C., "Evolutionism and Creationism," Speech delivered at the American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, November 5, 1981]" (Rifkin, J., "Algeny," Viking Press: New York NY, 1983, p.113. Ellipses Rifkin's) 18/03/2007 "Is it really possible to believe that we are all wrong-that we have been living under a grand illusion no more real than Alice's Wonderland? Psychiatrist Karl Stern of the University of Montreal says it is quite possible indeed. As to the question of sanity vs. insanity, Stern asks us all to detach ourselves from our preconceived biases and consider the merits of the Darwinian argument. The; theory, says Stern, goes something like this: `At a certain moment of time, the temperature of the Earth was such that it became most favourable for the aggregation of carbon atoms and oxygen with the nitrogen-hydrogen combination, and that from random occurrences of large clusters molecules occurred which were most favourably structured for the coming about of life, and from that point it went on through vast stretches of time, until through processes of natural selection a being finally occurred which is capable of choosing love over hate and justice over injustice, of writing poetry like that of Dante, composing music like that of Mozart, and making drawings like those of Leonardo.' [Stern, K. "The Flight from Women," Farrar, Straus & Giroux: New York NY, 1965, p.290]. Stern's opinion of the evolutionary theory is not likely to win many friends within the scientific community. Speaking strictly from the point of view of a psychiatrist, he argues: `Such a view of cosmogenesis is crazy. And I do not at all mean crazy in the sense of slangy invective but rather in the technical meaning of psychotic. Indeed such a view has much in common with certain aspects of schizophrenic thinking.' [Ibid.] (Rifkin, J., "Algeny," Viking Press: New York NY, 1983, pp.113-114) 18/03/2007 "A rallying of the ranks would definitely be needed if creationists argued that evolution was a religion. Constitutional scholars do not scoff at the issue, one expert at Harvard recently saying that it is `far from a frivolous argument.' (Broad, W.J., "Creationists Limit Scope of Evolution Case," Science, Vol. 211, March 20, 1981, pp.1331-1332. In Morris, H.M.*, "Evolution in Turmoil: An Updated Sequel to The Troubled Waters of Evolution," Creation-Life Publishers: San Diego CA, 1982, pp.131-132) 18/03/2007 "The creationists have portrayed Darwinism as a cornerstone of `secular humanism,' a term they use to describe the belief that man, not God, is the source of right and wrong. They blame humanist teaching for all sorts of modern ills-from juvenile delinquency to the high rate of abortions-and want to replace it with the teaching of Christian morality .... As the creationists' goals become clear, many scientists, realizing that they have been secular humanists all along, are beginning to marshal their forces .... Evolutionists are beginning to realize that, for the first time in half a century, they may have to defend themselves in court." (Gurin, J., "The Creationist Revival," The Sciences, New York Academy of Science, Vol. 23, April 1981, p.34. In Morris, H.M.*, "Evolution in Turmoil: An Updated Sequel to The Troubled Waters of Evolution," Creation-Life Publishers: San Diego CA, 1982, p.132) 18/03/2007 "I am interested in the evolution of complex biochemical systems. Many molecular systems in the cell require multiple components in order to function. I have dubbed such systems "irreducibly complex." (Behe 1996b, 2001) Irreducibly complex systems appear to me to be very difficult to explain within a traditional gradualistic Darwinian framework, because the function of the system only appears when the system is essentially complete. (An illustration of the concept of irreducible complexity is the mousetrap pictured on this page, which needs all its parts to work.) Despite much general progress by science in the past half century in understanding how complex biochemical systems work, little progress has been made in explaining how such systems arise in a Darwinian fashion. I have proposed that a better explanation is that such systems were deliberately designed by an intelligent agent. (Behe 1996b, 2001) The proposal of intelligent design has proven to be extremely controversial, both in the scientific community (for example, see Brumfel, G. 2005. Nature 434:1062-1065) and in the general news media. (Behe 1996a, 1999, 2005) My current work involves: 1) educating various groups to overcome mistaken ideas of what exactly intelligent design entails, so that they can make informed judgments on whether they think it is a plausible hypothesis; and 2) trying to establish a reasoned way to determine a rough dividing line between design and non-design in biochemical systems." (Behe, M.J.*, "Michael J. Behe, Ph.D. Professor Biochemistry, Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University, Bethlehem PA) 18/03/2007 "In the past half-century biology has made astonishing progress in understanding the molecular and cellular basis of life. In light of this progress it is fair to ask whether Darwin's mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation appears to be a good explanation for the origin of all, or just some, of the molecular systems science has discovered. In Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Behe 1996) I argued that some biochemical systems, such as the blood clotting cascade or bacterial flagellum, are resistant to Darwinian explanation because they are irreducibly complex. I defined irreducible complexity as a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (1996, 39) The difficulty for Darwinian theory is that an irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. (1996, 39) To illustrate the concept with a familiar example for a general readership, I pointed to a simple mechanical mousetrap, composed of several parts such as the base, hammer, spring and so on, and noted that the absence of any of the parts destroys the mouse-catching ability of the trap. Darwin's vision of natural selection gradually improving function in `numerous, successive, slight modifications'(Darwin 1859) appears not to fit well with such systems. I went on to argue that, since intelligent agents are the only entities known to be able to construct irreducibly complex systems, the biochemical systems are better explained as the result of deliberate intelligent design." (Behe, M.J.*, "Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems: A Reply to Shanks and Joplin," Philosophy of Science, Vol. 67, No. 1, March 2000), pp. 55-162) 19/03/2007 "The American public is almost entirely divided between those who believe that God created man at one time in the last 10,000 years and those who believe in evolution or an evolutionary process involving God. Of the participants in the poll, 44 percent, nearly a quarter of whom were college graduates, said they accepted the statement that `God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.' Nine percent agreed with the statement: `Man has developed over millions of years from less- advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.' Thirty-eight percent said they agreed with the suggestion that `Man has developed over millions of years from less-advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including, man's creation.' Nine percent of those interviewed simply said they did not know." (Gallup Poll, "44% Believe God Created Mankind 10,000 Years Ago," San Diego Union, August 30, 1982. In Morris, H.M.*, "Evolution in Turmoil: An Updated Sequel to The Troubled Waters of Evolution," Creation-Life Publishers: San Diego CA, 1982, p.164) 19/03/2007 "Darwin returned to England at 27 in a robust state of mind and body. It was not until a year later, when he began to write in his evolutionary notebooks, that he first felt and commented on his illnesses, forcing himself into a lifetime of severe, repugnant, and sometimes ludicrous disability. [Stone, I., "The Death of Darwin," in Cherfas, J., ed., "Darwin up to Date," New Scientist Guide, IPC Magazines, 1982, p. 69]" Morris, H.M.*, "Evolution in Turmoil: An Updated Sequel to The Troubled Waters of Evolution," Creation-Life Publishers: San Diego CA, 1982, p.169) 19/03/2007 "The biographer Irving Stone, who is an ardent evolutionary humanist and profound admirer of Charles Darwin, attributed all his troubles to the intense conflicts generated by his evolutionary theory, blaming opposition of the Christians and creationists of the day. Stone does acknowledge, however, that Darwin hated to `think about the demon of evolution he had released upon an unwilling and unprepared world' [Stone, I., "The Death of Darwin," in Cherfas, J., ed., "Darwin up to Date," New Scientist Guide, IPC Magazines, 1982, p. 69]" (Morris, H.M., "Evolution in Turmoil: An Updated Sequel to The Troubled Waters of Evolution," Creation-Life Publishers: San Diego CA, 1982, p.170) 19/03/2007 "Certain patterns must be completely templeted The first principle of templeting reminds us that all patterns can be constructed from a completely explicit blueprint, even when such detailed specifications are not actually necessary, and the nonparsimonious behaviour of Nature demonstrates that such overdetermined explanations can be good explanations for certain natural phenomena. The second principle of templeting points out that a complete specification is at times an inescapable necessity." (Katz, M.J., "Templets and the Explanation of Complex Patterns," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1986, p.55. Emphasis original) 19/03/2007 "DNA: the archetypic templet The replication, the transcription, and the translation of DNA provide dramatic examples of the need for maximal templets in assembling certain complex natural patterns. DNA molecules are long strings of subunits, and these subunits (nucleotides) come in four different varieties: adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine. The four nucleotides are topologically naive - they can be strung together in any combination and the almost limitless variety of DNA sequences is directly responsible for the almost limitless variety of organisms. Encoded in their nucleotide sequences, DNA molecules contain much of the heritable information of organisms. There are three major steps in the expression of the encoded information, and each step is carried out by a particular set of enzymes. First, there is replication, in which a complementary DNA copy is made from a precursor DNA strand; the major enzymes at work in replication are DNA polymerases. Second, there is transcription, in which a complementary RNA copy is made from a precursor DNA strand; the major enzymes at work in transcription are RNA polymerases. Third, there is translation, in which a protein molecule is made from a precursor RNA strand. Proteins are assembled on tiny intracellular machines called ribosomes, under the guidance of a host of special enzymes. All three decoding processes rely on maximal templets, and all three produce completely templeted patterns. In replication, for instance, the two complementary DNA molecules are unwound from their double helical coil and new complementary chains are constructed, nucleotide by nucleotide. Each adenine in the preexisting chain templets the addition of a thymine in the new chain, each thymine templets the addition of an adenine, each cytosine templets the addition of a guanine, and each guanine templets the addition of a cytosine. The new chain becomes an exact complement, a `negative', of the templet chain and it becomes an exact copy, a `positive', of the complement to the templet chain. The `universal laws' for nucleotide assembly allow sequences to be built in any order and natural DNA patterns are archetypic templeted patterns; templeting is also an important mechanism in the fabrication of many other biological patterns, from molecules to organelles to teeth to spots. (Katz, M.J., "Templets and the Explanation of Complex Patterns," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1986, pp.56-57. Emphasis original) 19/03/2007 "Other templets in the real world Templets pervade the real world, and there are many examples of maximal templets - templets specifying the entire topology of a pattern. Large illuminated signs composed of hundreds of light bulbs forming designs or advising us to EAT AT JOE'S are completely templeted; the bulbs can potentially be arranged into any order, and the particular pattern of interest is built on a specific, completely prespecified templet of sockets. Hooked rugs are templeted; the strands of yarn can potentially be woven into any imaginable design, and the actual design to be stitched is prespecified by an explicit drawing on the background canvas. The letters of a crossword puzzle can, in theory, be arranged in almost any order, but each particular crossword puzzle is templeted by a set of blank squares and by the accompanying word clues. The notes of a piece of music can be juxtaposed in any possible order, but the detailed pattern of J.S. Bach's Well-tempered Clavier is completely prespecified in the templet of the musical score. Business forms comprise a set of organized, labelled blanks, such as: `Name , Date ____,' etc. The words that fill these forms can potentially be arranged in any order on a blank page, but the particular form at hand templets the words into one particular pattern." (Katz, M.J., "Templets and the Explanation of Complex Patterns," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1986, p.57. Emphasis original) 19/03/2007 "selection pressure a measure of the amount of relative reproductive disadvantage of one phenotype over another of the same species living together in the same area. Such pressure is usually represented by the selection coefficients which can have a value from zero (no selective disadvantage, maximum FITNESS) to 1.0 (complete selective disadvantage leading to actual death or GENETIC DEATH, minimum fitness)." (Hale, W.G., Margham, J.P. & Saunders, V.A., "Collins Dictionary of Biology," , HarperCollins: Glasgow UK, Second Edition, 1995, pp.556-557. Emphasis original) 19/03/2007 "selection pressure The extent to which organisms possessing a particular characteristic are either eliminated or favoured by environmental demands. It indicates the degree of intensity of natural selection". (Martin, E. & Hine, R.S., eds., "Oxford Dictionary of Biology," , Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, Fourth Edition, 2000, p.536. Emphasis original) 19/03/2007 "selection pressure Pressure exerted by the environment, through natural selection, on evolution. Thus weak selection pressures result in little evolutionary change and vice versa." (Allaby, M., ed., "A Dictionary of Zoology," , Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, Second Edition, 1999, p.486). Emphasis original) 19/03/2007 "Constraints upon phenotype from the environment, which produce this differential gene transmission, are termed ' selection pressure '. It is commonly assumed that all regular components of a species' phenotype have been favoured by natural selection, but evolution may sometimes result from causes other than natural selection (see GENETIC DRIFT)." (Thain, M. & Hickman, M., "The Penguin Dictionary of Biology," , Penguin: London, Tenth Edition, 2000, p.438. Emphasis original) 20/03/2007 "Trust the evolutionary process. It's all going to work out all right." (Leary, T., "The Politics of Ecstasy," Ronin: Berkeley CA , 1998., 1968, p. 361. In Ankerberg, J.* & Weldon, J.*, "Darwin's Leap Of Faith," Harvest House Publishers: Eugene OR, 1998, p.17) 20/03/2007 "THE THEORY of evolution has recently been the focus of a great deal of controversy. The most publicised challenge came from scientists who are fundamentalist Christians, and who therefore reject the idea of evolution altogether. Yet a second debate is also under way. In this case, the argument is not about whether evolution has occurred-both sides are convinced that it has-but about how . Does the modern "synthetic theory" or "neo-Darwinism" provide an adequate explanation of evolution, or is something more required?" (Ho, Mae-Wan, Saunders, P. & Fox, S.W., "A New Paradigm of Evolution," New Scientist , Vol. 109, 27 February 1986, pp.41-43, p.41. Emphasis original) 20/03/2007 "The synthetic theory states that evolution is brought about by the natural selection of random variations. Of crucial importance to the theory is the word `random', which is taken to imply not just that variations do not tend to occur in useful directions but also that little if anything can be said about them. Within neo- Darwinism, natural selection is the only `direction-giving' or `creative' force in evolution. Post neo-Darwinist evolutionary theory, however, focuses on natural process. At every level, from the prebiotic to the organismic, variations arise not at random but in ways that are largely determined by the laws of physics and chemistry. While the doyen of contemporary neo-Darwinists, Ernst Mayr, may rejoice in what he perceives to be `the final emancipation of biology from the physical sciences' during the past 25 years, those within the new paradigm recognise that there is no question of enslavement or emancipation. As physicists and chemists learn to deal with increasingly complex systems and to analyse phenomena such as self- organisation, the physical and biological sciences are-or should be-coming together on equal terms. The new paradigm seeks to exploit this development to the full. Neo-Darwinism is doing its utmost to ignore it." (Ho, Mae-Wan, Saunders, P. & Fox, S.W., "A New Paradigm of Evolution," New Scientist , Vol. 109, 27 February 1986, pp.41-43, p.41) 20/03/2007 "The new, larger view has far-reaching consequences, not just for the theory of evolution itself, but also for the sorts of research that are considered relevant to it. We illustrate this by describing work done in three areas: prebiotic evolution, biological form and heredity. In each case both the approach and the understanding obtained are fundamentally different for those offered within the neo-Darwinist paradigm. A primary question for evolutionary theory is how life itself emerged. From the scientific point of view, the simplest unit of life is a particular microorganisation of matter that exhibits metabolism, reproduction and other processes. But how did such organisation arise? For a long time most people believed that life arose through divine action. Louis Pasteur raised the possibility of a scientific answer when he asked in 1864, `Can matter organise itself?' The neo-Darwinists' reply is that it cannot, except through natural selection, and so they tend to assume that the first organic matrix was random. The particular conjunctions of atoms that are necessary for life seem to be exceedingly improbable, similar to the chance that a monkey at a typewriter will produce the Origin of Species . Neo-Darwinists, therefore, need a kind of explanation not found elsewhere in science. They invoke natural selection as the only possible means of creating information, of introducing the determinism that characterises the process of inheritance in organisms. The genetic code is considered to be mainly the result of accidents "frozen" by natural selection. In order to place DNA and natural selection at the very beginning of evolution, some are even willing to leave the Earth and suppose that life originated in a distant galaxy. Neo-Darwinists have difficulty with the emergence of life partly because their theory of evolution is based firmly on genes. Hence they find it impossible to conceive of life except in terms of self-replicating nucleic acids. This turn of mind leads them to suppose that the first RNAs, which they believe arose by chance, must have acted as enzymes themselves and also coded for the enzymes that enabled them to reproduce. The RNAs that replicated most successfully would, they argue, have come to predominate. By itself, however, competitive replication of RNAs would result in nothing but `selfish replicators' like the `selfish DNA' that occurs m all genomes. It would not bring about cellular functions." (Ho, Mae-Wan, Saunders, P. & Fox, S.W., "A New Paradigm of Evolution," New Scientist , Vol. 109, 27 February 1986, pp.41-43, p.41). 20/03/2007 "Darwin was struck by a number of facts observed during his voyage which seemed at odds with the view that each species had been individually created. The organic life and fossils he studied so intensively and collected with such assiduity seemed littered with clues, odd similarities and juxtapositions. Why did closely allied animals replace one another as one travelled southwards? Why did extinct fossil species show such a close structural relation to living animals? Above all, why, in the Galapagos islands did the finches and the giant tortoises show slight variations from island to island, so that the local inhabitants could always tell from which island a tortoise had come? The more closely different species resembled each other in adjacent areas or in different epochs in the same-area, the more likely did it seem that those species might share a common ancestor, and the less plausible seemed the hypothesis of a separate creation of each separate species." (Burrow, J.W., "Editor's Introduction," in Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," First Edition, 1859, Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1985, p.27) 20/03/2007 "The immediate furore created by the publication of The Origin was not due simply to the fact that it contradicted the literal word of the first chapter of Genesis. Christians had already begun to reconcile themselves to the new geology, to the doctrine of `successive creations' and to interpreting the seven days allotted to the Creation in a metaphorical sense. Religious doubt, that characteristic Victorian malaise, with its crop of social and spiritual disasters, of `dangerous' books and clerical resignations, had become almost a commonplace of the intellectual scene since the first impact of the new, German historical criticism of the Bible in the eighteen-forties. It reached a climax within a few months of the appearance of The Origin with the publication of Essays and Reviews , which became, in the short run, even more notorious than The Origin , and which, though owing nothing to Darwin, showed how far some liberal-minded churchmen were prepared to go in repudiating an orthodox literalism." (Burrow, J.W., "Editor's Introduction," in Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," First Edition, 1859, Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1985, p.40) 20/03/2007 "The Origin owed its notoriety primarily to two things. First, it destroyed at one blow the central tradition of recent English Protestant apologetics - Natural Theology. All the beautiful and ingenious contrivances in nature which Rational Christianity had explained as evidence of the benevolent design of an Almighty Clockmaker, Darwin's theory explained by the operation of natural selection-. the struggle for life resulting in the preservation of certain random variations in offspring. A number of readers and reviewers found that they could tolerate evolution provided it was interpreted as ultimately purposive, but could not stomach natural selection. This was a sophisticated reaction, however, and at this level the reviews were by no means universally hostile." (Burrow, J.W., "Editor's Introduction," in Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," First Edition, 1859, Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1985, pp.40-41) 20/03/2007 "At a lower level of sophistication hostility was more nakedly theological, ranging from the crude waggishness of Punch to the pious indignation of the Methodist Recorder . At this level too, Darwin became specially notorious for something he had deliberately not said in The Origin , though his argument undoubtedly implied it: that man was first cousin to - not descended from, though this was an error often made - the apes. Darwin had written in his notebook: `Animals may partake from our common origin in one ancestor ... we may be all netted together'. Darwin only completed this aspect of his theory in later books, The Descent of Man (1871) and The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872), but the public seized on it at once - probably because the issue had already been fully aired at the time of the publication of The Vestiges of Creation . Darwinism became `the monkey theory', even though monkeys are not particularly singled out in The Origin . This issue was also the crux of the famous incident at the Oxford meeting of the British Association in 1860 between Bishop Wilberforce and T. H. Huxley, when Huxley made the celebrated retort to the Bishop's sarcastic enquiry whether he claimed descent from an ape on his father's or his mother's side, that he would rather have an ape for a grandfather than a man who misused his gifts to obscure important scientific discussion by rhetoric and religious prejudice." (Burrow, J.W., "Editor's Introduction," in Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," First Edition, 1859, Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1985, p.41) 20/03/2007 "The controversy over The Origin , as the Saturday Review remarked, 'passed beyond the bounds of the study and lecture-room into the drawing-room and the public street', but ultimately the fate of the theory depended on its reception by scientific opinion, the only kind of reception Darwin really cared about. Here the attack was led by Sir Richard Owen, England's leading anatomist, who had coached Wilberforce and had himself written a fiercely unfair and misleading criticism of The Origin in the Edinburgh Review . The tactics of those reviewers who treated The Origin with a pretence of scientific objectivity were to attack things Darwin had not said, wheeling out old arguments against Lamarck and The Vestiges , and to claim, because Darwin could not actually point to species changing in consequence of natural selection, that The Origin was `mere speculation' or `mere hypothesis'. Darwin was accused of transgressing sound Baconian principles of induction. This latter argument was a frequently recurring one in nineteenth-century English controversy; it is on the whole a safe prediction that when, in the polemical writing of the period, one finds an invocation of Bacon, something particularly obscurantist and unhelpful is about to follow. Nevertheless, the hope of a fair hearing among the younger scientists which Darwin expressed at the end of The Origin proved as well-founded as his despair of their seniors. Within a decade Darwinism had become scientifically respectable, as the younger biologists, and a few of the more established ones, in Germany and America as well as Britain, adopted Darwin's theory." (Burrow, J.W., "Editor's Introduction," in Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," First Edition, 1859, Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1985, p.42) 20/03/2007 "Among the general public Darwinism also made headway. To some the implications of the theory seemed negative and desolating. The whole earth no longer proclaimed the glory of the Lord. Paradoxically, in revealing the closeness of man's links with the rest. of creation, Darwin seemed to have cut the emotional ties between man and nature. The world was not, apparently, the rational design in every detail of a superintending Being, whose purposes, though infinitely beyond man's full comprehension, were in some sense akin to the purposes and feelings of man himself - at least they were purposes. Nature, according to Darwin, was the product of blind chance and a blind struggle, and man a lonely, intelligent mutation, scrambling with the brutes for his sustenance. To some the sense of loss was irrevocable; it was as if an umbilical cord had been cut, and men found themselves part of `a cold passionless universe'. Unlike nature as conceived by the Greeks, the Enlightenment and the rationalist Christian tradition, Darwinian nature held no clues for human conduct, no answers to human moral dilemmas. It seems probable that the popularity, in this century, of ethical doctrines, both of the existentialist and of the more typically Anglo-Saxon varieties, which regard goodness as created by human choice and commitment rather than as an innate property of things, owes a good deal to the underlying assumption of the purposelessness of the physical world. Philosophers may protest that the repudiation of naturalistic ethics rests on logical, not on scientific grounds, but when one is talking of the vulgarization of philosophical doctrines logic may not be the decisive factor. Hume demolished the logical basis of the argument from design, the core of Natural Theology, in his Dialogues on Natural Religion , but it was Darwin's provision of an alternative theory which caused such a widespread intellectual crisis." (Burrow, J.W., "Editor's Introduction," in Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," First Edition, 1859, Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1985, p.43) 20/03/2007 "Generations of biology students may have been misled by a famous set of drawings of embryos published 123 years ago by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel. They show vertebrate embryos of different animals passing through identical stages of development. But the impression they give, that the embryos are exactly alike, is wrong, says Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George's Hospital Medical School in London. He hopes once and for all to discredit Haeckel's work, first found to be flawed more than a century ago. Richardson had long held doubts about - Haeckel's drawings because they didn't square with his understanding of the rates at which fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals develop their distinctive features. So he and his colleagues did their own comparative study, reexamining and photographing embryos roughly matched by species and age with those Haeckel drew. Lo and behold, the embryos `often looked surprisingly different,' Richardson reports in the August issue of Anatomy and Embryology . [Richardson, M.K., et al., "There Is No Highly Conserved Embryonic Stage in the Vertebrates," Anatomy and Embryology , Vol. 196, No. 2, August 1997, pp.91-106] One striking deviation from reality, Richardson says, appears in Haeckel's drawings of embryos in the `tail bud' stage, which he depicted as identical for different species. While real embryos do share many features at this stage, such as a tail and identifiable body segments, they also have key differences. Human embryos, for example, have tiny protrusions called limb buds, says Richardson, particularly if they have developed to the point of having as many body segments as Haeckel gives them. But Haeckel did not include limb buds. And in his drawings, the chick embryo eye is blackened, like a mammal's, `but it wouldn't be pigmented this early,' Richardson says. He adds that Haeckel has given the bird embryo a curl in the tail that resembles a human's. Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, Richardson and his colleagues report, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals. In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathway. `It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology,' Richardson concludes." (Pennisi, E., "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," Science , Vol. 277, 5 September 1997, p.1435) 21/03/2007 "Embryos of different species of vertebrate share a common organisation and often look similar. Adult differences among species become more apparent through divergence at later stages. Some authors have suggested that members of most or all vertebrate clades pass through a virtually identical, conserved stage. This idea was promoted by Haeckel, and has recently been revived in the context of claims regarding the universality of developmental mechanisms. Thus embryonic resemblance at the tailbud stage has been linked with a conserved pattern of developmental gene expression - the zootype. Haeckel's drawings of the external morphology of various vertebrates remain the most comprehensive comparative data purporting to show a conserved stage. However, their accuracy has been questioned and only a narrow range of species was illustrated. In view of the current widespread interest in evolutionary developmental biology, and especially in the conservation of developmental mechanisms, re-examination of the extent of variation in vertebrate embryos is long overdue. We present here the first review of the external morphology of tailbud embryos, illustrated with original specimens from a wide range of vertebrate groups. We find that embryos at the tailbud stage - thought to correspond to a conserved stage - show variations in form due to allometry, heterochrony, and differences in body plan and somite number. These variations foreshadow important differences in adult body form. Contrary to recent claims that all vertebrate embryos pass through a stage when they are the same size, we find a greater than 10-fold variation in greatest length at the tailbud stage. Our survey seriously undermines the credibility of Haeckel's drawings, which depict not a conserved stage for vertebrates, but a stylised amniote embryo. In fact, the taxonomic level of greatest resemblance among vertebrate embryos is below the subphylum. The wide variation in morphology among vertebrate embryos is difficult to reconcile with the idea of a phyogenetically-conserved tailbud stage, and suggests that at least some developmental mechanisms are not highly constrained by the zootype. Our study also highlights the dangers of drawing general conclusions about vertebrate development from studies of gene expression in a small number of laboratory species." (Richardson, M.K., et al., "There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development," Anatomy and Embryology, Vol. 196, No. 2, July, 1997) 21/03/2007 "Problems for primitive heterotrophs Let us suppose that all the difficulties that we have been discussing were somehow overcome, and let us now consider how the very first organisms might have fared. According to the doctrine of chemical evolution these organisms were heterotrophs, that is to say they depended on organic foods. The diet of primordial soup was so adequate, it is said, that these organisms had no need for metabolic pathways to begin with. Such pathways could evolve gradually as the foods ran out (by the mechanism proposed by Horowitz in 1945; see figure 1.12). A -> B -> C -> D Figure 1.12. According to Horowitz (1945 [Horowitz, N.H., "On the Evolution of Biochemical Syntheses," Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 31, No. 6, June 1945, pp.153-157]), a metabolic pathway would have evolved backwards. D was at first a vital molecule available in the environment. D gradually ran out, giving organisms time to evolve an internal source - by converting C, some simpler precursor, that was still in the environment. As C ran out there would then be selection pressures to find some other environmental molecule, B, and the means to convert it to C. Hence complex molecules that were originally provided by a primordial soup came to be made instead from simple commonly available molecules such as CO2 and N2. To have one's food provided sounds like an easy sort of life, but in reality there would be great difficulties with such an idea. There are problems of assimilation. To be a heterotroph implies an ability to recognise molecules, or at the very least to distinguish between classes of them. For the eventual evolution of metabolic pathways, specific recognition devices would be required. Thinking along the lines of current means of biomolecular control, some kind of structure would seem to be needed that could form specific sockets corresponding to the molecules in the environment. But until you have the ability to recognise at least some molecular units, how do you reach the point of being able to manufacture such specific devices? ... The trouble is that a socket (such as that in an enzyme or a transport protein) that can recognise another molecule is much more difficult to engineer than the molecule itself. ... So what were the control techniques? How was tarry chaos avoided? If the enzymes in today's cells can cope so well this is partly because the molecules that they come across belong to a quite limited set. An enzyme may distinguish between D- glucose and D-fructose, because these are among the relatively few kinds of molecules that it encounters: but it can easily be confused by molecules from a larger range. ... A primitive organism, lacking such customs control and living in a tarry `broth' that contained for every `correct' molecule a myriad of similar `incorrect' ones would have to have far more accurate enzymes to bring about any particular sequence of reactions. So that is the problem: how to evolve accurate recognising structures from a molecular technology that probably could not tell glycine from alanine, let alone D from L. Until you know one molecule from another how do you start to do the kind of sophisticated chemistry needed to make the membranes, the active centres and so on, on which molecular discrimination depends?" (Cairns-Smith, A.G., "Genetic Takeover and the Mineral Origins of Life," , Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1987, Reprinted, 1987, pp.59-60) 21/03/2007 "At this point, we can merge the account of the Eigen group with an earlier theory of Norman Horowitz [Horowitz, N.H., "On the Evolution of Biochemical Syntheses," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 31, No. 6, June, 1945, pp.153-157]. The earliest cells may have relied on the soup for their supply of construction units and suitable sources of energy. As cells proliferated, their numbers gradually exhausted the goodies made by prebiotic chemical synthesis. Let us suppose that until now an important chemical had beer made in the soup by the route A -> B -> C -> D . In this scheme, was an abundant and inexhaustible material, such as a major component of the atmosphere. The early organisms required only the last product, D, for their important processes. Eventually, as the organisms multiplied, consumption of D exceeded its constant production and supplies became scarce. Competition for the limited available amounts of D stiffened, and survival became difficult. Eventually, an organism acquired through mutation the ability to produce D from C internally, by enzymecatalyzed pathways. This organism could grow using C instead of D. It proliferated, and dominated the environment. Ultimately, the competition either learned to make D from C or it simply died out, and the favorable mutant diversified further. Whatever the path, after a time C was also depleted. A scramble then resulted until organisms learned to make C from B. This process was extended backward, until the simplest resources were used in life processes. Ultimately, photosynthesis was developed. At that point, some organisms could use solar energy directly, in addition to the normal components of the air and soil. The soup was no longer needed." (Shapiro, R., "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth," Summit Books: New York NY, 1986, pp.165-166) 21/03/2007 "One principle must be emphasized. That is, no complex system could develop instantaneously. There had to be a period of sequential development. Morowitz (1992) calls this the principle of continuity. Horowitz (1945 [Horowitz, N.H., "On the Evolution of Biochemical Syntheses," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 31, No. 6, June, 1945, pp.153-157]) first enunciated this principle in connection with the development of synthetic metabolic pathways. He pointed out that since many intermediates in biosynthetic pathways have no other function, a pathway had to be developed in a direction inverse from the synthetic sequence. Otherwise, no positive selection could occur, and negative selection would eliminate the useless variants. This scenario assumes a genetic mechanism already in place. However logically imperative the Horowitz hypothesis (the retrograde hypothesis) may be, it must be recognized that at the early time that metabolism started, enzymes (whether RNA or protein based) could not have had the high specificity found today. In fact, metabolism must have started non-enzymatically, using as catalysts amino acids, small peptides, clays, and the same basic cofactors (or their analogs) used today: pyridoxal, nicotinamide, pyrophosphate, thiamin, folic acid, metal ions, etc." (McClendon, J.H., "The origin of life," Earth-Science Reviews, Vol. 47, Issue 1- 2, 1 July 1999, pp.71-93, p.87) 21/03/2007 "The Metabolism of the `First' Living Organisms In a recent article Garrett Hardin [Scientific Monthly Vol. 70, 1950, pp.178-179] says, "Regarding the origin of life there are at the present time only two scientific hypotheses that are given serious consideration.... we may call these the 'Autotroph Hypothesis' and the 'Heterotroph Hypothesis.' According to the former, the first form of terrestrial life must have been some organism that could manufacture its own organic substance out of inorganic substrates, as can contemporary green plants. The Heterotroph Hypothesis, on the other hand, states that the first `organism' was one of severely limited synthetic abilities, subsisting on a readily available menu of organic materials formed by nonvital processes." He goes on to say that only the heterotroph hypothesis, which has been developed of recent years by A. I. Oparin, J. B. S. Haldane, A. Dauvillier and E. Desguin, N. H. Horowitz and C. B. van Niel merits serious consideration. I must admit to a certain degree of uncertainty as to just how these two hypotheses are to be distinguished. If the autotroph hypothesis assumes that the first living organisms sprang directly from inorganic matter, whereas the heterotroph hypothesis assumes that it was necessary that there first be present a complex system of organic compounds, then I must unhesitatingly subscribe to the latter. ... If the two hypotheses are to be separated on the basis of whether the first living systems enjoyed on the one hand autotrophic or on the other hand heterotrophic metabolism, as they exist in modern organisms, then I find greater difficulty in choosing between the two." (Blum, H.F., "Time's Arrow and Evolution," , Harper Torchbooks: New York NY, Second Edition, 1955, Revised, 1962, pp.169-170. Emphasis original) 21/03/2007 "I would like to say something concerning your calculations on probability, because you are touching upon an argument that Horowitz [Horowitz, N.H., "On the Evolution of Biochemical Syntheses," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 31, No. 6, June, 1945, pp.153-157] and Oparin [Oparin, A.I., "Life, Its Nature, Origin, and Development," Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 1961] presented. They propose that some type of selection operates on the molecular level before the appearance of a living unit and then this brings about accumulation of molecules or aggregate; which approach more and more, and finally reach, the property of the living, which has the ability to reproduce persistently and then with sufficient mutability to evolve through selectivity and adaptability. The trouble is that this type of argument requires that molecules have a high capacity of self-copy and it also tacitly endows molecules with the ability of really natural selection and evolution similar to that which operates in the biological domain. Of course, there is chemical selectivity (affinity, specific reactivity, complementariness, etc.) and, incidentally, much of this is important in many biochemical details we study nowadays (enzyme-substrate, antigen-antibody interaction, etc.). There is also a continuous flux of atoms and molecules building up and down in complexity depending on the physical and chemical environment and on the property of the molecules (free energy, etc.). Some of the more complex molecules (aggregates) are more stable under certain conditions than the less complex molecules from which they are formed. Much of the synthesis and polymerization work presented here is this type of chemistry. Some of the molecules (polymers) also have great affinity to associate with similar molecules (cf. crystallization). The question is, will this lead through selection to a continuously evolving hierarchy of molecules with greater and greater ability of more and more accurate self-reproducibility until the self- reproducibility reaches a frequency and accuracy which will persistently overcompensate the combined randomization effects? To allow this to happen, one requirement is that more than half of certain kinds of molecules (polymers) must copy themselves quite faithfully before they break down. This is difficult to account for if we use the known theories of physics and chemistry. According to current quantum mechanics, the probability of self- reproducing states is zero [Wigner, E. P. (1961), in "The Logic of Personal Knowledge, Collection of Essays presented to Michael Polany," [sic] Routledge and Kegan Paul, London]. An even further requirement is that with increasing complexity and organization, self-reproducibility of molecules should be more and more probable. Obviously, this cannot be reconciled with thermodynamic principles. A third requirement is that these processes should go on persistently. Selection and evolution can occur only if there is a persistent reproduction first which overcompensates the randomization effects, and furthermore if there is some differential in the reproduction rate in more than one persistently self- reproducing species. Therefore a further requirement is that there should be occasional changes ('mutations') in the reproducing molecules to allow selection by preferential rates of reproduction, `adjusted' to a constantly changing environment. Of course, the rate of `beneficial mutations' should be greater than that of the `damaging mutations.' All of the foregoing is assumed by Horowitz and Oparin to happen to molecules. I am afraid they do assume that molecules possess a highly accurate and persistent self-copy ability (that is, persistent self- reproducibility) sufficient to overcome the combined effects of randomization; then they possess capacity for a moderate mutability rate, and thus the capacity for natural selection. Then they propose that this type of behavior of molecules may have accounted for the `evolution' of the first persistently self-reproducible system with the capacity for natural selection. I don't follow their logic." (Mora, P.T., "Discussion," of "Synthesis of Nucleosides and Polynucleotides with Metaphoric Esters," by George Schramm, in Fox, S.W., ed., "The Origins of Prebiological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices," Proceedings of a Conference Conducted at Wakulla Springs, Florida, Oct. 27-30, 1963, Academic Press: New York NY, 1965, pp.311-312) 21/03/2007 "Norman Horowitz, the Caltech biologist who played key roles in understanding a variety of scientific questions, including genetics, evolutionary theory and whether there is life on Mars, died Wednesday at his home in Pasadena. He was 90. Horowitz was best known for conceiving the pyrolytic release experiment, instruments for which were carried to the surface of Mars aboard each of the two Viking landers in 1976. ... The instruments took small samples of Martian soil and incubated them in a light chamber in the presence of the two gases, which had been radioactively labeled. After 120 hours, any organic compounds that might have formed were broken down under high heat - a technique called pyrolysis - and studied with a mass spectrometer to determine if they had incorporated any radioactive carbon. They had not, and the experiments were taken as strong proof that life did not then exist on Mars ... As a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford during the World War II years, Horowitz worked with geneticists Beadle and Edward L. Tatum ... The work earned Beadle and Tatum the 1958 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine. ... In a crucial paper in 1945, Horowitz [Horowitz, N.H., "On the Evolution of Biochemical Syntheses," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 31, No. 6, June, 1945, pp.153-157] also addressed how complex pathways within cells to synthesize biologically important compounds could have originated. He pointed out that many such compounds were known to be synthesized step by step using intermediate compounds that apparently had no other roles in the cell. How could such a synthetic pathway have evolved, he asked, if it served no purpose until it was complete? Horowitz reasoned that the end product of the pathway was at first obtained by organisms directly from the environment, where it could have been produced by non-biological mechanisms, as has been shown by many researchers. It was then possible to reasonably assume, he said, that the ability to synthesize the compound biologically could arise by a series of separate single mutations. The first such mutation might, for example, produce the desired end product in one step from some other compound in the environment. The next mutation would produce that product's precursor, and so on down the line until a complete series of reactions would yield the desired product from readily available, simple materials. Each successive mutation would provide a selective advantage by making the organism less dependent on chemicals in its environment. `I know of no alternative hypothesis that is equally simple and plausible,' Beadle said. Horowitz's formulation is now widely accepted. " (Maugh, T.H., "Norman Horowitz, 90; Caltech Biologist Known for Insights on Evolution, Mars," Los Angeles Times, June 3, 2005) 21/03/2007 "Horowitz Model Horowitz proposed that biosynthetic pathways grew by a process of `retrograde evolution,' [Horowitz, N.H. , "On the Evolution of Biochemical Syntheses," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., Vol. 31, June 1945, pp.153-157] a process which Miller and Orgel [Miller, S.L. & Orgel, L.E., "The Origins of Life on the Earth," Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs NJ, 1974. p.186] discuss in some detail. When a nutrient was exhausted by an organism, others of its kind were selected which were able to manufacture the nutrient from an immediate precursor, presumably because these organisms had the necessary enzyme(s). Suppose that a pathway A -> B -> C -> D -> E exists in an ancient organism. When the supply of E is exhausted the organism evolves an enzyme to make E from D. In turn, D to A runs out and an opportunity is given to the organism to develop a metabolic sequence. Objections to Horowitz's scheme have been raised by both Ycas [Ycas, M., "On earlier states of the biochemical system," J. Theoret. Biol., Vol. 44, March 1974, pp.145-160] and Cairns-Smith. [Cairns-Smith, A.G., "A case for an alien ancestry," Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., Vol. 189, May 6, 1975, pp.249-274] There must be a stock-pile of necessary intermediates available in the environment the production of which obligingly disappears one by one in sequence. Metabolic intermediates in general have short half-lives." (Aw, S.E.*, "Chemical Evolution: An Examination of Current Ideas," Master Book Publishers: San Diego CA, 1982, pp.140-141. Emphasis original) 22/03/2007 "The earliest known organisms on earth, the cyanophytes, and some bacteria were able to fix nitrogen in the atmosphere by attaching hydrogen to it. This generates a molecule soluble in water which cells can utilise. This these microorganisms were able to do with the greatest of ease, which is the case with the corresponding modern species also. The fascinating process by which these minute organisms, only fractions of a millimetre in diameter, are able to fix the comparatively unreactive nitrogen molecules of the atmosphere, has only recently come to light after many years of intensive research. The work of Hughes, Pickett and Talarmin of Sussex University and Pombeiro of Lisbon [Emsley, J., "Molybdenum lies at the heart of Nitrogen Fixation," New Scientist, 10th April 1986, p.30) has shown that there is a key enzyme, a nitrogenase, which contains an atom of molybdenum. Molybdenum can, in association with the special protein, attract a nitrogen molecule N2. The nitrogen is then swamped with hydrogen ions H from water while the molybdenum supplies electrons. Ammonia NH3 is formed. So simple yet so wonderful and beautifully refined. Attempts are now being made to imitate the behaviour of the enzyme and the molybdenum combination in the laboratory and so do away with complicated fertilizer plants which at present operate only at high temperatures and great expense. The living cells do all their work at room temperature utilising the 'solar panel' energy of chlorophyll." (Ambrose, E.J., "The Mirror of Creation," Theology and Science at the Frontiers of Knowledge, Number 11, Scottish Academic Press: Edinburgh UK, 1990, p.80) 23/03/2007 "In the world of Darwin, man has no special status other than his definition as a distinct species of animal. He is in the fullest sense a part of nature and not apart from it. He is akin, not figuratively, but literally, to every living thing, be it an amoeba, a tapeworm, a seaweed, an oak tree, or a monkey-even though the degrees of relationship are different and we may feel less empathy for forty-second cousins like the tapeworm than for, comparatively speaking, brothers like the monkeys... ." (Simpson, G.G., "The World into Which Darwin Led Us," Science, Vol. 131,1 April 1960, pp.966-974, p.970. In Ankerberg, J.* & Weldon, J.*, "Darwin's Leap Of Faith," Harvest House Publishers: Eugene OR, 1998, p.19) 23/03/2007 "If no one knows what time, though it will be soon enough by astronomical clocks, the lonely planet will cool, all life will die, all mind will cease, and it will all be as if it had never happened. That, to be honest, is the goal to which evolution is traveling, that is the benevolent end of the furious living and furious dying.... All life is no more than a match struck in the dark and blown out again. The final result ... is to deprive it completely of meaning." (Paul, L.A., "The Annihilation of Man: A Study of Crisis in the West," Faber & Faber: London, 1945, p.154. In Ankerberg, J.* & Weldon, J.*, "Darwin's Leap Of Faith," Harvest House Publishers: Eugene OR, 1998, p.22) 23/03/2007 "The highly visible conflict between evolutionary biology and creationism has stimulated much commentary in the scientific press about the relationship between science and religion. The Scientist, Science, Nature, and many other journals have given much space to the issue. Even the National Academy of Sciences has issued a statement on science and religion. A clear consensus emerges from this outpouring of literature. Scientists vigorously claim that no conflict exists between science and `reasonable' religion (of course excluding fundamentalism, whether Islamic or Christian). The implications of modern science, however, are clearly inconsistent with most religious traditions. No purposive principles exist in nature. Organic evolution has occurred by various combinations of random genetic drift, natural selection, Mendelian heredity, and many other purposeless mechanisms. Humans are complex organic machines that die completely with no survival of soul or psyche. Humans and other animals make choices frequently, but these are determined by the interaction of heredity and environment and are not the result of free will. No inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there absolute guiding principles for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life." (Provine, W.B., "Scientists, Face It! Science And Religion Are Incompatible," The Scientist, Vol. 2, No. 16, 5 September 1988, p.10) 23/03/2007 "These implications of modern science produce much squirming among scientists, who claim a high degree of rationality. Some, along with many liberal theologians, suggest that God set up the universe in the beginning and/or works through the laws of nature. This silly way of trying to have one's cake and eat it too amounts to deism. It is equivalent to the claim that science and religion are compatible if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism. Show me a person who says that science and religion are compatible, and I will show you a person who (1) is an effective atheist, or (2) believes things demonstrably unscientific, or (3) asserts the existence of entities or processes for which no shred of evidence exists." (Provine, W.B., "Scientists, Face It! Science And Religion Are Incompatible," The Scientist, Vol. 2, No. 16, 5 September 1988, p.10) 23/03/2007 "A thoughtful attorney from San Antonio, Tex., wrote recently to ask, "Is there an intellectually honest Christian evolutionist position? Or do we simply have to check our brains at the church house door?" The answer is, you indeed have to check your brains. Why do scientists publicly deny the implications of modern science, and promulgate the compatibility of religion and science? Wishful thinking, religious training, and intellectual dishonesty are all important factors. Perhaps the most important motivation in the United States, however, is fear about federal funding for science. Almost all members of Congress profess to being very religious. Will Congress continue to fund science if science is inconsistent with religion? Scientists are trading intellectual honesty for political considerations." (Provine, W.B., "Scientists, Face It! Science And Religion Are Incompatible," The Scientist, Vol. 2, No. 16, 5 September 1988, p.10) 23/03/2007 "This is sad, because intellectual honesty and critical thinking are the ideals of modern science, and are in very short supply. The gullibility of the U.S. public is legendary around the world. Among the Japanese, 6% are creationists 44% of Americans are. Sixty-nine percent of people in the U.S. say that God has led or guided them in making decisions, and an even greater percentage believe in ghosts and astrology. One of our greatest national problems is lack of critical thinking. How can we hope to promote critical thinking when scientists will not even face the implications of their own work?" (Provine, W.B., "Scientists, Face It! Science And Religion Are Incompatible," The Scientist, Vol. 2, No. 16, 5 September 1988, p.10) 23/03/2007 "We must recognize what modern science has done to us and try to understand its implications for the foundation of morality and meaning in life. Although no cosmic or ultimate meaning for humans exists, we can certainly lead deeply meaningful lives. I am married to a talented and beautiful woman, have two wonderful sons, live on a farm, teach at a fine university, and have many excellent friends. But I will die and soon be forgotten-all meaning in my life is proximate. Likewise, the nonexistence of ultimate moral laws in no way prevents a robust moral and ethical basis to society. These issues are tough, but we should face them squarely." (Provine, W.B., "Scientists, Face It! Science And Religion Are Incompatible," The Scientist, Vol. 2, No. 16, 5 September 1988, p.10) 23/03/2007 "Now for our glance backwards-bearing always in mind that Darwin (like Wordsworth in this respect, if in no other) owed much more to Nature than to books. Darwin's `general agent', 'bull-dog' and knight-at-arms, T.H. Huxley, in his chapter `On the Reception of the "Origin of Species" ' (Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, Ch. V), after saluting Darwin as the Newton of biology, goes on to show that the influence of Darwinian ideas has spread far beyond that special field. `The oldest of all philosophies', says Huxley with one of his fine rhetorical gestures `the oldest of all philosophies, that of Evolution, was bound hand and foot and cast into utter darkness during the millennium of theological scholasticism [Huxley's reading was far wider than Darwin's, but perhaps it did not include Augustine and Aquinas]. But Darwin poured new life- blood into the ancient frame; the bonds burst, and the revivified thought of ancient Greece has proved itself to be a more adequate expression of the universal order of things than any of the schemes which have been accepted by the credulity and welcomed by the superstition of seventy later generations of men.' The emergence of the philosophy of Evolution `in the attitude of claimant to the throne of the world of thought', he adds, `is the most portentous event of the nineteenth century' . [Huxley T. H., "On the Reception of the `Origin of Species,'" in Darwin F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," , Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. I., Reprinted, 1959, p.534]" (Willey, B., "Darwin's Place in the History of Thought," in Banton, M.P., "Darwinism and the Study of Society: A Centenary Symposium," Quadrangle Books: Chicago IL, 1961, p.6) 23/03/2007 "Nor has the influence of Darwinian ideas been less profound, beyond the realms of Biology. The oldest of all philosophies, that of Evolution, was bound hand and foot and cast into utter darkness during the millennium of theological scholasticism. But Darwin poured new lifeblood into the ancient frame ; the bonds burst, and the revivified thought of ancient Greece has proved itself to be a more adequate expression of the universal order of things than any of the schemes which have been accepted by the credulity and welcomed by the superstition of seventy later generations of men. To any one who studies the signs of the times, the emergence of the philosophy of Evolution, in the attitude of claimant to the throne of the world of thought, from the limbo of hated and, as many hoped, forgotten things, is the most portentous event of the nineteenth century." (Huxley T. H., "On the Reception of the `Origin of Species,'" in Darwin F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," , Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. I., Reprinted, 1959, p.534) 23/03/2007 "It is true enough that evolutionary ideas, of one sort or another, can be traced back to the pre-Socratic philosophers. It would be quite impossible in the space of one lecture (even if I were competent to do it) to tell the story in any completeness; most of you will know it already, and besides, the facts are set forth in H. F. Osborn's From the Greeks to Darwin (Columbia University Biological Series, No. 1, 1894). I will merely turn a spot-light upon a few points along the immense panorama. Empedocles of Agrigentum (495-435 B.C.) taught that the world was composed of four elements continually tossed to and fro by the opposing forces of attraction (love) and repulsion (hate). From this chance play of love and hate Nature throws up all conceivable forms, including plants and animals. Many of these living forms are incomplete or monstrous, and only those are preserved which are fitted to survive. On Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) we may dwell a little longer, for-as might be expected of so great a thinker-he touches upon all the relevant questions. It is especially interesting, too, that Aristotle is the only ancient writer referred to by Darwin in the `Historical Sketch' which he added to the third edition of the Origin, and that he seems to have misunderstood the drift of the passage he quotes from the Physics. Aristotle was a teleologist, seeing Nature as a graded system ordered towards the perfection of each form from the polyp up to man. ... As a thinker who believed that Nature is purposive, striving always after the better, Aristotle makes a point of refuting Empedocles and others who had taught that chance ruled supreme, and that the existing forms and adaptations were simply those which survived because they happened to be thrown together as if by design. This is the passage referred to in Darwin's `Historical Sketch', and I suspect that he only read that part of it which he quotes as having been pointed out to him by a friend. At any rate, he stands Aristotle on his head, praising him faintly for foreshadowing the principle of `natural selection', and not noticing that the remarks he quotes are from the summary of the Empedoclean doctrine, which Aristotle gives merely to demonstrate its absurdity." (Willey, B., "Darwin's Place in the History of Thought," in Banton, M.P., "Darwinism and the Study of Society: A Centenary Symposium," Quadrangle Books: Chicago IL, 1961, pp.6-7) 23/03/2007 "I said a moment ago that I doubted whether Huxley had read Augustine or Aquinas, and my reason for this reference was that both the Father and the Schoolman can be said to have held views about the Creation far more consonant with Darwin's than is often supposed, and far more `enlightened' than those of the fundamentalist Victorians attacked by Huxley. Augustine glossed the Creation story in Genesis by saying, in effect, that in the first days God created the plants and animals causaliter, that is to say, by infusing into the earth the necessary energy or potency so that it could thereafter produce the creatures by `natural' unfolding, God resting from his labours. Aquinas, expounding Augustine, appears to sanction this view. Thus Pusey in 1878, while denouncing Darwin for his theory of man's descent, could yet admit Evolution in the animal and vegetable kingdoms as a theory in perfect accord with the teaching of western theology since Augustine, and not excluded by Scripture. Aubrey Moore, one of the Victorian theologians who, after the first furore about Darwinism had simmered down, did most to promote the peaceful co-existence of Science and Religion, argued that the antithesis between Creation and Evolution was unreal: `The facts of Nature are the acts of God'. When we say `God made us' we don't mean to deny the facts of reproduction; and similarly we may say `God made the species' without denying his method of evolving them. [Moore, A.L., "Science and the Faith," Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co: London, 1887, pp.178ff.]" (Willey, B., "Darwin's Place in the History of Thought," in Banton, M.P., "Darwinism and the Study of Society: A Centenary Symposium," Quadrangle Books: Chicago IL, 1961, pp.6-7) 23/03/2007 "It was odd, Moore felt, that the question between the mutability or immutability of species should ever have appeared to be a religious question at all. Who invented the doctrine of immutability? not Augustine nor Aquinas nor Bacon; the true culprits were Milton, Ray and Linnaeus-and especially Milton, whose description of the creatures emerging fully-formed from the earth had been accepted as authoritative. Since we know that Milton was Darwin's favourite reading in his youth, and always accompanied him on his excursions from the `Beagle', let us remind ourselves of the picture of creation given in Paradise Lost. It is that which Darwin spent the next twenty years in trying to blot out from his imagination: [on the sixth day of creation God bids the earth bring forth beasts, each after his kind] The Earth obey'd, and straight Op'ning her fertile womb team'd at a birth Innumerous living creatures, perfect forms, Limb'd and full grown.... The grassy clods now calv'd; now half appear'd The Tawny- lion, pawing to get free His hinder parts, then springs as broke from bonds, And rampant shakes his brinded mane; the ounce, The libbard, and the tiger, as the mole Rising, the crumbl'd earth above them threw In hillocks; the swift stag from under ground Bore up his branching head; scarce from his mould Behemoth biggest born of earth upheav'd His vastness; fleec't the flocks and bleating rose As plants; ambiguous between sea and land The river horse and scaly crocodile. Book VII, 453 ff. If then, neither the Bible, nor the Fathers, nor the Schoolmen support it, why should modern Christians feel obliged to defend an exploded scientific theory? [Moore, A.L., "Science and the Faith," Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co: London, 1887, pp.178ff.]" (Willey, B., "Darwin's Place in the History of Thought," in Banton, M.P., "Darwinism and the Study of Society: A Centenary Symposium," Quadrangle Books: Chicago IL, 1961, pp.8-9) 23/03/2007 "`There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that ... from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.' [Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species," John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, 1872, Reprinted, 1882, p.429] There might be grandeur in it for Kingsley, and Aubrey Moore, and a few other stalwart liberals and modernists, but not for Samuel Wilberforce or Dr Pusey or the general mass of believers and their ecclesiastical spokesmen. For them, in spite of Darwin's pious gesture of appeasement, it meant the banishment of the idea of God the creator and designer to such a distance that it lost all religious meaning. Darwin's vestigial theism was no comfort to them; he had not attacked Moses, certainly; but if he were right, Moses must be wrong." (Willey, B., "Darwin's Place in the History of Thought," in Banton, M.P., "Darwinism and the Study of Society: A Centenary Symposium," Quadrangle Books: Chicago IL, 1961, pp.13-14) 23/03/2007 "It was the substitution of `chance' for `design' that caused most of the offence, and seemed to place Darwin in the atheistical succession from Epicurus and Lucretius and all the later materialists. It was of no avail for Darwin to explain, as he did, that in nature nothing happens by chance, but all according to the strict determination of physical law. `Chance' does not mean `no cause'; it means `cause unknown'; it is, he said, a term which `serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation'. Yet he habitually spoke as if the useful variations, which Nature selects from the mass of useless ones, were (like the latter) thrown up at random; and if things happen like this, it was felt, they happen without the conscious purpose or design of an intelligent agent." (Willey, B., "Darwin's Place in the History of Thought," in Banton, M.P., "Darwinism and the Study of Society: A Centenary Symposium," Quadrangle Books: Chicago IL, 1961, p.14) 23/03/2007 "Could an elaborate structure like the eye, for example, have been formed in this way? Darwin often admitted that he was `staggered' (a favourite word of his) by the eye, and told Asa Gray (in 1860) that `the eye to this day gives me a cold shudder'. Throughout his life Darwin had moods in which it seemed difficult or impossible to conceive `this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and forwards into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity'; [Darwin, C.R., in Barlow, N., ed., "The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882," W.W. Norton & Co: New York NY, 1958, pp.92- 93] and at such times, as he says, `I deserve to be called a Theist'. Yet, by his own admission also, these impressions gradually became weaker; disbelief `crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress'. The Duke of Argyll records some significant words spoken to him by Darwin in the last year of the latter's life, during a talk about the wonderful contrivances in nature: `I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and expression of mind'. Darwin looked at him very hard, and said `Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times', and he shook his head vaguely, adding, `it seems to go away'. [Darwin, CR., in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. I., 1898, p.285] It went away, and with it went, as Darwin sorrowfully confessed in old age, his powers of responding to music, poetry and landscape, in all of which he had once delighted. `My mind', he said, `seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts'." (Willey, B., "Darwin's Place in the History of Thought," in Banton, M.P., "Darwinism and the Study of Society: A Centenary Symposium," Quadrangle Books: Chicago IL, 1961, p.14) 23/03/2007 "I quoted, a moment ago, Darwin's avowal that he was not an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God. But that subtle schoolman, Dr Pusey, said of him, as of modern scientists generally (as distinct from the older scientists from Copernicus to Newton and beyond), that he had done something worse than to deny God; he had forgotten Him. Worse, because denial at least implies the presence in the mind of the object denied, whereas it is of the essence of Darwinism to eliminate God, as far as may be, from our thoughts about the creation and its history. Pusey connects this loss of spiritual perception-the common outcome of modern science-with the narrowing effects of specialisation, and quotes from Newman the observation that `any one study ... exclusively pursued, deadens in the mind the interest, nay the perception, of any other'. [Pusey, E.B., "Un-Science, Not Science, Adverse To Faith," 1878] And this is perhaps the heart of the religious criticism of all science, Darwinian or other, that in attending exclusively to the How it loses interest in the Whence and the Why." (Willey, B., "Darwin's Place in the History of Thought," in Banton, M.P., "Darwinism and the Study of Society: A Centenary Symposium," Quadrangle Books: Chicago IL, 1961, p.15) 23/03/2007 "Science, qua science, must do this; its very raison d'etre is to replace the supernatural by the natural, the unknown by the known, fable by fact, and while it is engaged upon this task it must be provisionally atheistic or cease to be itself. Perhaps Darwin would have been wiser not to mention the Creator at all in the Origin; as it was, he made people feel that he believed too much not to believe more, or too little not to believe less still. A God who breathed life into the primordial forms, and then rested from his work for ever after, did not satisfy the religiously-minded. Darwin had devoted himself so whole-heartedly to displacing divine acts and fiats by chance and selection, that he might as well have gone the whole way back to Epicurus and declared for the eternity of matter. But, as I have said, Darwin regarded all such questions as insoluble puzzles, and distractions from the real business of his life. It was very inconsiderate of `clever' people to pester him with them, especially as he `enjoyed' such poor health." (Willey, B., "Darwin's Place in the History of Thought," in Banton, M.P., "Darwinism and the Study of Society: A Centenary Symposium," Quadrangle Books: Chicago IL, 1961, p.15) 23/03/2007 "It would be absurd to blame Darwin for not having been a profound metaphysician or theologian; the work he did accomplish was more than enough for the lifetimes of several ordinary men. But there were and are others for whom God is no optional hypothesis, to be occasionally used when other explanations fail, but the central, all-demanding fact of experience; and it was left to such people to reconcile Darwinism with their faith if they could. The later history of Christian apologetics has shown that the thing could be done. It was done by declaring that God has not rested after the seventh day, but has been immanent in nature throughout, so that the facts of nature are the acts of God. One may go further and say that Darwin has positively helped to restore buoyancy to religion by forcing it to abandon some of its most untenable defences. Though scriptural fundamentalism was undermined by historical and textual criticism far more than by natural science, Darwin contributed his share to the weakening of that bibliolatry which was the bane of popular Protestantism. And in so far as he reduced the authority of the old argument from design, he was discrediting what had always been, in reality, a precarious line of defence. As Pascal had long ago said, Nature proves God only to those who already believe in Him on other grounds." (Willey, B., "Darwin's Place in the History of Thought," in Banton, M.P., "Darwinism and the Study of Society: A Centenary Symposium," Quadrangle Books: Chicago IL, 1961, pp.15-16) 24/03/2007 "Theology places no limits on the modes of His working, Who works all things in all. If God willed that organic life should start out of inorganic masses, Theology would accept it at once, since our Lord has said, `My Father worketh hitherto and I work.' [John v. 17 ] It would be to Theology only a renewal of what it already believes, that `God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.' [Gen. ii. 7] The workings in nature are to Theology only the workings of God. For nature, although men ascribe to it wisdom and power, and personify it as if it were a goddess, is but a name for an effect, whose Cause is God. But science too says, `Tertium non datur.' [Virchow die Freiheit der Wisscnschaft, p. 20] There is no other choice left; either spontaneous generation, or a Creator. If any lay down, `I accept not creation;' then his second thesis must be, `Then I accept spontaneous generation.' But for this we have no evidence of fact.'" (Pusey, E.B.*, "Un-Science, Not Science, Adverse To Faith: A Sermon Read by H.P. Liddon at the University of Oxford, 3 November 1878, James Parker & Co: Oxford, 1878, pp.6-7. Emphasis original) 24/03/2007 "Again, physical science now assumes as certain truth (would that it believed truths of the Word of God as unhesitatingly!) an unproved theory, that Almighty God did not create all the forms of animal creation at once, but some primordial germs only, out of which all the rest were evolved. Evolution is, for the day, a sort of Gospel, or at least an axiom of physical science. Apart from unproved and unprovable and therefore unscientific details, the principle, that God may have created some things in that ""of all things which have their birth corporeally and visibly, some hidden seeds lie hid in those corporeal elements of this world," [14 de Trin. iii. 8. n.] is no other than the teaching of our Western Theology since S. Augustine. Far more developement might be granted, than science can prove, a wider range might be given to the popular theory of evolution than exact science yet admits of; the number of species of which human experience knows, might be reduced indefinitely, without contradicting the Bible history of the creation; "God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth, after his kind." [15 Gen. i. 25] To our unimaginative minds, the unity of types in creation, amid a variety which the human mind cannot grasp, seems more explicable by the unity of its Author than by transformist theories. Even in works of human creativeness (as works of art, fiction, poetry, even music) we are accustomed to recognise sameness of authorship by some recurring characteristic. We do not ascribe it to poverty of imagination, but to some pleasure which the soul takes in its creations. But while we think the transformist theories a mere imagination, Theology does not hold them excluded by Holy Scripture, so that they spare the soul of man." (Pusey, E.B.*, "Un-Science, Not Science, Adverse To Faith: A Sermon Read by H.P. Liddon at the University of Oxford, 3 November 1878, James Parker & Co: Oxford, 1878, p.7. Emphasis original) 24/03/2007 "[David again speaks of the developement in his mother's womb, almost, but for his reverence, as if he were writing in our century. "Thou [Ps. cxxxix. 13] hast created my inward parts; Thou didst interweave me [with nerves and veins and arteries] in my mother's womb: my substance (his self, his undeveloped substance) was not hid from Thee, when I was made in secret, and variegated (with all the intricacy of our physical structure.) Thine eyes did see my formless substance; the ball, which was afterwards to be unwound, as what lay yet undeveloped was expanded into the rudimental shape of the future being: "and in Thy book were they all written, 26 which day by day were formed, when as yet there were none of them." But that Theology would not identify David's words with modern physical theories, we might speak of this as a doctrine of the evolution of the individual. Yet David believed in his Maker and glorified Him. His own creation was to him matter of awe and admiration and praise." (Pusey, E.B.*, "Un-Science, Not Science, Adverse To Faith: A Sermon Read by H.P. Liddon at the University of Oxford, 3 November 1878, James Parker & Co: Oxford, 1878, p.8. Emphasis original) 24/03/2007 "It may seem to be beginning a great way off, but, in a place of education, it is not amiss to say, `One reason of this alienation of modern physical science, is its exclusiveness.' A thoughtful writer has said, `Special studies, which bring into play a particular aptitude of intelligence, without paralysing the rest, are conformable to the wants of nature. Exclusive studies, which amass a sort of congestional life upon one point of the mind, leaving the rest in inaction, are an abnormal developement, an excrescence of intellectual life; so that while special science forms men who are eminent, exclusive science produces judgements which are false. Exclusive science is the only one injurious to religion; but it is also the only one opposed to it.' [P. Caussette, Le bon sens de la foi. P. ii. L. iii. c. 1. T. ii. p. 233.] ``What withholds a man from faith, is not the knowledge of nature, which any one has, but the knowledge of religion which he has not.' [ Ib. p. 238] We readily recognise in other subjects the special peril of exclusiveness, in narrowing the range of thought. Theological exclusiveness or narrowness is a by-word to physical science. Physicists would seem to hold it almost impossible, that a Theologian should not be narrow. It seems to them a strange phenomenon, a thing to be noted, when he is not so. Why, but because the all-importance of this study is supposed so to rivet the minds of those devoted to it as to indispose them to take in thoughts which lie outside of it, much more those which at first sight seem to impinge against it? It could hardly be held to be so universal a fruit of Theological study, unless there were some widely prevailing cause. It cannot be that the grandest study, in which wisdom power love goodness and all besides are infinite, should be narrowing, universally and alone. It must be a deep human infirmity, which should contract the conception of infinity. If the exclusive study of the highest be, as men say, narrowing, other studies may well look to it. This narrowing cannot be confined to Theology. It is not a mere retort, but the acknowledgement of a common human infirmity, if Theology says to Natural science, `Change but the name, the tale is told of thee.' `Any one study, of whatever kind, exclusively pursued,' says a very thoughtful writer, ['Lectures on University subjects,' by J. H. Newman, D.D. p. 322. 1859] `deadens in the mind the interest, nay the perception of any other. ... You can hardly persuade some men to talk about anything but their own pursuit; they refer the whole world to their own centre, and measure all matters by their own rule.-It is clear that the tendency of science is to make men indifferentists or sceptics, merely by being exclusively pursued.' And this it does, partly by losing sight of what is spiritual, God, the soul, freewill, human responsibility, and all the truths of revelation, through being immersed in the material; partly by forgetting the bounds which belong to it as science, i.e. as accurate knowledge, `encroaching on territory not its own, and undertaking problems which it has no instruments to solve.'" (Pusey, E.B.*, "Un-Science, Not Science, Adverse To Faith: A Sermon Read by H.P. Liddon at the University of Oxford, 3 November 1878, James Parker & Co: Oxford, 1878, pp.9-10. Emphasis original) 24/03/2007 "Modern science in England does not, for the most part, deny God. ... But science, which does not deny God, may forget Him. It would very likely acknowledge Him, if it were asked. But it is so busy about secondary causes, that it has no time to think about the First Cause. Time and thought are fully occupied without Him. It goes back from link to link, and forgets that the chain is but a weight, unless it is fastened somewhere. Every secondary cause is at once a cause and an effect; an effect of what goes before, a cause of what succeeds it. But where is the First Cause, upon which it depends? Natural science has to do with created things, how they act on each other. The belief in a First Cause, or a Creator, belongs to man, as a creature, not as an investigator of science. It cannot find God or the soul at the bottom of its crucible. ... The thought of a First Cause belongs to Theology, or in its degree, to Philosophy, not to the natural sciences. It is foreign to the researches of Physical Science; so much so, that when one, who had traced the developement [sic] of species through all links possible and impossible, closed his book, not as a philosopher but as a Theist, by speaking of life with its several powers having `been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one,' [Darwin `Origin of Species,' end.] his expression was criticised, because it acknowledged God as the Author of all. It, in fact, brings back the old belief, that God is the Ultimate Cause of all that is, because, at all events, He infused into those supposed primordial principles the power of generating, step by step, whatever was developed from them. But there is an unconscious as well as a conscious disbelief in God; and the unconscious disbelief in Him is often the more dangerous, because the more subtle. To deny God, is more the sin of those rebellious spirits, who dispute His claim over our wills. To forget God may be human infirmity, in every thing which absorbs the mind, in intellectual ambition, as well as in the slavery to sense, or in the shadowy day-dreams of human greatness. ... Yet to deny God requires more belief in God than to forget Him. To deny God implies that He has a claim to be believed; it virtually acknowledges the claim which it resists. God is in his thoughts, though as yet put away from them. The latent belief, though resisted and repelled, may, by God's mercy and grace, yet reassert itself, when the hindrance put to it by man's will is, by whatever means, withdrawn. The fast-closed doors may at length be opened. ... Atheism has been formally pronounced to be `a system too religious, because there is something better than to deny religion. It is to forget it.' [Arnold Ruge, Annales de Halle, in Causette ii. 252]" (Pusey, E.B.*, "Un-Science, Not Science, Adverse To Faith: A Sermon Read by H.P. Liddon at the University of Oxford, 3 November 1878, James Parker & Co: Oxford, 1878, pp.10-11. Emphasis original) 24/03/2007 "The vast and wonderful progress of natural science has tempted it, like so many other conquerors, to over- pass its bounds. It goes beyond its bounds, if it argues against creation, on the ground that the emergence of matter into being is `unthinkable;' [Nineteenth Century, Sept. 1878. p. 445.] in other words, that we, being creatures of very limited faculties, whose highest intelligence is the capacity of conceiving an Intelligence infinitely above our own, cannot think how that Intelligence could act, or how It could effect what we cannot imagine, how It would effect. But are then men so sure that they can form any idea of created things which they have every day in their mouths? What a puzzle are time and space, if we think of them in themselves, not of things which take place in them. ... Time to come is a mere creature of the imagination; it is not yet, it may never be: time past has ceased to be. The present has no duration. Both exist only in the soul. Once time was not: there was nothing but God's ever- present eternity. Once again, we are told, it `shall be no more.' [Rev. x. 6] But even now, what is it? Time is present, only at this moment; in the next, what is now present, will have ceased to be. Time seems long or short, according to our own feelings. If we are weary, it seems to be long; if happy, short. It is not measured by the motion of the heavenly bodies or any other, but rather itself measures them; nor is it any measure of eternity. But what can we think of that, which has ceased to be in the single moment, in which we think of it? And yet it has such hold of our imagination, that we cannot picture to ourselves its not being. Again we speak continually of `infinite space,' but we are baffled and cast back upon ourselves, if we think of it: and at last the religious mind takes refuge in the thought, that it is the Presence of the Infinite God, Who is wholly every where, but the whole of Him no where. Even in mathematics we have things demonstrated to us, which, if we attempt to set our demonstration before our eyes, seem to us absolutely impossible. What right then have we to reject anything because it is not `thinkable?' But is it then more `thinkable,' i. e. can we better picture to ourselves, how a single `cell of protoplasm generated at the bottom of the sea' [Haeckel i. pp 184, 185] should develope of itself into all this beautiful and boundless variety of intricate forms every where spread before our senses; or how `vitality should be generated out of matter,' [Caussette ii. 357] or how matter should be self-existent, i. e. God; or how that `God-matter, in all eternity divided in thousands of millions of scattered atoms in imaginary spaces, should once have been united by a law of arbitrary cohesion, called chance?' [Ib. 358]. Is not chance that God, to escape the acknowledgment of Whose Being the eternity of matter is assumed?" (Pusey, E.B.*, "Un-Science, Not Science, Adverse To Faith: A Sermon Read by H.P. Liddon at the University of Oxford, 3 November 1878, James Parker & Co: Oxford, 1878, pp.12-13) 24/03/2007 "To speak gravely of the formation of the eye only, Reusch says (Bibel und Natur, p. 386.) `The discussion of this point is one of the best parts in Frohschammer's criticism on Darwinism. He says very aptly, `So therefore out of imperfect eyes without crystal lenses and all besides, eyes with crystal lenses and horny surface are to be formed by natural selection. That could only happen, either if, in that most imperfect eye, this perfect one were already laid as in a seed, which only needs developement; but this would imply an inner principle of developement, and the external principle of developement by natural selection, assumed by Darwin, would be superfluous, or at least, no longer the primary and only principle; or, if the capacity for further improvement or for adding to the crystal lens did not yet exist in that most imperfect eye, then its formation even in its very earliest beginnings could only have been either through generatio aequivoca, or through accident, or through a distinctly divine creative agency. As Darwin accepts nothing of all this, the matter remains unexplained; i.e. the possibility of the transformation is not shewn, and the difficulty is not therefore solved. Darwin indeed likens the perfect eye to the telescope, and the action of `natural selection' in relation to the perfecting of the eye, to the exertions of human intelligence in the improvement and perfecting of the telescope. But this is certainly wrong; for unconscious nature can no more imitate or exercise the activity of the optician carried on upon a definite plan, than it can imitate or replace the activity of the artist, e.g. of the painter or the clockmaker. The material requirements for works of art certainly all exist in nature; but nevertheless, no one could say, that nature is able of itself to produce a painting or a clock. Darwin on this point falls into a formal Personification of natural selection, in order to keep up his limping explanation of the origin of the perfected eye. Natural selection is to `observe minutely,' and `select carefully,' and `with unerring tact discover each improvement for further perfecting.' Were that to be understood literally, Darwin would himself thereby introduce into nature a power acting according to design, which would make all his other attempts at explanation superfluous. But any how, according to Darwin's intention, it is only to be understood figuratively, and then such expressions are perfectly inadmissible. `Natural selection,' as the complex of merely operating causes, cannot observe, select, and proceed on a definite plan, but must take every thing as it comes, and can only use and retain favourable circumstances or alterations; or more justly expressed, these changes when they once exist, maintain themselves, because they exist. Natural selection therefore cannot strive for more perfect eyes, but can only preserve them, and use them, when they exist and therefore have in some way originated. Darwin himself acknowledges, `If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' [Origin of Species, p. 146. ed. 6.] The most perfect eyes cannot be explained by numerous slight successive modifications: for they are distinguished from the imperfect eyes by substantially new parts which cannot issue in continual developement out of the former, unless they are already laid up in them from the beginning on a regular plan; in which case they could only have arisen through a sudden spring, and so through an incomprehensible, mysterious occurrence, not through natural selection." (Pusey, E.B.*, "Un-Science, Not Science, Adverse To Faith: A Sermon Read by H.P. Liddon at the University of Oxford, 3 November 1878, James Parker & Co: Oxford, 1878, p.23. Emphasis original) 24/03/2007 "I have been asked, in the name of some young members of the University who heard this sermon, whether I account the animal derivation of the body of man to be a theory contradictory to Revelation, and should, on theological grounds, hold it to be impossible that science could establish it. I would, in answer, recall the distinction between the scientific and what has been called `the mythological' or transformist part of Mr. Darwin's theory. The question as to `species,' of what variations the animal world is capable, whether the species be more or fewer, whether accidental variations may become hereditary, whether the `struggle for existence' may have occasioned animals which once existed to disappear, whether e. g. the animals ranged under the tribe of felis or canis were each originally variations of some common progenitor, and the like, naturally fall under the province of science. In all these questions Mr. Darwin's careful observations gained for him a deserved approbation and confidence. These questions have no bearing whatever upon Theology. Professor Reusch says, `I should not be at all concerned about Vogt's statement ... to the effect that he must decline the last results of the Darwinian system, but that, in regard to the more nearly-related types, he could declare himself an adherent of it. With this restriction, I could myself become a Darwinian without ceasing to be a Theologian who believes in the Bible: a relationship of race between more nearly related types of the animal and vegetable kingdom, even when one extends the relationship very far, has theologically nothing which one need apprehend.' [Bibel und Natur, p. 373.] Unhappily, on his scientific investigations Darwin grafted a theory which belonged to theology, not to natural science. In geological remains, there has been observed a gradation from the more imperfect to the more advanced. This might obviously have been through the continued action of the Creator and, down to Lamarck and Mr. Darwin, was held by scientific men also to have been so. No one doubted it, who believed in creation at all. We were not there, and as we cannot understand why God created at all, so neither can we tell what end He had in creating anything which He did create. We know that God created orders of beings of immense intelligence, of whose numbers we know nothing. ... In this immensity of creation, it seems to me an improbable assumption, that all the creations in this our planet were completed at once. It was chiefly in order to escape the belief that there were successive creations ... that the theory of evolution was invented." (Pusey, E.B.*, "Un-Science, Not Science, Adverse To Faith: A Sermon Read by H.P. Liddon at the University of Oxford, 3 November 1878, James Parker & Co: Oxford, 1878, p.25) 24/03/2007 "Mr. Darwin urges this in self-defence against critics of his book. `I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to shew that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change, though largely aided by the inherited effects of habit, and slightly by the direct action of the surrounding conditions. I was not, however, able to annul the influence of my former belief, then almost universal, that each species had been purposely created; and this led to my tacit assumption, that any detail of structure, excepting rudiments, was of some special, though unrecognised, service. Any one, with this assumption in his mind, would naturally extend too far the action of natural selection, either during past or present times. Some of those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when criticising my book, that I had the above two objects in view; hence, if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.' [Darwin, the Descent of man, P. 1. c. 2. p. 61.] It was then so far, with a quasi-Theological, not with a scientific object, that he wrote his book. He wished `to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.' Why? With the all-but-infinity of creation, which the telescope unfolds, what are we, that we should object to any mode of creation, as unbefitting our Creator? A result, which is arrived at under a bias, lies under a suspicion as to its validity. People catch at what seems to them evidence, on what seems to them previous probability. The reproach is cast upon Theologians; it is not likely to belong to them alone." (Pusey, E.B.*, "Un-Science, Not Science, Adverse To Faith: A Sermon Read by H.P. Liddon at the University of Oxford, 3 November 1878, James Parker & Co: Oxford, 1878, pp.25-26. Emphasis original) 24/03/2007 "Even granted, that intermediate types (the absence of which is so strongly urged against Mr. Darwin's theory, a lacuna which he himself in a degree feels, although he ascribes it to the imperfections of our geological records) ... For thousands of years (or tens of thousands according to these theorists) there is no trace of any such change. The only presumption that it ever was, the only evidence which science would admit in any other case, would be, its taking place now, when science could examine the evidence for the alleged facts. Nature remains the same; its laws are the same. Why, if they were not regulated by the will of its Creator, was it once so prolific in forming new classes of animals, and now is still?" (Pusey, E.B.*, "Un-Science, Not Science, Adverse To Faith: A Sermon Read by H.P. Liddon at the University of Oxford, 3 November 1878, James Parker & Co: Oxford, 1878, p.26. Emphasis original) 24/03/2007 "The transformation-theory of Darwin is quite apart from the `survival of the strongest in the battle for life.' This struggle would be between animals of the same general habits of life. It is in keeping, that rats, leeches, cock-roaches, bees, swallows, thrushes, should have supplanted others of their own kind. [Darwin's Origin &c. p. 59. ed. 6] But our supposed progenitors survive still. Kangaroos and apes still exist." (Pusey, E.B.*, "Un-Science, Not Science, Adverse To Faith: A Sermon Read by H.P. Liddon at the University of Oxford, 3 November 1878, James Parker & Co: Oxford, 1878, p.27) 24/03/2007 "The transformation-theory was a special object of Darwin's interest, he tells us, because it dispensed with the intervention of a personal Creator. Darwin's German translator noted the inconsistency of assuming for once a First Cause, and then denying His interference ever after. `A personal act of creation is still required for Darwin's first organic being, and if it is requisite once, then it appears to us an utter matter of indifference, whether the first act of creation occupied itself with one or with ten or with a hundred thousand species.' [Bronn, p. 516, quoted by Reusch, p. 351.]" (Pusey, E.B.*, "Un-Science, Not Science, Adverse To Faith: A Sermon Read by H.P. Liddon at the University of Oxford, 3 November 1878, James Parker & Co: Oxford, 1878, p.27) 24/03/2007 "Darwinism was acceptable to German atheists, because, with that one exception, it removed God out of sight. `As I observed before,' says C. Vogt, `this Creator, who from time to time changed the furnishing of his earth, and created a new one after he had annihilated the old, would never get into my head.-It is not strange, that the view of Darwin met with the most vehement contradiction.-Its consequences are unquestionably frightful for a certain direction of mind. There is no question that Darwin's theory, without any ceremony, turns out of doors a Personal Creator and his interferences in the change of the creation, and the creation of species, in that it does not leave the very least room for the working of such a being.' [Vorlesungen, ii. pp. 259, 260.] A graver writer says, `This is the great attractiveness of this theory. It points out to materialism a possibility of referring the origin and continued existence of all living beings to an accidental coincidence of external physical and chemical processes. Darwin has brought the goal, at which Materialism drives with all its might, so invitingly near.' Pfaff, die neuesten Forschungen, p. 107. Rolle says, `After the advance of science had long stood in awe before this last bulwark of the theory of creation, it was reserved to Darwin &c.' [Der Mensch, &c. p. 64.]" (Pusey, E.B.*, "Un-Science, Not Science, Adverse To Faith: A Sermon Read by H.P. Liddon at the University of Oxford, 3 November 1878, James Parker & Co: Oxford, 1878, pp.27-28) 24/03/2007 "Darwinism, then, is in an inconsistent position. It is not Atheistic in itself; it cannot be so, except by the further assumption of the eternity of matter and spontaneous generation. But it is inconsistent, in its belief in a Creator Who is to be eliminated from all interference with the works which He has made. ... A First Cause, which is introduced as a `Deus ex machinâ,' to save us from the conception of the eternity of matter, but who, after the creation, looked on unconcerned upon the results of his act upon his creatures, would be an Epicurean god, whose being would be inconsistent not only with God's revelation of Himself, but with any conceptions of an intelligent Theism. But this belief Darwin tells us, it was his object to establish. It was the essence of Darwinism." (Pusey, E.B.*, "Un-Science, Not Science, Adverse To Faith: A Sermon Read by H.P. Liddon at the University of Oxford, 3 November 1878, James Parker & Co: Oxford, 1878, p.28) 24/03/2007 "By offering evolution in place of God as a cause of history, Darwin removed the theological basis of the moral code of Christendom. And the moral code that has no fear of God is very shaky. That's the condition we are in.... I don't think man is capable yet of managing social order and individual decency without fear of some supernatural being overlooking him and able to punish him." (Durant, W., "Are We in the Last Stage of a Pagan Period?" Chicago Tribune Syndicate, April 1980. In Morris, H.M.*, "The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict," , Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Eighth Printing, 1996, p.149) 24/03/2007 "I just skimmed through Dr. Pusey's sermon, . as published in the Guardian, but it did [not] seem to me worthy of any attention. As I have never answered criticisms excepting those made by scientific men, I am not willing that this letter should be published; but I have no objection to your saying that you sent me the three questions, and that I answered that Dr. Pusey was mistaken in imagining that I wrote the 'Origin ' with any relation whatever to Theology. I should have thought that this would have been evident to any one who had taken the trouble to read the book, more especially as in the opening lines of the introduction I specify how the subject arose in my mind. This answer disposes of your two other questions; but I may add that many years ago, when I was collecting facts for the 'Origin,' my belief in what is called a personal God was as firm as that of Dr. Pusey himself, and as to the eternity of matter I have never troubled myself about such insoluble questions. Dr. Pusey's attack will be as powerless to retard by a day the belief in Evolution, as were the virulent attacks made by divines fifty years ago against Geology, and the still older ones of the Catholic Church against Galileo, for the public is wise enough always to follow Scientific men when they agree on any subject ; and now there is almost complete unanimity amongst Biologists about Evolution, though there is still considerable difference as to the means, such as how far natural selection has acted, and how far external conditions, or whether there exists some mysterious innate tendency to perfectability. " (Darwin, C.R., Letter to C. Ridley, November 28, 1878, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," , Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., Reprinted, 1959, pp.411-412) 24/03/2007 "I am obliged by your kind letter and the enclosure. - the publication in any form of your remarks on my writings really requires no consent on my part, and it would be ridiculous in me to give consent to what requires none. I should prefer the part of volume not be dedicated to me (though I thank you for the intended honour) as this implies to a certain extent my approval of the general publication, about which I know nothing. - Moreover though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, and I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my family, if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion. - I am sorry to refuse you any request, but I am old and have very little strength, and looking over proof-sheets (as I know by present experience) fatigues me much." (Darwin, C.R., Letter to Edward Aveling, October 13, 1880. In Feuer, L.S., "Is the `Darwin-Marx correspondence' authentic?" Annals of Science, Vol. 32, No. 1, January 1975, pp.1-12. http://darwin.gruts.com/articles/2000/marx/) 25/03/2007 "It would be difficult to give any rational explanation of the affinities of the blind cave-animals to the other inhabitants of the two continents on the ordinary view of their independent creation." (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection," John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, 1872, Reprinted, 1882, p.111) 25/03/2007 "On the ordinary view of each species having been independently created, why should that part of the structure, which differs from the same part in other independently created species of the same genus, be more variable than those parts which are closely alike in the several species? I do not see that any explanation can be given. But on the view that species are only strongly marked and fixed varieties, we might expect often to find them still continuing to vary in those parts of their structure which have varied within a moderately recent period, and which have thus come to differ." (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection," , John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, 1872, Reprinted, 1882, pp.122-123) 25/03/2007 "In the vegetable kingdom we have a case of analogous variation, in the enlarged stems, or as commonly called roots, of the Swedish turnip and Ruta baga, plants which several botanists rank as varieties produced by cultivation from a common parent: if this be not so, the case will then be one of analogous variation in two so-called distinct species; and to these a third may be added, namely, the common turnip. According to the ordinary view of each species having been independently created, we should have to attribute this similarity in the enlarged stems of these three plants, not to the vera causa of community of descent, and a consequent tendency to vary in a like manner, but to three separated yet closely related acts of creation. " (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection," , John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, 1872, Reprinted, 1882, p.125) 25/03/2007 "Mammals offer another and similar case. I have carefully searched the oldest voyages, and have not found a single instance, free from doubt, of a terrestrial mammal (excluding domesticated animals kept by the natives) inhabiting an island situated above 300 miles from a continent or great continental island; and many islands situated at a much less distance are equally barren. ... Yet it cannot be said that small islands will not support at least small mammals, for they occur in many parts of the world on very small islands, when lying close to a continent; and hardly an island can be named on which our smaller quadrupeds have not become naturalised and greatly multiplied. It cannot be said, on the ordinary view of creation, that there has not been time for the creation of mammals; many volcanic islands are sufficiently ancient, as shown by the stupendous degradation which they have suffered, and by their tertiary strata: there has also been time for the production of endemic species belonging to other classes; and on continents it is known that new species of mammals appear and disappear at a quicker rate than other and lower animals. Although terrestrial mammals do not occur on oceanic islands, aerial mammals do occur on almost every island. ... Why, it may be asked, has the supposed creative force produced bats and no other mammals on remote islands? On my view this question can easily be answered; for no terrestrial mammal can be transported across a wide space of sea, but bats can fly across." (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection," , John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, 1872, Reprinted, 1882, pp.350-351) 25/03/2007 "The naturalist, looking at the inhabitants of these volcanic islands in the Pacific, distant several hundred miles from the continent, feels that he is standing on American land. Why should this be so? why should the species which are supposed to have been created in the Galapagos archipelago, and nowhere else, bear so plainly the stamp of affinity to those created in America? There is nothing in the conditions of life, in the geological nature of the islands, in their height of climate, or in the proportions in which the several classes are associated together, which closely resembles the conditions of the South American cost: in fact, there is a considerable dissimilarity in all these respects. On the other hand, there is a considerable degree of resemblance in the volcanic nature of the soil, in the climate, height and size of the islands, between the Galapagos and Cape Verde archipelagoes: but what an entire and absolute difference in their inhabitants! The inhabitants of the Cape Verde Islands are related to those of Africa, like those of the Galapagos to America. Facts such as these, admit of no sort of explanation on the ordinary view of independent creation: whereas on the view here maintained, it is obvious that the Galapagos Islands would be likely to receive colonists from America, whether by occasional means of transport or (though I do not believe in this doctrine) by formerly continuous land, and the Cape Verde Islands from Africa; such colonists would be liable to modification, - the principle of the inheritance still betraying their original birthplace." (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection," , John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, 1872, Reprinted, 1882, p.354) 25/03/2007 "The relations just discussed, - namely, lower organisms ranging more widely than the higher, - some of the species of widely-ranging genera themselves ranging widely, - such facts, as alpine, lacustrine, and marsh productions being generally related to those which live on the surrounding low lands and dry lands, - the striking relationship between the inhabitants of islands and those of the nearest mainland - the still closer relationship of the distinct inhabitants of the islands in the same archipelago - are inexplicable on the ordinary view of the independent creation of each species, but are explicable if we admit colonisation from the nearest or readiest source, together with the subsequent adaptation of the colonists to their new homes." (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection," , John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, 1872, Reprinted, 1882, pp.358-359) 25/03/2007 "We can see why characters derived from the embryo should be of equal importance with those derived from the adult, for a natural classification of course includes all ages. But it is by no means obvious, on the ordinary view, why the structure of the embryo should be more important for this purpose than that of the adult, which alone plays its full part in the economy of nature. Yet it has been strongly urged by those great naturalists, Milne Edwards and Agassiz, that embryological characters are the most important of all; and this doctrine has very generally been admitted as true. Nevertheless, their importance has sometimes been exaggerated, owing to the adaptive characters of larvae not having been excluded; in order to show this, Fritz Müller arranged by the aid of such characters alone the great class of crustaceans, and the arrangement did not prove a natural one. But there can be no doubt that embryonic, excluding larval characters, are of the highest value for classification, not only with animals but with plants. Thus the main divisions of flowering plants are founded on differences in the embryo, - on the number and position of the cotyledons, and on the mode of development of the plumule and radicle. We shall immediately see why these characters possess so high a value in classification, namely, from the natural system being genealogical in its arrangement." (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection," , John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, 1872, Reprinted, 1882, pp.368-369) 25/03/2007 "Geoffroy St. Hilaire has strongly insisted on the high importance of relative position or connexion in homologous parts; they may differ to almost any extent in form and size, and yet remain connected together in the same invariable order. We never find, for instance, the bones of the arm and fore-arm, or of the thigh and leg, transposed. Hence the same names can be given to the homologous bones in widely different animals. ... Nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity of pattern in members of the same class, by utility or by the doctrine of final causes. The hopelessness of the attempt has been expressly admitted by Owen in his most interesting work on the 'Nature of Limbs.' On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is; - that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan; but this is not a scientific explanation. The explanation is to a large extent simple on the theory of the selection of successive slight modifications, each modification being profitable in some way to the modified form, but often affecting by correlation other parts of the organisation. In changes of this nature, there will be little or no tendency to alter the original pattern, or to transpose the parts. The bones of a limb might be shortened and flattened to any extent, becoming at the same time enveloped in thick membrane, so as to serve as a fin; or a webbed hand might have all its bones, or certain bones, lengthened to any extent, with the membrane connecting them increased, so as to serve as a wing; yet all these modifications would not tend to alter the framework of the bones or the relative connexion of the parts. If we suppose that an early progenitor - the archetype as it may be called - of all mammals, birds, and reptiles, had its limbs constructed on the existing general pattern, for whatever purpose they served, we can at once perceive the plain signification of the homologous construction of the limbs throughout the class. ... Nevertheless, it is conceivable that the general pattern of an organ might become so much obscured as to be finally lost, by the reduction and ultimately by the complete abortion of certain parts, by the fusion of other parts, and by the doubling or multiplication of others, - variations which we know to be within the limits of possibility." (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection," , John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, 1872, Reprinted, 1882, pp.382-383) 25/03/2007 "There is another and equally curious branch of our subject; namely, serial homologies, or the comparison of the different parts or organs in the same individual, and not of the same parts or organs in different members of the same class. Most physiologists believe that the bones of the skull are homologous - that is, correspond in number and in relative connexion - with the elemental parts of a certain number of vertebræ. The anterior and posterior limbs in all the higher vertebrate classes are plainly homologous. So it is with the wonderfully complex jaws and legs of crustaceans. It is familiar to almost every one, that in a flower the relative position of the sepals, petals, stamens, and pistils, as well as their intimate structure, are intelligible on the view that they consist of metamorphosed leaves arranged in a spire. In monstrous plants, we often get direct evidence of the possibility of one organ being transformed into another; and we can actually see, during the early or embryonic stages of development in flowers, as well as in crustaceans and many other animals, that organs, which when mature become extremely different are at first exactly alike. How inexplicable are the cases of serial homologies on the ordinary view of creation! Why should the brain be enclosed in a box composed of such numerous and such extraordinarily shaped pieces of bone, apparently representing vertebræ? As Owen has remarked, the benefit derived from the yielding of the separate pieces in the act of parturition by mammals, will by no means explain the same construction in the skulls of birds and reptiles. Why should similar bones have been created to form the wing and the leg of a bat, used as they are for such totally different purposes, namely flying and walking? Why should one crustacean, which has an extremely complex mouth formed of many parts, consequently always have fewer legs; or conversely, those with many legs have simpler mouths? Why should the sepals, petals, stamens, and pistils, in each flower, though fitted for such distinct purposes, be all constructed on the same pattern? On the theory of natural selection, we can, to a certain extent, answer these questions." (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection," , John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, 1872, Reprinted, 1882, p.384) 25/03/2007 "As natural selection acts by competition, it adapts and improves the inhabitants of each country only in relation to their co-inhabitants; so that we need feel no surprise at the species of any one country, although on the ordinary view supposed to have been created and specially adapted for that country, being beaten and supplanted by the naturalised productions from another land. Nor ought we to marvel if all the contrivances in nature be not, as far as we can judge, absolutely perfect, as in the case even of the human eye; or if some of them be abhorrent to our ideas of fitness. We need not marvel at the sting of the bee, when used against an enemy, causing the bee's own death; at drones being produced in such great numbers for one single act, and being then slaughtered by their sterile sisters; at the astonishing waste of pollen by our fir-trees; at the instinctive hatred of the queen-bee for her own fertile daughters; at ichneumonidæ feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars; or at other such cases. The wonder indeed is, on the theory of natural selection, that more cases of the want of absolute perfection have not been detected." (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection," , John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, 1872, Reprinted, 1882, pp.414-415) 25/03/2007 "How inexplicable on the theory of creation is the occasional appearance of stripes on the shoulders and legs of the several species of the horse-genus and of their hybrids! How simply is this fact explained if we believe that these species are all descended from a striped progenitor, in the same manner as the several domestic breeds of the pigeon are descended from the blue and barred rock-pigeon!" (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection," , John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, 1872, Reprinted, 1882, p.415) 25/03/2007 "On the ordinary view of each species having been independently created, why should specific characters, or those by which the species of the same genus differ from each other, be more variable than generic characters in which they all agree? Why, for instance, should the colour of a flower be more likely to vary in any one species of a genus, if the other species possess differently coloured flowers, than if all possessed the same coloured flowers? (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection," , John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, 1872, Reprinted, 1882, pp.415-416) 25/03/2007 "I may be permitted to say as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view, firstly, to shew that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change, though largely aided by the inherited effects of habit, and slightly by the direct action of the surrounding conditions. Nevertheless I was not able to annul the influence of my former belief, then widely prevalent, that each species had been purposely created; and this led to my tacitly assuming that every detail of structure, excepting rudiments, was of some special, though unrecognised, service. Any one with this assumption in his mind would naturally extend the action of natural selection, either during past or present times, too far. Some of those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when criticising my book, that I had the above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." (Darwin, C.R., "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex," John Murray: London, First Edition, 1871, Vol. 1, pp.152-153. http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F937.1&viewtype=text&pageseq=165) 28/03/2007 "Humans: unique animals Like the apes, humans are hominoids, so they have the same basic characteristics as the apes ... In humans there is a continued extension of those trends in characteristics described for the apes, and humans differ from them in certain obvious features of appearance and functional anatomy. Every animal species has some features that make it unique, because it develops adaptations that help it to survive and reproduce in its particular environment. Humans, however, have some very special adaptations, and it is these that make the human a unique animal." (Newton, T.J. & Joyce, A.P., "Human Perspectives, Book 1," , McGraw-Hill Book Co: Sydney NSW, Australia, Third Edition, 1995, Reprinted, 1996, p.347. Emphasis original) 28/03/2007 "Stance and locomotion Humans are erect and bipedal: adaptations for an upright stance and locomotion involving only two feet are characteristically human. The upright stance is maintained by the arrangement of the vertebrae of the spine into an S-shaped curve, which enables the head to be balanced on top of the neck. The vertebrae in the lower or lumbar region are wedge- shaped from front to back, thus forming a forward-jutting curve ... Because of this curvature, the pelvis tends to slope back and down. The pelvis in humans is broad, shorter from top to bottom than in other hominoids, and bowl-shaped. As a consequence of the upright stance, the human pelvis gives support to the abdominal organs, as well as giving attachment to the muscles that move the lower limbs and control the posture of the body. In the female, the pelvis also supports the developing foetus during pregnancy. The female pelvis tends to be slightly broader than that of the male, to allow the passage of the infant at birth ... The head of the femur, or thigh bone, is large and fits into the acetabulum (hip socket) of the pelvis. Because the pelvis is broad, the hip sockets are wide apart, but the thigh bones still tend to converge towards the knees. This arrangement of the thigh bones forms an angle to the vertical, termed the carrying angle ... which ensures that weight distribution remains close to the central axis of the body when walking. This arrangement also allows for greater stability when walking as it enables the body to be rotated about the lower leg and foot and each footstep to follow a more or less straight line. The human foot is probably the most distinctive adaptation to a bipedal mode of locomotion. In becoming a highly specialised locomotory organ it has lost all its grasping ability, or prehensibility. This is most noticeable with the big toe, which in humans is aligned alongside the other toes, and is quite large. The bones of the foot between the toes and the ankle, the metatarsals, are shaped in such a way that they form two arches: a longitudinal arch running from front to back, and a transverse arch running from side to side (the latter arch being unique to humans ..). Possession of these two arches has enabled humans to perfect bipedal locomotion. Humans walk bipedally using the striding gait-walking in such a way that the hip and knee are fully extended ...Bipedalism has resulted in the human limb proportions being significantly different from those of the other hominoids. Human legs are proportionately longer than the lower limbs of the apes, probably a consequence of the striding gait. This increased limb length in comparison to body size has resulted in a lower centre of gravity for humans, and hence greater stability when standing erect ... ." (Newton, T.J. & Joyce, A.P., "Human Perspectives, Book 1," , McGraw-Hill Book Co: Sydney NSW, Australia, Third Edition, 1995, Reprinted, 1996, pp.347-348. Emphasis original) 28/03/2007 "The human hand The human hand differs structurally and functionally from that of the other hominoids. It is short and broad, with short, straight fingers and a long, strong thumb when compared to that of an ape. This arrangement gives the thumb a great degree of freedom, and it can readily oppose each of the other digits, thumb-tip to fingertip, allowing humans to grasp objects with precision. The precision grip, such as that used for holding a pencil when writing or a needle when sewing, is highly developed in humans. When grasping an object between the undersides of the fingers and the palm of the hand, a power grip can be used. The power grip, which exerts considerable strength, is found in other primates, such as the gorilla and chimpanzee ... ." (Newton, T.J. & Joyce, A.P., "Human Perspectives, Book 1," , McGraw-Hill Book Co: Sydney NSW, Australia, Third Edition, 1995, Reprinted, 1996, p.348. Emphasis original) 28/03/2007 "The human brain Humans have relatively large brains: they range in size from 900 to 2200 cm^3, but average around 1350 cm^3. This contrasts markedly with those of the other hominoids, which average between 400 and 500 cm^3. Most of the increase in brain size is associated with the cerebrum, which is divided by a longitudinal fissure into two halves, the left and the right hemi spheres. The outer portion of these hemispheres is the cortex, and it is this portion of the human brain that shows the greatest degree of development. The surface area of the cerebral cortex is greatly increased by foldings, called convolutions, which give a resulting surface area 50 per cent greater than a brain with no convolutions. The front part of the cerebrum, known as the frontal lobe, has the greatest relative enlargement in surface area. In humans it makes up 47 per cent of the total cortical surface, whereas in pongids it com prises only 33 per cent. It is in the frontal lobe that the higher functions of thinking, reasoning, planning and processing take place." (Newton, T.J. & Joyce, A.P., "Human Perspectives, Book 1," , McGraw-Hill Book Co: Sydney NSW, Australia, Third Edition, 1995, Reprinted, 1996, pp.348-349. Emphasis original) 28/03/2007 "A large brain requires a large brain case, or cranium, and in humans more of the skull is used in housing the brain than in the apes. As a consequence, the brow tends to be vertical and lacks the prominent brow ridges possessed by the other hominoids. These features, together with a shortening of the snout, have given humans a characteristic flat face, although the bones of the nose have been left protruding. Thus, humans have a far more prominent nose than any other primate. As the teeth have reduced in size there has been a corresponding decrease in the size of the jaw. These factors have resulted in a flatter face. The jaw is attached to the side of the skull by the jaw muscles. These are not as powerful as those of the other hominoids-especially the gorilla, whose large jaw muscles have needed modifications of the skull to ensure adequate attachment ... At the base of the cranium there is an opening, the foramen magnum ... through which the spinal cord passes as it descends from the brain. In humans, as a consequence of erect stance, the foramen magnum is located well forward and vertically beneath the top of the skull. This permits the skull to be balanced easily on the spine, with no need for special areas for the attachment of powerful neck muscles as in the other hominoids. In the apes, with their quadrupedal stance, the foramen magnum is placed further toward the back of the skull ... Their skull is not well balanced, the greater part of its weight lying well forward of the body, thus requiring large neck muscles to attach it to the spinal column ...." (Newton, T.J. & Joyce, A.P., "Human Perspectives, Book 1," , McGraw-Hill Book Co: Sydney NSW, Australia, Third Edition, 1995, Reprinted, 1996, p.349. Emphasis original) 28/03/2007 "Human dentition Human dentition is unique. In humans, both males and females have canine teeth that do not project beyond the level of the other teeth as they do in the apes. In fact, human canines look more look incisors: besides being small, they do not interlock with one another. ... The small canine teeth and relatively small incisors have resulted in a shortening of human dentition from the front of the mouth to the back. As a consequence, the shape of the tooth row has been altered: it no longer resembles the inverted-U pattern of the other hominoids; rather, it has assumed a parabolic shape ...." (Newton, T.J. & Joyce, A.P., "Human Perspectives, Book 1," , McGraw-Hill Book Co: Sydney NSW, Australia, Third Edition, 1995, Reprinted, 1996, p.349. Emphasis original) 28/03/2007 "Speech Humans have a prominent chin, which, when coupled with the shortened jaw, has provided some of the tongue's muscles with a more forward attachment. This has resulted in a greater degree of freedom for their tongue in the front of the mouth, an important factor for the formation of certain distinctive sounds during speech. Also important in this respect is the position of the voice box, or larynx: it lies directly below the tongue and soft palate, another consequence of human's erect stance. Together, these structural features make speech possible. When air passes over the vocal cords in the larynx they produce sounds that can be modulated by a highly mobile tongue, acting in conjunction with the hard and soft palate. the teeth and the lips .... However, these structural features alone are not responsible for speech. Speech is very much a product of the human brain, and the portion of the cerebrum devoted to the muscles of speech is very large, second only to the portion devoted to the muscles of the hand." (Newton, T.J. & Joyce, A.P., "Human Perspectives, Book 1," , McGraw-Hill Book Co: Sydney NSW, Australia, Third Edition, 1995, Reprinted, 1996, pp.349-350. Emphasis original) 28/03/2007 "Body covering Humans appear to be relatively hairless, and have been referred to as 'naked apes'. This, in fact, is untrue. Humans are very hairy, but the hairs are so fine that, except for the scalp, the armpits and the pubic areas, many areas of the human body appear to be naked. With adolescence, males grow hair on their faces, arms, legs and chests, although the density of hair varies with each individual. Occasionally, males have dense hair on their backs and shoulders. An unusual feature of human body and facial hair is that it does not start to grow until puberty, and some human biologists have suggested that it may be a visual signal of sexual maturity. The relative hairlessness of humans has been explained by some scientists, including Charles Darwin, as a cooling device. Humans have millions of tiny sweat glands all over their bodies. As the sweat evaporates, the body is cooled. Hair would reduce the efficiency of this process, but the absence of hair also increases susceptibility to cold. To compensate for this, humans tend to have a layer of fat just below the skin to help retain body heat when temperatures drop." (Newton, T.J. & Joyce, A.P., "Human Perspectives, Book 1," , McGraw-Hill Book Co: Sydney NSW, Australia, Third Edition, 1995, Reprinted, 1996, pp.350-351. Emphasis original) 28/03/2007 "Sexual characteristics The human female has well-developed breasts, a feature shared by no other primate. It has been suggested that the large, conspicuous breasts of the human female have a sexual as well as a maternal function. Sexual attractiveness may have played an important part in establishing and maintaining human pair-bonds, which would have been very important for the survival of offspring. If couples did not stay together in a stable relationship, offspring would have had little chance of survival. For perhaps similar reasons, the penis of the human male is very large compared with that of the other primates. Additionally, females can receive a male for sexual intercourse at any time, and there is no period of oestrus as in the other primates." (Newton, T.J. & Joyce, A.P., "Human Perspectives, Book 1," , McGraw-Hill Book Co: Sydney NSW, Australia, Third Edition, 1995, Reprinted, 1996, p.351. Emphasis original) 28/03/2007 "Care of the young The period of development after birth during which most growth occurs is very long in humans, and considerable parental care is required. Compared to that of the other hominoids the rate of human growth and development is very slow, especially the period between weaning (the time breast feeding is stopped) and puberty. The delay in puberty appears to be an evolutionary trend in the primates, being at its most extreme in humans. During the period of juvenile dependence, ideas and techniques can be passed from one generation to another." (Newton, T.J. & Joyce, A.P., "Human Perspectives, Book 1," , McGraw-Hill Book Co: Sydney NSW, Australia, Third Edition, 1995, Reprinted, 1996, p.351. Emphasis original) 28/03/2007 "The eight main features discussed above are unique to humans. It is important to remember that some of these features-such as the increase in the size of the brain and the increase in the period of growth and development-are only extensions of trends that are displayed by the evolutionary relationships among the other primates; others, such as the erect stance, the striding gait, and the development of speech, are purely human characteristics. (There are many sociological and psychological features displayed by modern humans that have not been discussed here. Most of these features are the consequences of human cultural development in relatively recent times ...)." (Newton, T.J. & Joyce, A.P., "Human Perspectives, Book 1," , McGraw-Hill Book Co: Sydney NSW, Australia, Third Edition, 1995, Reprinted, 1996, p.351) 29/03/2007 "Has the Creator since the Cambrian formations gone on creating animals with same general structure.- miserable limited view." (Darwin, C.R., "Notebook B 212-216," in "Charles Darwin's Notebooks, 1836-1844: Geology, Transmutation of Species, Metaphysical Enquiries," Barrett, P.H., et al., eds, Cornell University Press, Ithaca NY, 1987, p.224) 30/03/2007 "In contrast with all later genera, the earliest-known lungfish, Diabolichthyes from the Lower Devonian of China, shows a remarkable mosaic of characters considered typical of lungfish and primitive rhipidistians .... The pattern of the skull roof is clearly comparable with that of later lungfish, but the ventral surface of the skull shows that the basicranial articulation was still mobile and that the palatoquadrate was not fused to the braincase. The posterior portion of the braincase has not been described, but comparison with the primitive rhipidistian Youngolepis suggests that the ethmoid and otic-occipital elements were separately ossified. The premaxilla is recognizable as a distinct tooth-bearing bone of the skull margin that separates the anterior narial opening from the mouth cavity. The vomer occupies a position that is comparable to that of primitive rhipidistians, and the parasphenoid is a long, toothed element extending anteriorly between the pterygoids. In st with all later lungfish, the dentary retains marginal teeth. On the other hand, the teeth on the premaxilla do not form a marginal row but were exposed primarily within the mouth cavity. The teeth covering the pterygoid and prearticular are densely packed and arranged in a radiating pattern, as in later lungfish, but are not fused to form definite tooth plates. Diabolichthys is clearly allied with later lungfish in the emphasis on the palatal dentition and in the pattern of the dermal skull roof, but it retains many features that reflect an ancestry among the crossopterygians. The postcranial skeleton of Diabolichthys has not been described, but that of the slightly younger genus Uranolophus resembles that of rhipidistians ... Diabolichthys comes from a facies that is transitional between marine and continental. Other early Devonian lungfish are known from freshwater and marine deposits. All lungfish other than Diabolichthys are distinguished by ossification of the braincase as a single unit to which the palatoquadrate is fused, the loss of the pre maxillae, and the great reduction in the anterior extent of the parasphenoid. The advanced pattern of the palate and braincase are already evident in Uranolophus from the Lower Devonian of North America .... Unlike most later lungfish, Uranolophus lacks tooth plates. The pteryogoids are elongate triangular bones that cover most of the palate. Both they and the prearticulars bear tooth ridges on their margins. Well-defined tooth plates are a hallmark of more advanced lungfish. In the middle Devonian genus Dipterus ... there are large paired plates with radiating rows of denticles that occupy much of the surface of the pterygoids and smaller plates that developed from the vomers. Another pair are borne on the prearticulars." (Carroll, R.L., "Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution," W.H. Freeman & Co: New York NY, 1988, p.148) 30/03/2007 "Dipterus ... genus of very primitive lungfish, among the earliest known, found as fossils in European and North American Devonian rocks (the Devonian Period lasted from 408 to 360 million years ago). Very similar to the crossopterygians, the lobe-finned fishes that gave rise to the first amphibians, Dipterus retained many archaic features, including two dorsal fins and a tail that resembled a lobe-finned tail. Functional lungs were probably present in Dipterus, and a freshwater habitat is indicated. The skull bones of Dipterus, though still primitive, consist of a mosaic of small bones; Dipterus had already initiated the unusual bone pattern seen in more advanced lungfish. Similarly, Dipterus evidences the beginnings of the lungfish trend toward extreme deossification of skeletal elements. Dipterus was probably the direct ancestor of the modern Australian lungfish, the genus Neoceratodus." ("Dipterus," Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. Accessed 30 March 2007. Emphasis original) 30/03/2007 "Early lungfishes are represented by the genus Dipterus ... Dipterus, a fish of middle Devonian age, possessed many of the generalized sarcopterygian characters that were outlined above for the primitive air- breathing fishes, such as a long, fusiform body terminating in a strong, heterocercal tall, paired fins of the archipterygial type, with a strong central axis down the middle of each fin, and with subsidiary bony rays diverging on either side of this axis, and two dorsal fins. The large, heavy rounded scales were of the cosmoid type. Contrasted with these primitive characters there were various specialized features that indicate even in as early a form as Dipterus the trends that were to take place in the evolution of the dipnoans. For instance, there was considerable reduction of bone in the internal skeleton of this fish, and such a development is found in all of the later lungfishes. The braincase, too, was poorly ossified, although in those Devonian lungfishes in which the braincase has been preserved a certain amount of bone is present. Subsequent to Devonian times the ossification of the braincase was to be completely suppressed. The jaws were partially ossified, yet even here a process of chondrification was beginning that was to become typical of later dipnoans. The skull was composed of numerous bony plates. In general there was a great multiplication of bones covering the head in Dipterus, and because of this it is almost impossible to indicate any homologies between the bones of the skull in this fish and the skull bones in other bony fishes. Likewise, the dentition in Dipterus had become highly specialized. The marginal teeth were suppressed in both the upper and lower jaws, and mastication of the food was effected by large, tooth-bearing plates, those above being formed by the pterygoid bones of the palate and those below by the prearticular bones of the lower jaw. On these plates the teeth were arranged in a fan-shaped fashion, a pattern that was to be carried on through the evolutionary history of the lungfishes. Obviously such teeth were adapted for crushing hard food, and it is probable that the food of the Devonian lungfish, Dipterus, was rather similar to that of the modern Australian lungfish, consisting of small invertebrates and vegetable matter." (Colbert, E.H. & Morales, M., "Evolution of the Vertebrates: A History of the Backboned Animals Through Time," , John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, Fourth Edition, 1990, Second Printing, 1992, p.63) 30/03/2007 "Prior to the Devonian period (between 410 and 360 million years ago), nothing lived on land, save for a few spiky, low plants, some scorpions and other insects. The earth was congregated into large continents completely different from the ones we know today, and in a constant - albeit slow - state of change. There were massive freshwater lakes, and while the land was a bare, desolate place, these lakes and oceans writhed with life. ... It was during this period, often called the Age of Fishes, that the first bony fishes, the vertebrates, appeared on the scene. ... The vertebrates were divided into two groups: the ray-finned fishes, or Actinopterygii, with the single dorsal fin and paired pectoral and pelvic fins common to most modern fishes; and the lobe-finned fishes - the coelacanth, the lungfish, and the rhipidistian-whose fins appeared to sprout from the end of fleshy, limb-like lobes, almost like toeless legs. These were known as Sarcopterygii (from the Greek sarco meaning fleshy, and pterygii, wing or fin), and were characterised also by their extra dorsal fin. ... Some time towards the end of the Devonian period, a single species of freshwater lobe finned fish evolved legs. In its new guise of Ichthyostega (literally, walking fish) it crawled out of the water to conquer the land this much scientists agreed upon. What was not so certain was which of the group evolved into Ichthyostega: the lungfish, rhipidistian, or coelacanth?" (Weinberg, S., "A Fish Caught in Time: The Search for the Coelacanth," , Fourth Estate: London, Reprint, 2000, pp.28,30)
*Authors with an asterisk against their name are believed not to be evolutionists.
Copyright © 2006-2010, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. These my quotes may be used for
non-commercial purposes only and may not be used in a book, ebook, CD, DVD, or any other medium
except the Internet, without my written permission. If used on the Internet, a link back to my home page
at http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones would be appreciated.
Created: 23 December, 2006. Updated: 4 April, 2010.