Stephen E. Jones

Creation/Evolution Quotes: Unclassified quotes: April 2007

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

The following are quotes added to my Unclassified Quotes database in April 2007. The date format is dd/mm/yy. See copyright conditions at end.

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

"One of the early classics in the story of carnivorous or insectivorous plants was published by Charles 
Darwin. He noted that sundew plants, which have sticky tentacles on their tiny leaves, caught tiny insects, 
much as flypaper catches flies, holding them while neighbouring tentacles bent over to pin the victims 
against the leaf, where their bodies were decomposed by enzymes. Darwin found that any tiny piece of meat 
or egg white was handled by the sundew leaf in the same way as it digested insects." (Went, F.W., "The 
Plants," [1963], Time/Life Books: Netherlands, Reprinted, 1965, p.146)

"THERE are many other plants which have developed insectivorous habits. Most of them, like the sundew, 
are found in nutrient-poor bogs. Pinguicula is very similar to sundew but less complex: it too traps insects 
with its sticky leaf glands and then rolls the edge of a leaf over its victims. The strange, urn shaped leaves of 
pitcher plants standing with some watery liquid in their base are a common sight from North Carolina to 
Florida and Mississippi. Inside are usually found a few insects such as ants and moths, caught because of a 
lining of downward-pointing hairs which prevent them from crawling out of the pitcher. Bacteria and 
enzymes in the water decompose and digest them." (Went, F.W., "The Plants," [1963], Time/Life Books: 
Netherlands, Reprinted, 1965, p.146) 

"An even more elaborate trapping mechanism is found in a group of tropical Asiatic lianas, the 
Nepenthes, whose beautifully sculptured pitchers hang on long leaf stalks which are twisted around tree 
branches for support. Insects are f first attracted by a distinctive odour; then, near the entrance of the trap, 
they find nectar-secreting glands. To reach these, they have to scale the leaf rim, which usually results in 
their falling into the pitcher and a pool of mildly digestive fluid at the bottom. If they try to crawl out, they 
first have to pass a region with digestive glands, then a highly polished slippery zone. Most of them never 
get beyond this; if they do, they face an overhang at the rim with a spiked edge." (Went, F.W., "The 
Plants," [1963], Time/Life Books: Netherlands, Reprinted, 1965, p.146) 

"One of the best known of insectivorous plants is the Venus's flytrap (Dionaea) of North Carolina, a 
relative of the sundew but with an entirely different way of catching prey. The leaves lie in a rosette flat on 
the ground and each ends in a leaf blade which looks and acts like a steel trap. The two halves of the leaf, 
about the size of a sixpence, are hinged in the middle. When an insect walks on its surface, the leaf will 
suddenly snap closed, the toothed edges meshing. The Venus's flytrap can distinguish between a living and 
a dead object small sticks or pebbles will leave it undisturbed-by means of three sensitive hairs on each leaf 
half. The leaf will not close unless two hairs are touched in succession or; the same hair twice. Once shut, 
the trap gradually pinches tighter and tighter, squeezing its prey against the digestive glands on the leaf 
surface." (Went, F.W., "The Plants," [1963], Time/Life Books: Netherlands, Reprinted, 1965, p.146) 

"The prize for complexity in trapping devices unquestionably goes to the bladderwort, Utricularia, a water 
plant with beautiful blue or yellow flowers, found in ponds and ditches. On its submerged threadlike stems it 
has innumerable bladders in which tiny water creatures get caught. At one end of the bladder is a trap door 
which suddenly snaps open when sensory hairs just outside the trap are touched. The tiny victim is sucked 
in so fast that it cannot be followed by the eye or the vine camera. The door then closes, part of the water is 
pumped out from the inside, and the trap is set for another catch." (Went, F.W., "The Plants," [1963], 
Time/Life Books: Netherlands, Reprinted, 1965, p.146)

"Let us begin with a crucial point. The laws of science are not inviolable. They represent a constantly 
changing logical complex, changing from decade to decade, and even from year to year. Lest this may 
surprise you let me remark that the world of science is not identical with the physical world itself, with the 
real world if you like. Science is a model of the real world that we construct inside our own heads. The model 
is arranged by us to work according to a set of prescribed rules. These are the laws of science. And when 
we speak of comparing our scientific theories with observation we mean that a comparison is being made 
between our model and the events that comprise the real world." (Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion 
and the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the University Church, Cambridge," Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: 
London, 1959, p.55)

"You remember I spoke just now of science as a model that we ourselves construct according to a set of 
prescribed rules. How are the rules prescribed? By the requirement that we accept those rules that up to the 
present moment give the best possible correspondence with the events of the external world. Notice the 
importance of the present moment. If tomorrow we discover a set of rules that give a better 
correspondence than those we are employing today, then we must abandon the rules of today in favour of 
those of tomorrow." (Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in 
the University Church, Cambridge," Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: London, 1959, p.57. Emphasis original)

"It may surprise you when I say that I have yet to meet a person who was not imbued by a religious sense. 
The great differences between us lie in our varying attitudes to formal religion. Religion in a non-formal 
sense I take to mean that a man will look up at the stars at night with a sense of awe, that he will feel that the 
majestic play of the universe has some deep laid purpose, and that his own small role in the play must make 
sense, if only he has the wit to find it." (Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and the Scientists: 
Addresses Delivered in the University Church, Cambridge," Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: London, 1959, 

"Are there any preliminary indications of the sort of coherent view of the universe and of our place in it that 
science might eventually arrive at? Or does the whole matter present us with an implacable unbroken wall of 
difficulty through which no breakthrough seems possible? I must confess to a certain measure of excitement 
in trying to answer these questions, for in my view work of the last few years, particularly of the last year, 
suggests that a breakthrough may at last have been made. In spite of the details being somewhat technical, I 
would like to tell you how this surprising development has come about. But please do not expect too much-
remember that I said a breakthrough may have been made, not that the whole citadel has been captured." 
(Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the University 
Church, Cambridge," Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: London, 1959, pp.61-62)

"Science operates in accordance with a set of laws, as I have said already. The laws describe the behaviour 
of matter, so that, in addition to the laws, matter must exist for the laws to operate on. According to the 
science of the last century matter consists of indestructible atoms of which there are 90 odd different 
varieties. According to the science of the present century the atoms possess an internal structure made up 
from a weighty central nucleus of very small size surrounded by a comparatively extensive cloud of light 
weight particles known as electrons. According to the science of the last twenty-five years the weighty 
central nucleus itself possesses a structure. It is built out of two kinds of heavy particle, protons and 
neutrons. The precise number of protons and neutrons contained by the nucleus determines the nature of 
the atom. When the nucleus contains 6 protons and 6 neutrons we have an atom of common carbon. When 
the nucleus contains 26 protons and 30 neutrons we have an atom of common iron. When the nucleus 
contains 82 protons and 126 neutrons we have an atom of common lead. And so on for the other 90 odd 
cases. We know today that the science of the nineteenth century was mistaken in supposing that atoms are 
indestructible. The compositions of the nuclei of atoms can be altered, and one atom can be changed to 
another. This leads to an important question. Have the atoms we find in the world always existed in their 
present forms, or have some atoms been made. from others? The second of these possibilities has turned 
out to be correct. Already in 1920, Eddington had been led to suspect that all atoms have been built from 
one atom, the simplest of all, the atom of hydrogen. He was led, moreover, to suspect that it is in the 
interiors of the stars that this building from hydrogen takes place. The work of the last few years has 
provided almost overwhelming evidence in favour of this guess of Eddington's. It has turned out that the 
stars serve as gigantic factories in which a whole array of atoms are produced from the simplest atom of all, 
hydrogen." (Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the 
University Church, Cambridge," Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: London, 1959, p.62)

"The really interesting point is that although the laws of science admit of complex atoms, their existence 
would never have been realised but for the stars. There is a delicate inflexion here. Let us assume that the 
universe possesses logical coherence. Would it really be sensible then for the laws of science to admit of 
complex atoms if their existence were never realised ? If we consider it would not be sensible, and this seems 
to me the evident answer we should give, a most unusual connexion between the existence of stars and the 
laws that govern the atomic nuclei is implied. Notice that I say the existence of stars, not the properties of 
stars. Everyone expects the properties of stars and atomic nuclei to be related. It is the connexion with the 
existence of stars that is so surprising. Let us push a little further into this deep water. Are there any stable 
complex atoms permitted by the laws of science whose existence is not realised in the stars? The answer is 
that there are none. They are all produced in the stars, not in equal abundance it is true, but the existence of 
every single one is established. Either we are here confronted by a monstrous situation in which the 
existence of a multitude of complex atoms is only established as a consequence of scores of separate 
accidents, or a connexion between the existence of stars and the laws of nuclear physics is clearly implied." 
(Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the University 
Church, Cambridge," Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: London, 1959, p.63. Emphasis original)

"What do I mean ... by `scores of accidents'? Granted stars to exist, surely there can be no accidents. Surely 
all the properties of stars, including the genesis of the complex atoms, then follow implacably from the broad 
principles of nuclear physics? I disagree. It is true that the genesis of about half the complex nuclei does 
follow from the broad principles of nuclear physics, but the other half does not. Their genesis depends on 
the oddest array of apparently random quirks you could possibly imagine. I will try to explain what I mean in 
terms of an analogy, which I hope you will not think too flippant. We would all agree that the actions of the 
Government depend on the persons who comprise it-on their education, intelligence, social and cultural 
background, and on their state of health. These qualities correspond to my broad principles. But we would 
scarcely expect to find Government policy depending in a really crucial way on the fact that the Prime 
Minister possesses a moustache while the Foreign Secretary does not. These are my random quirks. And if 
we should find that Government policy depended in a really vital respect on the Minister of Works 
possessing a mole beneath his left ear, then manifestly we should be justified in supposing that new and 
hitherto unsuspected connexions existed within the field of political affairs. Yet this is just the case for the 
building of many complex atoms inside stars. The building of carbon depends on a moustache, the building 
of oxygen on a mole, and if you prefer a less well known case, the building of the atom dysprosium depends 
on a slight scar over the right eye. If this were a purely scientific question and not one that touched on the 
religious problem, 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 become part of a deep laid 
scheme. If not, then we are back again to a monstrous sequence of accidents." (Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., 
ed., "Religion and the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the University Church, Cambridge," Lent Term, 
1957, SCM Press: London, 1959, pp.63-64)

"There is an interesting similarity between this whole inorganic problem of the origin of the complex atoms 
and the problem of the origin of life. In my last few moments I would like to give a little consideration to this 
similarity. In both cases we have matter evolving from simpler to more complex forms in accordance with the 
laws of physics and chemistry. ... The similarity between the origin of life and of complex atoms has other 
extensions. Just as it is now emerging that the laws of nuclear physics are designed to promote the origin of 
the complex atoms, so it may well emerge, as more becomes known, that the laws seem as if they have also 
been deliberately designed to promote the origin of life." (Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and the 
Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the University Church, Cambridge," Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: 
London, 1959, pp.64-65)

"Incidentally, I have never understood why religious thought is so reluctant to admit that life is a natural 
product of the laws of science. Surely the notion that some special ad hoc intervention is necessary to 
promote its origin would imply a serious defect of design. Just suppose for a moment that you were 
designing the laws. How much more subtle to make the origin of life implicit in your design-how crude to be 
obliged to make a gross rectification of your own mistakes!" (Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and 
the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the University Church, Cambridge," Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: 
London, 1959, pp.64-65)

"Let us see if we can put these ideas on a more scientific and less emotional basis. You will remember that 
any hypothesis whatsoever can be made in science so long as it possesses consequences that are subject 
to observational test. Let us advance the hypothesis that the laws of science have been designed to 
promote the origin of life, and let us see if any predictions can be made. Firstly, the random quirks. We 
would expect that as biochemists and biophysicists discover more and more of the detailed properties of 
living matter more and more random quirks will be found-apparent accidents without which life would not be 
possible, apparent accidents that only make sense on the basis of deliberate design: Other predictions in 
very different directions can be made. Life demands highly special physical conditions if it is to flourish. 
Hence if life is part of a deliberate plan so must the origin of the physical conditions be. This conclusion 
contradicts older astronomical ideas, which held to the view that the origin of the earth and planets arose 
from a sheer fluke. The question therefore arises as to which astronomical theory fits the observed situation. 
At the present moment the balance of evidence has swung against the older views." (Hoyle, F., in 
Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the University Church, 
Cambridge," Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: London, 1959, p.65)

"But my object is not to arrive at any complete conclusion. It is to give you a very brief outline of the way 
that scientific inquiry can be brought into relation with religion. It will be sufficient if a breakthrough, 
however small, has been made." (Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and the Scientists: Addresses 
Delivered in the University Church, Cambridge," Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: London, 1959, p.65)

"By way of a concluding paragraph I would remind you of Laplace's supermathematician, who, you may 
remember, was capable of working out in full detail all the consequences of the laws of science. Now imagine 
an intellect to whom this would be a comparatively trivial exercise, an intellect who is interested in the 
consequences, not of just one specified system of laws, but in examining all systems of law with a view to 
devising the one most pregnant with possibilities, an intellect who is able to relate the design of the laws of 
nuclear physics to the conditions that operate inside the stars, and who can relate the origin of stars and 
planets to the intricate chemical details of the origin of life. Imagine that this is done ... by a complete 
mastery of all details of the situation. Imagine the intellectual magnitude and interest of such a problem. 
Then I think you will come as near as we can come, in our present inadequate state of knowledge, towards 
understanding the meaning and purpose of the universe." (Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and 
the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the University Church, Cambridge," Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: 
London, 1959, pp.65-66)

"On evolution as a geological fact all agreed, but on the mechanism of evolution the disagreement has been 
fundamental." (Velikovsky, I., "Earth in Upheaval," [1950], Abacus: London, Reprinted, 1978, p.211)

"The neo-Darwinists deny that physical surroundings can give rise to new species; they may bring about 
changes in an organism, but the acquired characteristics are not inheritable. Can, then, natural selection or 
competition with other animals create new species? The classic example of a giraffe with the longest neck 
surviving when leaves are left only high on the trees does not prove that giraffes with longer necks would 
become a separate species. And, in any event, under the described conditions no new race would ever 
evolve: the female giraffe, which are smaller in stature, would die out before the male competitors, and there 
would be no progeny; but should there be progeny, the young giraffes would probably die because they 
would be unable to reach the leaves." (Velikovsky, I., "Earth in Upheaval," [1950], Abacus: London, 
Reprinted, 1978, p.211)

"The position of Darwinists would be much stronger if a new animal species would appear, even if only in 
controlled breeding. Darwin claimed that the process of the appearance of new species is very slow, but he 
also maintained that the process of extinction of a species is even slower. [Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of 
Species," [1859], John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, 1872, p.294] Nevertheless, some species of animals 
have expired before the eyes of the naturalists, but no new one has appeared. The theory of natural 
selection, even the very fact of the evolvement of one species from another, needed proof. Some scientists 
went so far as to say that possibly the entire development plan has already reached its permanent stage, and 
the geological records tell only of the road to that stage, evolution no longer taking place." (Velikovsky, I., 
"Earth in Upheaval," [1950], Abacus: London, Reprinted, 1978, p.211)

"But the theory of natural selection would not yield its position unless a better explanation of the 
evolutionary mechanism could be given. Mutations and New Species The first ray of light came at the 
turn of the century, when Hugo De Vries, a Dutch botanist, observed spontaneous mutations in the evening 
primrose. The plant, without a recognizable cause, would show new characteristics unobserved in its 
ancestors. Although De Vries claimed that these mutations amount to what may be called 'little species,' 
they have not caused the primrose to pass beyond the frontier of its species. However, it was demonstrated 
that variations within a Species do appear in a spontaneous manner, and rather suddenly, and not, as 
Darwin thought, by minute progressions from generation to generation. Huxley was correct in urging Darwin 
not to adhere so dogmatically to his belief that nature does not make jumps - natura non facit saltum. 
[Huxley, T.H., Letter to Charles Darwin, November 23, 1859, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of 
Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II, Reprinted, 1959, pp.26-27] De Vries showed that 
variations are in the nature of jumps, and from this he developed the mutation theory of evolution." 
(Velikovsky, I., "Earth in Upheaval," [1950], Abacus: London, Reprinted, 1978, p.212. Emphasis original)

"De Vries, while working on his theory, was as yet unaware of Gregor Mendel's investigations in genetics, 
already published as a paper in 1865, only six years after The Origin of Species. Mendel's work, unknown 
to Darwin and his followers in the nineteenth century, was rediscovered by De Vries and independently by 
E. Tschermak and K. Correns in 1900, the same year that De Vries wrote down his theory of mutations. By 
carefully observing crossings between varieties of the garden pea and counting the strains through 
consecutive generations and the transmission of single traits, Mendel established the fundamental laws of 
genetics or inheritance of somatic characteristics. The entire work on evolution since the beginning of this 
century is based on genetics and Mendel's laws. Ironically, Mendel was an Augustine monk and made his 
basic contribution at a time when the war between science and the Church was raging, following the 
publication of Darwin's main work. The spontaneous variations in mutants can be followed through as 
hereditary factors in successive generations of offspring. The genes in the germ plasma are the carriers of 
the traits, and a variation (mutation) in a gene would cause a variation (mutation) in the offspring. But, 
generally, only single variations appear at a time; they may lead to new races, not to new species. 
Spontaneous mutations are far too few and insufficient in magnitude to bring about the appearance of new 
species and to explain how the world of animals came into existence. Despite all spontaneous variations no 
new species of mammals are known to have been created since the close of the Ice Age." (Velikovsky, I., 
"Earth in Upheaval," [1950], Abacus: London, Reprinted, 1978, p.213)

"In 1907, V. L. Kellogg of Stanford University came to the following conclusion: `The fair truth is that the 
Darwinian selection theories, considered with regard to their claimed capacity to be an independently 
sufficient mechanical explanation of descent, stand today seriously discredited in the biological world. On 
the other hand, it is also fair truth to say that no replacing hypothesis or theory of species forming has been 
offered by the opponents of selection which has met with any general or even considerable acceptance by 
naturalists. Mutations seem to be too few and far between; for orthogenesis we can discover no satisfactory 
mechanism; and the same is true for the Lamarckian theories of modification by the cumulation, through 
inheritance, of acquired or ontogenic characters.' [Kellogg, V.L., "Darwinism Today," Henry Holt & Co: New 
York NY, 1907, p.5] Kellogg also observed that one group of scientists 'denies in toto any effectiveness 
or capacity for series forming on the part of natural selection, while the other group, a larger...sees in natural 
selection an evolutionary factor capable of initiating nothing, dependent wholly for any effectiveness on 
some primary factor or factors controlling the origin and direction of variation, but capable of extinguishing 
all unadapted, unfit lines of development...For my part,' Kellogg concluded, 'it seems better to go back to the 
old and safe Ignoramus standpoint.' Thus the entire problem was shunted back to the place it occupied 
before The Origin of Species." (Velikovsky, I., "Earth in Upheaval," [1950], Abacus: London, Reprinted, 
1978, pp.213-214)

"Evolution is the principle. Darwin's contribution to the principle is natural selection as the mechanism of 
evolution. If natural selection, sharing the fate of sexual selection, is not the mechanism of the origin of 
species, Darwin's contribution is reduced to very little - only to the role of natural selection in weeding out 
the unfit." (Velikovsky, I., "Earth in Upheaval," [1950], Abacus: London, Reprinted, 1978, p.214)

"H. Fairfield Osborn, a leading American evolutionist, wrote 'In contrast to the unity of opinion on the law 
of evolution is the wide diversity of opinion on the causes of evolution. In fact, the causes of the 
evolution of life are as mysterious as the law of evolution is certain,' [Osborn, H.F., "The Origin and 
Evolution of Life," Scribner's: New York 1917, p.ix]. And again: 'It may be said that Darwin's law of selection 
as a natural explanation of the origin of all fitness in form and function has also lost its prestige at the 
present time, and all of Darwinism which now meets with universal acceptance is the law of the survival of 
the fittest, a limited application of Darwin's great ideas as expressed by Herbert Spencer.' [Ibid., p.xv] These 
were not the opinions of single evolutionists, but generally held views." (Velikovsky, I., "Earth in 
Upheaval," [1950], Abacus: London, Reprinted, 1978, p.214. Emphasis original)

"William Bateson, a leading English evolutionist, in his address before the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science in 1921, said: 'When students of other sciences ask us what is now currently 
believed about the origin of species we have no clear answer to give. Faith has given place to 
agnosticism...Variation of many kinds, often considerable, we daily witness, but no origin of species...I have 
put before you very frankly the considerations which have made us agnostic as to the actual mode and 
processes of evolution.' [Bateson, W., "Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts," Science, Vol. 55, 
January 20, 1922, pp.55-61, pp.57, 61] " (Velikovsky, I., "Earth in Upheaval," [1950], Abacus: London, 
Reprinted, 1978, p.214. Ellipses Velikovsky's)

"L. T. More, in a series of guest lectures delivered at Princeton University, asked 'If natural selection is a 
force which can destroy but cannot create species and if the reasons for this destruction are unknown, of 
what value is the theory to mankind?...The collapse of the theory of natural selection leaves the philosophy 
of mechanistic materialism in a sorry plight.' [More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University 
Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, p.240] On De Vries's theory of evolution by mutations More said: 'The idea is 
destructive to scientific theory, as it really does Away with the whole idea of continuity which should be the 
basis of an evolution...The thought at once occurs that each of the surprising breaks in the paleontological 
record, such a one as separates the reptile from the feathered bird, may have been taken at a single leap 
during an overstimulated period of nature.' [Ibid., p.214]" (Velikovsky, I., "Earth in Upheaval," [1950], 
Abacus: London, Reprinted, 1978, pp.214-215. Ellipses Velikovsky's) 

"Both single species and whole groups of species last for very unequal periods; some groups, as we have 
seen, have endured from the earliest known dawn of life to the present day; some have disappeared before 
the close of the palaeozoic period. No fixed law seems to determine the length of time during which any 
single species or any single genus endures. There is reason to believe that the extinction of a whole group 
of species is generally a slower process than their production: if their appearance and disappearance be 
represented, as before, by a vertical line of varying thickness the line is found to taper more gradually at its 
upper end, which marks the progress of extermination, than at its lower end, which marks the first 
appearance and the early increase in number of the species. In some cases, however, the extermination of 
whole groups, as of ammonites, towards the close of the secondary period, has been wonderfully sudden." 
(Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection," [1859], John Murray: London, Sixth 
Edition, 1872, Reprinted, 1882, p.294)

"I finished your book yesterday ... Nothing, I think, can be better than the tone of the book, it impresses 
those who know nothing about the subject. As for your doctrine, I am prepared to go to the stake, if 
requisite, in support of Chapter IX., and most parts of Chapters X., XI., XII, and Chapter XIII. contains much 
that is most admirable, but on one or two points I enter a caveat until I can see further into all sides of the 
question. As to the first four chapters, I agree thoroughly and fully with all the principles laid down in them. 
I think you have demonstrated a true cause for the production of species, and have thrown the onus 
probandi that species did not arise in the way you suppose, on your adversaries. But I feel that I have not 
yet by any means fully realized the bearings of those most remarkable and original Chapters III., IV. and V., 
and I will write no more about them just now. The only objections that have occurred to me are, 1st that you 
have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum so 
unreservedly... . And 2nd, it is not clear to me why, if continual physical conditions are of so little moment as 
you suppose, variation should occur at all." (Huxley, T.H., Letter to Charles Darwin, November 23, 1859, in 
Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II, 
Reprinted, 1959, pp.26-27)

"I trust you will not allow yourself to be in any way disgusted or annoyed by the considerable abuse and 
misrepresentation which, unless I greatly mistake, is in store for you. Depend upon it you have earned the 
lasting gratitude of all thoughtful men. And as to the curs which will bark and yelp, you must recollect that 
some of your friends, at any rate, are endowed with an amount of combativeness which (though you have 
often and justly rebuked it) may stand you in good stead. I am sharpening up my claws and beak in 
readiness. Looking back over my letter, it really expresses so feebly all I think about you and your noble 
book that I am half ashamed of it; but you will understand that, like the parrot in the story, `I think the 
more.'" (Huxley, T.H., Letter to Charles Darwin, November 23, 1859, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters 
of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II, Reprinted, 1959, p.27)

"Of late years the doctrine of selection has been somewhat modified by de Vries under the name of the 
Theory of Mutations. Darwin insisted that evolution required that variation must proceed by minute 
changes, and he maintained this view in spite of the warning of Huxley who wrote: `First, you have loaded 
yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum so unreservedly... And, 
second, it is not clear to me why, if continual physical conditions are of so little moment as you suppose, 
variation should occur at all.' [Huxley, T.H., Letter to Charles Darwin, November 23, 1859, in Darwin, F., ed., 
"The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II, Reprinted, 1959, pp.26-
27] Evidence has accumulated that offspring frequently differ from their parents by well-marked 
characteristics. DeVries, on this evidence, assumes that variation of species may thus progress by jumps, or 
mutations, rather than by the gradual variation which proceeds in the same direction through many 
generations. The idea is destructive to scientific theory, as it really does away with the whole idea of 
continuity which should be the basis of an evolution theory; and it certainly, if true, forbids any foretelling 
of future events since no one knows how great such mutations may be. The thought at once occurs that 
each of the surprising breaks in the palaeontological record, such an one as separates the reptile from the 
feathered bird, may have been taken at a single leap during an overstimulated period of Nature. If the theory 
of jumps is ever accepted, evolution parts company with physics and chemistry and would not differ 
essentially from the belief in special creation. All other sciences are based on the law, that nature does not 
proceed by jumps." (More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, 

"We have so far considered the theory of natural selection from the standpoint of its general philosophical 
adequacy, and have found it to be based on principles which are now discredited and that its weakness is 
largely due to Darwin's temperamental inability to follow abstract thinking. When we turn to the scientific 
aspects of the theory we should find a different condition of affairs. He was undoubtedly a marvellously 
keen observer and his powers of scientific generalization were of the best; yet, even from the scientific 
aspect, Darwin's work to establish natural selection is rapidly crumbling on its biological side. This result is 
again to be traced indirectly to the same deficiency of his mind; he could generalize correctly so long as he 
confined himself to a narrow field which lay immediately under his own observation, but he could not 
sustain himself, because of his lack of imagination, when it was necessary to include so vast a field as the 
evolution of all organisms." (More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton 
NJ, 1925, pp.214-215)

"Darwin based his theory of natural selection on the analogy of the results which man has obtained by 
selective breeding of domesticated animals; he did an enormous amount of work in this field and collected 
much curious and valuable information about selective breeding. But he never seems to have once realized 
that the analogy is purely specious because the variations of domesticated animals and plants have, in man, 
a directing force which can arrange and alter the animals' habits, instincts, and environment, so as to foster 
certain variations and eliminate others. The one essential thing for a rational theory of evolution is to 
discover what directs the, to us, chance variations of undomesticated organisms so that minute changes will 
accumulate in a continuous increase until a new species is formed. Given a Divine Intelligence to guide 
organisms, as man directs those in a domesticated state, and the problem is solved, but that is the last 
admission the scientific evolutionist is prepared to make; he will admit only nature and natural law, whatever 
those words may mean." (More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 
1925, pp.215-216)

"Let us now discuss the arguments for and against the doctrine of natural selection from the biological point 
of view. Man has by selective breeding produced great diversities in structure and habits of domesticated 
animals and plants. He has, for example, produced dogs as different as the mastiff and the toy spaniel which 
have sufficient structural differences to be classed almost as different species. He has even been able to 
produce characteristics which are detrimental to the comfort of the animal, or dangerous to its life, such as 
the fan-tail of the pigeon. And, in every case, he has not considered the advantage of the organism but his 
own desires or whims. These diversities, he has obtained by breeding together individuals which possess 
some pronounced trait in common. Those individuals of their progeny which show this same trait are again 
selected and bred together, and so on until the desired result is reached. This method is further helped by 
continued change of diet, climate, or other factors of the environment. Whatever means are adopted, one 
practice must never be departed from; breeding outside the strain must be rigidly prevented or the organism 
reverts back to the original stock. To make our ideas more precise let us follow Darwin and consider a 
particular case in some detail. After deliberation, he selected the pigeon as the best example of directed 
breeding. He kept every breed he could purchase or obtain; he corresponded with pigeon fanciers; he found 
that records of breeding extended back into antiquity, and that the diversity of breeds is something 
astonishing. In addition to all these reasons for his choice, there is the remarkable advantage that: `Great as 
are the differences between the breeds of the pigeon, I am fully convinced that the common opinion of 
naturalists is correct, namely, that all are descended from the rock pigeon (Columba Livia), including 
under this term several geographical races or sub-species, which differ from each other in the most trifling 
respects.' [Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species," John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, 1872, p.17] He then 
tells us with the utmost care how man was able to produce such astonishing variations from a single parent 
stock: "Man can hardly select, or only with much difficulty, any deviation of structure, excepting such as is 
externally visible; and indeed he rarely cares for what is internal. He can never act by selection, excepting on 
variations which are first given to him in some slight degree by nature. No man would ever try to make a 
fantail till he saw a pigeon with a tail developed in some slight degree in an unusual manner, or a pouter till 
he saw a pigeon with a crop of some unusual size; and the more abnormal or unusual any character was 
when it first appeared, the more likely it would be to catch his attention. But to use such an expression as 
trying to make a fantail is, I have no doubt, in most cases, utterly incorrect. The man who first selected a 
pigeon with a slightly larger tail never dreamed what the descendants of that pigeon would become through 
long-continued, partly unconscious and partly methodical, selection." [Ibid., p.28] Thus Darwin shows what 
remarkable results can be obtained when slight, accidental variations are directed by man so as to exclude 
the crossing of a given strain with other individuals of the same species which do not show the same 
variation. With his mind fixed on the problem of increasing and fixing variations, he did not see a fatal 
objection to the theory of evolution when it was applied to organisms not subjected to the control of man's 
will. The objection is this: in spite of all our breeding of pigeons, which has extended through more than 
three thousand years, two of the most differentiated varieties can interbreed; this fact obviously shows that 
they are still the same species since their young are not sterile, and, what is even more significant, the 
pigeons from such crossbreeding, in a few generations, still revert back to the original ancestral type." 
(More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, pp.217-218)

"This tendency to revert to the original stock is so strong that even in pure strains we find `the occasional 
appearance in all the breeds of slaty-blue birds with two black bars on the wings, white loins, a bar at the 
end of the tail, with the outer feathers externally edged near their bases with white'; [Darwin, C.R., "The 
Origin of Species," John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, 1872, p.124] these are the characteristics of the rock 
pigeon (Columba Livia). Darwin explains this reversion as follows: `After twelve generations, the 
proportion of blood, to use a common expression, from one ancestor, is only one in 2048; and yet, as we see, 
it is generally believed that a tendency to reversion is retained by this remnant of foreign blood. In a breed 
which has not been crossed, but in which both parents have lost some character which their progenitor 
possessed, the tendency, whether strong or weak, to produce the lost character might, as was formerly 
remarked, for all that we can see to the contrary, be transmitted for almost any number of generations. When 
a character which has been lost in a breed, reappears after a great number of generations, the most probable 
hypothesis is, not that one individual suddenly takes after an ancestor removed by some hundred 
generations, but that in each successive generation the character in question has been lying latent, and at 
last, under unknown favourable conditions, is developed.' [Ibid., p126] This latent tendency to reversion 
must be very strong. After only one hundred generations, the proportion of blood from one ancestor is only 
one in 2 with thirty zeroes after it. It is no wonder that the breeder must preserve the purity of a strain with 
scrupulous care, if so inconceivably small a proportion of foreign blood can still produce an effect. If this 
latent tendency to revert is as strong in animals and plants in a wild state as it is with them when 
domesticated, and it would be difficult to deny it, what chance would a variation have to be preserved, when 
we consider that cross-breeding with others of the species which did not possess the same variation is 
absolutely certain to occur at all times, unless the variation was so advantageous, and the struggle for 
existence was so intense, that all the individuals which did not have the variation were killed, and all those 
which afterwards reverted also died without progeny? In other words, the tendency to revert must be 
considered as universal a law of nature as the tendency to vary. For example, even in men whose choice in 
mating has progressed further than in any other species, this reversion to a median line must be very 
persistent for if it were not, then the race would be, by this time, divided into sharply distinguished 
characteristics, those growing taller and those shorter; of mentally strong and weak, etc." (More, L.T., "The 
Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, pp.219-221)

"While, at first sight, it seems possible, though hardly probable, that such directed breeding might occur in 
the natural state, two facts destroy the force of the analogy even with this granted. New varieties and races 
created by artificial selection revert to the original type as soon as they are left to their own devices; and, in 
no case, has mutual sterility been produced between different varieties; the most different kinds of dogs, 
pigeons, and other domesticated animals breed freely together and their offspring is a mongrel; while 
successive general intercourse soon obliterates all the special traits. It is evident that fixity of traits and 
sterility are essential to establish a species, and that in some way these must occur in a state of nature. The 
importance of artificial selection was first criticised by Huxley, and its value as a proof has steadily declined 
until now many biologists admit that there are fewer features in common between natural and artificial 
selection than the Darwinians supposed.." (More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University 
Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, p.221)

"Let us now turn to natural selection and let us assume that a useful variation has occurred in some 
individuals of a certain species; under these favourable conditions we can discuss what the chances are 
that this variation will continue to increase until the original variants have produced an abundant offspring 
so different from the original stock that a new species has been formed. Again, to make our argument 
precise, let us consider the case of the long neck of the giraffe and assume that some offspring of short-
necked giraffes have a slightly longer neck, say an additional inch, and that this additional length is of great 
use in obtaining food. We shall first admit that the struggle for existence is, at that time, so intense that the 
short-necked giraffes die of starvation and those with this extra inch of length alone survive; then their 
offspring will have, presumably, the one extra inch and not two extra inches of length. Thus to arrive at the 
result of the very great length of neck which existing giraffes possess, Darwinians must assume, not a 
transmission of a real character but the tendency of the offspring of giraffes to have a successive 
increase in the length of the neck. ... Thus, even if we accept the postulates, that a favourable variation is 
transmitted, that the struggle for existence is so intense that all those without a slightly longer neck die, we 
must assume either that a continuous tendency to vary in the same direction exists, or that these unusual 
conditions are repeated many times by chance, before the giraffe's neck becomes so conspicuously 
elongated. The Darwinians can permit neither of these assumptions." (More, L.T., "The Dogma of 
Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, pp.221-222, 224. Emphasis original)

"We have, however, gone much too far in our admissions; it is impossible to assume them. Even Darwin, 
with his attention riveted on the struggle for existence, does not ask us to suppose that an inch difference in 
length of neck means death or life to a giraffe. Let us follow his own words: `Giraffes which were the highest 
browsers, and were able during dearths to reach even an inch or two above the others, will often have 
been preserved; for they will have roamed over the whole country in search of food. That the individuals of 
the same species often differ slightly in the relative lengths of all their parts may be seen in many works of 
natural history, in which careful measurements are given. These slight proportional differences, due to the 
laws of growth and variation, are not of the slightest use or importance to most species. But it will have been 
otherwise with the nascent giraffe, considering its probable habits of life; for those individuals which had 
some one part or several parts of their bodies rather more elongated than usual, would generally have 
survived. These will have intercrossed and left offspring, either inheriting the same bodily peculiarities, or 
with a tendency to vary again in the same manner; whilst the individuals, less favoured in the same 
respects, will have been the most liable to perish." [Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species, John Murray: 
London, Sixth Edition, 1872, pp.177-178] It is almost inconceivable that a great man should have rested his 
case on an argument so easy to tear to pieces. In the first place, he says the giraffe may have a tendency to 
vary and yet he writes to Hooker: `Heaven forfend me from the Lamarck nonsense of a tendency to 
progression," [Darwin, C.R., Letter to J.D. Hooker, January 11, 1844, in Darwin, F. & Seward, A.C., eds., 
"More Letters of Charles Darwin," John Murray: London, 1903, Vol. I. , pp.40-41] and he again and again 
writes to his friends that a `tendency to vary' is fatal to his theory, as it is equivalent to assuming unknown 
forces which act according to Design." (More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: 
Princeton NJ, 1925, pp.221-222, 224. Emphasis original)

"It is not difficult to make a picture of Darwin's idea. During a period of great scarcity of food all the easily 
accessible leaves have been used; the margin is so close that individual giraffes which happen to have an 
extra inch of length in the neck have a great advantage and will more probably survive and produce QQ" 
(More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, pp.224-225. More's 

"Besides a general interest about the southern lands, I have been now ever since my return engaged in a 
very presumptuous work, and I know no one individual who would not say a very foolish one. I was so 
struck with the distribution of the Galapagos organisms, etc., and with the character of the American fossil 
mammifers, etc., that I determined to collect blindly every sort of fact which could bear any way on what are 
species. I have read heaps of agricultural and horticultural books, and have never ceased collecting facts. At 
last gleams of light have come, and I am almost convinced (quite contrary to the opinion I started with) that 
species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable. Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense of a 
`tendency to progression,' `adaptations from the slow willing of animals,' etc.! But the conclusions I am led 
to are not widely different from his; though the means of change are wholly so. I think I have found out 
(here's presumption!) the simple way by which species become exquisitely adapted to various ends. You will 
now groan, and think to yourself, `on what a man have I been wasting my time and writing to.' I should, five 
years ago, have thought so..." (Darwin, C.R., Letter to J.D. Hooker, January 11, 1844, in Darwin, F. & Seward, 
A.C., eds., "More Letters of Charles Darwin," John Murray: London, 1903, Vol. I. , pp.40-41) 

"Researchers such as [Steven] Pinker and I get along well because I never claim that Alex has full-blown 
language; I never would. I'm not going to be able to put Alex on a `T' stand and have you interview him the 
way you interview me. But Alex has basic building blocks that are language-like behaviors - and also 
elements of phenomena like consciousness and awareness. Is Alex conscious? Personally, I believe so. Can 
I prove it? No."  (Pepperberg, I., "That Damn Bird: A Talk with Irene Pepperberg," Edge, September 23, 

"Oxygen and carbon atoms are about equally common in living material, just as they are in the Universe at 
large. While it is possible to imagine life in a Universe with a moderate imbalance between oxygen and 
carbon, a really large imbalance would seem to forbid its existence. A great excess of carbon would prevent 
the formation of many materials on which life is vitally dependent, rock and soil for example, while a great 
oxygen excess would simply burn up any carbon bearing biochemicals that happened to be around. The 
necessary balance between oxygen and carbon depends on the details of the origin of the chemical elements 
by nuclear reactions inside stars, a subject which has been intensively studied over the past three decades, 
and one which we have already touched on in this book. The details are concerned with how neutrons and 
protons group together to form the nuclei of atoms. Oxygen and carbon are like two radio receivers, each 
tuned to a particular wavelength. Unless the tunings are right, with the two dials set at the appropriate 
wavelengths far more oxygen is produced than carbon. But, as it happens, the tunings are indeed correct, so 
that oxygen and carbon atoms are produced in the Universe in appropriately balanced amounts. The 
problem is to decide whether these apparently coincidental tunings are really accidents or not, and therefore 
whether or not life is accidental. No scientist likes to ask such a question, but it has to be asked for all that. 
Could it be that the tunings are intelligently deliberate?" (Hoyle, F., "The Intelligent Universe," Michael 
Joseph: London, 1983, pp.218-219)

"Accident or design? I came across this remarkable property of carbon and oxygen in the early 1950s with 
my friend Willy Fowler. It is by no means an isolated example. The list of anthropic properties, apparent 
accidents of a nonbiological nature without which carbon based and hence human life could not exist, is 
large and impressive. Take protons, electrons and neutrons, for example. If the combined masses of the 
proton and electron were suddenly to become a little more rather than a little less than the mass of the 
neutron, the effect would be devastating. The hydrogen atom would become unstable. Throughout the 
Universe all the hydrogen atoms would immediately break down to form neutrons and neutrinos. Robbed of 
its nuclear fuel, the Sun would fade and collapse. Across the whole of space, stars like the Sun would 
contract in their billions, releasing a deadly flood of X-rays as they burned out. By that time life on Earth, 
needless to say, would already have been extinguished." (Hoyle, F., "The Intelligent Universe," Michael 
Joseph: London, 1983, pp.219-220. Emphasis original)

"Such properties seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a thread of happy accidents. But 
there are so many of these odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to 
account for them. To the theologist, anthropic properties seem like a confirmation of his belief that a creator 
designed the world to suit out requirements exactly and that for the theologian is the end of the matter. No 
further thoughts suggest themselves, and for scientists with a belief in the anthropic principle there is a 
similar inability to develop ideas and thoughts. Don't worry about such apparent coincidences as the 
tunings in carbon and oxygen, the anthropic principle enjoins us, because if it were not for those specific 
tunings we would not be here to remark on them. Indeed, our very existence guarantees that they are so, the 
principle argues. As with the creator or God of the theologian, this is a thought-stopping argument. so 
matter how rich the world is in remarkable physical and chemical coincidences, we are told that because we 
could not be here without them they are only to be expected, with the implication that there is no point in 
probing them any further. In my opinion this negative point of view is a direct and deliberate extension of an 
attitude of mind that in the nineteenth century threw itself so wholeheartedly behind the cause of 
Darwinism. The same nihilistic belief that no aspect of the Universe can be thought of as a consequence of 
purpose underlies both Darwinism and the anthropic principle. Every remarkable state of affairs is 
supposedly due to chance, and so one dismisses all further thought on the problem from one's mind, just as 
mention of the magical word `God' causes the theologian to desist from further enquiry." (Hoyle, F., "The 
Intelligent Universe," Michael Joseph: London, 1983, p.220) 

"But interesting events take place inside red giants. As the core contracts, the central furnace grows denser 
and hotter. Then nuclear reactions that were previously impossible become the principal source of energy. 
For example, the helium that accumulates during hydrogen burning can now become a fuel. As the star ages 
and the core temperature rises, brief encounters between helium nuclei produce fusion events. The collision 
of two helium nuclei leads initially to an evanescent form of beryllium having four neutrons and four 
protons. Amazingly enough, another helium nucleus collides with this short-lived target, leading to the 
formation of carbon. The process would seem about as likely as crossing a stream by stepping fleetingly on 
a log. A delicate match between the energies of helium, the unstable beryllium and the resulting carbon 
allows the last to be created. Without this process, we would not be here." (Kirshner, R.P., "The Earth's 
Elements," Scientific American, Vol. 271, No. 4, October 1994, Special Issue, pp.37-43, pp.38-39) 

"Biologists now believe that life must inevitably evolve whenever the proper conditions exist. All that is 
needed is an atmosphere like the one that existed on the primeval earth. Provided that there is some source 
of energy, such as ultraviolet radiation from a star, complex organic chemicals will form spontaneously. 
Among these are the nucleic acids and amino acids that are found in every living cell. No one has as yet 
duplicated the steps by which these chemicals presumably came together to make the first living organism. 
But scientists are convinced that with billions of years available, this process must inevitably happen 
wherever favorable conditions exist." (Morris, R.W., "The Fate of the Universe," Playboy Press: New York NY, 
1982, p.150)

"It is interesting to speculate about life elsewhere in the universe, especially about the possibility that there 
might be numerous intelligent species and possibly technological civilizations. However, the really 
intriguing question may very well be not, `Is there other intelligent life in the universe?' but rather, `Why is 
the universe so hospitable to life in the first place?' Even if it turns out that there is something terribly wrong 
with our ideas about the formation of planets, even if the universe turns out not to be teeming with life, this 
question still has to be answered. Because, after all, we exist. And, as we shall see, this is a fact that has to 
be explained." (Morris, R.W., "The Fate of the Universe," Playboy Press: New York NY, 1982, pp.150-151)

"Offhand, one would not think that the existence of terrestrial life and of human intelligence are facts that 
need to be accounted for at all. `Can't one simply accept the fact that we do exist, and leave it at that?' one is 
tempted to ask. And, in any case, hasn't it already been pointed out that scientists believe that life is 
inevitable, given the right conditions? Given the fact that we do have reasonably good conditions on earth, 
wasn't it inevitable that evolution should have eventually created intelligence? The answer is, of course, 
that life and intelligence probably were inevitable. But we must still explain why it is that such ideal 
conditions existed. It is possible to imagine an infinite number of different kinds of universes. In the vast 
majority of these universes, life could not possibly arise. In order to be hospitable to life, the universe must 
be very special. The question that we are really asking is, `Why is the universe so special?'" (Morris, R.W., 
"The Fate of the Universe," Playboy Press: New York NY, 1982, p.151. Emphasis original)

"One of the most astonishing things about the universe is its size. The nearest star is a little more than 4 
light years away, or about 25 trillion miles. And yet, by astronomical standards, this is a very short distance. 
Astronomers have observed galaxies that are billions of light years away. At the very least, the universe 
extends for tens of billions of light years in every direction. And of course if it is open, it goes on forever. 
There is another way of looking at this state of affairs: The universe is very spread out. Although stars and 
planets are relatively dense, there are very great spaces between them. As a result, the universe contains, on 
the average, less than one atom of ordinary matter for every cubic meter of space. Air is 1027 times more 
dense. And yet we speak of `thin air.' Why should matter be so thinly dispersed? Surprisingly, this question 
can be answered fairly easily. A universe must be spread out like this if it is ever to give rise to life. In a 
denser universe, the expansion would halt much too quickly, and there would not be enough time for life to 
be created. At the very least, billions of years must pass before life can exist. Galaxies and stars must form. 
Planets must be created and be given a chance to cool. Nature must have the opportunity to try one 
chemical experiment after another until the first living organism is formed. A universe that was very much 
denser than ours would collapse before any of these things happened." (Morris, R.W., "The Fate of the 
Universe," Playboy Press: New York NY, 1982, pp.151-152)

"If life is to have the opportunity to exist, a universe must expand out of the primordial fireball at just the 
right rate. If our universe had been expanding at a rate that was slower by a factor of one part in a million, 
then the expansion would have stopped when it was only 30,000 years old, when the temperature was still 
10,000 degrees. And if the expansion had been faster by a factor of one part in a million, then galaxies could 
not have formed. Matter would have been flying outward with just enough velocity to prevent it from 
condensing into clumps. In other words, the universe must be very close to the borderline between open 
and closed if life is to have a chance to exist at all. At last we have answered the question, `Why is it so 
difficult to tell whether the universe is infinite or finite?' If it were possible to tell without much trouble, then 
there would be no one around to wonder whether the universe was open or closed." (Morris, R.W., "The Fate 
of the Universe," Playboy Press: New York NY, 1982, pp.152-153)

"There are yet other ways in which our universe is of a special character. If nuclear forces were just a few 
percent stronger than they are, there would be no life. Stronger forces would cause all of the primordial 
hydrogen-not just 25 percent of it-to be synthesized into helium early in the history of the universe. And 
without hydrogen, the stars could never begin to shine. As far as we know, there are four fundamental 
forces in nature: gravity, electromagnetism, and the so-called `strong' and `weak' nuclear forces. Every one 
of these forces must have just the right strength if there is to be any possibility of life. For example, if 
electrical forces were much stronger than they are, then no element heavier than hydrogen could form. The 
positively charged protons would repel one another so strongly that their mutual repulsion could not be 
overcome by the strong nuclear force. But electrical repulsion cannot be too weak. If it were, protons would 
combine too easily, and the sun would not burn as slowly and steadily as it does. The protons would 
combine explosively, and the sun (assuming that it had somehow managed to exist up to now) would 
explode like a thermonuclear bomb. If the ratio between the strong and weak nuclear forces were different, 
the same kinds of things would happen. Either hydrogen nuclei would combine into helium much too 
readily, or the reaction would simply not take place. We must conclude that small changes in any of the 
forces of nature would lead to universes in which life would not be possible. Either there would be no atoms, 
or there would be atoms but no stars or planets. In some conceivable universes, matter would collapse very 
rapidly into black holes. In others, rapid nuclear reactions would produce cosmic rays of such intensity that 
biological evolution could never take place." (Morris, R.W., "The Fate of the Universe," Playboy Press: New 
York NY, 1982, pp.153-154)

"The theories of modern physics do not tell us why the forces of nature should have exactly the strength 
that they do, any more than they tell us why the universe should have expanded out of the primeval fireball 
at just the right rate. For example, the strength of the electromagnetic force (which embraces both electricity 
and magnetism) is related to a number called the fine structure constant. The name comes from the fact 
that the value of the constant can be determined by studying fine structure in the spectra of light emitted by 
atoms. The constant has the value 1/137. No one knows why it should be equal to this particular fraction 
rather than, say, 1/36 or 1/458. However, if it were not very close to 1/137, then life would not exist. In recent 
years it has become fashionable to view the creation of life as a stage in cosmic evolution. Galaxies evolved 
first, and then stars and planets. These produced the conditions necessary for the formation of complex 
organic molecules and, finally, life. The sequence seems so inevitable that it is difficult to imagine how life 
could not have evolved. As astronomer Carl Sagan states `the origin of life on suitable planets seems 
written into the chemistry of the universe.' But how did life get written into the chemistry? How is it that 
common elements such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen happened to have just the kind of atomic structure 
that they needed to combine to make the molecules upon which life depends? It is almost as though the 
universe had been consciously designed in such a way that life would be inevitable." (Morris, R.W., "The Fate 
of the Universe," Playboy Press: New York NY, 1982, pp.154-155)

"Scientists of an earlier age would not have hesitated to conclude that such considerations indicated the 
existence of a Creator. The German astronomer Johannes Kepler, who discovered the laws of planetary 
motion upon which Newton's law of gravitation was based, believed that the heavens were an expression of 
the beauty and harmony of divine creation. Newton concurred, saying that the solar system was "not 
explicable by mere natural causes," that its structure had to be ascribed to "the counsel or contrivance of a 
voluntary agent." The argument from design, as this idea is called, is not much in favor nowadays. More 
than two centuries have passed since Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason pointed out flaws in the 
argument. Although it seems not to have disappeared completely (I recall having heard it in Sunday school 
as a child), modern theologians no longer depend upon it. Unlike Newton and Kepler, today's scientists do 
not believe that there is some region where physics and theology merge with one another. If science 
uncovers a question, then science should attempt to answer it. But exactly what conclusions should be 
drawn from the fact that the universe has such a special character? Are we to say that it is all some kind of 
cosmic accident? That certainly does not sound very satisfactory." (Morris, R.W., "The Fate of the Universe," 
Playboy Press: New York NY, 1982, p.155. Emphasis original)

"One very obvious way out of the difficulty is to assume that there are an infinite number of universes. The 
universes that do not have our special character exist but are lifeless. The reason that our universe has 
certain special properties is that, otherwise, there would be no one here to see it. It must be emphasized that 
the hypothesis that universes exist in infinite numbers is anything but accepted scientific theory. However, I 
do not see how such a conclusion can be avoided. There are simply not any reasonable alternatives." 
(Morris, R.W., "The Fate of the Universe," Playboy Press: New York NY, 1982, pp.155-156)

"The idea of an infinite number of universes is not a new one. It is really no more than a modern version of 
the many-worlds theory of Giordano Bruno and of the Greek philosophers Democritus and Anaximander. 
The only difference between the modern version and the older ones is that our horizons have expanded 
somewhat. We speak of `universes' where the Greeks and Bruno talked of `worlds.'" (Morris, R.W., "The Fate 
of the Universe," Playboy Press: New York NY, 1982, p.156)

"The idea that astronomical data implied the existence of an infinite number of universes was first suggested 
by Robert Dicke in 1961. But Dicke's suggestion did not lead to a great deal of scientific discussion. It may 
be that it was a little ahead of its time. And when British mathematician Brandon Carter made similar 
observations around 1968, he did not even publish them at first. But in 1973 the question was revived by 
Stephen Hawking and his Cambridge University colleague Barry Collins. Collins and Hawking suggested, in 
a paper published in The Astrophysical Journal, that galaxies-and therefore life-could be created only in a 
universe that expanded out of the big bang just fast enough to avoid recollapse. The existence of galaxies 
and of life, they claimed, meant that the universe was exactly on the borderline between open and closed 
(not approximately on the borderline, as we have previously observed, but exactly). To Collins and Hawking, 
this hypothesis seemed to have a certain amount of appeal. The only trouble with it was that the probability 
that the universe was exactly on the borderline was zero. When a quantity (in this case the expansion 
velocity) can have an infinite number of different possible values, the chance that it has any one particular 
value is zero. So Collins and Hawking took the step that had previously been made by Dicke and by Carter. 
`One possible way out of this difficulty,' they said, `is to assume that there is an infinite number of universes 
with all possible different initial conditions.' The conclusion that there are infinite universes is not the only 
one that can be drawn. For example, John Archibald Wheeler and American mathematician C. M. Patton 
have suggested that a universe will only come into existence if it will be able to support intelligent life: There 
is some unknown factor eliminating all the possible universes that will not harbor intelligent species that can 
observe them. But the idea that there can be an interaction of this type between observer and universe is a 
little too mystical for most scientists." (Morris, R.W., "The Fate of the Universe," Playboy Press: New York NY, 
1982, pp.156-157. Emphasis original)

"At the present state of our knowledge, the origin of life remains a deep mystery. That is not to say, of 
course, that it will always be so. Undoubtedly the physical and chemical processes that led to the 
emergence of life from non-life were immensely complicated, and it is no surprise that we find such 
processes hard to model mathematically or to duplicate in the laboratory. In the face of this basic obstacle, 
one can distinguish between three philosophical positions concerning the origin of life: (i) it was a miracle; 
(ii) it was a stupendously improbable accident; and (iii) it was an inevitable consequence of the outworking 
of the laws of physics and chemistry, given the right conditions. I wish to state at the outset that I shall 
argue strongly for (iii), which seems to be the position adopted by most of the SETI scientists. ... Carl Sagan 
has written: 'The available evidence strongly suggests that the origin of life should occur given the initial 
conditions and a billion years of evolutionary time. The origin of life on suitable planets seems built into the 
chemistry of the universe.' this is a common view among scientists concerned with SETI. The assumption is 
that, given suitable conditions (e.g. a soup of the right chemicals, an energy source and a stable temperature 
in an appropriate range), living organisms will form spontaneously in a geologically reasonable span of time 
(millions or billions of years). Often cited is the fact that there is fossil evidence for microbial life on Earth as 
long ago as 3.6 billion years. The Earth can be dated at 4.5 billion years, and for many tens or even hundreds 
of millions of years the surface conditions would have been very hostile to life. Hazards included massive 
meteoric bombardment, huge volcanic eruptions, thick and deadly gases from the interior, solar instability 
(the Sun formed at about the same time as the Earth and probably had teething troubles), very hot 
conditions, the absence of liquid water, and deadly solar radiation. Thus it seems as if life got started on 
Earth at just about the earliest time it could. If life originated on Earth, these facts suggest that the process 
was rather rapid. Of course, if the panspermia hypothesis is correct, and the universe is replete with hopeful 
microbes looking for a home, then we would also expect a rapid colonization of the newly formed Earth. One 
must be wary, however, in drawing statistical conclusions from a single sample. That is why the discovery 
of even a single example of extraterrestrial life would be of immense significance to theory (iii)." (Davies, 
P.C.W., "Are We Alone?: Philosophical Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life," Penguin: 
London, 1995, pp.15,23-24) 

"The central role of the element carbon in terrestrial life prompted Fred Hoyle to draw attention to a further 
curious accident of nature. Carbon nuclei are synthesized in stars as a result of the almost simultaneous 
encounter of three helium nuclei. Such a triple collision is, of course, rather rare, and would be utterly 
insignificant if it were not for a fortuitous property of the carbon nucleus. The union of two helium nuclei 
forms an unstable nucleus of beryllium, Be8. The probability of the further incorporation of a third helium 
nucleus, to form carbon (C12), before the decay of Be8, depends sensitively on the energy with which the 
helium nucleus strikes the temporarily existing Be8. The reason for this concerns the existence of so-called 
nuclear resonances. Roughly speaking, when the frequency of the quantum wave associated with the 
incoming helium nucleus matches an internal vibration frequency of the composite system, the nuclear 
cross-section for capture of the third helium nucleus rises very sharply. By chance, the thermal energy of 
the nuclear constituents in a typical star lies almost exactly at the location of a resonance in C12. This 
happy accident ensures the efficient production of carbon inside stars. Without it, the rate of carbon 
formation would be very much reduced. This is, however, only half the story, for it is necessary that the 
newly synthesized carbon survive the subsequent nuclear activity inside the star. Carbon will be depleted 
as it burns to form still heavier elements. Specifically, the further collision of a helium nucleus with C12 
produces oxygen, O16. Once more, though, nature has made a fortunate choice. A resonance in the O16 
nucleus lies safely below the thermal energy of the constituents, so the C12 is spared the fate of being 
burned out of existence to form oxygen. The details of nuclear structure are immensely complicated, but 
ultimately the location of the nuclear resonances depends upon the fundamental forces of nature, especially 
the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. Had the strengths of these forces not been rather 
precisely chosen, the fortuitous arrangement of resonances in C12 and O16 would not have occurred and 
life, at least of the terrestrial variety, would have been exceedingly less likely. Returning to this topic in a 
recent publication, Hoyle considers the carbon-oxygen synthesis coincidence so remarkable that it seems 
like a `put-up job'. Regarding the delicate positioning of the nuclear resonances, he comments: 'If you 
wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the 
two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just about where these levels are actually 
found to be .... A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with 
physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in 
nature'. [Hoyle, F., "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections," Annual Review of Astronomy and 
Astrophysics, Vol. 20, 1982, pp.1-35, p.16]" (Davies, P.C.W., "The Accidental Universe," [1982], Cambridge 
University Press: Cambridge UK, Reprinted, 1983, pp.117-118)

"Two alpha particles [helium nuclei] that collide with each other with the right energy (enough to 
overcome the electrical repulsion produced by the positively charged protons they each carry) will 
stick together to form a nucleus of beryllium-8. Unfortunately, however, beryllium-8 is the exception to 
the rule that nuclei containing whole numbers of alpha particles are stable. It is spectacularly unstable, 
and breaks apart into lighter particles within a lifetime of only 10-17 seconds. So how can carbon, 
which requires the addition of another alpha particle to a beryllium-8 nucleus, ever be built up? Maybe, 
some theorists speculated, carbon-12 could be made directly inside stars, when three helium-4 nuclei 
just happened to collide with one another simultaneously. But a simple calculation soon showed that 
this is indeed about as unlikely a prospect as it sounds. It might happen occasionally, but not often 
enough to produce all the carbon we see around us, the key element in the chemistry of living things. 
.... Then, Fred Hoyle, who had, back in 1946 written a classic paper expounding the idea that the ... 
Hoyle puzzled over the problem of how hearty nuclei might be built up in stars (stellar 
nucleosynthesis), and became intrigued by the possibility that the energy levels of beryllium, helium, 
and carbon might be - just right to encourage the two-step reaction Salpeter had proposed. It all hinged 
on a property known as resonance. Resonance works like this. When two nuclei collide and stick 
together, the new nucleus that is formed carries the combined mass-energy of the two nuclei, plus the 
combined energy of their motion, their kinetic energy (and minus a small amount of energy from the 
strong force, the binding energy that holds the new nucleus together). The new nucleus `wants' to 
occupy one of the steps on its own energy ladder, and if this combined energy from the incoming 
particles is not just right then the excess has to be eliminated, in the form of leftover kinetic energy, or 
as a particle ejected from the nucleus. This reduces the likelihood that the two colliding nuclei will stick 
together; in many eases, they simply bounce off each other and continue to lead their separate lives. If 
everything meshes perfectly, however, the new nucleus will be created with exactly the energy that 
corresponds to one of its natural levels (it can then, of course, emit packets of energy and hop down 
the steps to the lowest; level). In that ease, the interaction will proceed very effectively, and the 
conversion of lighter nuclei into a heavier form will be complete. This matching of energies to one of 
the levels appropriate for the new nuclei is the effect known as resonance, and it depends crucially on 
the structure of the nuclei involved in the collisions. In 1954, Hoyle realised that the only way to make 
enough carbon inside stars is if there is a resonance involving helium-4, beryllium-8, and carbon-12. 
The mass-energy of each nucleus is fixed and cannot change; the kinetic energy that each nucleus has 
depends on the temperature inside a star, which Hoyle could calculate. Using that temperature 
calculation, Hoyle predicted that there must be a previously undetected energy level in the carbon-12 
nucleus, at an energy that would resonate with the combined energies, including kinetic energy, of its 
constituent parts, under the conditions prevailing inside stars. He made a precise calculation of what 
that energy level must be, and he cajoled Willy Fowler's somewhat sceptical nuclear physics colleagues 
until they carried out experiments to test his prediction. To the astonishment of everyone except Hoyle, 
the measurements showed that carbon-12 has an energy level just 4 percent above the calculated 
energy. This is so close that the kinetic energies of the colliding nuclei can readily supply the excess. 
This resonance greatly increases the chances of a helium-4 and a beryllium-8 nucleus sticking together, 
and ensures that enough alpha particles can be fused into carbon nuclei inside stars to account for our 
existence." (Gribbin, J.R. & Rees, M.J., "Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and Anthropic 
Cosmology," Bantam Books: New York NY, 1989, pp.243-245. Emphasis original)

"The remarkable nature of Hoyle's successful prediction cannot be overemphasised. Suppose, for example, 
that the energy level in carbon had turned out to be just 4 percent lower than the combined energy of 
helium-4 and beryllium-8. There is no way that kinetic energy could subtract rather than add the 
difference, so the trick simply would not have worked. This is made clear when we look at the next putative 
step in stellar nucleosynthesis, the production of oxygen-16 from a combination of carbon-12 and helium-4. 
When a carbon-12 nucleus and a helium-4 nucleus meet, they would fuse into oxygen if there were an 
appropriate resonance. But the nearest oxygen-16 resonance has one percent less energy than helium-4 plus 
carbon-12. But that 1 percent is all it takes to ensure that this time resonance does not occur. Sure, oxygen-
16 is manufactured in stars, but only in small quantities (at least, at this early stage of a star's life) compared 
with carbon. If that oxygen energy level were 1 percent lower, then virtually all the carbon made inside stars 
would be processed into oxygen, and then (much of it) into heavier elements still. Carbon-based life forms 
like ourselves would not exist. Most anthropic arguments are made with the benefit of hindsight. We look at 
the Universe, notice that it is close to flat, and say, `Oh yes, of course, it must be that way, or we wouldn't 
be here to notice it.' But Hoyle's prediction is different, in a class of its own. It is a genuine scientific 
prediction, tested and confirmed by subsequent experiments. Hoyle said, in effect, "since we exist, then 
carbon must have an energy level at 7.6 MeV." Then the experiments were carried out and the energy 
level was measured. As far as we know, this is the only genuine anthropic principle prediction; all the rest 
are "predictions" that might have been made in advance of the observations, if anyone had had the genius 
to make them, but that were never in fact made in that way. Hoyle's remarkable insight led directly to a 

detailed understanding of the way in which all of the other elements are built up from hydrogen and helium 
inside stars. He worked closely with Willy Fowler on this, and with the husband-and-wife team Geoffrey and 
Margaret Burbidge. Fowler (without Hoyle) later received a Nobel Prize for his part in the study of stellar 
nucleosynthesis. This combination of coincidences, just right for resonance in carbon-12, just wrong in 
oxygen-16, is indeed remarkable. There is no better evidence to support the argument that the Universe has 
been designed for our benefit-tailor-made for man. But there are alternative ways of viewing this 
coincidence, and others. So before we present the alternative view we should perhaps mention at least two 
other striking coincidences that help to make the Universe a fit place for life." (Gribbin, J.R. & Rees, M.J., 
"Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and Anthropic Cosmology," Bantam Books: New York NY, 
1989, pp.246-247. Emphasis original) 

"In 1952-1953 Fred Hoyle discovered one of the most celebrated examples of fine-tuning in physics. [Hoyle, 
F., "On Nuclear Reactions occurring in very hot stars: Synthesis of elements from carbon to nickel," 
Astrophysics Journal Supplement, Vol. 1, 1954, pp.121-146] In contemplating the required pathway for the 
production of carbon and oxygen in nuclear reactions in the hot interiors of red giant stars, Hoyle correctly 
predicted that carbon-12 must have a very specific nuclear energy resonance not known at the time. A 
nuclear resonance is a range of energies that greatly increases the chances of interaction between a nucleus 
and another particle-for example, the capture of a proton or a neutron. An energy resonance in a nucleus will 
accelerate reactions if the colliding particles have just the right kinetic energy. Resonances tend to be very 
narrow, so even very slight changes in their location would lead to enormous changes in the reaction rates. 
This may seem obscure, but think of a wineglass shattering when just the right acoustic note is played. 
That's a resonance. The relevant nuclear reactions occur in the stage of a star's life following the hydrogen-
burning main sequence, during so-called helium-shell burning. Recall that our Sun will not enter this latter 
stage for another four to five billion years. Fortunately for us, many moderate- to high-mass stars have 
already reached this stage and have seeded our galaxy with a healthy dose of carbon and oxygen. During 
this advanced, helium-shell burning stage, alpha particles (helium nuclei) abound in a star's deep interior, 
creating frequent high-energy collisions. When two helium nuclei collide, they form an unstable beryllium-8 
nucleus; even this is only possible because the mass of two helium nuclei is very close to that of the mains bound long enough (just 10-16 seconds) to collide with another alpha 
particle to form carbon-12. But this result is not quite sufficient. Because it is effectively a three-body 
reaction, carbon-12 won't be produced without a resonance. It was the lack of a known resonance at the 
energy level required to produce carbon that led Hoyle to make his famous prediction. Since the universe 
contains plenty of carbon, Hoyle deduced that such a resonance must exist. Had the resonance been 
slightly lower, the universe would have far less carbon. In fact, the observed abundance of carbon and 
oxygen depends on a few other coincidences. It turns out that the lack of a resonance in oxygen at the 
typical alpha particle energy in a star prevents all the carbon from being used up to make oxygen (thankfully, 
the closest resonance is just a little bit too low). But if the fine-tuning stopped there, the universe would 
have squandered most of its oxygen well before any star system had time even to think about hosting life. 
You see, certain conservation laws prevent easy capture of alpha particles by oxygen-16 to form neon-20, 
even though a resonance exists in neon-20 at just the right place. Otherwise, little oxygen would remain. As 
a result of these four astounding `coincidences,' stars produce carbon and oxygen in comparable amounts. 
Astrophysicists have recently confirmed the sensitivity of carbon and oxygen production to the carbon-
energy resonance; a change in the (strong) nuclear force strength (the force that binds particles in an atomic 
nucleus) by more than about half a percent, or by 4 percent in the electromagnetic force (the force between 
charged particles), would yield a universe with either too much carbon compared with oxygen or vice versa, 
and thus little if any chance for life. Including the other three required fine-tunings further narrows this 
range." (Gonzalez, G.* & Richards, J.W.*, "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed 
For Discovery," Regnery: Washington DC, 2004, pp.198-199) 

"The synthesis of carbon-the vital core of all organic molecules-on a significant scale involves what 
scientists view as an `astonishing' coincidence in the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism. This 
ratio makes it possible for carbon-12 to reach an excited state of exactly 7.65 MeV at the temperature typical 
of the center of stars, which creates a resonance involving helium-4, beryllium-8, and carbon-12 - allowing 
the necessary binding to take place during a tiny window of opportunity 1017 seconds long." (Glynn, P.*, 
"God: The Evidence: The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World," Forum: Rocklin CA, 
1997, p.30)

"The nuclear strong force, too, must be neither over-strong nor over-weak, for stars to operate life-
encouragingly. `As small an increase as 2 per cent' in its strength `would block the formation of protons out 
of quarks', preventing the existence even of hydrogen atoms, [Barrow, J.D. & Silk, J., Scientific American, 
April 1980, pp. 127-128] let alone others. If this argument fails then the same small increase could still spell 
disaster by binding protons into diprotons: all hydrogen would now become helium early in the Bang, 
[Davies, P.C.W., "The Anthropic Principle," in Wilkinson, D., ed., Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 
10," Pergamon Press: Oxford, 1983, p. 8] and stars would burn by the strong interaction [Dyson, F.,  "Energy 
in the Universe," Scientific American, Vol. 225, No. 3, September 1971, pp.50-59, p.56] which, as noted 
above, proceeds 1018 times faster than the weak interaction which controls our sun. A yet tinier increase, 
perhaps of 1 per cent, would so change nuclear resonance levels that almost all carbon would be burned to 
oxygen. [Hoyle, F., Astrophysical Journal, supplementary, Vol. 1, 1954, p.121; Salpeter, E. E., Physical 
Review, Vol. 107, 1957, p.516] A somewhat greater increase, of about 10 per cent, would again ruin stellar 
carbon synthesis, this time changing resonance levels so that there would be little burning beyond carbon's 
predecessor, helium. [Rozental, I.L., "Structure of the Universe and Fundamental Constants," Moscow, 1981, 
p.8] One a trifle greater than this would lead to `nuclei of almost unlimited size', [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, p.611] even small bodies becoming `mini neutron stars'. [Carter, B. in Sanders, J.H. & Wapstra, A.H., 
eds., "Atomic Masses and Fundamental Constants: 5," New York, 1976, p.652] All which is true despite the 
very short range of the strong force. Were it long-range then the universe would be `wound down into a 
single blob'. [Atkins, P.W., "The Creation," W.H. Freeman & Co: Oxford, 1981, p.13.]" (Leslie, J., 
"Universes," [1989], Routledge: London, Reprint, 1996, p.35. Emphasis original)

"Slight decreases could be equally ruinous. The deuteron, a combination of a neutron and a proton which 
is essential to stellar nucleosynthesis, is only just bound: weakening the strong force by `about five per 
cent' would unbind it, [Davies, P.C.W., "The Anthropic Principle," in Wilkinson, D., ed., Progress in Particle 
and Nuclear Physics 10," Pergamon Press: Oxford, 1983, p. 7] leading to a universe of hydrogen only. And 
even a weakening of 1 per cent could destroy [Rees, M.J.,  "Our Universe and Others," Quarterly Journal of 
the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 22, 1981, p. 122] `a particular resonance in the carbon nucleus which 
allows carbon to form from 4He plus 8Be despite the instability of 8Be' (which is however stable enough to 
have a lifetime `anomalously long' in a way itself suggesting fine tuning).[Barrow, J.D. & Tipler, F.J., "The 
Anthropic Cosmological Principle," Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1986, pp.252-253] `A 50% decrease 
would adversely affect the stability of all the elements essential to living organisms': [Barrow & Tipler, Ibid., 
p.327] any carbon, for example, which somehow managed to form would soon disintegrate. (Leslie, J., 
"Universes," [1989], Routledge: London, Reprint, 1996, pp.35-36. Emphasis original) 

"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)

"The Best of All Possible Worlds? Leibniz developed the above argument in detail as an attempt to 
prove, on the basis of the rationality of the cosmos, that such a God exists. He concluded from this 
cosmological argument that a rational, omnipotent, perfect, omniscient being must inevitably choose the 
best of all possible worlds. The reason? If a perfect God knowingly selected a world that was less than 
perfect, that would be irrational. We would demand an explanation for the peculiar choice. But what possible 
explanation could there be? The notion that ours is the best of all possible worlds has not commended itself 
to many people. Leibniz (in the guise of Dr. Pangloss) was savagely lampooned by Voltaire on this point: `O 
Dr. Pangloss! If this is the best of all possible worlds, what must the others be like?' The objection usually 
centers on the problem of evil. We can imagine a world in which, for example, there is no pain and suffering. 
Would that not be a better world? Leaving ethical issues aside, there could still be some physical sense in 
which ours is the best of all possible worlds. One is certainly struck by the immense richness and complexity 
of the physical world. Sometimes it seems as if nature were `going out of its way' to produce an interesting 
and fruitful universe. Freeman Dyson has attempted to capture this property in his principle of maximum 
diversity: the laws of nature and the initial conditions are such as to make the universe as interesting as 
possible. [Dyson F.J., "Infinite In All Directions," Harper & Row: New York NY, 1988, p.298] Here `best' is 
interpreted as `richest,' in the sense of greatest variety and complexity of physical systems." (Davies, 
P.C.W., "The Mind of God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning," [1992]. Penguin: London, 
Reprinted, 1993, pp.172-173. Emphasis original)

"I have tried to make a case that the existence of an orderly, coherent universe containing stable, organized, 
complex structures requires laws and conditions of a very special kind. All the evidence suggests that this is 
not just any old universe, but one which is remarkably well adjusted to the existence of certain interesting 
and significant entities (e.g., stable stars). ... I explained how this feeling had been formalized by Freeman 
Dyson and others into something like a principle of maximum diversity [Dyson F.J., "Infinite In All 
Directions," Harper & Row: New York NY, 1988, p.298] . The situation becomes even more intriguing when 
we take into account the existence of living organisms. The fact that biological systems have very special 
requirements, and that these requirements are, happily, met by nature, has been commented upon at least 
since the seventeenth century. It is only in the twentieth century, however, with the development of 
biochemistry, genetics, and molecular biology, that the full picture has emerged. Already in 1913 the 
distinguished Harvard biochemist Lawrence Henderson wrote: `The properties of matter and the course of 
cosmic evolution are now seen to be intimately related to the structure of the living being and to its 
activities; ... the biologist may now rightly regard the Universe in its very essence as biocentric. ` 
[Henderson, L.J., "The Fitness of the Environment," [1913], Peter Smith: Gloucester MA, Reprinted, 1970, 
p.312.] Henderson was led to this surprising view from his work on the regulation of acidity and alkalinity in 
living organisms, and the way that such regulation depends crucially upon the rather special properties of 
certain chemical substances. He was also greatly impressed at how water, which has a number of anomalous 
properties, is incorporated into life at a basic level. Had these various substances not existed, or had the 
laws of physics been somewhat different so that the substances did not enjoy these special properties, then 
life (at least as we know it) would be impossible. Henderson regarded the `fitness of the environment' for life 
as too great to be accidental, and asked what manner of law is capable of explaining such a match." (Davies, 
P.C.W., "The Mind of God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning," [1992]. Penguin: London, 
Reprinted, 1993, pp.198-199)

"In the 1960s the astronomer Fred Hoyle noted that the element carbon, whose peculiar chemical properties 
make it crucial to terrestrial life, is manufactured from helium inside large stars. It is released therefrom by 
supernovae explosions, as discussed in the previous section. While investigating the nuclear reactions that 
lead to the formation of carbon in the stellar cores, Hoyle was struck by the fact that the key reaction 
proceeds only because of a lucky fluke. Carbon nuclei are made by a rather tricky process involving the 
simultaneous encounter of three high-speed helium nuclei, which then stick together. Because of the rarity 
of triple-nucleus encounters, the reaction can proceed at a significant rate only at certain well-defined 
energies (termed `resonances'), where the reaction rate is substantially amplified by quantum effects. By 
good fortune, one of these resonances is positioned just about right to correspond to the sort of energies 
that helium nuclei have inside large stars. Curiously, Hoyle did not know this at the time, but he predicted 
that it must be so on the basis that carbon is an abundant element in nature. Experiment subsequently 
proved him right. A detailed study also revealed other `coincidences' without which carbon would not be 
both produced and preserved inside stars. Hoyle was so impressed by this `monstrous series of accidents,' 
he was prompted to comment that it was as if `the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed 
with regard to the consequences they produce inside the stars.' [Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion 
and the Scientists," SCM: London, 1959, p.82] Later he was to expound the view that the universe looks like 
a `put-up job,' as though somebody had been `monkeying' with the laws of physics. [Hoyle, F., "The 
Intelligent Universe," Michael Joseph: London, 1983, p.218]" (Davies, P.C.W., "The Mind of God: Science 
and the Search for Ultimate Meaning," [1992]. Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1993, p.199)

"These examples are intended merely as a sample. A long list of additional `lucky accidents' and 
`coincidences' has been compiled since, most notably by the astrophysicists Brandon Carter, Bernard Carr, 
and Martin Rees. Taken together, they provide impressive evidence that life as we know it depends very 
sensitively on the form of the laws of physics, and on some seemingly fortuitous accidents in the actual 
values that nature has chosen for various particle masses, force strengths, and so on. As these examples 
have been thoroughly discussed elsewhere, I will not list them here. Suffice it to say that, if we could play 
God, and select values for these quantities at whim by twiddling a set of knobs, we would find that almost all 
knob settings would render the universe uninhabitable. In some cases it seems as if the different knobs have 
to be fine-tuned to enormous precision if the universe is to be such that life will flourish. In their book 
Cosmic Coincidences John Gribbin and Martin Rees conclude: `The conditions in our Universe really do 
seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves. [Gribbin, J. & Rees, M.J., "Cosmic Coincidences," 
Bantam Books: New York NY, 1989), p.269]." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Mind of God: Science and the Search for 
Ultimate Meaning," [1992]. Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1993, pp.199-200)

"It is a truism that we can only observe a universe that is consistent with our own existence. As I have 
mentioned, this linkage between human observership and the laws and conditions of the universe has 
become known, somewhat unfortunately, as the Anthropic Principle. In the trivial form just stated, the 
Anthropic Principle does not assert that our existence somehow compels the laws of physics to have the 
form they do, nor need one conclude that the laws have been deliberately designed with people in mind. On 
the other hand, the fact that even slight changes to the way things are might render the universe 
unobservable is surely a fact of deep significance." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Mind of God: Science and the 
Search for Ultimate Meaning," [1992]. Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1993, p.200. Emphasis original)

"Boyle introduced the famous comparison between the universe and a clockwork mechanism, which was 
most eloquently elaborated by the theologian William Paley in the eighteenth century. Suppose, argued 
Paley, that you were `crossing a heath' and came upon a watch lying on the ground. On inspecting the 
watch, you observed the intricate organization of its parts and how they were arranged together in a 
cooperative way to achieve a collective end. Even if you had never seen a watch and had no idea of its 
function, you would still be led to conclude from your inspection that this was a contrivance designed for a 
purpose. Paley then went on to argue that, when we consider the much more elaborate contrivances of 
nature, we should reach the same conclusion even more forcefully. The weakness of this argument, exposed 
by Hume, is that it proceeds by analogy. The mechanistic universe is analogous to the watch; the watch had 
a designer, so therefore the universe must have had a designer. One might as well say that the universe is 
like an organism, so therefore it must have grown from a fetus in a cosmic womb! Clearly no analogical 
argument can amount to a proof. The best it can do is to offer support for a hypothesis. The degree of 
support will depend on how persuasive you find the analogy to be." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Mind of God: 
Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning," [1992]. Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1993, p.201. Emphasis 

"As John Leslie points out, if the world were littered with pieces of granite stamped MADE BY GOD, after 
the fashion of the watchmaker's mark, surely even the Humes of this world should be convinced? `It can be 
asked whether every conceivable piece of seeming evidence of divine creative activity, including, say, 
messages written in the structures of naturally occurring chain molecules ... would be shrugged off with the 
comment, `Nothing improbable in that!' [Leslie, J., `Universes,' Routledge, London 1989), p.160]" (Davies, 
P.C.W., "The Mind of God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning," [1992]. Penguin: London, 
Reprinted, 1993, pp.201-202. Emphasis original)

"Finally, crushingly, it can be asked whether every conceivable piece of seeming evidence of divine creative 
activity, including, say, messages written in the structures of naturally occurring chain molecules ... would 
be shrugged off with the comment, `Nothing improbable in that!' ... In point of fact, those who run the 
above argument against calling our universe `probably God-designed' are often also heard to declare that a 
universe with as many evils as ours would be `a highly improbable' product of divine power." (Leslie, J., 
"Universes," [1989], Routledge: London, Reprint, 1996, p.160. Emphasis original)

"The design argument can't be categorized as right or wrong, but merely suggestive to a greater or lesser 
degree. So how suggestive is it? No scientist would today concur with Newton and claim that the solar 
system is too propitiously arranged to arise naturally. Although the origin of the solar system is not well 
understood, mechanisms are known to exist that could arrange the planets in the orderly manner that we find 
them. Nevertheless, the overall organization of the universe has suggested to many a modern astronomer an 
element of design. Thus James Jeans, who proclaimed that `the universe appears to have been designed by 
a pure mathematician' and it `begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine,' also wrote: 
`We discover that the universe shows evidence of a designing or controlling power that has something in 
common with our own individual minds-not, so far as we have discovered, emotion, morality, or aesthetic 
appreciation, but the tendency to think in the way which, for want of a better word, we describe as 
mathematical.' [Jeans, J., "The Mysterious Universe," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1931, p.137]" 
(Davies, P.C.W., "The Mind of God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning," [1992]. Penguin: 
London, Reprinted, 1993, pp.202-203)

"The most striking examples of `the contrivances of nature' are to be found in the biological domain, and it is 
to these that Paley devoted much of his attention. In biology the adaptation of means to ends is legendary. 
Consider the eye, for example. It is hard to imagine that this organ is not meant to provide the faculty of 
sight. Or that the wings of a bird aren't there for the purpose of flight. To Paley and many others, such 
intricate and successful adaptation bespoke providential arrangement by an intelligent designer. Alas, we all 
know about the speedy demise of this argument. Darwin's theory of evolution demonstrated decisively that 
complex organization efficiently adapted to the environment could arise as a result of random mutations and 
natural selection. No designer is needed to produce an eye or a wing. Such organs appear as a result of 
perfectly ordinary natural processes. A triumphalist celebration of this put-down is brilliantly presented in 
The Blind Watchmaker by the Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins. The severe mauling meted out to the 
design argument by Hume, Darwin, and others resulted in its being more or less completely abandoned by 
theologians. It is all the more curious, therefore, that it has been resurrected in recent years by a number of 
scientists. In its new form the argument is directed not to the material objects of the universe as such, but to 
the underlying laws, where it is immune from Darwinian attack." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Mind of God: Science 
and the Search for Ultimate Meaning," [1992], Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1993, pp.202-203)

"First, it is sometimes argued that, if nature did not oblige by producing the right conditions for life to form, 
we would not ourselves be here to argue about the matter. That is of course true, but it hardly amounts to a 
counterargument. The fact is, we are here, and here by grace of some pretty felicitous arrangements. Our 
existence cannot of itself explain these arrangements. One could shrug the matter aside with the comment 
that we are certainly very lucky that the universe just happened to possess the necessary conditions for life 
to flourish, but that this is a meaningless quirk of fate. Again, it is a question of personal judgment. Suppose 
it could be demonstrated that life would be impossible unless the ratio of the mass of the electron to that of 
the proton was within 0.00000000001 percent of some completely independent number-say, one hundred 
times the ratio of the densities of water and mercury at 18 degrees centigrade (64.4 degrees Fahrenheit). 
Even the most hard-nosed skeptic must surely be tempted to conclude that there was `something going 
on.'" (Davies, P.C.W., "The Mind of God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning," [1992], Penguin: 
London, Reprinted, 1993, pp.202-203. Emphasis original) 

"My first visit to the Creation took place in 1981 [Atkins, P.W., "The Creation," W.H. Freeman & Co: Oxford, 
1981]. Then I took the view that there is nothing that cannot be understood, and that the path to 
understanding is to peel away appearances in order to expose the core, which is always of unsurpassed 
simplicity. I explained that we would travel along a path where we would encounter very simple questions 
and, more importantly, discover that they have very simple answers. I aimed to show then, as I am to show 
on this return visit, that it is possible to think rationally about what many regard as lying beyond 
explanation, such as the processes involved in the creation of the universe and the emergence in it of 
consciousness. My aim on the first visit was to argue that the universe can come into existence without 
intervention, and that there is no need to invoke the idea of a Supreme Being in one of its numerous 
manifestations. I accepted then, as I accept now, that anyone who is in some sense religious is not likely to 
be swayed by arguments like mine. In this respect I did not intend offence and nor do I intend it now. There 
were some who took it, though, and I suppose there will be a new generation who will take it again with this 
revision." (Atkins, P.W., "Creation Revisited", [1992], Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1994, p.vii)

"A great deal of the universe does not need any explanation. Elephants, for instance. Once molecules have 
learnt to compete and to create other molecules in their own image, elephants, and things resembling 
elephants, will in due course be found roaming through the countryside. The details of the processes 
involved in evolution are fascinating, but they are unimportant: competing, replicating molecules with time 
on their hands will inevitably evolve." (Atkins, P.W., "Creation Revisited", [1992], Penguin: London, 
Reprinted, 1994, p.3)

"Some of the things resembling elephants will be men. They are equally unimportant. It is undeniable (but 
not necessarily predictable) that molecules, once they have stumbled upon reproduction, will, somewhere or 
other (here, as it happens), band together into corporations shaped into the form and having the functions 
of men, and that these men will also one day be found roaming through some countryside. Their special but 
not significant function is that they are able to act as commentators on the nature, content, structure, and 
source of the universe and that, as a sideline, they can devise and take pleasure from communicable 
fantasies." (Atkins, P.W., "Creation Revisited", [1992], Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1994, p.3)

"Just as the electrons of an atom can be considered to reside in a variety of states according to their energy 
levels so it is with nucleons. Neutrons and protons possess an analogous spectrum of nuclear levels. If 
nucleons undergo a transition from a high to a low energy state then energy is emitted and conversely, the 
addition of radiant energy can effect an upward transition between nuclear levels. This nuclear chemistry is 
a crucial factor in the chain of nuclear reactions that power the stars. When two nuclei undergo fusion into a 
third nuclear state, energy may be emitted. One of the most striking aspects of low-energy nuclear reactions 
of this type is the discontinuous response of the interaction rate, or cross-section, as the energy of the 
participant nuclei changes ... A sequence of sharp peaks, or resonances, arises in the production 
efficiency of some nuclei as the interaction energy changes. They will occur below some characteristic 
energy (typically ~ few x 10 MeV) which depends on the particular nuclei involved in the reaction. ... The 
primary mechanism whereby stars generate gas or radiation pressures to support themselves against 
gravitational collapse is exothermic fusion of hydrogen into helium-4. But, eventually a star will exhaust the 
supply of hydrogen in its core and its immediate source of pressure support disappears. The star possesses 
a built-in safety valve to resolve this temporary energy crisis: as soon as gravitational contraction begins to 
increase the average density at the stellar core the temperature rises sufficiently for the initiation of helium 
burning (at T~ 108 K, p ~ 104.5 gm cm-3), via 3He4 --> C   2y (4.58) This sequence of events (fuel 
exhaustion --> contraction --> higher central temperature --> new nuclear energy source) can be repeated 
several times but it is known that the nucleosynthesis of all the heavier elements essential to biology rests 
upon the step (4.58)." (Barrow, J.D. & Tipler, F.J., "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle," [1986], Oxford 
University Press: Oxford UK, Reprinted, 1996, pp.251-252. Emphasis original)

"Prior to 1952 it was believed that the interaction (4.58) proceeded too slowly to be useful in stellar interiors. 
Then Salpeter pointed out that it might be an `autocatalytic' reaction, proceeding via an intermediate 
beryllium step, 2He  (996) keV --> Be8 Be8 He4 --> C12   2y (4.59) Since the Be8 lifetime (~10-17s) is 
anomalously long compared to the He4   He4 collision time (~10-22 s), the beryllium will co-exist with the 
He4 for a significant time and allow reaction (4.59) to occur. However, in 1952 so little was known about the 
nuclear levels of C that it was hard to evaluate the influence of the channel (4.59) on the efficiency of (4.58). 
Two years later Hoyle made a remarkable prediction: in the course of an extensive study of stellar 
nucleosynthesis he realized that unless reaction (4.58) proceeded resonantly the yield of carbon would be 
negligible. There would be neither carbon, nor carbon-based life in the Universe. The evident presence of 
carbon and the products of carbon chemistry led Hoyle to predict that (4.58) and (4.59) must be resonant, 
with the vital resonance level of the C nucleus lying near ~7.7 MeV. This prediction was soon verified by 
experiment. Dunbar et al. discovered a state with the expected properties lying at 7.656 0.008 MeV. If we 
examine the level structure of C12 in detail we find a remarkable `coincidence' exists there. The 7.6549 MeV 
level in C12 lies just above the energy of Be8 plus He4 (=7.3667 MeV) and the acquisition of thermal 
energy by the two nuclei within a stellar interior allows a resonance to occur. Dunbar et al.'s discovery 
confirmed an Anthropic Principle prediction." (Barrow, J.D. & Tipler, F.J., "The Anthropic Cosmological 
Principle," [1986], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, Reprinted, 1996, p.252. Emphasis original)

"However, this is not the end of the story. The addition of another helium-4 nucleus to C12 could fuse it to 
oxygen. If this reaction were also resonant all the carbon would be rapidly burnt to O16. However, by a 
further `coincidence' the O16 nucleus has an energy level at 7.1187 MeV that lies just below the total 
energy of C12   He4 at 7.1616 MeV. Since kinetic energies are always positive, resonance cannot occur 
in the 7.1187 MeV state. Had the O16 level lain just above that of C12   He4, carbon would have been 
rapidly removed via the alpha capture C12   He4 --> O16 (4.60) Hoyle realized that this remarkable chain 
of coincidences-the unusual longevity of beryllium, the existence of an advantageous resonance level in 
C12 and the non-existence of a disadvantageous level in O16-were necessary, and remarkably fine-tuned, 
conditions for our own existence and indeed the existence of any carbon-based life in the Universe. These 
coincidences could, in principle, be traced back to their roots where they would reveal a meticulous fine-
tuning between the strengths of the nuclear and electromagnetic interactions along with the relative masses 
of electrons and nucleons. Unfortunately no such back-track is practical because of the overwhelming 
complexity of the large quantum systems involved; such resonance levels can only by located by 
experiment in practice." (Barrow, J.D. & Tipler, F.J., "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle," [1986], Oxford 
University Press: Oxford UK, Reprinted, 1996, p.252. Emphasis original)

"Hoyle's anthropic prediction is a natural successor to the examples of Henderson. It exhibits further 
relationships between invariants of Nature which are necessary for our own existence. Writing and lecturing 
in 1965 Hoyle added some speculation as to the conditions in `other worlds' where the properties of 
beryllium, carbon and oxygen might not be so favourably arranged. First `suppose that Be8 ... had turned 
out to be moderately stable, say bound by a million electron volts. What would be the effect on 
astrophysics?' There would be many more explosive stars and supernovae and stellar evolution might well 
come to an end at the helium burning stage because helium would be a rather unstable nuclear fuel, `Had 
Be8 been stable the helium burning reaction would have been so violent that stellar evolution with its 
consequent nucleosynthesis would have been very limited in scope, less interesting in its effects ... if there 
was little carbon in the world compared to oxygen, it is likely that living creatures could never have 
developed.' [Hoyle, F., Dunbar, D., Wensel, W. & Whaling, W., "The 7.68-Mev State in C12," Physical 
Review, Vol. 92 , 1953, p.649] (Barrow, J.D. & Tipler, F.J., "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle," 
[1986], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, Reprinted, 1996, p.252. Emphasis original) 

"About 75 per cent of a star is hydrogen, roughly 25 per cent is helium, and a mere 1 per cent or so consists 
of heavier elements: this proportion is a strong clue that the materials that are essential for life on Earth, 
such as the carbon in the organic molecules in our bodies and the oxygen in the air that we breathe, have 
been manufactured inside stars. This process, stellar nucleosynthesis, is now well understood; but the 
comforting familiarity of that understanding sometimes obscures the fact that the whole process of 
manufacturing heavy elements inside stars rests upon an astonishing coincidence involving the quantum 
properties of carbon nuclei. This coincidence makes our existence possible only because of other 
coincidences that were important earlier in the life of the Universe. All of these coincidences are extremely 
interesting to many astronomers, reviving the age-old debate about whether or not the Universe is `tailor-
made' for human beings .... Investigating these puzzles is usually known as `anthropic cosmology'. The 
first puzzle is why stars should be made of 75 per cent hydrogen and 25 per cent helium to begin with. That 
is the result of another coincidence that operated during the event known as the big bang in which the 
Universe was born, some 15 billion years ago. This coincidence hinges upon the strength of the weak 
interaction, one of the four fundamental forces of nature. This is the force that determines the process of 
radioactive decay, and the conversion of protons into neutrons, or vice versa. Assuming that the big-bang 
fireball would just produce the simplest nuclei, single protons, it is the strength of the weak force that 
determines just how much hydrogen is processed into helium in the later stages of the big bang. It requires a 
precise fine tuning to avoid a runaway in one direction or the other-make the weak force slightly stronger 
and no helium would have been produced; make it slightly weaker and nearly all the hydrogen would have 
been converted into helium. A universe in which stars were initially composed entirely of hydrogen might 
not be so very different from our own; but if all the stars were originally composed of helium they would 
have burned out quickly. There would probably not have been enough time for planets to form and life to 
evolve, even if life could develop without hydrogen available to make water." (Gribbin, J.R. & Rees, M.J., 
"Cosmic coincidences," New Scientist, Vol. 125, 13 January 1990, pp.29-32, pp.29-30. Emphasis 

"Astrophysicists knew that the trick, nucleosynthesis, must have something to do with sticking helium 
nuclei together. The helium-4 nucleus is extremely stable. Atoms made up of what are, in effect, whole 
numbers of helium-4 nuclei are also stable, and therefore common, compared with other nuclei. Carbon, 
which contains six protons and six neutrons (12 nucleons), and oxygen, which contains 16, are the two most 
obvious examples that are important for life forms like us. Once carbon and oxygen exist in the Universe 
(that is, inside stars) in the right quantities, it is relatively easy (according to the laws of physics derived 
from studies of the way helium nuclei interact with other nuclei in particle accelerators) to build up heavier 
elements. This happens by adding helium nuclei to existing nuclei, which then, sometimes, spit out the odd 
proton or neutron to produce a nucleus of a slightly lighter element. But when physicists first looked in 
detail at this process, there seemed to be a bottleneck at the very first step. Two helium nuclei that collide 
with one another with the right kinetic energy (enough to overcome the electrical repulsion produced 
between the two units of positive charge that they each carry) will stick together to form a nucleus of 
beryllium-8. All stable nuclei are held together by the strong force, another of the four fundamental forces. 
The strong force overpowers the electrostatic repulsion, but has only a very short range. Unfortunately, 
however, beryllium-8 is the exception to the rule that nuclei containing whole numbers of helium nuclei are 
stable. It is spectacularly unstable, breaking apart into lighter particles within a lifetime of only 10-17 
seconds. So how can carbon, which requires the addition of another helium nucleus to beryllium-8, ever be 
built up? Maybe, some theorists speculated, carbon-12 could be made directly inside stars, when three 
helium-4 nuclei just happen to collide with one another simultaneously. But a simple calculation soon 
showed that this is about as unlikely a prospect as it sounds. It might happen occasionally, but not often 
enough to produce all the carbon we see around us. In 1952, Ed Salpeter, an American astrophysicist, 
suggested, more or less in desperation, that carbon-12 might be produced in a very rapid two-step process, 
with two helium nuclei colliding to form a nucleus of beryllium-8, which was then in turn hit by a third helium 
nucleus in the split second before it disintegrated. But because the arrival of a third particle might smash the 
unstable beryllium-8 nucleus to bits, it was not much of an improvement on the triple-collision idea." 
(Gribbin, J.R. & Rees, M.J., "Cosmic coincidences," New Scientist, Vol. 125, 13 January 1990, pp.29-32, 

"Then, Fred Hoyle, who had, back in 1946, written a classic paper expounding the idea that the chemical 
elements were made inside stars, entered the story. ... Hoyle puzzled over the problem of how heavy nuclei 
might be built up in stars, and became intrigued by the possibility that the energy levels of beryllium, helium 
and carbon might be just right to encourage the two-step reaction that Salpeter had proposed. It all hinged 
on a property known as resonance. These energy levels are purely quantum properties of nuclei. Quantum 
physics-the relevant physics for such small objects-tells us that energy is not continuous. If energy is 
added to a nucleus, it can be absorbed only in distinct packets, or quanta. The electrons in the outer parts of 
atoms jump from one energy level to another but they cannot exist in an intermediate state, part way 
between one energy level and the next one up or down. Just as the electrons in an atom can occupy 
different energy levels, like steps on a staircase, so can the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus 
of an atom. These particles may change from a low to a high energy state, provided they are given the right 
push (the right quantum of energy) from outside. Once they are in a high energy state, they may fall back to 
a lower level, most probably the bottom step on the energy ladder, and radiate the appropriate amount of 
energy in the process. The coincidence that allows carbon and heavier elements to exist depends on fine 
tuning in the energy levels of the three crucial nuclei." (Gribbin, J.R. & Rees, M.J., "Cosmic coincidences," 
New Scientist, Vol. 125, 13 January 1990, pp.29-32, pp.30-31)

"This where the resonance comes in. When two nuclei collide and stick together, the new nucleus that is 
formed carries the combined mass-energy of the two nuclei (minus a small amount of energy from the strong 
force, the binding energy holding, the new nucleus together) plus the combined energy of their motion, their 
kinetic energy. The new nucleus `wants' to occupy one of the steps on its own energy ladder, and if the 
combined energy from incoming particles is not exactly right, and excess energy has to be disposed of in the 
form of leftover kinetic energy, or as a particle ejected from the new nucleus-or, if there is a large excess, in 
blowing the nucleus to bits (this is the principle of the `atomic' bomb). This reduces the likelihood that any 
two nuclei will simply stick together when they collide. In many cases, they just bounce off one another and 
continue to lead their separate lives. If everything meshes perfectly, however, the new nucleus will be 
created with exactly the amount of energy that corresponds to one of its own natural energy levels. It can 
then, of course, emit packets of energy in the usual way, and hop down the steps to the lowest level. In that 
case, the interaction will proceed very effectively, and the conversion of lighter nuclei into a Wavier form 
will be nearly complete. This matching of energies with one of the levels appropriate for the new nucleus is 
known as resonance, and depends, crucially, on the internal structure of the nuclei involved in the 
collisions." (Gribbin, J.R. & Rees, M.J., "Cosmic coincidences," New Scientist, Vol. 125, 13 January 1990, 
pp.29-32, p.31) 

"In 1954, Hoyle realised that the only way to make enough carbon inside stars is if there is a resonance 
involving helium-4, beryllium-4 and carbon-12. The mass-energy of each nucleus is fixed and cannot change: 
the kinetic energy of each nucleus depends on the temperature inside a star, which any astrophysicist could 
calculate. Using that standard temperature calculation, Hoyle predicted that there must be a previously 
undetected energy level in the carbon-12 nucleus, at an energy which would resonate with the combined 
energies, including kinetic energy, of its constituent parts, under the conditions that prevail inside stars. 
Hoyle made precise calculations of what that energy level must be. He then bullied Fowler's somewhat 
sceptical nuclear physics team into carrying out the necessary experiments to test his prediction. They did 
so simply in order to shut him up. To the astonishment of everyone except Hoyle, the measurements 
showed that carbon-12 has an energy level just 4 per cent above the calculated energy. For resonance to 
happen, two nuclei must collide hard enough for their kinetic energy to make up the 4 per cent. Centres of 
helium-burning stars are so hot that thermal motions can supply this small excess. The resonance ensures 
that enough helium nuclei can fuse into carbon nuclei inside stars to account for our existence." (Gribbin, 
J.R. & Rees, M.J., "Cosmic coincidences," New Scientist, Vol. 125, 13 January 1990, pp.29-32, p.31)

"Most anthropic arguments-arguments that the Universe is in some sense constructed for our benefit-are 
made with the benefit of hindsight. We look at the Universe, notice that it has some property that makes 
human life possible, and say: `Oh yes, of course, it must be that way, or we wouldn't be here to notice it.' But 
Hoyle's prediction is different, in a class of its own. It is a genuine scientific prediction, tested and confirmed 
by subsequent experiments. In effect, what Hoyle said was: `Because we exist, carbon must have an energy 
level at 7.6 megaelectronvolts'. Then the experiments were carried out and the energy level measured. This is 
the only successful prediction from the anthropic principle." (Gribbin, J.R. & Rees, M.J., "Cosmic 
coincidences," New Scientist, Vol. 125, 13 January 1990, pp.29-32, p.31)

"The remarkable nature of Hoyle's anthropic insight cannot be overemphasised. Suppose, for example, that 
the energy level in carbon had turned out to be just 4 per cent lower than the combined energy of helium-4 
and beryllium-8. There is no way for kinetic energy to subtract rather than add the difference, so the trick 
simply would not have worked, and carbon could not have been manufactured in large enough quantities. 
This is clear from the next putative step in stellar nucleosynthesis, the production of oxygen-16 from carbon-
12 and helium-4. When a carbon-12 nucleus and a helium-4 nucleus meet under the conditions appropriate 
inside stars, they too have a characteristic energy corresponding to the combination of the mass energies of 
the two nuclei. This energy lies just under 1 per cent above an energy level of oxygen-16. But that 1 percent 
is all it takes to ensure that this resonance does not occur. Some oxygen-16 is, to be sure, manufactured 
inside stars-but only in small quantities, compared with carbon, at this early stage of a star's life. If that 
oxygen level were 1 per cent higher, then virtually all the carbon made inside stars would be rapidly 
processed into heavier elements still. Life forms based on carbon would, in that case, not exist. These 
coincidences, just right for resonance in carbon-12, just wrong in oxygen-16, are indeed remarkable. It almost 
seems, to quote Hoyle, that `the laws of physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the 
consequences they produce inside stars' [Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and the Scientists: 
Addresses Delivered in the University Church, Cambridge," Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: London, 1959, 
p.64]." (Gribbin, J.R. & Rees, M.J., "Cosmic coincidences," New Scientist, Vol. 125, 13 January 1990, 
pp.29-32, pp.31-32)

"And there is another related, striking coincidence that helps to make the Universe a fit place for life. 
Making carbon, and heavier elements, inside stars solves only half the problem of how carbon-based life 
forms come to be here on Earth. How do the heavy elements get out of the stars, and spread across the 
Galaxy, to become part of the clouds of material from which new stars and planets form? The simple answer 
is that the heavy elements are spread when a minority of stars explode as supernovae. Apart from hydrogen, 
and the tiny trace of helium in our immediate surroundings, every element on Earth, and in your body, has 
followed this route. ... But what makes a supernova blow its top? It turns out that this spreading of the stuff 
of life across the cosmos also hinges upon a close cosmic coincidence. If the mass of the star exceeds nine 
solar masses, the temperature in its heart rises above a billion degrees, and yet more complicated nuclear 
reactions take place, which yield as their end product the ultimate stellar ash, in the form of nuclei of iron-56. 
All the energy that the star has derived from nuclear reactions comes from packing protons and neutrons 
more tightly into atomic nuclei. In iron-56, they are packed as tightly together as possible, and no more 
energy can be provided by fusion. More massive nuclei, such as gold, lead, silver and uranium, are less 
tightly packed with nucleons than iron-56. To make them out of iron, more energy has to be put into the 
system. This is what happens in a supernova. When a star with 20 or more times as much mass as our Sun 
runs out of nuclear fuel, the pressure from above squeezes the inner regions so hard that electrons and 
protons are forced to merge into one another, forming neutrons. The entire core of the star becomes a ball of 
neutrons, packed together more tightly than even the mixture of protons and neutrons in iron nuclei. The 
core has as much mass as our Sun, but occupies only as much space as Mount Everest. This sudden 
shrinking of the core pulls the floor from under the outer layers of the star-the other 19 solar masses or more-
so the bottom of the outer part of the star plummets downward, reaching speeds as great as 15 per cent that 
of light before smashing into the newly formed neutron star, squeezing it from all sides at once. This is like 
trying to squeeze the nucleus of an atom." (Gribbin, J.R. & Rees, M.J., "Cosmic coincidences," New 
Scientist, Vol. 125, 13 January 1990, pp.29-32, p.32)

"The neutron material rebounds violently, sending a shock wave speeding back out through the star. 
Everything has happened in less than half a second. As the shock begins to move outward through the star, 
it encounters resistance and begins to slow down. It is trying to move bodily some 20 solar masses of 
material. Without help, it would fizzle out. But it is followed by a flood of neutrinos, produced in the core of 
the central neutron star when it was squeezed. The matter in the slowing shock wave is so dense that it 
actually absorbs a significant number of neutrinos-particles so reluctant to interact with anything that they 
could pass almost unaffected through a layer of lead filling the space between ourselves and the Sun. The 
energy from the neutrinos gives the shock wave the boost that it needs to finish the job of blowing the 
outer layers of the star, laced with heavy elements, apart. The anthropic coincidence lies in that crucial burst 
of neutrinos. Computer calculations in the 1980s had shown that the shock wave alone could not do the job, 
and that neutrinos must be involved. But the properties of neutrinos had to be precisely `fine tuned' to do 
the trick. It all hinges, once again, upon the strength of the weak interaction, the force that determines how 
strongly neutrinos interact with protons and neutrons. If the weak interaction were a little too weak. then 
even the dense shock would be transparent to neutrinos. and they would flood out through the star without 
getting involved in pushing the outer layers of the star off into space. If, on the other hand, the weak 
interaction were a little too strong, the neutrinos would get involved in reactions deep in the core itself, and 
would never act out to the region where the slowing shock wave was just about to give up the ghost. The 
weak interaction has to be just right to allow enough neutrinos first to escape from the core and then to give 
the shock wave a push. ... And all this ties in remarkably with the conditions required to produce 75 per cent 
hydrogen and 25 per cent helium in the big bang itself. If the weak force were weaker still, neutrinos could 
not drive supernova explosions. On the other hand, if it were a little stronger then the Universe would be 
even more comfortably dominated by hydrogen, and there would be little or no helium around inside stars. 
The window of opportunity for a universe in which there is some helium and there are also exploding 
supernovas is very narrow. Our existence depends on this combination of coincidences, and on the even 
more dramatic coincidence of nuclear energy levels predicted by Hoyle. Unlike all previous generations, we 
know how we come to be here. But, like all previous generations, we still do not know why." (Gribbin, J.R. & 
Rees, M.J., "Cosmic coincidences," New Scientist, Vol. 125, 13 January 1990, pp.29-32, p.32) 

"So what is the next step after hydrogen fusion? The direct way ahead would be to add another proton to 
helium to make lithium. However, this reaction won't work because a lithium nucleus with three protons and 
two neutrons is unstable; lithium normally has either three or four neutrons. What about the fusion of two 
helium nuclei to make the isotope beryllium-8, a nucleus with four protons and four neutrons? No good 
either, because that nucleus is also highly unstable, disintegrating almost as soon as it forms. The stable 
isotope of beryllium found in nature has five neutrons, not four. So the star is confronted with a serious 
nuclear bottleneck. ... After beryllium, carbon is the next-heaviest element. It has six protons and six 
neutrons. Could it be that stars have found a way to vault over lithium and beryllium and go straight from 
helium to carbon? This would require three helium nuclei to come together at the same moment. The proton 
and neutron arithmetic (3 x 2 x 2 = 6   6) works out correctly, and the end product would be stable carbon 
nuclei. Because more protons are involved in a triple nuclear encounter than in the original hydrogen fusion, 
the electrical repulsion is correspondingly greater, so the temperature must be higher to overcome it and 
allow the nuclei to get close enough for the short-range strong nuclear force to act. That isn't a problem: by 
further contracting, a star's core can raise the temperature to a high enough level. There is, however, a 
fundamental difficulty with the reaction itself. The likelihood of three helium nuclei coming together at the 
same place and the same time is tiny. To be sure, they don't have to arrive at exactly the same moment; 
two helium nuclei could first form a very unstable nucleus of beryllium, and before it fell apart a third helium 
nucleus might slam into it. But at first sight the numbers look very unfavourable, with a typical beryllium 
nucleus disintegrating too quickly to give a third helium nucleus a decent chance to hit it. On the face of it, 
then, that route to carbon seems to be blocked too." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Goldilocks Enigma : Why is the 
Universe Just Right for Life?," Allen Lane: London, 2006, pp.153-154)

"That was the situation as it presented itself to astrophysicists in the early 1950s. Fred Hoyle, then a 
relatively unknown English astronomer, took an interest in this enigma. He reasoned that carbon-based 
sentient beings in general, and Fred Hoyle in particular, would not exist if the synthesis of the elements had 
become stuck at helium. Well, it's obvious enough that something must have happened to make carbon, 
presumably something inside stars. And if a general consideration of nuclear physics fails to account for 
carbon, then perhaps something unusual is responsible. ... This `anthropic' reasoning was applied by Hoyle 
to the problem of carbon synthesis in stars by appealing ... to an unexpected and fluky property of atomic 
nuclei. Here's how it happens. The rate at which nuclear reactions proceed depends on the energy of the 
participating particles. Mostly the variation in the rate is a gentle rise or fall in efficiency, but occasionally 
there is a sharp spike in the rate. Physicists call this abrupt amplification a resonance. The name stems from 
the way that quantum mechanics enters the picture. Quantum theory ascribes a wave aspect to particles ... 
including atomic nuclei, and waves famously display resonances. ... Quantum waves can also resonate, 
thereby boosting the rate of an atomic or nuclear process. Hoyle felt that resonance held the key to an 
explanation for carbon production. The mass of a normal carbon nucleus is rather less than the masses of 
the three helium nuclei that it was supposed might collide to form it, because of the mass-energy released 
when the carbon is made. But nuclei can exist in excited states too, so Hoyle deduced that a carbon nucleus 
must have an excited state a little bit above the combined mass-energies of three helium nuclei. The helium-
beryllium system could then resonate at this mass-energy if the small deficit were made up by the kinetic 
energy of the particles rushing about inside the hot star. The resonance would have the effect of greatly 
prolonging the unstable beryllium nucleus, giving a third helium nucleus a decent chance of hitting it. The 
way would then lie open to forming abundant carbon, against the apparent odds." (Davies, P.C.W., "The 
Goldilocks Enigma : Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?," Allen Lane: London, 2006, pp.155-156. 
Emphasis original)

"Hoyle calculated what the energy of the resonance should be. This was in 1951. Very little was known 
about the excitation of nuclei ... Hoyle was visiting Caltech at the time, and he confronted a group of 
American nuclear physicists, including Willy Fowler ... with his prediction of a carbon nuclear resonance. ... 
After some modifications to their equipment, the nuclear physicists were able to announce that, indeed, 
Hoyle's guess was spot on. There is a resonance in carbon, and at just the right energy for stars to 
manufacture abundant quantities of this element by the triple-helium process. The experiments confirm that 
the resonance will prolong the lifetime of the unstable beryllium nucleus to something approaching a 
hundred billion-billionths of a second - long enough for the triple-helium reaction to proceed. And once the 
carbon is made, the rest is plain sailing. There are no more bottlenecks. Oxygen forms next, then neon, then 
magnesium, and so on up the periodic table of elements as far as iron. That pretty much covers all the stuff 
life needs to get going. Elements heavier than iron are also produced by stars, but only during explosive 
outbursts, when more energy is available." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Goldilocks Enigma : Why is the Universe 
Just Right for Life?," Allen Lane: London, 2006, pp.156-157. Emphasis original)

"The carbon story left a deep impression on Hoyle. He realized that if it weren't for the coincidence that a 
nuclear resonance exists at just the right energy, there would be next to no carbon in the universe, and 
probably no life. The energy at which the carbon resonance occurs is determined by the interplay between 
the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. If the strong force were slightly stronger or slightly 
weaker (by maybe as little as 1 per cent), 10 then the binding energies of the nuclei would change and the 
arithmetic of the resonance wouldn't add up; the universe might very well be devoid of life and go 
unobserved. What are we to make of this? When Hoyle drew attention to this issue, the orthodox view was 
that the strength of the nuclear force is simply `given' - it is a `free parameter', the value of which is not 
determined by any theory, but must be measured by experiment. A common response was to shrug the 
matter aside with the comment, `The value it has is the value it has, and if it had been different we wouldn't 
be here to worry about it.' But that attitude seems a bit unsatisfactory. We can certainly imagine a 
universe in which the form of the strong force law is the same but the actual strength of the force is 
different, just as we can imagine a world in which gravity is a little stronger or weaker, but otherwise obeys 
the same laws. The fact that the value of the strong and electromagnetic forces in atomic nuclei are `just 
right' for life (like Goldilocks' porridge) cries out for explanation." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Goldilocks Enigma : 
Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?," Allen Lane: London, 2006, p.157. Emphasis original)

"Most people would say that it's impossible to `prove' the existence of God and that therefore, if one is 
going to believe in God, he must `take it by faith' that God exists. I've heard many students say this as an 
excuse for not believing in God. `Nobody can prove that God exists and nobody can prove that he doesn't,' 
they say with a smile, `so I just don't believe in him.' I've already argued that such a blithe attitude fails to 
appreciate the depth of man's existential predicament in a universe without God. The rational man ought to 
believe in God even when the evidence is equally balanced, rather than the reverse. But is it in fact the case 
that there is no probatory evidence that a Supreme Being exists? This was not the opinion of the biblical 
writers. The Psalmist said, `The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the 
work of his hands' (Ps 19:1), and the apostle Paul declared, `Since the creation of the world His invisible 
attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has 
been made, so that they [men] are without excuse' (Rom 1:20). Nor can it be said that this evidence is so 
ambiguous as to admit of equally plausible counter-explanations-for then people would not be `without 
excuse.' Thus, people are without excuse for not believing in God's existence, not only because of the 
internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, but also because of the external witness of nature." (Craig, W.L.*, 
"Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics," [1984], Crossway Books: Wheaton IL, Revised 
Edition, 1994, p.77)

"Bertrand Russell, philosopher, mathematician and author of, among other works, Why I Am Not a 
Christian , was once asked how he would respond if upon dying he found himself in the presence of God 
and was asked why he hadn't believed in God's existence during his stay on earth. Russell's response was 
summed up in three words: Not enough evidence ! Now I submit that most persons on hearing of this 
response would conclude that in Russell we have a careful thinker who won't let himself be swayed by 
bogus or equivocal evidence. In other words, most people nowadays would regard Russell's skepticism as 
sober and measured. Atheism is regarded as a reasonable position these days because God, if he exists, has 
been too lazy or secretive to furnish us with convincing proofs of his existence. It's worth noting that this 
attitude is of recent vintage. In other epochs atheism has been considered perverse and unreasonable. Thus 
the apostle Paul could write, `What can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to 
them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, 
have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse' (Romans 1:19-
20 NRSV)." (Dembski, W.A.*, "On the Very Possibility of Intelligent Design,," in Moreland, J.P., ed., "The 
Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 
1994, p.130). Emphasis original) 

"To anyone who gives thoughtful consideration to the proofs for God's existence already advanced, the 
evidence appears conclusive. He can only exclaim, `Surely, there is a God!' God himself regards the evidence 
as conclusive. If he did not so regard it, he would have given us more evidence, but the evidence is 
sufficient (Acts 14:17; 17:23-29; Rom. 1:18-20). The Bible simply assumes the existence of God. To believe in 
the existence of God is, therefore, the normal and natural thing to do, and agnosticism and atheism are the 
abnormal and unnatural positions. Indeed, the latter are tantamount to saying that God has not furnished us 
with sufficient evidence of his existence. Such attitudes are a reflection on a benevolent and holy God and 
are sinful. Nevertheless, men as a whole have refused to have God in their knowledge (Rom. 1: 28). Sin has 
so distorted their vision and corrupted their hearts as to make them reject the evidence and go on without a 
God or set up gods of their own creation." (Thiessen, H.C.* & Doerksen, V.D.*, "Lectures in Systematic 
Theology," [1949], Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Revised, 1977, p.32)

"A practical species definition, and this is after all what the taxonomist wants for his work, will have to 
compromise by combining the criteria of several species concepts. I have recently (Mayr 1940a [Mayr, E., 
"Speciation phenomena in birds," American Naturalist , Vol. 74, May-June, 1940, pp.249-278]) proposed 
the following formulation: `A species consists of a group of populations which replace each other 
geographically or ecologically and of which the neighboring ones intergrade or interbreed wherever they are 
in contact or which are potentially capable of doing so (with one or more of the populations) in those cases 
where contact is prevented by geographical or ecological barriers.' Or shorter: `Species are groups of 
actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such 
groups.'" (Mayr, E.W., "Systematics and the Origin of Species," [1942], Columbia University Press: New 
York NY, Reprinted, 1982, p.120)

"Organisms that remain within the same physical area may nevertheless become isolated through 
adaptations to fit slightly different ecological niches. This may be seen particularly in insects. The life-cycle 
of an insect is generally short and several generations can succeed one another within a single year. A 
change in the environment can thus produce rapid consequences. A North American fruit fly (Rhagoletis 
pomonella ) has divided into two populations that depend on different trees in the same area. One lives on 
hawthorns and the other on apple trees, and the two populations do not cross-breed. How did this happen? 
Two centuries ago, there were only hawthorn flies. The females laid their eggs in August on the hawthorns 
and at the end of September the larvae fed on the red fruits. Later, apple trees were introduced into the area. 
There is enough genetic variability among fruit flies that the population gave rise to some individuals that 
reproduced a month early. These flies now found apple trees on which to lay their eggs, and the resulting 
larvae fed on apples, which ripen earlier than hawthorn fruit. A new population, dependent on the apple tree, 
thus became established. Because of the one-month difference in their mating schedules, the two flies do 
not mate in the wild. Since gene exchange no longer occurs, the two populations may eventually develop 
into separate species. Yet they look exactly alike and are still capable of mating in the laboratory." (Davis, P. 
& Kenyon, D.H., "Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins", Foundation for 
Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, Second Edition, 1993, pp.17-18)

"In sympatric speciation, reproductive speciation process isolation evolves while the incipient group is still 
in the vicinity of the parent population. An example of incipient sympatric speciation has been seen recently 
in host races of the apple maggot fly (Rhagoletis pomonella ) in North America ... . This fly was found 
originally only on hawthorn plants. However, in the nineteenth century, it spread as a pest to newly 
introduced apple trees. In fact, races are now known on pear and cherry trees and on rose bushes. These 
races have developed genetic, behavioral, and ecological differences from the original hawthorn-dwelling 
parent. Evolutionary biologists view this as an opportunity to observe sympatric speciation as it occurs." 
(Tamarin, R.H., "Principles of Genetics," International Edition, [1996], McGraw-Hill: New York NY, Seventh 
Edition, 2002, p.593) 

"In numerous other cases we find modifications of structure, which are considered by botanists to be 
generally of a highly important nature, affecting only some of the flowers on the same plant, or occurring on 
distinct plants, which grow close together under the same conditions. As these variations seem of no 
special use to the plants, they cannot have been influenced by natural selection. ...We thus see that with 
plants many morphological changes may be attributed to the laws of growth and the inter-action of parts, 
independently of natural selection. ... From the fact of the above characters being unimportant for the 
welfare of the species, any slight variations which occurred in them would not have been accumulated and 
augmented through natural selection. ... Thus, as I am inclined to believe, morphological differences, which 
we consider as important ... first appeared in many cases as fluctuating variations, which sooner or later 
became constant through the nature of the organism and of the surrounding conditions, as well as through 
the intercrossing of distinct individuals, but not through natural selection; for as these morphological 
characters do not affect the welfare of the species, any slight deviations in them could not have been 
governed or accumulated through this latter agency. " (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species By Means of 
Natural Selection," [1859], John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, 1872, Reprinted, 1882, pp.174-176)

"Now the mathematical probability that a great proportion of a species will have the same variation at the 
same time is a very small fraction, and the probability of a scarcity of food being so great that, at many 
different times, the leaves of the trees are stripped to a height from the ground so uniform that a difference 
of an inch in length of neck decides whether giraffes may obtain food or die, is also a very small fraction. 
And the probability that these two independent events will occur at the same time is the product of the two 
separate probabilities; that is, it is the product of two very small fractions which is a very, very small 
fraction. For example, if each probability were one-thousandth, which is manifestly far too great, then the 
probability of both of them occurring at the same time is only one-millionth." (More, L.T., "The Dogma of 
Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, p.226-227. Emphasis original)

"In the first edition of the Origin of Species, Darwin, whose attention was fixed on artificial selection 
where man forces selected individuals to mate, assumed that in the natural state the same would occur. His 
attention was soon called to the fact that, if only a few individuals possess an advantageous variation, the 
effect of chance mating would prevent its continuation, since there would be little probability of these few 
individuals mating together in the great crowd of others. In the sixth edition, Darwin admits the justice of 
this criticism and, in doing so, he absolutely abandons his whole theory of natural selection. What else can 
we conclude from his statement: `There can also be little doubt that the tendency to vary in the same 
manner has often been so strong that all the individuals of the same species have been similarly modified 
without the aid of any form of selection. Or only a third, fifth, or tenth part of the individuals may have 
been thus affected, of which fact several instances could be given.' When we consider the almost infinite 
variety of forms of life, the enormous amount of variations, and the uncountable number of times variations 
must have occurred if we suppose all existing organisms are the descendants of a single protoplasmic cell 
(or of a very few) ; then the mathematical probability, that these changes have been brought about by the 
simultaneous variation in the same characteristic of all, or a tenth part of the individuals of a species, is zero. 
If this is not the doctrine of Design, pure and simple, it is nothing." (More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," 
Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, pp.226-227. Emphasis More's)

"Darwin plays so fast and loose with the mathematical laws of probability that he is willing to rest the whole 
multitudinous variation in the world, even granting a "tendency to vary in the same direction," on "several 
instances which could be given." But even this admission will not help Darwin. Suppose a large proportion 
of the giraffes to be born and to grow to maturity with an extra inch in length of neck and suppose so severe 
a scarcity of food to occur that this extra inch is a decisive factor in obtaining food. The necks of mature 
male giraffes are several inches longer than the necks of all female giraffes, and these, again, are much longer 
than those of young giraffes of both sexes between the ages of weaning and maturity. Is there any escape 
from the conclusion that all the females and all the young giraffes of both sexes would die and leave the race 
of giraffes to be continued by a herd of favoured males, unless these males gallantly pulled down the 
boughs to the reach of their starving families?" (More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton 
University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, pp.227-228)

"Let us consider a few more cases briefly. Darwin wrote Huxley in 1859: "You have most cleverly hit on one 
point, which has greatly troubled me; if, as I think, external conditions produce little direct effect, what the 
devil determines each particular variation? What makes a tuft of feathers come on a cock's head, or moss on 
a moss rose?" [Darwin, C.R., Letter to T.H. Huxley, November 25, 1859, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and 
Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., Reprinted, 1959, pp.27-28] What, 
indeed! We have seen that the appearance of the feather is an enormous advantage as it means the 
conquest of locomotion in a new environment; it came suddenly so far as our palaeontological records 
show; it is assumed to have developed from the dermal plates or scales of reptiles. Can anyone imagine any 
advantage to the reptile during the stages of development between its covering of plates or scales, and that 
of feathers covering, and arranged on, a bird already adapted for flight? No biologist has found such an 
advantage, and the theory of natural selection requires that variations, useful at every stage, can alone be 
preserved. Until we can find such useful qualities during the development of the feather and thousands of 
other characteristics of plants and animals, why should we accept the doctrine of natural selection or any 
other hypothesis except the mere belief that organisms have evolved?" (More, L.T., "The Dogma of 
Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, pp.228-229. Emphasis original)

"This is the reason why the doctrine of mutations, or sudden jumps, so unpalatable to evolutionists, is 
being substituted for natural selection with its slow progression. When we once allow nature to jump, we 
can no longer ridicule the ingenuous mind which can picture a prehistoric scaly reptile as having been 
dumbfounded when it found that it had suddenly given birth to a feathered bird. The doctrine of mutations 
does avoid all the difficulties which puzzle us when we attempt to construct a theory of evolution; when we 
find any variation which cannot be explained, by the theory of mutations we can. safely say it was one of 
the jumps of nature." (More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 
1925, p.229)

"The evolutionists gave much importance to the support which is shown by the marvellous protective 
colouring of animals, and of worms and insects, which counterfeit leaves, twigs, or other organisms. But 
here again, what is the advantage until the variation has already proceeded so far in mimicry that the owner 
can elude the keen eyes of its enemies?" (More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University 
Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, pp.229-230)

"As a last example consider for a moment the whole subject of the weird, unaccountable habits of insects. 
What knowledge we have is largely due to the fascinating pages of Fabre, whom Darwin calls a wonderful 
observer. [Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species," John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, 1872, p.67] Fabre was 
an unqualified and bitter opponent of natural selection, and challenged anyone to connect the wealth of 
habits and instincts which he described with that doctrine. As an example, we may cite the case of the wasp 
which paralyses large insects with a single stab in a definite spot and attaches an egg at another definite 
place. The insect in this comatose state is devoured by the larva which begins to eat at a certain point and 
continues in such a direction that no vital nerve centre is severed until the end of the meal. Fabre, by the 
most thorough and delicate experiments, showed that the sting must be inserted, the egg laid, and the larva 
work its way exactly as invariably occurs. If there is the least deviation in any of these three factors the 
paralysed insect always dies and rots before the larva has finished its meal and is ready to spin its cocoon, 
and the death of the insect is the death of the larva. It is, as Fabre says, impossible to explain this series of 
events by any progressive evolution. The wasp must have gone through this exact procedure with unerring 
accuracy the first time or the species would have ended; it cannot be accounted for by chance; it is a 
complete mystery. The evolutionist who reads Fabre's works with a simple, open mind and not biased by a 
preconceived idea of natural selection, will rise from his task with the conviction that the instincts and the 
habits of insects, at least, cannot be explained by any hereditary development of useful traits." (More, L.T., 
"The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, pp.230-231)

"It is safe to say that there is scarcely an example cited by a biologist in support of natural selection which 
another biologist does not contradict either by showing that the example itself is at fault or else by citing a 
parallel case which opposes the theory. Even the basic principle itself, the struggle for existence as a 
predominating factor in organic life, is now attacked on all sides. Many naturalists, especially the brilliant 
school of Russians, hold that mutual aid is as prevalent and as important as destruction; others believe that 
the struggle against the environment is much more severe than that against other organisms; Kellogg does 
not believe in severe competition between adult insects. Kropotkin opposes the whole idea that severe 
competition is beneficial as he finds it not only kills off the weak but jeopardizes the health and vigour of the 
strong; others, following his lead, state that variations occur most frequently in periods of peace and plenty 
and that harsh conditions prevent variation." (More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University 
Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, pp.231-232)

"As it is obvious that many of the habits of animals, especially those connected with mating and breeding, 
show the characteristics of choice, Darwin assumed that traits, such as ornamentation, were fixed by choice 
during the breeding season. Sexual selection, as he termed it, is due to the increased likelihood of leaving 
progeny by those individuals which are the bravest, the most prolific, and have characters which are 
pleasing to the opposite sex. This theory is, at the present time, harshly criticised and even abandoned by 
most naturalists. The objections to it may be classed under the following heads. The theory requires a great 
preponderance in numbers of one sex over the other or else the poorest members of the sex are likely to 
secure mates, and statistics do not show such to be a general law. If the most ornamented individuals are 
also the strongest and most prolific, as seems likely, the process would be useless and frequently harmful to 
the species and this would be counteracted by natural selection. While there are a relatively small number of 
cases where the females seem to choose mates after a competitive trial of the males, the predominating factor 
in mating is chance propinquity." (More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: 
Princeton NJ, 1925, pp.232-233)

"We must endow animals and insects with our highly developed aesthetic and other emotional attributes, 
and it is altogether improbable that the gorgeous colours of insects can excite such emotions in an organism 
of so low a mental development. One of the commonest factors in sexual attraction is noise; we can hardly 
coordinate ability to make the loudest sound with other superior qualities in the cricket, especially as the 
loudest cricket is the one nearest the female. Mayer and Soule have painted the wings of butterflies different 
colours and even put male wings on females, and vice versa, and found no difference in breeding. The 
colours in moths, which breed at night, are as lovely as those of butterflies, and Fabre has proved that the 
male moths are attracted, in all probability, to the females by odour; if so, propinquity and the direction of 
the wind become the determining factors. Lastly, the vivid colouration of male fish at the breeding season is 
pronounced, and yet the female fish does not even see the particular male, which fertilizes her eggs. " (More, 
L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, p.233)

"As a scientific problem, natural selection pre-supposes a very narrow margin between life and extinction. 
The phrase "struggle for existence" certainly implies the will of the individual to live and to transmit its 
acquired strength. Now Darwin cannot mean that at all, as he applies the term to plants which are passive. 
Although he protests against Design and tendencies to progress, he is forced to fall back on those ideas 
when confronted by difficulties; he frequently escapes from a predicament by using those very words, and 
he thus tacitly assumes a guiding, or directing force. And this directing force, disguised under the esoteric 
name of nature, or natural law, is, so far as one can see, nothing but the logoi spermatikoi of the 
pantheistic stoics or the Divine Creator of the special creationist. The organic world presents itself to us 
under the three aspects of intense and persistent slaughter, of enormous power of fertility, and of the most 
ingenious expedients to avert danger and extinction. We are alternately revolted by the seemingly wanton 
crued inspired by the delicately adjusted cooperation and mutual assistance which are evident in all 
forms of life. And in spite of this most intricate web of conflicting actions and passions there persists in us 
the belief that through all the tangle there runs a thread of continuity and a sort of harmony in the whole of 
creation. Nature, or God, seems to us to fashion and provide an organism with enormous fertility, abundant 
food, and a congenial environment and then, at one stage of its life, imposes upon it a freakish impediment 
which threatens its very existence. Thus, the house-fly has great fertility, many of its larva find abundant 
food, and yet the change from the larva to the fly is accompanied by such perils that one wonders how any 
survive. Humanly speaking, we feel that many plans could be devised easily which would make unnecessary 
such superabundant fertility and such diabolically ingenious methods of destruction. Yet the balance is 
preserved, the fertility of any species does not make it crowd out other species, and extinction is avoided by 
marvellous instincts and intricate apparatus of preservation. And the theories of evolution do not explain at 
all." (More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, pp.234-235)

"Darwin certainly exaggerates the narrowness of the margin between existence and extinction. Confined to a 
small field of observation by his health, he noted the accidents to individuals and failed to note the 
community help which preserved the species. As a famous example, he describes a whimsical chain of 
circumstances showing that red clover can be fertilized only by the humble bee; that the bees' nests are 
destroyed by mice; mice are killed by cats; cats are cherished by spinsters; therefore; an abundance of 
spinsters and red clover is mutually connected. [Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species," John Murray: 
London, Sixth Edition, 1872, pp.57-58] In all this ingenious chain, it never occurs to him that he is forging 
evidence against his own theory. Can we not safely argue that, since red clover is an abundant and long-
persistent plant, if its existence were dependent on so seemingly small a chance of fertilization as the 
existence of a single and not very abundant insect, then the margin of its existence must be large; it did not 
have to struggle for existence, for if it did, its highly specialized apparatus for fertilization would have 
become a factor for extermination? Can we not state as a fact: since so many plants and animals are 
dependent on such specialized and intricate operations for propagation, they would not have survived for 
millions of years if the species had been required to struggle for existence?" (More, L.T., "The Dogma of 
Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, pp.235-236)

"The most discouraging feature of the whole problem of biological evolution, to one who has been trained 
in the exact phraseology and rigorous logic of the physical and mathematical sciences, is the loose language 
and the still looser reasoning of the evolutionists and of the biologists. Up to a certain point, their language 
and methods are those of science and then comes a relapse into the methods of the untrained thinker. 
Professor Bateson carefully knocks down every prop to natural selection, to the inheritance of acquired 
traits, and to evolution in general; then he concludes by asking us to apply the doctrine of evolution to the 
thoughts and actions of men because he still has faith in evolution, and some day biologists may find its 
solution. Delage, who offers enough objections to evolution by natural selection to kill even the most 
desirable theory, yet concludes with the following extraordinary statement which, taken by itself, would 
make one believe that he had been unable to find a single valid objection to it: `Darwin's everlasting title to 
glory will be that he explained the seemingly marvellous adaptation of living things by the mere action of 
natural factors; without looking for a divine intervention, without resorting to any finalist or metaphysical 
hypothesis.' [Delage, Y. & Goldsmith, M., "The Theories of Evolution," Huebsch: New York, 1912, p.45] If it 
is degrading to man to depend ultimately on divine intervention when no other explanation is attainable, 
Darwin probably has the glory of avoiding it, but for the rest Delage is writing nonsense." (More, L.T., "The 
Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, pp.236-237)

"I am convinced that variation has a wide field, but environment and circumstance do not make a prison 
wherein the organism must live or else die. The margin of existence is not so narrow. New forms can adapt 
themselves to new conditions, but, while variation may proceed along directed lines to a great degree, after a 
time the active and creative energies of growth pass the bounds of physical and physiological equilibrium. 
Then weakness has set in and the species may not find itself fit to survive either changed or harsh 
conditions. We are entitled to use the customary metaphor, and to see in natural selection an inexorable 
force, whose function is not to create, but to destroy, individuals. Even after we have so narrowed the scope 
and sphere of natural selection, it is hard to understand; the causes of extinction are often well-nigh as hard 
to comprehend as are those of the origin of species. If we consider any exaggerated form which has become 
extinct, there are kindred forms which survive; and in other cases extinction occurs where we can discover 
no observable disadvantage." (More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: 
Princeton NJ, 1925, pp.238-239. Emphasis original)

"I am even willing to grant that the struggle for existence and natural selection may be the causes for the 
extinction of certain species,-and for the very obvious reason that if a species passes out of existence, there 
must have been either some change in environment very unfavourable to the species, or some powerful and 
destructive organic enemy must have attacked it in overwhelming numbers, or the species itself must have 
developed some inherent and fatal weakness. But these are mere post hoc, propter hoc statements; if 
natural selection is a force which can destroy but cannot create species and if the reasons for this 
destruction are unknown, of what value is the theory to mankind? We can leave to the biologists the hope 
that some day they may enter the temple of life through the doors of evolution, but the collapse of the 
theory of natural selection leaves the philosophy of mechanistic materialism in a sorry plight. Those who are 
trying to use its conclusions as a guide to social polity and ethics will find themselves without any ground 
on which to stand if they address themselves to a real study of biological evolution." (More, L.T., "The 
Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, pp.239-240)

"It is commonly believed that early life drew its building blocks from preformed organic products of abiotic 
syntheses. As to its energy needs, they could also have been covered by preformed energy-rich molecules, 
such as inorganic pyrophosphate or polyphosphates, or, as in my model, thioesters. Alternatively, the 
break-down of preformed organic molecules could have supplied the necessary energy through some 
coupled process, such as the thioester-generating electron-transfer process envisaged in my model. If such 
was the case, life started in heterotrophic form. The term `heterotroph' Greek heteros, other; trophe, 
food) designates organisms that, like ourselves, feed on products made by other organisms, by contrast 
with autotrophs (Greek autos, self -plants, for example-which manufacture their constituents from mineral 
building blocks. Early heterotrophy did not rely on autotrophs, of course, but on the celestial manna of 
abiotic chemistry. By the time the manna became exhausted, some form of autotrophy had to be developed. 
We don't know when this happened, but it is not likely to have been before protocells appeared, unless 
some unknown kind of mechanism was involved. All known autotrophs depend on membrane-embedded 
electron-transfer chains. It is likely, therefore, that such chains started by supporting heterotrophic 
processes and became converted to autotrophy later." (de Duve, C.R., "Vital Dust: Life as a Cosmic 
Imperative," Basic Books: New York NY, 1995, p.103) 

"At this early stage in the origin of life, we are thus presented with an ultraviolet photosynthetic 
heterotroph. The protocell uses ultraviolet radiant energy to create polymers; it requires a continuous but 
dilute steady supply of all amino acids, nucleic acid bases, sugars, and other small organic molecules. 
Random polymers of amino acids complexed with metallic ions endow the protocell with a great range of 
low-level catalytic abilities which are inherited by single lines of descent, as are random polymers of nucleic 
acids and sugars." (Folsome, C.E., "The Origin of Life: A Warm Little Pond," W.H. Freeman & Co: San 
Francisco CA, 1979, pp.105-106)

"Most biological polymerizations take place by the joining of two molecules with the apparent elimination of 
a molecule of water. ... To join two molecules of amino acids we must eliminate a molecule of water. Now the 
problem is that in our primeval pond amino acids, or other precursors, occur in exceedingly dilute aqueous 
solution. Water is in such gross excess that this or any other anhydrous condensation reaction will barely 
proceed. In principle this difficulty seems to apply also to polynucleotide synthesis and polysaccharide 
synthesis, but we shall consider polypeptide synthesis as a general example. Three ways are known to 
overcome the water problem: water can be removed by drying; amino acids can be made chemically reactive; 
and enzymes can force activated amino acids together. The difficulty with the drying hypothesis is that 
relative amino acid concentrations are quite low even within protocell interiors, although there is no doubt 
that large numbers of protocells were frequently exposed to alternate drying and wetting cycles. 
Nevertheless the possibility is real that some protocell polymer synthesis could occur by this mechanism. 
The enzyme hypothesis presents a twofold difficulty. First, at this early time enzymatic activity took place 
only at a very low level, mediated by randomly synthesized proteins. Second, all known enzymes do not join 
amino acids as such but convert them first to reactive forms which then are condensed." (Folsome, C.E., 
"The Origin of Life: A Warm Little Pond," W.H. Freeman & Co: San Francisco CA, 1979, pp.106-107)

"The most general way to overcome our difficulty-and the only reasonable way left open to us-is to make 
amino acids chemically reactive. Throughout the ecosystem, the principal mechanism for making small 
organic molecules in water solutions chemically reactive is to couple these molecules to sonic form of 
phosphate. Transfer of the phosphate group releases or absorbs energy; such transfers are the medium 
through which all biological energy is stored or used to effect condensation or metabolic reactions. 
Energetic bonds formed by various phosphates with organic compounds drive all biological reactions 
today, and this could have been the case in the world of protocells too. We will consider a simplified 
example of the use of phosphate-activated condensations and of one probable route by which energetic 
phosphates could have been made. Consider this compound, called pyrophosphate ... which we will now 
write as P-P. The phosphorus-to-phosphorus bond contains potential chemical energy which can be 
released to activate organic compounds. For example, glycine, the simplest amino acid, might be activated as 
follows ... Some energy is lost in the phosphate transfer to glycine, but the ester bond of phosphate to 
glycine contains more than enough energy to drive a coupling reaction ... Notice that the diglycine in this 
example remains activated. Notice also that we no longer face the problem of anhydrous condensation 
reactions! Phosphate activation and transfer avoids the difficulty. Almost any small organic biomolecule can 
easily enter almost any reaction in the presence of large amounts of water if and only if it is phosphate-
activated. The general conclusion is: Protocell synthesis of polymers proceeded by phosphate-activated 
intermediates. Anhydrous condensation reactions are not a feature of our present biochemistry and were 
not in protocell times either, if we are a reflection of those times. Phosphate transfer reactions are now and 
were then the only important way to effect condensations in a water-dominated environment." (Folsome, 
C.E., "The Origin of Life: A Warm Little Pond," W.H. Freeman & Co: San Francisco CA, 1979, pp.107-109)

"One serious consideration remains. To drive phosphate transfer reactions requires a source of high-energy 
phosphate -pyrophosphate (P-P) is the simplest form. This molecule is unstable in aqueous solutions, and 
all a protocell might encounter would be dissolved inorganic phosphate, Pi. Where could the 
pyrophosphate needed for all the protocell reactions come from? When a bounded system with energy 
receptors is exposed to radiant energy, electrons are moved to higher energy levels; they can literally be 
pumped across the membrane. This sets up a charge gradient that can be intense enough to drive the 
following reaction: ... The photosynthesis of pyrophosphate was probably an important feature of the 
primary metabolism of protocells. As one of many possible points of comparison, present-day photo 
synthetic cells set up such proton charge gradients to drive the synthesis of adenosine triphosphate from 
adenosine diphosphate, either directly-as in cyclic photophosphorylation-or indirectly, as in noncyclic 
photophosphorylation. This process is vastly more efficient than the pyrophosphate-formation mechanism 
proposed for protocells, but it is basically the same scheme. ... The substitution of phosphate transfer 
reactions for organic anhydrous condensation reactions, which forms the basis of our biochemistry, began 
with the first protocell. Perhaps it is for this reason that the phosphorus cycle drives all other bioelemental 
cycles in coupled reactions." (Folsome, C.E., "The Origin of Life: A Warm Little Pond," W.H. Freeman & Co: 
San Francisco CA, 1979, pp.109-110)

"This chapter will point out those areas in which controversy and guesses exceed fact and will suggest 
some of the many kinds of experiments that need doing. First of all, planets may not be the common outcome 
of the development of stars. Some astronomers-Shiv Kumar, for example-believe that almost all star systems 
tend to become binaries, most often of the type in which one star is relatively large and the other quite small. 
Indeed, if Jupiter were five times more massive than it is, it too would be large enough to begin internal 
nuclear reactions, and our system could be a binary, quite different from what it is. Although our argument 
in favor of the ubiquity of planetary systems is based upon reduced angular momentum of the central star of 
our system, the angular momentum problem could also be solved by a binary system in which the larger star 
has lost its angular momentum to its smaller companion. At present we cannot tell which school of thought 
is more nearly correct. The only definite observation we have is that of our own planetary system-we have 
no reason to believe that the forces that created it are unique in any way. Certainly, many aspects of our 
local cosmology will be on firmer ground when we can determine whether planetary systems are, common or 
unusual." (Folsome, C.E., "The Origin of Life: A Warm Little Pond," W.H. Freeman & Co: San Francisco CA, 
1979, pp.154-155)

"Second, the presentation given here of the first primeval atmosphere is most unusual. Some researchers 
favor an atmosphere of methane and ammonia, basing their arguments on chemical equilibrium data. This 
aspect of the problem was discussed in Chapter Four. However, we have not discussed other possible 
atmospheres consisting mainly of carbon dioxide, water, and nitrogen, especially as proposed by W W 
Rubey. Essentially, Rubey's thesis is that if one balances the Earth's budget of carbon dioxide and other 
excess volatiles, one finds that carbon dioxide was probably a far more common gas in primeval days than 
now. This may be so; however, other facts do not seem to support this position. First, Rubey does not take 
into account the fact that carbon monoxide was at least five times more abundant than carbon dioxide in 
primeval volcanic emissions. Second, if considerable carbon dioxide were present, it would have dissolved 
into the ocean systems of the era. Excess carbon dioxide dissolved in water would tend to make the primitive 
ocean systems acidic. Weathering of rocks would have been extremely rapid, and the minerals deposited in 
sedimentary rocks during that era would have been quite different from rocks deposited later. This is not the 
case, however; no known sedimentary rocks hint at such discontinuities." (Folsome, C.E., "The Origin of 
Life: A Warm Little Pond," W.H. Freeman & Co: San Francisco CA, 1979, p.155)

"Third, our presentation of chemical evolution experiments has suggested that all biomonomers can easily 
be produced by suitable simulation experiments. Only in the most general sense is this true. Compounds 
such as sugars, which are quite chemically reactive, have not been recovered from general chemical 
evolution experiments. Various sugars can be synthesized from concentrated alkaline solutions of 
formaldehyde, and this has served as an argument for their general synthesis; however, none have been 
recovered from simulation experiments such as spark discharge reactions. This should not be surprising to 
the organic chemist, since any sugars synthesized would have quickly reacted with all manner of reactive 
intermediates and amino acids that are produced in abundance. Agreement is general that in the open, wide 
world of warm little ponds, sugars would have had many microniches in which to exist, but in the closed 
world of a crowded simulation flask their half-life would be too short for the chemist to recover and detect 
them before they would react with other compounds." (Folsome, C.E., "The Origin of Life: A Warm Little 
Pond," W.H. Freeman & Co: San Francisco CA, 1979, pp.155-156)

"Another difficulty with chemical evolution resides in the `selection problem.' What chemical mechanisms 
select specifically for those amino acids that constitute the biological subset? Why couldn't we have 
another set of purines and pyrimidines rather than the ones manifested by our biology? Few quantitative 
answers to these problems are available now, but we have hints that they are forthcoming. For example, 
recent research has found that complexes of clays with specific metallic ions will bind selectively to the 
biological subset of amino acids but not to others. Other chemical studies have shown that the purine and 
pyrimidine bases used in our biology are the most stable among that possible larger set which will still 
permit base pairing by hydrogen bonding. A more disturbing problem, unapproached at the moment, is the 
very unstable nature of sugar molecules and the central role they play in our entire metabolism. It appears 
logical that since sugars are such touchy, unstable molecules that they should be the cornerstone of our 
metabolism, but no convincing work has been done to show exactly why this might be so." (Folsome, C.E., 
"The Origin of Life: A Warm Little Pond," W.H. Freeman & Co: San Francisco CA, 1979, p.156)

"Did protocells really have to come first, or might clays, evaporites, and other mechanisms have provided 
sufficiently high local concentrations of polymers that metabolism could have originated before protocells? 
Occam's razor-the principle that the hypothesis requiring fewest statements is bound to be correct-suggests 
that the protocell-first argument is the most likely. Microfossil evidence supports this contention. Several 
groups of researchers are actively studying the effects of various clay minerals on the polymerization of 
amino acids and nucleotides. Are they wrong, then, and wasting their time? No. Whatever their immediate 
role in primeval times, clays (and other well-characterized surfaces) represent a two-dimensional surface 
analogous to the many surfaces within a protocell. Whatever we learn from the well-defined properties of 
clay surfaces can be applied with great profit to the many internal, phase-bounded surfaces of protocells. 
However, proposed concentrative mechanisms involving evaporates bear most careful scrutiny and perhaps 
experimental tests. When it is proposed that a pond containing amino acids evaporates to leave crystalline 
amino acids ready to undergo heat-driven anhydrous condensation reactions, the totality of the issue must 
be examined. Other molecules are present as well as amino acids. No one has yet evaporated the products of 
a spark discharge flask upon reconstituted sea water (for one example) and then subjected these contents to 
heat to see what might happen." (Folsome, C.E., "The Origin of Life: A Warm Little Pond," W.H. Freeman & 
Co: San Francisco CA, 1979, pp.156-157)

"How did the genetic apparatus evolve? The mechanism proposed here is a guess. Any and all mechanisms 
proposed will be guesses until we have concrete data based upon analysis of extraterrestrial life. This is 
because the genetic apparatus is the product of close to 1000 m yr of evolution. Guessing over these time 
spans with uncertain environmental data and selection routes is near folly. The scheme presented here is 
novel in that a relationship based upon permutations necessarily exists between the discriminator and 
anticodon ends of primitive transfer RNA molecules. Novelty does not make right, and guesses such as 
these are only guesses. But this suggestion is more than a guess. A fixed relationship between protein and 
nucleic acid base sequence exists in our current biology. For this relationship to exist now, it must have 
existed in some way at the very origin of the system. Any mechanisms proposed for the origin of the genetic 
apparatus must face this issue." (Folsome, C.E., "The Origin of Life: A Warm Little Pond," W.H. Freeman & 
Co: San Francisco CA, 1979, pp.157-158)

"The selection mechanism by which optically active forms of amino acids, sugars, and other molecules 
become incorporated into evolving prebiological systems at the expense of their enantiomeric forms has 
been presented as known. It may not be. The mechanism proposed was based on the observations that the 
physical properties of D and L enantiomers differ. Some researchers are not aware of these small differences; 
others maintain that the differences result from laboratory errors or from working with impure samples of D 
and L forms. With the exception of Thiemann's recent work ... no one has directly searched for small 
differences in the physical properties of the enantiomers. This work sorely needs doing. Morowitz 
calculated in 1969 that small differences should exist but presented no experimental confirmation. As 
Thiemann's thorough review shows, the research literature abounds with examples that small differences 
exist. We await the crucial experiment." (Folsome, C.E., "The Origin of Life: A Warm Little Pond," W.H. 
Freeman & Co: San Francisco CA, 1979, p.158)

"IF WE TAKE SERIOUSLY THE PAULINE CONCEPTION OF THE Christian Church as the Body of Christ, 
then Church History may be regarded as the continuation of the story of Jesus. That is to say, Jesus, who 
began to act and teach on earth in the bears immediately preceding A.D. 30, has continued to act and teach 
since that year by His Spirit in His servants; and the history of Christianity ought to be the history of what 
He has been doing and teaching in this way down to our own times-a continuous Acts of the Apostles. " 
(Bruce, F.F., "The Spreading Flame: The Rise and Progress of Christianity From its First Beginings to the 
Conversion of the English," Paternoster: Exeter UK, 1966, p.161. Emphasis original)

"Some scientists think that the first cells were heterotrophs. That is, these cells consumed preexisting 
organic compounds from the prebiotic soup to provide the energy and raw materials needed to sustain 
primitive cellular activities. The chief difficulty with a heterotroph-first model is overconsumption of the 
organic matter. Without a means to replenish the raw materials needed to sustain a heterotrophic lifestyle, 
these first cells would exterminate themselves." (Rana, F.R.* & Ross, H.N.*, "Origins of Life: Biblical And 
Evolutionary Models Face Off," Navpress: Colorado Springs CO, 2004, p.57)

"Other origin-of-life investigators suggest that the first cells were autotrophs. Autotrophs generate energy 
and biomolecules from simple inorganic materials in the environment. Two types of autotrophs are known: 
photoautotrophs and chemoautotrophs. Photoautotrophs capture solar energy, whereas chemoautotrophs 
harvest chemical energy from materials in their environments. Because of photoautotrophs' added metabolic 
complexity, most researchers do not consider them the best candidate for the first cells. Rather, they assert 
that chemoautotrophic pathways arose along with the protocells' other biochemical systems. The 
chemoautotroph-first model alleviates the overconsumption problem but places a significant additional 
demand on the origin-of-life scenario, because it requires the emergence and evolution of complex 
chemoautotrophic pathways before chemoautotrophic life is possible." (Rana, F.R.* & Ross, H.N.*, "Origins 
of Life: Biblical And Evolutionary Models Face Off," Navpress: Colorado Springs CO, 2004, pp.57-58)

"Oparin had a different notion. Schooled in botany, he was impressed by the complex inner workings of 
plant cells, which he viewed as more elaborate than those of animals. Animals and animal-like organisms 
(protozoans and fungi, for example) are eaters, sustaining themselves by taking in food and breaking it down 
to generate energy and the molecular building blocks to construct their bodies. In contrast, plants and 
plantlike organisms (cyanobacteria and single-celled algae, for example) live by a more complicated two-step 
process: first, they carry out photosynthesis, capturing light energy and storing it in the organic molecules 
they build up; second, they break down these molecules-the same way animals do-to provide energy and 
the molecular ingredients from which to build their cells. Oparin reasoned that if life's evolution followed the 
path from simple to complex, animal-like eaters (technically, `heterotrophs') would have come first and more 
complicated plantlike eatees (autotrophs) only later. This novel notion of a heterotrophic origin of life flew in 
the face of prevailing scientific sentiment. Though Oparin's vision fit with a Darwinian simple-to-complex 
view of evolution, it was at odds with the necessities of the food chain. If the first forms of life were animal-
like, they would have had no photosynthesizers to feed on-what did they eat? Again, Oparin's botanical 
knowledge came to the fore. Most scientists assumed that life began while the atmosphere was essentially 
like it is today. But Oparin knew that the oxygen of the present-day atmosphere is a byproduct of 
photosynthesis, so if plantlike organisms evolved later than heterotrophs, there initially would have been no 
atmospheric oxygen. Moreover, he realized that free oxygen combines readily with organic substances in the 
chemical process of oxidation, burning. So he reasoned that if the early environment lacked free oxygen, 
then simple organic compounds, formed by the action of volcanic heat or lightning on CHON-containing 
atmospheric gases, would accumulate rather than be burned and destroyed, and these would have 
dissolved in the early seas to form an organic-rich broth. This postulated primordial soup was the linchpin 
to Oparin's scenario-over time, he thought, some of its ingredients could have linked together to give rise to 
life while others served as fodder for the budding life-forms. Oparin's concept is straightforward. The 
environment of the lifeless Earth lacked free oxygen, so chemical processes could spontaneously give rise 
to the organic constituents of the first cells, simple animal-like heterotrophs that fed on the primordial soup 
from which they had emerged. Life evolved from simple to complex, not the other way around, and the base 
of the primal food chain was provided by non-biologic chemical reactions, not single-celled 
phytoplankton." (Schopf, J.W., "Cradle of Life: The Discovery of Earth's Earliest Fossils," Princeton 
University Press: Princeton NJ, 1999, pp.121-122. Emphasis original)

"After all, primitive systems able to evolve indefinitely through natural selection should be fairly easy to 
make: nature produced at least one without natural selection, and nature is less competent than we are at 
making machinery abiologically. If we have so far failed to make 'life' in this sense, it is, I think, because we 
have been trying to climb the wrong evolutionary tree." (Cairns-Smith, A.G., "A case for an alien ancestry," 
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, Vol. 189, May 6, 1975, pp.249-
274. In Aw, S.E.*, "Chemical Evolution: An Examination of Current Ideas," Master Book Publishers: San 
Diego CA, 1982, p.132)

"In most texts on the origin of life ... it is not surprising to meet with circumlocution in various guises just at 
this crucial point of the discussion. One other point is worthy of note, though. The thinking and 
experimentation in the field of life's beginnings has been dominated by the `heterotroph hypothesis.' This 
requires the pre-existence f all the organic and inorganic compounds necessary to the functioning of a cell. 
Of this Keosian noted, `But the simplest heterotrophic cell is an intricate structural and metabolic unit of 
harmoniously coordinated parts and chemical pathways. Its spontaneous assembly out of the environment, 
granting the unlikely simultaneous presence together of all the parts, is not a believable possibility.' 
[Keosian, J., "Life's Beginnings-Origin or Evolution?," in Oro, J., et al., eds, "Cosmochemical Evolution and 
the Origins of Life," D. Reidel: Boston MA 1974, p.291] But Keosian's alternative, `the autotrophic 
hypothesis,' [Keosian, J., in Dose, K., et al., eds, "The Origin of Life and Evolutionary Biochemistry," Plenum 
Press: New York, 1974) . p.221] is hardly more believable!" (Aw, S.E.*, "Chemical Evolution: An Examination 
of Current Ideas," Master Book Publishers: San Diego CA, 1982, p.133)

"[T]he simplest heterotrophic cell is an intricate structural and metabolic unit of harmoniously coordinated 
parts and chemical pathways. Its spontaneous assembly out of the environment, granting the unlikely 
simultaneous presence of all the parts, is not a believable possibility." (Keosian, J., "Life's Beginnings-
Origin or Evolution?," in Oro, J., et al., eds, "Cosmochemical Evolution and the Origins of Life," D. Reidel: 
Boston MA 1974, p.291. In Bird, W.R.*, "The Origin of Species Revisited", Regency: Nashville TN, 1991, 
Vol. I, p.303)

"The first organisms to evolve were prokaryotes. They were presumably heterotrophs, organisms unable 
to synthesise their own food. They would have used the complex carbon molecules in the 'soup' for raw 
materials and energy. However, there are no fossils of these heterotrophs and the oldest evidence of life, 
dating back 3.5 billion years, is of autotrophs, bacteria able to synthesise their own fuel molecules. The 
first of these (photosynthetic bacteria) had a non-oxygen requiring, or anaerobic, metabolism and had 
evolved the ability to trap the energy of sunlight and use it to synthesise carbohydrate directly from carbon 
dioxide and water; in the process, they produced oxygen as a by-product. The atmosphere thus gradually 
became oxygen-rich, destroying the reducing conditions of the earlier atmosphere and, hence, the very 
conditions that led to the formation of organic molecules and the evolution of life ... Modern photosynthetic 
organisms include plants, algae (protists) and many bacteria (green, purple and cyanobacteria). Modern 
heterotrophs include other forms of bacteria, protists, animals and fungi. Heterotrophs are ultimately 
dependent on the chemical energy produced by autotrophs. However, whether organisms produce organic 
molecules or feed on readymade ones, all organisms use chemical energy in the form of ATP to drive 
metabolic reactions ... " (Knox, B., Ladiges, P. & Evans, B., eds., "Biology," [1994], McGraw-Hill: Sydney 
NSW, Australia, Reprinted, 1995, p.77. Emphasis original)

"The first organisms were heterotrophic and used molecules that formed spontaneously in the absence of 
oxygen as a source of raw materials and energy. Photosynthetic organisms evolved later, enriching the 
atmosphere with oxygen." (Knox, B., Ladiges, P. & Evans, B., eds., "Biology," [1994], McGraw-Hill: Sydney 
NSW, Australia, Reprinted, 1995, p.78)

"The years around 1860 brought exciting developments to biology. Darwin's theory of evolution and 
Pasteur's experiments disproving spontaneous generation raised fundamental questions about the origin of 
life. These experiments inspired great change in the thought of that time and have had far-reaching effects 
on the study of life, past and present. New views on the origin of life have recently been proposed, and new 
interest has been aroused. The heterotroph hypothesis is one such view. The heterotroph hypothesis 
supposes that the chemistry of the ancient earth's atmosphere was very important in the origin and 
evolution of living things. Simple materials in the early atmosphere may have combined chemically to form 
more complex substances. A long, slow evolution of chemical compounds, taking millions of years, probably 
preceded the evolution of life." (Welch, C.A., et al., eds, "Biological Science: Molecules to Man," [1973], 
Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, Third edition, 1976, p.122)

"Impressive as all this evidence is, you must not jump to the conclusion that all questions about the origin 
of life are now settled once and for all. The heterotroph hypothesis is the best hypothesis that science can 
now offer to explain this riddle. Much remains to be learned, particularly about the transition from organic 
compounds to the first living cell." (Welch, C.A., et al., eds, "Biological Science: Molecules to Man," [1973], 
Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, Third edition, 1976, p.136. Emphasis original) 

"The first living organisms, having arisen in a sea of organic molecules and in contact with an atmosphere 
lacking oxygen, presumably obtained energy by the fermentation of certain of these organic substances. 
The first organisms were almost certainly heterotrophs, and they could survive only as long as the 
supply of organic molecules that had been accumulated in the sea broth in the past lasted. Before the 
supply was exhausted, however, some of the heterotrophs evolved further and became autotrophs, able to 
make their own organic molecules by chemosynthesis or photosynthesis." (Villee, C.A., "Biology," [1950], 
W.B. Saunders Co: Philadelphia PA, Seventh Edition, 1977, p.750. Emphasis original)

"An explanation of how an autotroph may have evolved from one of these primitive, fermenting heterotrophs 
was presented by N. H. Horowitz in 1945 [Horowitz, N.H., "On the Evolution of Biochemical Syntheses," 
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 31, No. 6, June, 1945, pp.153-157]. Horowitz postulated that 
an organism would acquire, by successive gene mutations, the enzymes needed to synthesize complex 
substances from simple substances, but these enzymes would be acquired in the reverse order of the 
sequence in which they are ultimately used in normal metabolism. For example, let us suppose that our first 
primitive heterotroph required an organic compound, Z, for its growth. This substance, Z, and a vast variety 
of other organic compounds, Y, X, W, V, U and so forth, were present in the organic sea broth that was the 
environment of this heterotroph. They had been synthesized previously by the action of nonliving factors 
of the environment. The heterotroph would be able to survive as long as the supply of compound Z lasted. 
If a mutation occurred for a new enzyme enabling the heterotroph to synthesize Z from substance Y, the 
strain of heterotroph with this mutation would be able to survive when the supply of substance Z was 
exhausted. A second mutation that established an enzyme catalyzing a reaction by which substance Y could 
be made from substance X would again have survival value when the supply of Y was exhausted. Similar 
mutations, setting up enzymes enabling the organism to use successively simpler substances, W, V, U ... 
and eventually some inorganic substance, A, would result in an organism able to make substance Z, which it 
needs for growth, out of substance A. When by other series of mutations the organism could synthesize all 
its requirements from simple inorganic compounds, as the green plants can, it would have become an 
autotroph. Once the first simple autotrophs had evolved, the way was clear for the further evolution of the 
enormous variety of plants, bacteria, molds and animals that now inhabit the world." (Villee, C.A., "Biology," 
[1950], W.B. Saunders Co: Philadelphia PA, Seventh Edition, 1977, p.750. Emphasis original)

"From arguments such as these we are drawn to the conclusion that the origin of life as an orderly, natural 
process on this planet was not only possible, it was almost inevitable. Furthermore, with the vast number of 
planets in all the known galaxies of the universe, there must be many that have conditions that permit the 
origin of life. It is probable, then, that there are other planets-perhaps many other planets-on which life as we 
know it exists. Wherever the physical environment will support life, living things should, if given enough 
time, appear and ramify into a wide variety of types. Some of these may be quite unlike the ones on this 
planet, but others might be quite similar to those found here. Some might indeed be like ourselves. Living 
things on other planets might have a completely different kind of genetic code or might be made up of 
elements other than carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen." (Villee, C.A., "Biology," [1950], W.B. 
Saunders Co: Philadelphia PA, Seventh Edition, 1977, p.750. Emphasis original)

"It seems unlikely that we will ever know how life originated, whether it happened only once or many times, 
or whether it might happen again. The theory (1) that organic substances were formed from inorganic 
substances by the action of physical factors in the environment; (2) that they interacted to form more and 
more complex substances, finally enzymes, and then self-reproducing systems (free genes); (3) that these 
free genes diversified and united to form primitive and perhaps viruslike heterotrophs; (4) that lipid-protein 
membranes evolved to separate these prebiotic aggregates from the surrounding environment; and (5) that 
autotrophs then evolved from the primitive heterotrophs, has the virtue of being quite plausible. Many of 
the components of this theory have been subjected to experimental verification." (Villee, C.A., "Biology," 
[1950], W.B. Saunders Co: Philadelphia PA, Seventh Edition, 1977, p.750. Emphasis original) 

"It is thought that the following suggestion, while definitely a speculation, offers a possible solution along 
these lines. In essence, the proposed hypothesis states that the evolution of the basic syntheses proceeded 
in a stepwise manner, involving one mutation at a time, but that the order of attainment of individual steps 
has been in the reverse direction from that in which the synthesis proceeds-i.e., the last step in the chain 
was the first to be acquired in the course of evolution, the penultimate step next, and so on. This process 
requires for its operation a special kind of chemical environment; namely, one in which endproducts and 
potential intermediates are available. Postponing for the moment the question of how such an environment 
originated, consider the operation of the proposed mechanism. The species is at the outset assumed to be 
heterotrophic for an essential organic molecule, A. It obtains the substance from an environment which 
contains, in addition to A, the substances B and C, capable of reacting in the presence of a catalyst 
(enzyme) to give a molecule of A. As a result of biological activity, the amount of available A is depleted to 
a point where it limits the further growth of the species. At this point, a marked selective advantage will be 
enjoyed by mutants which are able to carry out the reaction B C= A. As the external supplies of A are 
further reduced, the mutant strain will gain a still greater selective advantage, until it eventually displaces 
the parent strain from the population. In the A-free environment a back mutation to the original stock will be 
lethal, so we have at the same time a theory of lethal genes. The majority of biochemical mutations in 
Neurospora are lethals of this type. In time, B may become limiting for the species, necessitating its 
synthesis from other substances, D and E; the population will then shift to one characterized by the 
genotype (D   E = B,  B   C = A). Given a sufficiently complex environment and a proportionately variable 
germ plasm, long reaction chains can be built up in this way. In the event that B and C become limiting more 
or less simultaneously, another possibility is opened. Under these circumstances symbiotic associations of 
the type(F   G ≠ C, D   E = B) (F   G = C, D   E ≠ B) will have adaptive value." (Horowitz, N.H., "On the Evolution of 
Biochemical Syntheses," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 31, No. 6, June, 1945, pp.153-157, pp.155-156) 

"This model is thus seen to have potentialities for the rapid evolution of long chain syntheses in response 
to changes in the environment. As has been pointed out by Oparin the hypothesis of a complex chemical 
environment is a necessary corollary of the concept of the origin of life through chemical means. The 
essential point of the argument is that it is inconceivable that a self-reproducing unit of the order of 
complexity of a nucleoprotein could have originated by the chance combination of inorganic molecules. 
Rather, a period of evolution of organic substances of ever-increasing degree of complexity must have 
intervened before such an event became a practical, as distinguished from a mathematical, probability. Or, 
put in another way, any random process which can have produced a nucleoprotein must at the same time 
have led to the production of a profusion of simpler structures. Oparin has considered in some detail the 
possible modes of origin of organic compounds from inorganic material and cites a number of known 
reactions of this type, together with evidences of their large-scale occurrence on the earth in past geologic 
ages. He concludes that in the absence of living organisms to destroy them highly complex organic systems 
can have developed. The first self-duplicating nucleoprotein originated as a step in this process of chemical 
evolution. The origin of living matter by physicochemical means thus presupposes the existence of a highly 
complex chemical environment." (Horowitz, N.H., "On the Evolution of Biochemical Syntheses," Proc Natl 
Acad Sci U S A, Vol. 31, No. 6, June, 1945, pp.153-157, pp.156-157) 

"To summarize, the hypothesis presented here suggests that the first living entity was a completely 
heterotropic unit, reproducing itself at the expense of prefabricated organic molecules in its environment. A 
depletion of the environment resulted until a point was reached where the supply  of specific substrates 
limited further multiplication. By a process of mutation a means was eventually discovered for utilizing other 
available substances. With this event the evolution of biosyntheses began. The conditions necessary for 
the operation of the mechanism ceased to exist with the ultimate destruction of the organic environment. 
Further evolution was probably based on the chance combination of genes, resulting to a large extent in the 
development of short reaction chains utilizing substances whose synthesis had been previously acquired." 
(Horowitz, N.H., "On the Evolution of Biochemical Syntheses," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 31, No. 6, 
June, 1945, pp.153-157, p.157)

"Prokaryotes can be grouped into four categories according to how they obtain energy and carbon 
Nutrition refers here to how an organism obtains two resources for synthesizing organic compounds: 
energy and a source of carbon. Species that use light energy are termed phototrophs. Chemotrophs 
obtain their energy from chemicals taken from the environment. If an organism needs only the inorganic 
compound CO2 as a carbon source, it is called an autotroph. Heterotrophs require at least one organic 
nutrient-glucose, for instance-as a source of carbon for making other organic compounds. We can combine 
the phototroph-versus-chemotroph (energy source) and autotroph-versus-heterotroph (carbon source) 
criteria to group prokaryotes according to four major modes of nutrition: 1. Photoautotrophs are 
photosynthetic organisms that harness light energy to drive the synthesis of organic compounds from 
carbon dioxide. The specialized metabolic machinery of these organisms includes internal membranes with 
light-harvesting pigment systems ... . Among the diverse groups of photosynthetic prokaryotes are the 
cyanobacteria. All photosynthetic eukaryotes-plants and certain protists -also fit into this nutritional 
category. 2. Chemoautotrophs need only CO2 as a carbon source, but instead of using light for energy, 
these prokaryotes obtain energy by oxidizing inorganic substances. Chemical energy is extracted from 
hydrogen sulfide (H2S), ammonia (NH3), ferrous ions (Fe2 ), or some other chemical, depending on the 
species. This mode of nutrition is unique to certain prokaryotes. For instance, archaea of the genus 
Sulfolobus oxidize sulfur. 3. Photoheterotrophs can use light to generate ATP but must obtain their 
carbon in organic form. This mode of nutrition is restricted to certain prokaryotes. 4. Chemoheterotrophs 
must consume organic molecules for both energy and carbon. This nutritional mode is found widely among 
prokaryotes, protists, fungi, animals, and even some plants." (Campbell, N.A., Reece, J.B. & Mitchell, L.G., 
"Biology," [1987], Benjamin/Cummings: Menlo Park CA, Fifth Edition, 1999, p.508. Emphasis original)

"The presence of a particular metabolic process in all or nearly all modern organisms may imply that the 
process developed in a common ancestor and is thus ancient. For example, the universal role of ATP as an 
energy currency in all extant organisms implies that prokaryotes adopted its use very early. Likewise, 
glycolysis, a metabolic pathway that breaks organic molecules down to simpler waste products and uses the 
energy to generate ATP by substrate phosphorylation, is common to nearly all modern organisms. 
Glycolysis does not require O2, and fermentation, in which electrons extracted from nutrients during 
glycolysis are transferred to organic recipients, may have become a way of life on the anaerobic Earth. The 
chemiosmotic mechanism of ATP synthesis is also common to most organisms, implying an early origin ... ." 
(Campbell, N.A., Reece, J.B. & Mitchell, L.G., "Biology," [1987], Benjamin/Cummings: Menlo Park CA, Fifth 
Edition, 1999, pp.509-510)

"Likewise, glycolysis, a metabolic pathway that breaks organic molecules down to simpler waste products 
and uses the energy to generate ATP by substrate phosphorylation, is common to nearly all modern 
organisms. Glycolysis does not require O2, and fermentation, in which electrons extracted from nutrients 
during glycolysis are transferred to organic recipients, may have become a way of life on the anaerobic 
Earth. The chemiosmotic mechanism of ATP synthesis is also common to most organisms, implying an early 
origin ... ." (Campbell, N.A., Reece, J.B. & Mitchell, L.G., "Biology," [1987], Benjamin/Cummings: Menlo Park 
CA, Fifth Edition, 1999, p.510)

"The first prokaryotes, which originated between 3.5 and 4.0 billion years ago, undoubtedly had few 
enzymes and were very simple metabolically. Living in an environment with virtually no molecular oxygen, 
they would have been anaerobes. A traditional hypothesis proposes that the earliest cells were 
chemoheterotrophs that absorbed free organic compounds, including ATP, generated in the primordial seas 
by abiotic synthesis, similar to the Miller-Urey simulations ... . As early chemoheterotrophs began to deplete 
the supply of free ATP, natural selection would have favored cells with enzymes that could regenerate ATP 
from ADP using energy extracted from other available organic nutrients. The result may have been the step-
by-step evolution of glycolysis and the generation of ATP by substrate phosphorylation. Chemiosmotic 
synthesis of ATP may have evolved somewhat later." (Campbell, N.A., Reece, J.B. & Mitchell, L.G., 
"Biology," [1987], Benjamin/Cummings: Menlo Park CA, Fifth Edition, 1999, p.510)

"Many biologists now consider it unlikely that environmental conditions on the primordial Earth generated 
enough ATP or other organic molecules to support chemoheterotrophs. The hypothesis most widely 
favored today is that the earliest prokaryotes were chemoautotrophs that obtained energy from inorganic 
chemicals and made their own energy-currency molecules instead of absorbing ATP. Hydrogen sulfide 
(H2S) and compounds of iron (Fe2 ) were abundant on the early Earth, and primitive cells may have 
obtained energy from reactions involving such compounds. Some modern archaea that thrive in hot sulfur 
springs can carry out the reaction FeS   H2S -> FeS2   H2   free energy and exergonic reactions such as 
this may have been an early source of energy. Membrane proteins in an early prokaryote may have used 
some of the resulting free energy to split the product H2 into protons and electrons and establish a proton 
gradient across its plasma membrane. In a primitive form of chemiosmosis, the gradient may have driven the 
synthesis of ATP ... . Natural selection would have favored cells with membrane proteins capable of 
manipulating hydrogen, leading to the evolution of electron transport chains in the plasma membrane ... ." 
(Campbell, N.A., Reece, J.B. & Mitchell, L.G., "Biology," [1987], Benjamin/Cummings: Menlo Park CA, Fifth 
Edition, 1999, p.510)

"a. The invasion of the armies of Gog ([Ezekiel ]38:1-16) 2. Gog has been variously identified with 
Gyges, king of Lydia, who is called Gugu in the records of Ashurbanipal, and with the place-name, Gagaia, 
referred to in the Tell el-Amarna letters as a land of barbarians. From Ras Shamra writings there has been 
found a god, Gaga, and this identification too has been suggested (Enuma elish, III: line 2). Others have 
seen in Gog a historical figure like Alexander the Great. The most likely suggestion is the first, but the origin 
of the name is less significant than what it symbolizes, namely the personified head of the forces of evil 
which are intent on destroying the people of God. The name Magog is unknown in the Old Testament 
apart from the single reference in Genesis 10:2 (=1 Ch. 1:5), where he is a son of Japheth and the founder of a 
nation. In Revelation 20:8 Magog is a person associated with Gog, but in Ezekiel the word is almost certainly 
meant to represent the country where Gog lived (so RV, RSV)." (Taylor, J.B.*, "Ezekiel: An Introduction and 
Commentary," Tyndale Press: London, 1969, p.244. Emphasis original) 

"[Rev 16:]16. John reverts to the activities of the dirty spirits. They gathered the kings (and, of course, 
their followers) to a place called Armageddon. No place of this name is known, and the term is surely 
symbolic. But its meaning is uncertain. John tells us that it is a Hebrew word, and the two most favoured 
suggestions are that it means 'mountain of Megiddo' (har megiddo) or `the city of Megiddo' (ir 
megiddo). The former seems closer to the Hebrew, but unfortunately no mountain appears to be called 'the 
mountain of Megiddo'. Many stirring feats took place in the vicinity, but they seem to be connected rather 
with the plain of Esdraelon than with any particular mountain or with Megiddo. In fact Megiddo is 
mentioned but rarely in connection with battles (Jdg. 5:19; 2 Ki. 23:29; 2 Ch. 35:22). There are Old Testament 
passages that look for the ultimate battle near mountains (Ezk. 39:1ff., perhaps Dn. 11:45), but none that we 
can identify with the present expression. It is possible that 'mountain' should not be taken literally, but 
understood of the great mound on which the city stood, in which case the two suggestions come to much 
the same thing. Since great battles have been fought nearby, the city may stand in John's mind for decisive 
conflict (Beasley-Murray, 'a symbol for the last resistance of anti-god forces prior to the kingdom of Christ'). 
In that case it will stand as a symbol for the final overthrow of all the forces of evil by Almighty God. It is 
not unlikely that the deliverance under Deborah is regarded as setting the pattern. Then Sisera had 900 
chariots of iron (Jdg. 4:13), but in Israel there was scarcely a shield or spear among 40,000 (Jdg. 5:8). Israel's 
position was completely hopeless. But when the battle was joined, 'the LORD routed Sisera and all his 
chariots and army' (Jdg. 4:15). So will it be at the last day. However strong the forces of evil may appear, and 
however hopeless the position of those of good, God will win the victory. He will resoundingly overthrow 
the evil." (Morris, L.*, "The Book of Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New 
Testament commentaries, [1969], Inter-Varsity Press Leicester: UK, Second Edition, 1987, Reprinted, 2004, 
pp.193-194. Emphasis original)

"[Rev 20:]8. Upon his release Satan will resume his deceitful activities, but on a larger scale. Like the 
'unclean spirits like frogs' he will gather the nations for the final battle (16:13-16). The expression Gog and 
Magog seems to mean all people. Gog is mentioned in the Bible only in a genealogy (1 Ch. 5:4), in a 
prophecy (Ezk. 38 - 39). and here. Magog is found similarly in genealogies (Gn. 10:2; 1 Ch. 1:5), the Ezekiel 
passage, and here. Magog appears to be the land from which Gog came (Ezk. 38:2, though in LXX Magog 
seems to be a prince). In later Judaism Gog and Magog were thought of as two leaders. In apocalyptic 
writings, for example, they often symbolize the forces of evil. For John the combination is another way of 
referring to the hosts of the wicked. He has in mind the last great attack of evil on the things of God. Satan 
will gather all his armies. He will assemble the greatest possible number to oppose God (in number they are 
like the sand on the seashore). This is the decisive moment, the final battle (cf. 17:14; 19:19). 9. John 
changes to the past tense, they marched, but it is the same sequence. The breadth of the earth is a curious 
expression in this connection. It probably means that their armies were very large. They encircled 'the camp 
of the saints' (NIV, God's people) and 'the beloved city'. Both expressions appear to mean the people of God. 
The `camp' sees them as 'soldiers of God', and there might also be an allusion to the encampments of God's 
people during their wilderness wanderings. 'The beloved city' should surely be understood over against 'the 
great city'. This latter we have seen to mean people in organized community, organized against God. The 
former will then signify spiritual people, willingly under the dominion of God. John is picturing the hosts of 
evil as taking up a threatening position over against the servants of God. We are prepared for a great battle. 
But none comes. Exactly as in 19:19-21, John goes on immediately to the annihilation of the wicked. This 
time it is done by fire which came down from heaven (cf. Ezk. 38:22). Consistently John thinks of the power 
of God as so overwhelming that there cannot be even the appearance of a battle when he wills to destroy 
evil." (Morris, L.*, "The Book of Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New 
Testament commentaries, [1969], Inter-Varsity Press Leicester: UK, Second Edition, 1987, Reprinted, 2004, 
pp.232-233. Emphasis original)

"[Rev 16:]16. The name for the place of assembly of the kings of the world, Armageddon, presents an 
even more perplexing puzzle than 666. It is a Greek transliteration for the Hebrew Har-Meggido, the 
mountain of Megiddo. This little town is in the plain of Esdraelon in Israel, and it has no mountain. The 
nearest mountain is Carmel in ountain is Carmel in the north, though some think in terms of the range of hills in southern Galilee. 
Carmel would be an attractive identification, since it witnessed Elijah's contest with the prophets of Baal, 
when the Lord gave a signal revelation of his presence and power, and the false prophets were put to the 
sword. Unfortunately there is no indication in ancient literature that Carmel was ever referred to as Har-
Megiddo . Numerous attempts have been made to explain the name by derivations from allied forms. One 
most widely favoured viewed Har-Megiddo as a corruption of the Hebrew Har-Mo'ed = mountain of 
assembly. This term appears in Isaiah 14:13 to denote a mythical mountain of the gods which the king of 
Babylon in his pride determined in his heart to ascend, but in vain. It is suggested that this mountain 
became viewed as the demonic counterpart to the heavenly mount Zion, on which the city of God stands 
(Heb. 12: 22ff ; cf. Rev. 21:10), and so a fitting symbol for the gathering of the rebellious hosts of earth 
against the God of heaven. The notion is interesting, but no one has satisfactorily explained why Har 
Mo'ed should become corrupted to Har-Megiddo, and so the speculation must be viewed as dubious. 
Whatever the origin of the term, we are not to think in terms of a geographical locality in Israel (the Holy 
Land does not really feature in John's prophecy). Indeed it is doubtful that any single locality is in mind at 
all. The name stands for an event. Like the number 666, it will have had a history in the apocalyptic tradition, 
lost to us but known to the prophet, and for him it will have been a symbol for the last resistance of anti-god 
forces prior to the kingdom of Christ." (Beasley-Murray, G.R.*, "The Book of Revelation," [1974], New 
Century Bible Commentary, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Revised Edition, 1978, Reprinted, 1983, pp.245-246. 
Emphasis original)

"[Rev 20:]7, 8. After the thousand years Satan is loosed from his prison ... to deceive the nations ... 
Gog and Magog, and assemble them for battle. The motif is ancient. Ezekiel tells of an invasion from the 
north of `Gog of the land of Magog', where Gog is the prince and Magog the name of a people (Ezek. 38:1 ; 
cf. 39:6). As early as the Tell el-Amarna tablets Gog was used as a name for the nations of the north. Ezekiel 
sees in the attack on Israel by Gog the fulfilment of earlier prophecies (38:17). He depicts this as an invasion 
of the Holy Land and attack on Jerusalem after the Jews return from their exile among the nations and dwell 
in the peace of the messianic age under the new David (see especially 38:8). Gog comes at the head of many 
peoples `like a cloud', but the Lord will create confusion amongst the invaders, so that every man's sword is 
against his brother. Ezekiel declares in the name of the Lord, `I will rain upon him and his hordes and the 
many peoples that are with him torrential rains and hailstones, fire and brimstone' (38:22). As Ezekiel sees in 
Gog's invasion the fulfilment of earlier prophecies of Gentile attacks on Israel, so John sees in the hosts of 
Gog and Magog a symbol of the evil in the world of nations which resist the rule of God. For him, therefore, 
the attack of Gog comes not from one corner of the earth-the north-but from all four corners. It is doubtful 
that John wished by this means to point to the nations beyond the Roman empire which had been 
untouched by the rebellion under the Antichrist (Schlatter). Wherever the theme of Ezekiel 38-9 is taken up 
in Jewish apocalyptic writers (e.g., 2 En 56:5ff., 2 Esd . 13:5ff:, Sib. Or . 3:662ff.) it is the nations 
generally which combine in assault on Israel, and it is likely that John had a similarly undefined company in 
view. On the other hand it is unlikely that John thought of the entire world of men, women, and children, as 
massed together under the leadership of Gog against the city of God, resulting in the end of history as the 
destruction of every living soul on earth (as Charles thought). We have already observed the mistake in 
overpressing the language of 19:17ff. in this manner, and the same applies to verses 8f. 9. The hordes of 
Gog and Magog surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. The language befits Jerusalem, 
viewed however first as the focal point of the pilgrim people on the march through the desert to the 
promised land, and then as the city which God loves (cf. Ps. 87). But Jerusalem in the Revelation is equated 
with Sodom and Egypt, `where their Lord was crucified' (11:8). The city which John has in mind is `the holy 
city Jerusalem', which comes down from God out of heaven (21:10). Its mention at this point indicates that 
John sees the beloved city as descended from God out of heaven in the messianic age and so views it as the 
centre of the kingdom of Christ. The brevity of the description of that kingdom in verses 4-6 is at least partly 
due to John's intention to describe its nature in the vision of 21:9ff. The assault on the city, therefore, 
represents an attack on the manifestation of the divine rule in the world, comparable to the attack on the 
Church in the present age." (Beasley-Murray, G.R.*, "The Book of Revelation," [1974], New Century Bible 
Commentary, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Revised Edition, 1978, Reprinted, 1983, pp.297-298. Emphasis 

"The sixth bowl (17:12-16) produces Har-Magedon. Of late it has been raining sermons and lectures on 
Har-Magedon or Armageddon, but in order to arrive at the correct interpretation of this battle, let us begin 
by briefly reviewing the Old Testament story in which this symbol is probably rooted. We find it in judges 4, 
5. Israel is in misery again. This time, King Jabin, the Canaanite, is the oppressor. The spoilers go out to 
ravage the fields and plunder the crops of the Israelites. So numerous are these spoilers that the Israelites 
go in hiding and are afraid to appear on the highways (Jdg. 5:6). But can they not wage war and drive out 
these Canaanites? No, King Jabin and General Sisera are strong, for they have nine hundred chariots of iron. 
Israel has not even a spear or a shield (Jdg. 5:8). Must the people perish? In the highlands of Ephraim lives 
Deborah who one day tells Barak the judge, 'Up, for this is the day in which Jehovah is to deliver Sisera into 
your power. Is it not Jehovah who has gone forth in front of you?' A battle is fought at Megiddo and Israel's 
enemy is routed. It was Jehovah Himself who had defeated them. 'From heaven fought the stars; from their 
courses they fought against Sisera' (Jdg. 5:20). For this cause, Har-Magedon is the symbol of every battle in 
which, when the need is greatest and believers are oppressed, the Lord suddenly reveals His power in the 
interest of His distressed people and defeats the enemy. When Sermacherib's 185,000 are slain by the angel 
of Jehovah, that is a shadow of the final Har-Magedon. When God grants a little handful of Maccabees a 
glorious victory over an enemy which far out numbers it, that is a type of Har-Magedon. But the real, the 
great, the final Har-Magedon coincides with the time of Satan's little season (see Rev. 11:7-11). When the 
world, under the leadership of Satan, antichristian government and antichristian religion-the dragon, the 
beast and the false prophet-is gathered against the Church for the final battle, and the need is greatest; 
when God's children, oppressed on every side, cry for help; then suddenly, dramatically, Christ will appear 
to deliver His people. That final tribulation and that appearance of Christ on clouds of glory to deliver His 
people, that is Har-Magedon. It is for this reason that Har-Magedon is the sixth bowl. The seventh is the 
judgment day. As we have indicated, this sixth bowl, as well as the preceding ones, is evident again and 
again in history. Yet, like the other bowls, it reaches its final and most complete realization just before and in 
connection with the last day. John sees that the sixth bowl is emptied upon the Euphrates river. This river 
represents Assyria, Babylonia, the wicked world. When the river is said to dry up, the road is prepared so 
that all the antichristian powers can make the attack upon the Church. The apostle sees proceeding out of 
the mouth of the dragon (Satan) and out of the mouth of the beast (antichristian government) and out of the 
mouth of the false prophet (antichristian religion) three unclean spirits. These spirits or demons are 
compared to frogs in order to indicate their abominable, loathsome and repulsive character. They represent 
satanic, hellish ideas, plans, projects, methods and enterprises, hell-born and introduced by hell into the 
sphere of thought and action. Thus, when the kings of the earth gather to battle against believers, this battle 
or persecution is inspired by hell itself. Here very little is said about this final battle. But we must remember 
that this same conflict of Har-Magedon is described in Revelation 11:7 ff. (see our explanation) ; and 
especially in Revelation 19:11 ff.; 20:7 ff. Now, at this moment of tribulation and anguish, of oppression and 
persecution, Christ suddenly appears (verse 15). He comes as a thief, suddenly, unexpectedly (cf. Mt. 24:29 
ff.; Jdg. 5:4 ; Hab. 3:13; 2 Thes. 2:8 ff.)." (Hendriksen, W.*, "More than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the 
Book of Revelation," Tyndale Press: London, 1940, Reprinted, 1966, pp.162-164. Emphasis original)

"HOW ISRAEL FELL ... The Israel Strategy involved convincing the Palestinians to accept a 
disingenuous peace in return for international promises of massive reconstruction aid. They would 
wait, letting prosperity accomplish what terrorist attacks could not. Al-Zee was the first Muslim leader 
to realize that the only way they could lose the fight with Israel was to continue fighting. Peace meant 
inevitable victory; it just required patience. Al- Zee's reputation allowed him to preach patience to an 
impatient people. His credibility was unapproachable. So they made peace, and they waited. 
Demographics favored the Muslims, who were having children at three times the rate of the Jewish 
population, thanks to financial inducements arranged by al-Zee. By 2035, it was clear that Muslims were 
heading toward a voting majority in Israel. The Israeli government hoped to solve the problem by 
restricting voting rights for non Jews. This was exactly what al-Zee had foreseen. Israel was filled with, 
and surrounded by, a massive population of angry young men who preferred death to the apartheid 
and humiliation they were being asked to accept. After years of lying low, al-Zee focused the anger of 
the majority, who were by then universally armed, and working and living amongst the Jewish minority. 
The overrun lasted less than two days. It was mostly hand-to-hand fighting with knives, small arms, 
and homemade explosives. The military was helpless because the violence was everywhere at the same 
time, in every block, every street, every housing development. Human waves of martyrs stormed 
military bases. Over a million Muslims died that day, eventually exhausting the ammunition of the 
Israeli army and the armed Jewish civilians. With their superior numbers, the element of surprise, and a 
willingness to die as martyrs, a1-Zee's citizen Jihadists prevailed. The Jewish Israeli men stayed and 
fought to the last, along with most of the fighting age women. The older women and children were 
allowed to escape on foot, streaming out of the cities and towns and eventually ending up in refugee 
camps. To the rest of the world it became known as the Second Holocaust, an unfathomable and black 
moment in history, dwarfing the First Holocaust in both scope and savagery. It happened so quickly 
that the world didn't know how to respond. By the end of the second day there were so few Jews left in 
Israel that military intervention seemed useless. Countries condemned the atrocities in the strongest 
words, but they were only words. Some countries threatened embargoes but needed the oil and so 
found reasons to back off. A feeling of shame and helplessness gripped the Judeo-Christian world, 
plunging it into a collective mental depression, and making it ripe for the rise of a man like General 
Horatio Cruz." (Adams, S., "The Religion War," Andrews McMeel Publishing: Kansas City MO, 2004, 
pp.105-107. Emphasis original)

"[Ezekiel 37:]24. David is described as my servant, a clear Messianic title, as well as king and prince for ever 
(25). We have already noted ` that Ezekiel avoided describing any of his Hebrew contemporaries as king 
(melek), but reserved this title for the Davidic leader of the future (cf. on 7:27; 12:10). The quality of 
permanence attaching to this future reign and expressed in the repeated phrase for ever, for evermore 
(25, 26, 28), is a strong indication that Ezekiel is here thinking not so much of a line of Davidic kings, as he 
had known them in the past, but of a supernatural kingly being in whom would be concentrated all the 
qualities of wisdom, enduement with the Spirit, righteousness and peace that were expected of God's anointed ruler."
(Taylor, J.B.*, "Ezekiel: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale Press: London, 1969, pp.244-245. 
Emphasis original)

"[2Th 2:]8. And then (tote) indicates that these further events will follow more or less immediately after 
the removal of the restraining power. The lawless one is, of course, identical with 'the man of lawlessness', 
and now for the third time he is said to be revealed, which puts a certain emphasis on the supernatural 
aspect of his appearing. Paul's primary aim is not to gratify curiosity about this being and he gives no details 
of his activity; he goes straight from his appearance to his destruction. Throughout this whole section there 
is the underlying note of God's unchallenged sovereignty; thus the revelation of the lawless one is 
naturally followed by his destruction (described in words reminiscent of Is. 11:4). The better MSS read 'slay' 
(anelei, cf. RSV) for 'consume' (analosei, cf. AV), but the difference is not great. The breath of his 
mouth (here only in the New Testament; Cf. Ps. 33:6) shows that, terrible though the lawless one will be, 
he cannot stand before the Lord for a moment. There will not even be a contest - the breath (or 'the word', 
Calvin) of God is sufficient (cf. Rev. 19:21). There is a parallel thought: and destroy by the splendour of his 
coming. For the Lord even to show himself is to destroy the enemy. Destroy translates katargesei... 
which has the basic meaning 'to make idle' and thus 'to render null and void'. It does not mean that the 
lawless one will be annihilated, but that he will be made completely powerless. " (Morris, L.L.*, "The 
Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale New Testament 
Commentaries, [1956], Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Second Edition, 1984, p.132. Emphasis original)

"The reconstruction theory The renowned Scottish preacher and theologian, Thomas Chalmers (1780-
1847), was the first major proponent of the view that we shall examine first. It seems that he was seeking to 
reconcile Genesis with the new discoveries about the age of the earth. His ideas made headway throughout 
the nineteenth century. The Swiss theologian Augustin Gretillat followed them. most notably the lawyer C.I. 
Scofield incorporated them in his annotated Bible, thus assuring them enormous diffusion. As late as 1970 
A.C. Cunstance strove to defend them. According to this theory, the six days are not, as had been relieved, 
days of creation, but days of reconstruction. God restored the original edifice after the creation suffered a 
terrible catastrophe. What was this disaster? The action occurred between the first and second verses of 
Genesis 1, in the mysterious gap which lies between them- hence the common label, 'the gap theory'. 
According to the majority of the theory's supporters, one should in fact translate, 'and the earth became 
without form and void', and, since the expression (tohu wabohu) elsewhere designates the effect of 
destruction (Is. 34:11, cf 45:18 with tohu; Je. 4:23), one must suppose that a catastrophe occurred. 
Besides, the argument goes, the presence of darkness the symbol of evil, clearly shows that evil came into 
the world. Some exponents would also adduce the death of animals, which preceded the appearance of 
mankind on earth. How did the evil arise, if it were not by the revolt of Satan, which can be read between the 
lines in Isaiah 14:3-23 and Ezekiel 28:19? The advantages of the hypothesis could well be simply superficial. 
Invented in order to please the scientists, it has had considerable difficulty satisfying them. What evidence 
have they found of the three supposed phases with their radical discontinuity? The explanation of `evil' in 
nature would be more attractive, but nowhere does the Bible establish any connection between the fall of 
Satan and alleged cosmological effects. 7 It would be necessary to decide whether the Bible sees animal 
death as an 'evil'. It seems to us that this is not the case, and the speeches of God in the book of Job exalt 
the terrifying beauty of the beasts of prey as God's work (Jb. 38:39ff.; 39:26ff. and the description of 
Leviathan in Jb. 41). For reasons of biblical theology we must assert the fall of Satan, but Scripture's 
reticence on this fact should warn us against giving it a key position in our system. The time of that fall has 
not been revealed. It is a misuse of Scripture to appeal to the two prophetic passages (Is. 14; Ezk. 28) in 
order to make them the foundations of the doctrine. The first expressly concerns the king of Babylon and 
nothing requires us to look further than him. 8 The second is directed against the prince of Tyre, and if 
behind his fall another can be sensed, it is rather the fall of mankind. The fact that elsewhere chaos is the 
result of a catastrophe does not mean that this is so in Genesis 1:2. What has received form returns into 
formlessness only as a result of some misfortune. But this is very obviously not the case for the unformed 
which has yet to be formed! The reconstructionists overlook this obvious point. As for the darkness of 
Genesis 1:2, it is not necessarily a symbol of evil; here it could simply be the state of readiness for the 
appearance of light. Thus the grounds for the theory vanish into thin air. In particular the hypothesis raises 
two insurmountable difficulties. The translation 'And the earth became' takes inadmissible liberties with the 
Hebrew grammar. The only admissible translation is 'And [or better, Now] the earth was...', by analogy with 
constructions that are totally similar in Jonah 3:3 ('Now Nineveh was...') and, nearer home, Genesis 3:1 ('Now 
the snake was ...'). Only in defiance of philology may the pseudo-translation 'the earth became' act as the 
basis of the theory. Further, the theory requires that the verb 'make', even in 2:2f. and in Exodus 20: 11, be 
given the meaning 'remake'. There is no justification for such violence to the language. Hebrew offers the 
means of expressing the notion of remaking and repairing, but the text does not show the slightest trace of 
it. The verdict on the whole theory must be 'quite impossible It draws no support from the text, but rather 
brings its own framework, digging its own imaginary gap between the two verses in order to set it up. We 
could in truth have set it aside immediately, as we did the theory of visions. But its example provides a 
valuable warning. It puts us on our guard against an interpretation which adds ingeniously to Scripture by 
exploiting silences and arranging things with the very best of motives, without submitting to the discipline 
of philology" (Blocher, H.*, "In The Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis," [1979], Preston, D.G., 
transl., InterVarsity Press: Leicester UK, 1984, pp.41-43. Emphasis original)

"The second major attempt to reconcile the biblical and geological time-scales resides in the 'gap theory', 
which proposes that the geological ages are encompassed between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1. Verse 2 is 
then read to mean: 'And the earth became without form and void,' signifying a judgment and destruction 
of a formerly created and populated earth. The fossil record, it is claimed, dates from this stupendous 
judgment. The creation described in the remainder of Genesis 1 then becomes a recent recreation in seven 
literal days. The 'gap theory', popularized by footnotes in the Scofield Bible, has been reviewed and refuted 
at length in a recent book by W. W. Fields [Fields, W.W., "Unformed and Unfilled," Presbyterian & 
Reformed: Nutley NJ, 1976], and the reader is referred to that work for further detail. In brief, however, the 
gap theory is based upon an inadmissible grammatical and philological treatment of the Hebrew text of 
Genesis 1:1-2 and receives little support from the remainder of Scripture. One verse often quoted in its 
favour is Isaiah 45:18 'For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth 
and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain [lit. a waste], he formed it to be inhabited.' Thus 
it is argued that the earth was not created in the state described in Genesis 1:2, but must have become waste 
at some subsequent time. However this is surely a misunderstanding of both Isaiah and Genesis. The final 
clause of Isaiah's verse makes it clear that he is speaking of God's intention. He did not create the earth 
with the purpose of its being waste, but with the purpose that it would become inhabited. Genesis 
describes the earth as 'formless and void' only at an intermediate state in its development towards a 
completed, inhabitable condition, not in its final form." (Andrews, E.H.*, "The Biblical and philosophical case 
for special creation," in Burke, D.C., ed., "Creation and Evolution: When Christians Disagree," [1985], Inter-
Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Reprinted, 1986, pp.237-238. Emphasis original) 

"There have been several attempts to reconcile the apparent age of the earth with the biblical material: ... The 
gap theory holds that there was an original, quite complete creation of the earth perhaps billions of years 
ago. That is the creation mentioned in Genesis 1:1. But some sort of catastrophe occurred. The creation 
became empty and unformed (1:2). God then re-created the earth a few thousand years ago in a period of six 
days, populating it with all the species. It is this creation which is described in Genesis 1:3-27. The apparent 
age of the earth and the fossil records showing development over long periods of time are to be attributed to 
the first creation. The catastrophe is often linked to the fall of Satan (Lucifer). Creation then lay in ruins for a 
long period of time before God's rehabilitation or restitution of it. [The Scofield Reference Bible, p.4, n.3]. 
... There are too many exegetical difficulties attached to the gap theory" [Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of 
Science and Scripture," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1954, pp.201-211]." (Erickson, M.J.*, "Christian Theology," 
[1983], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1988, Fifth Printing, pp.380,382) 

"This `gap theory' was advanced by Thomas Chalmers in the early 1800's. C.I. Scofield breathed life into this 
methodology in his Reference Bible published in 1909. The precursor to archaic man was named "Adam 1" 
from Genesis 1:27 to start the human (or subhuman) race. This would account for the previously 
unaccountable fossilized remains of early man. According to Scofield, modern human beings, including 
everyone living today, emanated from the Adam, described in the second chapter of Genesis. Scofield's 
method sought to avoid the difficulties caused by the appearance of Adam of Genesis 2 at a point in history 
too late for him to be ancestral to every fossilized bone that has been dug up and assigned to the genus 
Homo. In this gap scenario, early precursors were eradicated by some natural calamity, or died out 
because of ill-suited survival techniques. They were replaced miraculously and divinely by a whole new 
species more modern in appearance. Many Bible scholars have pronounced this method exegetically 
unsound, but Scofield did take a needed step toward reconciliation." (Fischer, D.*, "The Origins Solution: 
An Answer in the Creation-Evolution Debate," Fairway Press: Lima OH, 1996, p.25)

"If the Creator used intermittent creation in the past, a contention held by some, then either one gap or 
multiple gaps incorporating creation activities could be interspersed by periods of evolution. The one gap 
method is called Gap Restitution, or Gap Theory. ... In his 1909 Reference Bible, Scofield called for two 
creations. `The first creative act refers to the dateless past, and gives scope for all the geologic ages. 
[Scofield, C.I., "The Scofield Study Bible,"1945, p.3] Scofield cited Jeremiah 2:23-26 and Isaiah 24:1 and 45:18 
to assert that these passages: `...clearly indicate that the earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as the 
result of a divine judgment. The face of the earth bears everywhere the marks of such a catastrophe. [Ibid., 
p.3] The idea of two creations is grounded in Genesis 1:2, `And the earth was without form, and void; and 
darkness was upon the face of the deep.' Rendering the word `was' as `became,' followed by the Hebrew 
words tohu wabohu translated `without form and void,' a destruction or a laying waste of whatever might 
have been here before could clear the way for a new creation. A primeval cataclysm, linked possibly with the 
fall of Satan, could have terminated previous forms of life leaving no survivors, just their fossilized bones. 
The creation account in Genesis would be a re-creation account instead. If Adam was to `replenish the earth' 
(Gen. 1:28), an extermination might be implied eliminating any embarrassing Pre-Adamites. Critics of gap 
theory charge that a massive destruction in the middle of a creation narrative would be a strange order of 
presentation. Changing `was' to `became' has been judged to be exegetically unsound. In the next verse, 
when God said, `Let there be light' (Gen. 3:1), would that be taken to mean there was no light for the first 
creation, or are we to add the word `again' parenthetically at the end of that sentence? Also, to `replenish 
the earth' is a bad translation of the Hebrew word, male. To `fill the earth' translates the phrase more 
accurately, which leaves the fate of early man an unanswered question." (Fischer, D.*, "The Origins Solution: 
An Answer in the Creation-Evolution Debate," Fairway Press: Lima OH, 1996, pp.107-108. Emphasis original)

"With only meager help from the Scriptures, gap theory is a shaky attempt to address the problem of what to 
do with tell-tale fossils. Even though the rudimentary beginnings of gap theory can be traced back to the 
early church, the modern-day impetus is driven solely by the revelations of the fossil record. Strategically 
placing the `gap' is the daunting task. This gap would have to take place between an initial creation and 
subsequent extermination of archaic life forms, whatever they were, and the creation of fully modern types 
which start new species, and Adam, of course, who would be the first modern human. ... Even if the 
Scriptures were more accommodating, gap theory fails to resolve a ponderous difficulty. ... One single gap 
will not begin to explain all the complexities of the creation-evolution issue. The reality gap theorists evade 
is: where do you put the gap? A total break between all archaic forms of life and what we could call modern 
life does not exist in the fossil record. Although many present-day species show sudden entry in the 
progression of life, they do not all enter at the same time. Positioning this gap at 100,000 years ago to 
separate modern Homo sapiens from any predecessors might be convenient for humankind, but alligators 
have been unchanged in skeletal form for millions of years. How would alligators have bridged the gap 
placed strategically to screen out ancestral hominids? Even placing a gap that would separate modern 
humans from ancient forerunners is a futile exercise. Archaic Homo sapiens go back approximately 
300,000 years, and did not die out until about 35,000 years ago. Neanderthals also would have bridged the 
gap, first appearing in the fossil record some 130,000 years ago, and enduring for 100,000 years before 
becoming extinct. So even though the biblical support for gap theory is paltry, the fossil record is 
foreboding. Different species of hominids overlap in the fossil record. There is a continuity between modern 
and archaic life forms of all kinds. Millions of years separate the beginnings of the vertebrates: fish, 
amphibians, reptiles, mammals, primates, and man. These are just a sprinkling of examples that are beyond 
the explanatory capabilities of one single gap. Gap theory flounders not only because of the lack of 
scriptural support, or because it calls for some kind of judgment before Adam's fall, but also because even if 
there were such a gap, no matter where it is placed, it settles nothing. Alas, gap theory as a means of 
reconciliation is itself tohu wabohu (without form and void). A gap might help explain one problem, 
though it is hard to know which one, but after playing that gap card, we would still be left with a profusion 
of unanswered questions. The result is that gap theory has few serious proponents, and has been widely 
recognized as being of little value as a solution to the complex problem of life's origins." (Fischer, D.*, "The 
Origins Solution: An Answer in the Creation-Evolution Debate," Fairway Press: Lima OH, 1996, pp.108-109. 
Emphasis original) 

"An alternate theory by which some scholars have attempted to correlate a literal six-day view with 
geological claims is the gap theory, which finds in Genesis 1:2, "the earth was without form and void," the 
judicial desolation of an original creation, and refers the subsequent account to the subsequent 
rehabilitation of a portion of the present earth in six days. The Scofield Reference Bible popularized this 
view. Its difficulties are multiple: the theory deprives Hebrew-Christian religion (except for the bare opening 
words of Genesis) of a revealed account of the original creation; it artificially wrenches the continuity of the 
creation account; it finds no explicit confirmation elsewhere in Scripture; it offers no theistic standpoint for 
interpreting the actual geological data." (Henry, C.F.H.*, "Science and Religion", in Henry, C.F.H.*, ed., 
"Contemporary Evangelical Thought: A Survey," [1957], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1968, p.277)

"The Bible does not anywhere make an explicit statement in which the age of the earth is given. It tells us 
how long the Children of Israel were in Egypt, the length of time from the Exodus to the building of 
Solomon's temple, the duration of the Babylonian Captivity, etc. But nowhere is there a statement of how 
many years it was from creation to the time of Abraham or any other date that can be correlated with secular 
history. It is important to remember this point. Any estimate of the age of the earth based on the Bible rests 
on deductions drawn from information contained in Holy Scriptures. If the deductions are valid, the 
conclusions are likewise valid. The reverse is true if the deductions are in error. There are four places in 
Scripture from which deductions can be drawn. The first is Gen. 1:1, 2. Some Biblical scholars believe that 
between verses one and two a great period of time elapsed. They hold that God destroyed an initial creation, 
turned the earth into chaos, and then recreated it. The arguments for this idea, known as the gap theory, 
have been examined in chapter 2. If true, this would make room for an incalculable number of years. 
However, the theory is highly speculative and unconvincing." (Zimmerman, P.A.*, "The Age of the Earth," in 
Zimmerman, P.A., ed., "Darwin, Evolution, and Creation," [1959], Concordia: St Louis MO, 1966, Fifth 
Printing, p.161)

"Creation-ruination-re-creation theory or restitution theory, or gap theory. As we have seen the 
theologians rested content with creation at 4004 B.C., till the geological studies disturbed this position. ... 
Geologists had come to the conclusion that these formations occupied thousands if not millions of years for 
their construction. .... How could time be found in the Genesis account? It was the suggestion of the capable 
and brilliant Thomas Chalmers that the time element could be found by a reconsideration of Gen. 1:2. There 
was a creation (1:1) followed by a catastrophe (1:2), in turn followed by a re-creation (1:3, ff.). All the time the 
geologists needed could be found in Gen. 2: 2. ... The gap theory was adopted by Scofield in his Reference 
Bible and so accumulated to itself all the veneration and publicity of that edition of the Bible. ... Although 
the defenders of the gap theory have variations among themselves in interpretation, the general features of 
the theory are held in common by all. The theory runs something like this: God created a perfect world as 
recorded in Gen. 1:2. This world was turned over to Lucifer, who conducted the Temple worship of God 
located in a mineral Garden of Eden (Ezek. 28:13 f.). The exalted condition of Lucifer was too much for him 
and in seeking to exalt himself as a god, he and those who consorted with him fell and judgment was passed 
on them and the earth. For countless millions of years the earth was left alone and during these years the 
various geological formations took place. Some argue that the ugliness of the dinosaurs and the great bed of 
fossils emerging as vast cemeteries of the past indicate that a judgment for sin had been passed on the 
earth. Somewhere around 4000 B.C. God reconditioned the earth in six literal twenty-four hour days. Gen. 
1 contains an original creation, a judgment and ruination, and then a re-creation." (Ramm, B.L.*, "The 
Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprint, 1960, pp.134-136. Emphasis 

"Gap Theory. The gap or reconstruction theory is a scheme to reconcile the long geologic ages in the 
earth's history with the Genesis creation account. It basically advocates that the first two verses of Genesis I 
describe a condition that lasted an indeterminate length of time and preceded the six days of creation in Gen. 
1:3ff. There was creation (1:1), followed by a catastrophe (1:2), in turn followed by a re-creation (1:3ff.). All 
the needed geologic ages in earth's pre-Adamic history may be found either between 1:1 and 1:2 or during 
1:2. Early expressions of the view can be traced to Episcopius (d. 1643), a theologian who taught at the 
University of Leiden in the Netherlands, and to the scientist J. G. Rosenmuller (d. 1815). In nineteenth 
century England it was espoused by the theologian Thomas Chalmers, geologist William Buckland, biblical 
scholar John Pye Smith, and church historian J. H. Kurtz. In the United States the view was widely 
disseminated by G. H. Pember, Harry Rimmer, and the first edition of the Scofield Reference Bible (1909). 
For many today the day-age theory has replaced the gap theory as the best explanation of the geologic ages 
and Genesis 1. Others have adopted flood-catastrophism. Criticism of the gap theory has arisen from various 
circles, and summaries may be found in the works of Allis [Allis, O.T, "God Spake by Moses'" Presbyterian 
& Reformed, 1951], Ramm [Ramm, B.L., "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," Eerdmans, 1954], and 
Young [Young, D.A., "Christianity and the Age of the Earth," Artisan, 1998] cited below. In essence the 
criticism involves (1) the improbability that only one verse (Gen. 1:1) deals with the original creation while so 
many sentences are devoted to a secondary or re-creation process; (2) the lack of solid exegetical evidence 
to support the rendering of the Hebrew verb `was' [Heb. waw] in Gen. 1:2 as `became'; (3) the sense of 
`without form' and `void' [Heb. tohu and bohu] meaning nothing more than `empty,' `uninhabited'; (4) 
elaborate theories of angelology and demonology derived from Isa. 14 and Ezek. 28 and inserted in Gen. 1:2 
being unjustified; and (5) such a theory turning the entire field of geology over to the geologists since the 
Bible [then] yields no reference to earth's earliest formation." (Johnson, A.E.*, "Gap Theory," in Elwell, W.A., 
ed., "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology," [1984], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1990, Seventh Printing, p.439. 
Emphasis original)

"[Gen 1:]2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. ...(1:2) 
Two main interpretations have been advanced to explain the expression "without form and void" (Heb. 
tohu and bohu). The first, which may be called the Original Chaos interpretation, regards these words 
as a description of an original formless matter in the first stage of the creation of the universe. The second, 
which may be called the Divine judgment interpretation, sees in these words a description of the earth only, 
and that in a condition subsequent to its creation, not as it was originally (see Isa. 45:18, note; cp. also 
notes at Isa.14:12; Ezek. 28:12)." (Scofield, C.I.*, ed., "The New Scofield Reference Bible: Authorized King 
James Version," [1909], Oxford University Press: New York NY, Revised, 1967, p.1. Emphasis original)

"([Gen ]1:5) The use of `evening' and `morning' may be held to limit `day' to the solar day; but the frequent 
parabolic use of natural phenomena may warrant the conclusion that it simply means that each creative day 
was a period of time marked off by a beginning and ending (cp. Ps. 90:6). In any event the sun did not 
become a measure of time before the fourth day, as seen in vv. 14-18." (Scofield, C.I.*, ed., "The New 
Scofield Reference Bible: Authorized King James Version," Oxford University Press: New York NY, 1967, 

"The expression `evening and morning' is capable of several interpretations. Some take it to mean a period of 
rest and a period of creation. Others take it as a graphic means of describing a cosmic day. If one takes a 
metaphorical interpretation of the word yom, then mutatis mutandis the expression evening and 
morning, must be metaphorical. They do not mean that there is a day of a million years of light followed by a 
million years of darkness. The expression refers to something in the process of creation. No objection to the 
theory can be made on the basis of forcing a literal meaning into the expression `evening and morning.'" 
(Ramm, B.L.*, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, 

"It is often said that the sun is a typical star, but this is entirely untrue. The mere fact that 95% of all stars 
are less massive than the sun makes our planetary system quite rare. Less massive stars are important 
because they are much more common than more massive ones. For stars less massive than the sun, the 
habitable zones are located farther inward. The most common stars in our galaxy are classified, as M stars; 
they have only 10% of the mass of the sun. Such stars are far less luminous than our sun, and any planets 
orbiting them would have to be very close to stay warm enough to allow the existence of liquid water on the 
surface. However, there is danger in orbiting too close to any celestial body. As planets get closer to a star 
(or moons to a planet), the gravitational tidal effects from the star induce synchronous rotation, wherein the 
planet spins on its axis only once each time it orbits the star. Thus the same side of the planet always faces 
the star. (Such tidal locking keeps one side of the Moon facing Earth at all times.) This synchronous rotation 
leads to extreme cold on the dark side of a planet and freezes out the atmosphere. It is possible that with a 
very thick atmosphere, and with little day/night variation, a planet might escape this fate, but unless their 
atmospheres are exceedingly rich in CO2, planets close to low-mass stars are not likely to be habitable 
because of atmospheric freeze-out." (Ward, P.D. & Brownlee, D.C., "Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is 
Uncommon in the Universe," Copernicus/Springer-Verlag: New York NY, 2000, pp.23-24)

Near the opposite end of the scale, low-mass main-sequence stars (M dwarf stars) would also offer poorer 
habitats. An M dwarf star induces strong tides on a planet in its CCHZ, simply because of the planet's 
proximity to its host star, quickly braking its rotation (like Earth's Moon). Why is this bad for life? If the 
planet's atmosphere is thin, it will freeze out on its dark side; a perpetually shadowed and cold region acts as 
a sort of "cold trap," not unlike cold traps used in vacuum pump systems to extract water from the air. High 
levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide could prevent this, but at the expense of animal-like life, which needs 
high oxygen and low carbon dioxide levels." Even if we allow a thick carbon dioxide atmosphere, however, 
temperatures would be comfortable for life only in a narrow band along the planet's terminator-the line that 
separates the light from the dark side. And since the intensity of starlight is weak at the terminator, only 
weak biological productivity would be possible-the lower temperature would also slow biological 
processes." (Gonzalez, G.* & Richards, J.W.*, "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is 
Designed For Discovery," Regnery: Washington DC, 2004, pp.133-134)

"Even worse for life on an M dwarf planet is the strong likelihood that all the water on its surface would 
eventually freeze on its dark side, leaving the illuminated side hot and dry. These problems could be 
mitigated if, like Mercury, the orbit of a rotationally synchronized planet was quite eccentric, which would 
prevent the same side from always facing the host star. Of course a highly elliptical orbit will lead to large 
temperature swings on the planet, regardless of its rotation. So a planet in the CCHZ of an M dwarf star will 
suffer from either unevenly distributed heat or large temperature changes over the course of its year." 
(Gonzalez, G.* & Richards, J.W.*, "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed For 
Discovery," Regnery: Washington DC, 2004, p.134)

"What if we place a planet-size moon in orbit around a gas giant planet, which, in turn, is in the CCHZ of an 
M dwarf? This would avoid the problem of rotational synchronization and let the moon expose its full 
surface to the light of its host star over the course of its month. But this still won't work, for the reasons we 
gave in Chapter Five. In particular, it's not clear that the gas giant can even retain a large moon as it migrates 
inward into the habitable zone of an M dwarf, where the gravity of the star struggles mightily for possession 
of the moon. And even if it does survive, the size of the moon's orbit around its giant host would be a 
significant fraction of the distance to the host star, creating large variations in temperature on the moon's 
surface." (Gonzalez, G.* & Richards, J.W.*, "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is 
Designed For Discovery," Regnery: Washington DC, 2004, p.134)

"M dwarf stars pose additional problems for life. Like the Sun, they exhibit flares. Some are stronger than 
solar flares, and because M dwarf stars are far less luminous, a flare's intensity compared with the star is that 
much greater. A strong flare on an M dwarf star can increase the relative X-ray radiation by a factor of one 
hundred to one thousand compared with strong flares on the Sun; the resulting increase in the ultraviolet 
radiation reaching the planet's surface would also be more intense .Not only would such flares threaten 
surface life, they would probably strip away a planet's atmosphere more quickly as well. The large starspots 
associated with flares would cause the star's brightness to vary on longer timescales (by about 10 to 40 
percent), mimicking an eccentric planetary orbit. Starspots and flares decline steadily as a star ages. So while 
the passage of time would mitigate these problems, at any age an M dwarf host star will be a less constant 
source of energy than a star like the Sun." (Gonzalez, G.* & Richards, J.W.*, "The Privileged Planet: How 
Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed For Discovery," Regnery: Washington DC, 2004, p.134)

"Such bursts also would probably damage any existing ozone layer on a planet, because in its quiescent 
state an M dwarf star produces less ultra-violet compared with optical radiation than does the Sun. The 
steady flow of ultraviolet radiation from the Sun maintains the ozone shield in Earth's atmosphere, which 
offers some protection from modest increases in the extraterrestrial ultraviolet flux. So a planet orbiting in the 
habitable zone of an M dwarf star will be more susceptible to the damaging effects of short-lived ultraviolet 
and particle radiation events like stellar flares and nearby supernovae. Ultraviolet radiation is also crucial in 
oxidizing a planet's atmosphere. It was the steady dissociation of hydrogen-rich light molecules such as 
methane and water in Earth's atmosphere by the Sun's ultraviolet radiation, and subsequent loss of the 
hydrogen, that eventually allowed oxygen to become so abundant in its atmosphere." (Gonzalez, G.* & 
Richards, J.W.*, "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed For Discovery," 
Regnery: Washington DC, 2004, pp.134-135)

"The red spectra of M dwarf stars means that very little blue light will reach the surface of its orbiting 
planets. Although photosynthesis doesn't require blue light, it generally becomes less effective without 
abundant light blueward of 6,800 . Some bacteria can still use infrared light, but not to produce oxygen. 
Any marine photosynthetic organisms would have a hard time using red light as an energy source, since 
ocean water transmits blue-green light far better than blue or red light." (Gonzalez, G.* & Richards, J.W.*, 
"The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed For Discovery," Regnery: Washington 
DC, 2004, p.135)

"Because the CCHZ around an M dwarf star is much closer in than the one around the Sun, any terrestrial 
planets within and near it will probably orbit closer together. This makes it more likely that such planets will 
perturb each other's orbits. The terrestrial planets in the Solar System are spaced far enough apart to have 
remained in fairly stable orbits for 4.5 billion years. Smaller orbits would have permitted only much shorter 
dynamical lifetimes." (Gonzalez, G.* & Richards, J.W.*, "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is 
Designed For Discovery," Regnery: Washington DC, 2004, p.135)

"But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all 
hope you have learned in studying science in school-we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that 
you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now 
and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds 
to a kind of utter honesty -a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you 
should report everything that you think might make it invalid-not only what you think is right about it: other 
causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some 
other experiment, And how they worked-to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. 
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. you must do the 
best you can-if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong-to explain it. If you make a theory, for 
example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well 
as those that agree with it. ... In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to 
judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular 
direction or another .... And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to 
a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science. ... But this long history of learning how to not 
fool ourselves- of having utter scientific integrity-is, I'm sorry to say, something that we haven't specifically 
included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you've caught on by osmosis. The first 
principle is that you must not fool yourself-and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very 
careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be 
honest in a conventional way after that. I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but 
something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. 
... I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show 
how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility 
as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen. One example of the principle is this: If 
you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to 
publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument 
look good. We must publish both kinds of results." (Feynman, R.P., "Cargo Cult Science," in "`Surely You're 
Joking, Mr Feynman!': Adventures of a Curious Character," [1985], Unwin Paperbacks: London, Reprinted, 
1990, pp.341-343)

"Old World monkeys and apes, including man, possess, as a normal component of their cellular DNA, gene 
sequences (virogenes) related to the RNA of a virus isolated from baboons. A comparison of the viral gene 
sequences and the other cellular sequences distinguishes those Old World monkeys and apes that have 
evolved in Africa from those that have evolved in Asia. Among the apes, only gorilla and chimpanzee seem 
by these criteria to be African, whereas gibbon, orang-utan and man are identified as Asian, leading us to 
conclude that most of man's evolution has occurred outside Africa." (Benveniste, R.E. & Todaro, G.J., 
"Evolution of type C viral genes: evidence for an Asian origin of man," Nature, Vol. 261, 13 May 1976, 

"Life on Earth began about 3.5 billion years ago. At that point in the development of the Earth, the 
atmosphere was very different from what it is today. As opposed to the current atmosphere, which is mostly 
nitrogen and oxygen, the early Earth atmosphere contained mostly hydrogen, water, ammonia, and methane. 
In experiments, scientists have showed that the electrical discharges of lightning, radioactivity, and 
ultraviolet light caused the elements in the early Earth atmosphere to form the basic molecules of biological 
chemistry, such as nucleotides, simple proteins, and ATP. It seems likely, then, that the Earth was covered 
in a hot, thin soup of water and organic materials. Over time, the molecules became more complex and began 
to collaborate to run metabolic processes. Eventually, the first cells came into being. These cells were 
 heterotrophs , which could not produce their own food and instead fed on the organic material from the 
primordial soup. (These heterotrophs give this theory its name.) The anaerobic metabolic processes of the 
heterotrophs released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which allowed for the evolution of 
photosynthetic autotrophs , which could use light and CO2 to produce their own food. The autotrophs 
released oxygen into the atmosphere. For most of the original anaerobic heterotrophs, oxygen proved 
poisonous. The few heterotrophs that survived the change in environment generally evolved the capacity 
to carry out aerobic respiration. Over the subsequent billions of years, the aerobic autotrophs and 
heterotrophs became the dominant life-forms on the planet and evolved into all of the diversity of life now 
visible on Earth." ("Origin of Life: The Heterotroph Hypothesis," SparkNotes: SAT Subject Test: Biology, 
2006. Emphasis original)

"In saying that this system is atheistic, it is not said that Mr. Darwin is an atheist. He expressly 
acknowledges the existence of God; and seems to feel the necessity of his existence to account for the 
origin of life. Nor is it meant that every one who adopts the theory does it in an atheistic sense. It has 
already been remarked that there is a theistic and an atheistic form of the nebular hypothesis as to the origin 
of the universe; so there may be a theistic interpretation of the Darwinian theory. Men who, as the Duke of 
Argyle, carry the reign of law into everything, affirming that even creation is by law, may hold, as he does, 
that God uses everywhere and constantly physical laws, to produce not only the ordinary operations of 
nature, but to give rise to things specifically new, and therefore to new species in the vegetable and animal 
worlds. Such species would thus be as truly due to the purpose and power of God as though they had been 
created by a word. Natural laws are said to be to God what the chisel and the brush are to the artist. Then 
God is as much the author of species as the sculptor or painter is the author of the product of his skill. This 
is a theistic doctrine. That, however, is not Darwin's doctrine. His theory is that hundreds or thousands of 
millions of years ago God called a living germ, or living germs, into existence, and that since that time God 
has no more to do with the universe than if He did not exist. This is atheism to all intents and purposes, 
because it leaves the soul as entirely without God, without a Father, Helper, or Ruler, as the doctrine of 
Epicurus or of Comte. Darwin, moreover, obliterates all the evidences of the being of God in the world. He 
refers to physical causes what all theists believe to be due to the operations of the Divine mind. There is no 
more effectual way of getting rid of a truth than by rejecting the proofs on which it rests. Professor Huxley 
says that when he first read Darwin's book he regarded it as the death-blow of teleology, i.e., of the doctrine 
of design and purpose in nature. [Huxley, T.H., "Criticisms on `The Origin of Species'," in "Lectures and Lay 
Sermons," [1910], J.M. Dent & Co: London, Reprinted, 1926, p.100]" (Hodge, C., "Systematic Theology," 
[1892], James Clark & Co: London, Reprinted, 1960, Vol. II, p.16)

"It is singular how differently one and the same book will impress different minds. That which struck the 
present writer most forcibly on his first perusal of the "Origin of Species" was the conviction that Teleology, 
as commonly understood, had received its deathblow at Mr. Darwin's hands. For the teleological argument 
runs thus: an organ or organism (A) is precisely fitted to perform a function or purpose (B); therefore it was 
specially constructed to perform that function. In Paley's famous illustration, the adaptation of all the parts 
of the watch to the function, or purpose, of showing the time is held to be evidence that the watch was 
specially contrived to that end; on the ground, that the only cause we know of, competent to produce such 
an effect as a watch which shall keep time, is a contriving intelligence adapting the means directly to that 
end. Suppose, however, that any one had been able to show that the watch had not been made directly by 
any person, but that it was the result of the modification of another watch which kept time but poorly; and 
that this again had proceeded from a structure which could hardly be called a watch at all-seeing that it had 
no figures on the dial and the hands were rudimentary; and that going back and back in time we came at last 
to a revolving barrel as the earliest traceable rudiment of the whole fabric. And imagine that it had been 
possible to show that all these changes had resulted, first, from a tendency of the structure to vary 
indefinitely; and secondly, from something in the surrounding world which helped all variations in the 
direction of an accurate time-keeper, and checked all those in other directions; then it is obvious that the 
force of Paley's argument would be gone. For it would be demonstrated that an apparatus thoroughly well 
adapted to a particular purpose might be the result of a method of trial and error worked by unintelligent 
agents, as well as of the direct application of the means appropriate to that end, by an intelligent agent. Now 
it appears to us that what we have here, for illustration's sake, supposed to be done with the watch is exactly 
what the establishment of Darwin's Theory will do for the organic world." (Huxley, T.H., "Criticisms on `The 
Origin of Species'," in "Lectures and Lay Sermons," [1910], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Co: London, 
Reprinted, 1926, pp.100-101)

"CHARLES DARWIN provided biology with a very precious gift. He offered an explanation both for the 
vast diversity of living things that inhabit the Earth and for the inherent similarities among all that diversity. 
Natural selection, the preservation of those types best able to prosper in a particular set of circumstances, is 
the strong thread that unifies all biology. Competition, the inexorable struggle to survive, will see to it that 
anything that can gain a temporary respite from the struggle by exploiting a hitherto empty niche will 
prosper, and out of this comes the diversity of life. Descent, the moulding of a new type from variations on 
an old, will result in similarities that make sense of the diversity." (Cherfas, J., ed., "Foreword," in "Darwin 
Up to Date: A New Scientist Guide," IPC Magazines: London, 1983, p.4. Emphasis original)

"Darwin did not invent evolution. The facts of the matter were there for all to see, and many people did not 
accept the biblical fixity of species even before Darwin's time. What he invented was a theory that explained 
evolution. He replaced the benign intervention of a wise Designer with the blind operation of two supreme 
forces; variation and selection. In so doing, he changed the way people perceived their world." (Cherfas, J., 
ed., "Foreword," in "Darwin Up to Date: A New Scientist Guide," IPC Magazines: London, 1983, p.4)

"Darwin knew nothing about the machinery of inheritance, for Gregor Mendel's work had not been done 
when Darwin wrote The Origin and remained unknown until the beginning of the 20th century, and so his 
theory lacked a convincing mechanism. With the rediscovery of Mendel and the blossoming of genetics, 
natural selection gained the mechanism that had been missing. The Modern Synthesis brought genetics and 
population biology together to create neodarwinism, which provided natural selection with the means to 
bring about the ends that Darwin himself documented. The science seemed complete with the advent of 
neodarwinism." (Cherfas, J., ed., "Foreword," in "Darwin Up to Date: A New Scientist Guide," IPC 
Magazines: London, 1983, p.4)

"There remain, however, disagreements within biology about the details of Darwin's theory. These 
disagreements, evidence of a healthy science striving for a more complete understanding, have been seized 
upon by those who would deny all of Darwin and modern science. This book brings together articles culled 
from the pages of New Scientist to document the scientific debate. One thing is clear. Today, a hundred 
years after his death, the ideas of Charles Darwin remain the mortar that bind the bricks of biology."
(Cherfas, J., ed., "Foreword," in "Darwin Up to Date: A New Scientist Guide," IPC Magazines: London, 
1983, p.4)

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


Copyright © 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 this page would be appreciated.
Created: 23 December, 2006. Updated: 4 April, 2010.