[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [Quotes, Unclassified, Classified]
The following are unclassified quotes posted in my email messages in April-June, 2003.
The date format is dd/mm/yy. See copyright
conditions at end.
[January-March] [April, May, June] [July, August, September, October-December]
April
1/04/2003
"Experience has repeatedly shown that every time a doctrine acquires supporters enough to build up a power-
wielding hierarchy, the demands on discipline increase and the doctrine hardens into orthodoxy. This is what
happened with Neo-Mendelism [Neo-Darwinism] in the 1950s and 1960s ... fashion rules in biology. Dissenters
are frozen out, without regard to their ... merits." (Løvtrup, S., "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth," Croom
Helm: London, 1987, p.314. Parenthesis mine)
3/04/2003
"Another class of fossil evidence comes in individual stratomorphic intermediates. These are fossils that stand
intermediate between the group from which they are descendent and the one to which they are ancestral-both in
stratigraphic position and in morphology. They have a structure that stands between the structure of their
ancestors and that of their descendants. However, they are also found in the fossil record as younger than the
oldest fossils of the ancestral group and older than the oldest fossils of the descendent group. ... And examples
of stratomorphic intermediates do exist. Mammal-like reptiles stand between reptiles and mammals, both in the
position of their fossils and in the structure of their bones. The same can be said of the anthracosaurs, which
stand between amphibians and reptiles, and the phenacodontids, which stand between the horses and their
claimed ancestors. In like manner, some fossil genera are stratomorphic intermediates in the group in which they
are classified. They are the oldest fossils known in the group and most similar to the group from which they are
supposedly descendent. Examples include Pikaia, among the chordates, Archaeopteryx among the
birds, Baragwanathia among Lycopods, Ichthyostega among the amphibians, Purgatorius
among the primates, Pakicetus among the whales and Proconsul among the hominoids." (Wise,
K.P.*, "The Origin of Life's Major Groups," in Moreland, J.P., ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence
for an Intelligent Designer," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1994, pp.226-227)
3/04/2003
"Stratomorphic intermediate species and organismal groups should be a common feature of the fossil record ...
[but] the total list of claimed transitional forms is very small ... The frequency seems intuitively too low for
evolutionary theory." (Wise, K.P.*, "The Origin of Life's Major Groups," in Moreland, J.P., ed., "The Creation
Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 1994, pp.227-
228)
3/04/2003
"A serious problem with this argument for evolution is that whereas vestigial organs are known, nascent organs
are not. If evolution were true, one would expect to see not just organs "going out" but also organs "coming in."
These new organs would be called nascent organs. The absence of such organs would seem to argue that
although we have evidence of degeneration from an earlier, more optimal design, we lack evidence of a move
toward a new optimal design. It would seem that if an intelligent Designer created optimal designs in the past and
life's history has been a move away from that optimum, the presence of vestigial organs and the absence of
nascent organs would be better explained by intelligent design than by evolutionary theory." (Wise, K.P.*, "The
Origin of Life's Major Groups," in Moreland, J.P., ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an
Intelligent Designer," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1994, pp.222-223)
3/04/2003
"BIOLOGISTS adduce as strong evidence in support of the evolution doctrine the existence in organisms of
structures which they usually describe as rudimentary. If these were in reality rudimentary, that is to say, in a
nascent condition, in the course of being developed, their presence would indeed afford strong support to the
theory. Unfortunately for the doctrine, not one of these structures is rudimentary. Some of them are vestigial, that
is to say, organs in a state of degeneration. If the evolution doctrine was merely that many types have
degenerated since they were created or originated, then the presence of vestigial organs would afford strong
support to it. What the doctrine demands is not vestigial, but nascent organs, and the latter appear to be non-
existent. Such a state of affairs seems to strike at the root of the evolution doctrine. Better evidence of the
assertion that for the last fifty years biological textbooks bring to light only that which is favourable to evolution
and pass over unnoticed all that is unfavourable could scarcely be adduced than the fact that these volumes
contain many references to vestigial organs, but none to nascent organs." (Dewar D.*, "Difficulties of the
Evolution Theory," Edward Arnold & Co: London, 1931, p.24)
3/04/2003
"I asserted (D. p. 24) that the theory of evolution requires for its proof, not vestigial, but nascent organs, because
the existence of useless vestiges merely shows that animals may lose organs. I wrote: "although the anatomy of
thousands of species has been carefully studied, it is impossible to adduce a single structure in any species
which is indubitably or even probably in a nascent condition." This is clearly a very great difficulty of the
evolution theory, I might almost say a fatal one. ... According to the evolution theory all multicellular animals are
derived from one-celled ancestors, which exhibit nothing that can he called an organ in the strict sense. Consider
now the vast number of organs and structures which are supposed to have evolved in the descendants of these
organ-less ancestors; every differentiated cell, bone, cartilage, muscle, tendon, nerve, blood vessel, ganglion,
hair, feather, scale, spine, shell, spur, antler, horn, hoof, claw, nail, tooth, tusk, antenna, appendage, every internal
organ from the blood corpuscles to the stomach and liver. Every type of each of the above organs, according to
the evolution theory, must have at one time existed in a nascent condition. Now consider the, million or so
existing species of animals all of which are supposed to be in a state of flux, evolving. If these species be really
evolving, the majority of them ought to exhibit nascent structures in all states of completion, from unrecognisable
excrescences to structures almost ready for use. Not a single one seems to exist!" (Dewar D.*, "More Difficulties
of the Evolution Theory: And a reply to "Evolution and Its Modern Critics," Thynne & Co: London, 1938, pp.51-
52)
3/04/2003
"The specter of eugenics hovers over virtually all contemporary developments in human genetics. Eugenics was
rooted in the social Darwinism of the late 19th century, a period in which notions of fitness, competition, and
biological rationalizations of inequality were popular. At the time, a growing number of theorists introduced
Darwinian analogies of `survival of the fittest' into social argument. Many social Darwinists insisted that biology
was destiny, at least for the unfit, and that a broad spectrum of socially deleterious traits, ranging from
`pauperism' to mental illness, resulted from heredity. The word `eugenics' was coined in 1883 by the English
scientist Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, to promote the ideal of perfecting the human race by, as he
put it, getting rid of its `undesirables' while multiplying its `desirables' -- that is, by encouraging the procreation
of the social Darwinian fit and discouraging that of the unfit. In Galton's day, the science of genetics was not yet
understood. Nevertheless, Darwin's theory of evolution taught that species did change as a result of natural
selection, and it was well known that by artificial selection a farmer could obtain permanent breeds of plants and
animals strong in particular characteristics. Galton wondered, `Could not the race of men be similarly improved?'"
(Kevles D., "In the Name of Darwin," PBS Evolution, 2001)
4/04/2003
"This volume is meant for three kinds of readers. First and foremost, it is written for anyone, biologist or not, who
simply wants to know more about evolution. Such a reader is quite aware how important this process is but does
not understand exactly how it works and how one can answer some of the attacks against the Darwinian
interpretation. The second group of readers consists of those who accept evolution, but are in doubt whether the
Darwinian explanation is the correct one. I hope to answer all the questions this kind of reader is apt to ask. And
finally, my account is directed to those creationists who want to know more about the current paradigm of
evolutionary science, if for no other reason than to be able to better argue against it. I do not expect to convert
this kind of reader, but I want to show him or her how powerful the evidence is that induces the evolutionary
biologist to disagree with the account presented in Genesis." (Mayr, E.W., "What Evolution Is," Basic Books: New
York, 2001, p.xiii-xiv)
4/04/2003
"The Drosophila gene eyeless (ey) encodes a transcription factor With both a paired domain and a
homeodomain. It is homologous to the mouse Small eye (Pax-6) gene and to Aniridia gene in humans. These
genes share extensive sequence identity, the position of three intron splice sites is conserved, and these genes
are expressed similarly in the developing nervous system and in the eye during morphogenesis. Loss-of-function
mutations in both the insect and in the mammalian genes have been shown to lead to a reduction or absence of
eye structures, which suggests that ey functions in eye morphogenesis. By targeted expression of the ey
complementary DNA in various imaginal disc primordia of Drosophila, ectopic eye structures were induced on
the wings, the legs, and on the antennae. The ectopic eyes appeared morphologically normal and consisted of
groups of fully differentiated ommatidia with a complete set of photoreceptor cells. These results support the
proposition that ey is the master control gene for eye morphogenesis. Because homologous genes are present in
vertebrates, ascidians, insects, cephalopods, and nemerteans, ey may function as a master control gene
throughout the metazoa." (Halder G., Callaerts P. & Gehring W.J., "Induction of Ectopic Eyes by Targeted
Expression of the eyeless Gene in Drosophila," Science, Vol. 267, 1988, pp.1788-1792, p.1788)
4/04/2003
"Pax6 is a perplexing gene with a fundamental role in eye development in a wide range of bilaterian animals. The
puzzling thing is that the eyes of all of these animals are entirely different: the compound eyes of flies, eyespots
of flatworms, and lens eyes of vertebrates cannot be considered homologous in the usual sense. Yet Pax6 is
expressed in the early development of all of them, and the functional domains are so highly conserved that
mouse Pax6 can induce eye formation in Drosophila - and not only in the usual place. Expression of Pax6 (either
the fly gene or its mouse homolog) can turn on eye formation throughout a Drosophila embryo, resulting in flies
with eyes on their wings, legs or antennae. Homeotic mutants such as these, where a whole structure is induced
to develop in a novel location, have played a key role in the hypothesis that body plans in animals arose by
discreet (and potentially very rapid) evolutionary processes, rather than by the slow plodding of classic
darwinian gradualism." (Bromham, L., "Searching for Pax in hydromedusa," Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol.
17, No. 1, 1 January 2002, pp.11-12)
4/04/2003
"BECAUSE their construction is so different scientists have always assumed that the multifaceted compound
eye of flies and the single lens eye of vertebrates evolved independently. However, this belief has now been
challenged Rebecca Quiring and Uwe Walldorf at the University of Basel have found tantalising evidence that
both types of eye evolved from a common organ. Over hundreds of millions of years, flies and vertebrates have
retained the same genetic master switch for eye development. The gene in question is called Pax-6; one of a
family that ensures that parts of the body emerge at the right time and place in growing embryos. ... The Swiss
group has also found DNA sequences similar to Pax-6 in flatworms, which are among the most primitive of
animals to have eyes. Flatworms are blessed with just two featureless patches of photosensitive cells, called
eyespots. If Pax-6 tums out to be crucial in forming these simple organs that distinguish between light and shade,
Walldorf and his colleagues say that scientists must rethink the dogma that eyes of invertebrates and vertebrates
evolved completely independently." (Luck-Baker, A., "DNA Evidence of Ancestral Age," New Scientist, 10
September 1994, p.15)
4/04/2003
"Several years ago, Walter J. Gehring of the University of Basel in Switzerland was working on a zoology
textbook. When it came time to write a section that dealt with the evolution of eyes, Gehring unhesitatingly
recited the traditional view that eyes had evolved independently dozens of times. For the next edition, he'll pen a
different scenario. The discovery of a gene shared by fruit flies, mice, squid, and humans and the creation of
unusual fruit flies that sprout eyelike structures in places such as wings, legs, and antennae have persuaded
Gehring that all modern animals with eyes evolved from a common ancestor that possessed a primitive image-
forming organ. In essence, he contends that the eye probably evolved just once in life's evolutionary history--an
assertion not everyone is willing to accept. ... While image-forming eyes are commonplace, no one design for
eyes dominates. Scientists have described almost a dozen distinct blueprints, from the alien-seeming compound
eyes of insects and many other species to the cameralike single eyes of vertebrates like us. The exotic
appearance of the compound insect eye, with its hundreds of miniature eyes called ommatidia, helps explain why
scientists have assumed that it evolved independently of the vertebrate eye. ... In 1977, L. Von Salvini-Plawen
and Ernst Mayr, both of Harvard University, placed this conventional wisdom solidly on the record when they
published a landmark paper concluding that eyes had arisen independently at least several dozen times. That's
where the story of eye evolution stood until 1993. ... Gehring was surprised that the fly gene was so similar to the
two vertebrate genes, but the real astonishment came when he realized that the insect gene also plays a role in
eye development. ... Gehring likes to call eyeless a `master control gene' for eye development, one that sits at the
top of the network of genes, estimated at more than 2,000, used to form eyes. `It's like the main electrical switch in
a building. You turn on the main switch and all the lights can go on,' explains Gehring. ... Even more controversial
than Gehring's calling eyeless the master control gene for eye development is his belief that its discovery in
several disparate species shatters the dogma that eyes evolved independently on many occasions. `We now
think that this event happened only once,' asserts Gehring. ... As for Gehring, he's already confident enough in
his interpretation that eyes probably developed just once that he has begun to plan how he should revise his
textbook's section on eye evolution." (Travis, J., "Eye-opening gene: how many times did eyes arise?,"
Science News, May 10, 1997)
4/04/2003
"The Pax-6 story tells us that there has been just one origin and one evolutionary line of progression, from the
earliest patches of light-sensitive cells to the variety of advanced eye-forms around us. This unavoidable
conclusion, Charles, goes against a hundred years of insistence that the widely different structures and
operations of eyes (eye cup, pinhole, camera-type with single lens, mirror and compound) arose independently,
at least forty and maybe up to sixty-five times." (Dover, G.A., "Dear Mr Darwin: Letters on the Evolution of Life
and Human Nature," [1999], University of California Press: Berkeley CA, 2000, reprint, p.172)
5/04/2003
"Photosensitive, eyelike organs have developed in the animal series independently at least 40 times, and all the
steps from a light-sensitive spot to the elaborate eyes of vertebrates, cephalopods, and insects are still found in
living species of various taxa. They include intermediate stages and refute the claim that the gradual evolution of
a complex eye is unthinkable (Salvini-Plawen and Mayr 1977). Most photosensitive organs of the invertebrates
lack the perfection of the eyes of vertebrates, cephalopods, and insects, but their origin and subsequent
evolution were nevertheless helped by natural selection. As long as a variant was superior, it was favored, with
multiple slight advantages reinforcing each other." (Mayr, E.W., "What Evolution Is," Basic Books: New York, 2001,
p.205)
5/04/2003
"Consider Darwin's treatment of the evolution of vertebrate lungs and their relationship with the swim bladders
of bony fishes-an example that Darwin obviously viewed as important to his general argument because he
repeats the story half a dozen times in the Origin. Darwin begins by noting, correctly, that the lung and
swim bladder are homologous organs-different versions of the same basic structure, just as a bat's wing and a
horse's foreleg share a common origin indicated by the similar arrangement of bones in body parts that now work
in such different ways. But Darwin then draws a false inference from the fact of homology. He claims, with
increasing confidence ending in certainty, that lungs evolved from swim bladders: `All physiologists admit that
the swim bladder is homologous...in position and structure with the lungs of the higher vertebrate animals; hence
there seems to me to be no great difficulty in believing that natural selection has actually converted a swim
bladder into a lung, or organ used exclusively for respiration. I can, indeed, hardly doubt that all vertebrate
animals having true lungs have descended by ordinary generation from an ancient prototype, of which we know
nothing, furnished with a floating apparatus or swim bladder.'" (Darwin C., "The Origin of Species," [1872], 6th
edition, Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 1967, reprint, p171) Many readers will be puzzled at this
point, as I have perplexed several generations of students by presenting the argument in this form. What can be
wrong with Darwin's claim? The two organs are homologous, right? Right. Terrestrial vertebrates evolved from
fishes, right? Yes again. So lungs must have evolved from swim bladders, right? Wrong, dead wrong. Swim
bladders evolved from lungs." (Gould, S.J., "Full of Hot Air," in "Eight Little Piggies: Reflections in Natural
History," Jonathan Cape: London, 1993, pp.111-112)
5/04/2003
"Some of the most astonishing fossil discoveries of recent years are not as old as scientists had thought, new
research reveals. Many of the best fossil specimens have been unearthed in the Liaoning province in China.
These include the 'feathered' dinosaurs Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx
and Beipiaosaurus, birds such as Confuciusornis, primitive mammals, what is thought to be the
oldest flowering plant, and a wide range of other animals and plants. They were all pulled from ancient lake beds,
from rocks in what is known as the Yixian Formation. Scientists had estimated the diverse fauna found in these
sediments to be from the late Jurassic period - about 140 million years ago. Now, after the application of new
dating methods, it appears the sediments are from the Cretaceous period, 20 million years later than the previous
estimates. ... Accurate dating is important because it will help answer some of the big questions in evolutionary
biology, such as the timing of the origin of birds and flowering plants, and the relationship of birds to dinosaurs.
`Probably no other story has created so much attention in the last couple of years as the feathered dinosaurs or
the world's oldest flowering plant or some other aspect of this fauna from China,' says Carl Swisher III, of the
Berkeley Geochronology Center in California, and lead author of the new research published in the journal
Nature. `Most people thought it was quite old but these dates directly associated with the fauna suggest it is not
as old as originally thought.' Swisher and his colleagues worked out the new dates by measuring the ratio of
isotopes - different versions of the same atom - in a mineral found in volcanic ash." ("Twenty million years out,"
BBC Sci/Tech, July 1, 1999)
5/04/2003
"Fossils of feathered dinosaurs and flowering plants, considered an extremely important discovery when they
were unearthed in the Liaoning province in China, are not as old as scientists had thought, researchers said
Wednesday. The discovery of fossil remains of species with distinctive feathers and dinosaur features and the
world's oldest flowering plant in China were among the biggest finds in recent years. Scientists had estimated the
diverse fauna found in ancient lake beds in Liaoning province were from the late Jurassic period - about 140
million years ago. But new dating methods, published in the science journal Nature, of sediment in which the
fossils were found, puts them in the Cretaceous period, 20 million years later than previous estimates. `Probably
no other story has created so much attention in the last couple of years as the feathered dinosaurs or the world's
oldest flowering plant or some other aspect of this fauna from China,' Carl Swisher III, of the Berkeley
Geochronology Center in California, said in a telephone interview. `Most people thought it was quite old but
these dates directly associated with the fauna suggest it is not as old as originally thought.' Swisher and his
colleagues based their dates on measurements taken from a mineral found in volcanic ash used in dating isotopic
age. In addition to accurately dating Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx, two species found in
Liaoning that represent a link between dinosaurs and birds, the research sheds new light on plant and animal
evolution." ("Research Suggests Feathered Dinosaurs Are Not So Old," The New York Times, July 1, 1999)
5/04/2003
"The ancient lake beds of the lower part of the Yixian Formation, Liaoning Province, northeastern China, have
yielded a wide rangeof well-preserved fossils: the 'feathered' dinosaurs Sinosauropteryx,
Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx, the primitive birds Confuciusornis and
Liaoningornis, the mammal Zhangheotherium and the reportedly oldest flowering plant,
Archaefructus. Equally well preserved in the lake beds are a wide range of fossil plants, insects, bivalves,
conchostracans, ostracods, gastropods, fish, salamanders, turtles, lizards, the frog Callobatrachus and
the pterosaur Eosipterus. This uniquely preserved assemblage of fossils is providing newinsight into
long-lived controversies over bird-dinosaur relationships,, the early diversification of birds,, and the origin and
evolution of flowering plants. Despite the importance of this fossil assemblage, estimates of its geological age
have varied widely from the Late Jurassic to the Early Cretaceous. Here we present the first 40Ar/39Ar dates
unambiguously associated with the main fossil horizons of the lower part of the Yixian Formation, and thus, for
the first time, provide accurate age calibration of this important fauna. The results of this dating study indicate
that the lower Yixian fossil horizons are not Jurassic but rather are at least 20 Myr younger, placing them within
middle Early Cretaceous time." (Swisher C.C., et al., "Cretaceous age for the feathered dinosaurs of Liaoning,
China," Nature, Vol. 400, 1 July 1999, pp.58 - 61)
5/04/2003
"A favorite example of those trying to find evidence of self-organization is the human eye. So exquisitely
designed, with its adjustable lens and iris, with its retina capable of rendering images better than any camera-the
eye surely could not have developed from the blind meanderings of evolution. Or so it seems to Darwin's critics.
The eighteenth-century theologian William Paley considered the eye and other precisely engineered organs as
proof of an intelligent creator. But, again, one doesn't have to be a creationist to have difficulty accepting that
eyes arose purely from random variation and selection. As Brian Goodwin recalled at the conference in Santa Fe,
even Darwin said that every time he looked at the vertebrate eye his blood ran cold. Imagining the millions of tiny
experiments that led to the honing of animal vision taxed his credulity." (Johnson G., "Fire in the Mind: Science,
Faith, and the Search for Order," [1995], Penguin Books: London, 1997, pp.267-268)
5/04/2003
"The Darwinists respond with the familiar reminder that our brains are simply not wired to conceive of vast,
geological time. Accept that our own lives, and the brief lifespan of modern science, are but twinkles, barely
discernible against the backdrop of the eons, and one can put together a plausible scenario. We find in the world
today single-celled creatures with a light-sensitive patch that acts as a primitive eye. Shielded on one side by an
opaque pigment, it allows the creature to orient itself toward light. Imagine that clusters of these light-sensitive
cells joined to form a retina in a primitive organism. With this crude photodetector in place, evolution would hone
it, increment by increment, into a fully functioning eye. Suppose that a random variation caused the light-
sensitive cells to become slightly recessed; this might provide a limited amount of protection for the eye and
allow for better directionality. Creatures with this mutation could tell not only whether a light was somewhere in
front of them, but roughly where it was. Because of this slight survival advantage, they would spread themselves
more widely than the others until most of the population had slightly recessed eyes. Now among some of these
creatures, random variation might make the recession a little deeper, and so we pull this more visually acute
subset from the pool and let it multiply. Again a random variation might cause an even deeper recession among
these members, and so on, until we have creatures with light-sensitive cells at the bottom of a deep cup. Now
imagine a variation, or series of variations, that causes the cup to narrow at the top, the smaller and smaller
opening providing sharper and sharper focus, greater visual acuity. At this point, a random variation that led to a
transparent covering over the pinhole would put the species on the road to making a lens. Still other variations
would lead to the musculature allowing the creature to flex and change the focus of the lens for different
distances; others would lead to the honing of the iris, allowing creatures to operate in different levels of light.
There is, of course, little real evidence for this explanation it is an evolutionary Just so story. How persuasive it is
depends on the taste of the listener and the rhetorical skills of the storyteller. As presented by one of
Darwinism's most eloquent explicators, Richard Dawkins, in his book The Blind Watchmaker, the story of
the eye sounds utterly compelling. Evolution is pulled toward making eyes through millions of incremental steps
each offering a slight advantage. Without a way to test these hypotheses, however, they strike some biologists,
like Brian Goodwin, as not very scientific. Even if you invoke vast geologic time, the series of fortuitous
mutations leading to an eye, a kidney, or a brain seem too good to be true." (Johnson G., "Fire in the Mind:
Science, Faith, and the Search for Order," [1995], Penguin Books: London, 1997, pp.268-269)
5/04/2003
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis.
Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking
much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden
appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it
appears all at once and `fully formed.'" (Gould, S.J., "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, May
1977, p.14).
9/04/2003
"SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF Darwin on Trial, friends have been sending me copies of a newsletter
called BASIS, mainly because it often has something unfavorable to say about me. BASIS is
published by an organization calling itself the San Francisco Bay Area Skeptics. As you can imagine, these
Skeptics do not encourage people to be skeptical about doctrines of the rationalist faith like atheism, materialism,
and Darwinian evolution." (Johnson P.E.*, "Darwinism and Theism," in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism:
Science or Philosophy?," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, 1994, p.42)
10/04/2003
"If evolutionary biologists can discover or construct detailed, testable, indirect Darwinian pathways that account
for the emergence of irreducibly and minimally complex biological systems like the bacterial flagellum, then more
power to them -- intelligent design will quickly pass into oblivion. But until that happens, the eliminative
induction that attributes specified complexity to the bacterial flagellum constitutes a legitimate scientific
inference. The only way to deny its legitimacy is by appealing to some form of apriorism. The apriorism of choice
these days is, of course, naturalism. And that apriorism engenders an argument not just of ignorance but of
invincible ignorance. Indeed, any specified complexity (and therefore design) that might actually be present in
biological systems becomes invisible as soon as one consents to this apriorism. If biological systems actually are
designed, not only won't Van Till see it but he can't see it. This is invincible ignorance." (Dembski, W.A.*,
"Naturalism's Argument from Invincible Ignorance: A Response to Howard Van Till," International Society
for Complexity, Information, and Design, September 7, 2002)
10/04/2003
"The most fit genotype in a population is, by definition, the one that on the average produces the most offspring
in a given generation. Fitness in this technical sense, sometimes called Darwinian fitness, is a quite different
thing from fitness as it is used in everyday language. It boils down to the proportional contribution of an
individual's genes to posterity-that is, how well it reproduces relative to other individuals in the population. A six
foot five inch, supremely healthy, sublimely hand some, childless twenty-two- year-old man who has had a
vasectomy is not usually as fit in the Darwinian sense as a misshapen, diseased man who has sired a healthy
child." (Ehrlich P.R., "The Machinery of Nature," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1986, p.63).
10/04/2003
"Have we really answered all the questions; or is there something peculiarly attractive, almost like a Kipling `Just
So' story, about natural selection? The range of ideas and the possibilities which they cover are so extensive that
it is in a sense a bit deceptive. Perhaps, after all, there is still a veil of mist hanging over this seemingly sharp,
clearly defined landscape." (Eiseley L.C., "Introduction to the Conference," in Moorhead P.S. & Kaplan M.M.,
ed., "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution: A Symposium Held at the
Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, April 25 and 26, 1966," The Wistar Institute Symposium Monograph
Number 5, The Wistar Institute Press: Philadelphia PA, 1967, p.3)
10/04/2003
"The reason for Darwin's apprehension was that many had pointed out that among all the 'adaptations'
encountered in the animal kingdom there is one which less than any other lends itself to the micromutation
interpretation: the vertebrate - and the cephalopod - eye. And therefore Darwin felt obliged to account for
origination of the eye in this section: `To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances ... could have
been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said
that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false;
but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ... cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if
numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist ... it is
indispensable that the reason should conquer the imagination ..." (Darwin C.R., "Origin of Species," 6th edition,
pp.143-146). ... I do not think that his 'facts' ever convinced any of his opponents, which are dismissed as 'vox
populi', as opposed to his own `vox Dei'." (Løvtrup S., "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth," Croom
Helm: London, 1987, pp.129-130)
10/04/2003
"Pinker's approach is straightforwardly mechanistic. If you regard "the mind" as a machine, you can apply the
technique used by engineers to discover how a rival firm has built its equipment- so-called reverse engineering.
The trouble with reverse engineering `the mind' is that we have to agree what this ambiguous term means. Also-
unlike with any human artefact-when we have constructed a story about how the mind might have arisen, we
have no way of testing it out. Evolutionary stories are, almost by definition, Just So stories, like Rudyard
Kipling's explanation of how the elephant got its trunk." (Rose S., "Maybe I'm a machine," review of "How the
Mind Works," by Steven Pinker, New Scientist, 24 January 1998, pp.42-43)
10/04/2003
"As organizer of a symposium in London on adaptation, I invited Lewontin, as a well-known critic of naive
adaptationist arguments, to contribute. ... I ... suggested that he write a joint paper with Gould, which Gould
would present. The result was the now-famous paper entitled `Spandrels. of San Marco.' Its thesis is that many
structures in the animal world are not adapted for any function, but, like the spandrels of San Marco, are
accidental and unselected consequences of something else. Further, they argued, many adaptive explanations
are `Just So Stories,' unsupported by evidence. By and large, I think their paper had a healthy effect. There are
plenty of bad adaptive stories: we can all laugh at the suggestion that flamingos are pink because it camouflages
them against the sunset. Their critique forced us to clean up our act and to provide evidence for our stories."
(Maynard Smith J., "Genes, Memes, & Minds." Review of Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings
of Life by Daniel C. Dennett. Simon and Schuster. The New York Review of Books, Vol. XLII, No. 19, November
30, 1995, pp.46-48, p.47)
10/04/2003
"Yet Gould was perhaps at his best when on the attack. He warred relentlessly against what he viewed as bad
science. ... The first was sociobiology and its stepchild evolutionary psychology, and their often soaring
speculations on the evolutionary basis of human culture. Gould charged the champions of these creeds with
both a vulgar hereditarianism (they were given to saying things like "Consider a gene for gathering behavior in
women"-even when no such gene has ever been found) and an addiction to untestable Just So stories
("Gathering behavior is favorable because ..."). He went on to argue that all such `adaptationist' tales ignore the
possibility that some features of animals and plants are simply by- products of how organisms are built, not the
direct, designed products of natural selection." (Orr H.A., "The Descent of Gould," The New Yorker,
September 25, 2002)
11/04/2003
"The teleological argument moves from design to a Designer. Forms of the teleological argument can be found in
early Greek philosophy. ... One of the most popular forms of the argument was given by William Paley (1743-
1805), the archdeacon of Carlisle. Paley insisted that if one found a watch in an empty field, one would rightly
conclude that it had a watchmaker because of its obvious design. Likewise, when one looks at the even more
complex design of the world in which we live, one cannot but conclude that there is a great Designer behind it.
Let us put the argument in summary form (ibid.). 1. A watch shows that it was put together for an intelligent
purpose (to keep time): (a) It has a spring to give it motion. (b) It has a series of wheels to transmit this motion. (c)
The wheels are made of brass so that they do not rust. (d) The spring is made of steel because of the resilience of
that metal. (e) The front cover is of glass so that one can see through it. 2. The world shows an even greater
evidence of design than a watch: (a) The world is a greater work of art than a watch. (b) The world has more
subtle and complex design than a watch. (c) The world has an endless variety of means adapted to ends. 3.
Therefore, if the existence of a watch implies a watchmaker, the existence of the world implies an even greater
intelligent Designer (God)." (Geisler N.L.*, "Teleological Argument," in "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian
Apologetics," Baker Books: Grand Rapids MI, 1999, pp.714-715)
12/04/2003
"Paley's arguments for God and for Christianity still provide the backbone for much of contemporary apologetics.
The only major difference is that we now have much more `meat' to put on the skeleton. With the discovery of
evidence for an origin of the universe (see BIG BANG), Hume's infinite time has been scientifically eliminated.
With the discovery of the anthropic principle it is evident that there is only one supernatural Mind behind the
universe from the moment of its inception. Microbiology, with the incredible complexity of the DNA molecule
(see EVOLUTION, CHEMICAL) adds dimensions of specified complexity and intelligent contrivance to Paley's
argument that he never could have imagined." (Geisler N.L.*, "Paley, William," in "Baker Encyclopedia of
Christian Apologetics," Baker Books: Grand Rapids MI, 1999, pp.575-576)
12/04/2003
"An updated version of Paley's argument might go something like this: In crossing a valley, suppose I come
upon a round stratified stone and were asked how it came to be such. I might plausibly answer that it was once
laid down by water in layers which later solidified by chemical action. One day it broke from a larger section of
rock and was subsequently rounded by the natural erosion processes of tumbling in water. I come upon Mount
Rushmore with its granite forms of four human faces. Here are obvious signs of intelligent production, not the
result of natural processes. Yet why should a natural cause serve for the stone but not for the faces? When we
inspect the faces on the mountain we perceive what we could not discover in the stone-that they manifest
intelligent contrivance. They convey specifically complex information. The stone, on the other hand, has
redundant patterns or strata easily explainable by the observed process of sedimentation. But the faces have
sharply defined, complex features. Experience leads us to conclude that such shapes only occur when made by
intelligent artisans (see Geisler, Origin Science, 159)." (Geisler N.L.*, "Paley, William" in "Baker Encyclopedia of
Christian Apologetics," Baker Books: Grand Rapids MI, 1999, p.575)
12/04/2003
"But exactly where, we may ask, was Paley refuted? Who has answered his argument? How was the watch
produced without an intelligent designer? It is surprising but true that the main argument of the discredited
Paley has actually never been refuted. Neither Darwin nor Dawkins, neither science nor philosophy, has
explained how an irreducibly complex system such as a watch might be produced without designer. Instead
Paley's argument has been sidetracked by attacks or its injudicious examples and off-the-point theological
discussions. Paley, of course, is to blame for not framing his argument more tightly. But many of Paley's
detractors are also to blame for refusing to engage his main point, playing dumb in order to reach a more
palatable conclusion." (Behe, M.J.*, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," [1996],
Free Press: New York NY, 10th Anniversary Edition, 2006, p.213)
12/04/2003
"It may be that some things are so highly unusual and coincidental that, when viewed in connection with the
moral or theological context in which they occurred, the label `miracle' is the most appropriate one for the
happening. Let us call this kind of supernaturally guided event a second class miracle, that is, one whose natural
process can be described scientifically (and perhaps even reduplicated by humanly controlled natural means) but
whose end product in the total picture is best explained by invoking the supernatural. Providing that the theist
can offer some good reasons (by virtue of the moral or theological context of the event) for not accepting a
purely natural explanation, then there is no reason to rule out the evidential value of such unusual natural
events." (Geisler N.L., "Christian Apologetics," [1976], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Ninth Printing, 1995, p.277)
13/04/2003
"Several years ago I had my deposition taken by an ACLU lawyer in preparation for the trial dealing with the
Louisiana law requiring balanced treatment of creation and evolution in public schools. ... The attorney's second
question indicated that my belief that a supernatural cause is required to explain the origin of life cannot be
scientific, since it is not falsifiable. I responded that one may easily falsify my hypothesis of a supernatural origin
of life by running a successful prebiotic simulation experiment in which a simple living system is assembled,
under conditions which meaningfully simulate the early earth's biosphere, without undue investigator
interference. Although such an experiment would not prove this was the actual biochemical path taken originally
it would demonstrate that natural processes can produce the required complexity for a simple living system.
However, falsifying a belief in a naturalistic origin of life is far more difficult, I explained, because an unsuccessful
experiment proves only that a given pathway would not work. But an infinite number of pathways could be
proposed." (Bradley W.L.*, "Foreword," in Geisler N.L.* & Anderson J.K.*, "Origin Science: A Proposal for the
Creation-Evolution Controversy," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1987, pp.7-8).
13/04/2003
"I would like to add in this connection that I think we forget at times that even almost to the end, Charles Darwin
was also troubled, I suspect, in the back of his mind by some of these very problems that still concern us. He
used to say that the intricacies of the human eye gave him cold shudders. In connection with some of these
obscure problems of related mutations, or variations that have to be related almost from the beginning in order to
be effective, he was not as confident in some of his expressions as the neo- Darwinists." (Eiseley L.C.,
"Introduction to the Conference," in Moorhead P.S. & Kaplan M.M., ed., "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-
Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution: A Symposium Held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, April
25 and 26, 1966," The Wistar Institute Symposium Monograph Number 5, The Wistar Institute Press:
Philadelphia PA, 1967, p.3).
13/04/2003
"An alternative to assuming an ensemble of universes in time is to suppose that there is only one universe,
which is infinite in spatial extent. Almost all of the cosmos would be close to equilibrium (no structure or
organization) but, here and there, oases of order would appear spontaneously out of the chaos, by chance
fluctuations. The distances between the oases would be inconceivably great, of course but life and conscious
observers could only form within an oasis, so all observers of this universe would necessarily perceive order. ...
This pattern of reasoning-that observers select a highly atypical universe from among a vast number of
alternatives-is known as the weak anthropic principle. The idea has been attacked on a number of philosophical
and physical grounds. First it is, in a sense, too successful. By allowing nature to realize all possibilities,
anything at all might be 'explained'. Indeed, we might need no science at all. It is merely necessary to make a case
that such-and-such a feature is indispensible to human existence and, hey presto, it is explained." (Davies
P.C.W., "God and the New Physics," [1983], Penguin: London, 1990, reprint, pp.172-173).
14/04/2003
"Viruses are subcellular parasites that are incapable of a free living existence but that invade and infect cells and
redirect their host's synthetic machinery toward the production of more viruses. Viruses cannot carry on all of the
functions required for independent existence and must therefore depend for most of their needs on the cells they
invade. ... Despite their morphological diversity, viruses are chemically quite simple. Most viruses consist of little
more than a coat (or capsid) of protein surrounding a core that contains one or more molecules of either RNA or
DNA, depending on the type of virus. ... The question is sometimes asked whether or not viruses are living. The
answer depends crucially on what we mean by `living' ... The most fundamental properties of living things are
metabolism (cellular reactions organized into coherent pathways), irritability (perception of, and response to,
environmental stimuli), and the ability to reproduce. Viruses clearly do not satisfy the first two criteria. Outside
their host cells, viruses are inert and inactive. They can, in fact, be isolated and crystallized almost like a chemical
compound. It is only in an appropriate host cell that a virus becomes functional, undergoing a cycle of synthesis
and assembly that gives rise to more viruses. Even the ability of viruses to reproduce has to be qualified
carefully. A basic tenet of the cell theory is that cells arise only from preexisting cells, but this is not true of
viruses. No virus can give rise to another virus by any sort of self-duplication process. Rather, the virus must
subvert the metabolic and genetic machinery of the host cell, reprogramming it for synthesis of the proteins
necessary to package the DNA or RNA molecules that arise by copying the genetic information of the parent
virus. It is only in a genetic sense that one can think of viruses as living at all. Another fundamental property of
living things is the capability of specifying and directing the genetic composition of progeny-an ability that
viruses clearly possess. It is probably most helpful to think of viruses as `quasi-living,' satisfying part but not all
of the basic definition of life." (Becker W.M., Kleinsmith L.J. & Hardin J., [1986], "The World of the Cell,"
Benjamin/Cummings: San Francisco CA, Fourth Edition, 2000, pp.102-103)
14/04/2003
"Darwin's argument certainly seems logical. Is there any evidence that Darwin was right? Can nature select as
well as man? Answer: There is considerable evidence that Darwin was indeed correct about natural selection.
Perhaps the best example of Darwinian selection is the one that's in all the biology textbooks: the peppered
moths. ... Well, the peppered moths do seem to provide strong evidence of natural selection. But is that evidence
of evolution? Notice I've changed the question. That's a key point. First I asked if there was any evidence that
Darwin was correct about natural selection. The answer quite simply, is, `Yes, there is.' But now I'm asking a
radically different question, `Is there any evidence for evolution?' Many people say, `Isn't that the same
question? Aren't natural selection and evolution the same thing?' Answer: NO, absolutely not." (Morris H.M.* &
Parker G.E.*, "What is Creation Science?," [1982], Master Books: El Cajon CA, Revised, 1987, pp.78-81. Emphasis
in original)
14/04/2003
"According to creationists, natural selection is just one of the processes that operate in our present world to
insure that the created types can indeed spread throughout the earth in all its ecologic and geographic variety.
As a matter of fact, 24 years before Darwin's publication, a scientist named Edward Blyth published the concept
of natural selection in the context of creation. He saw it as a process that adapted varieties of the created types to
changing environments. A book reviewer once asked, rather naively, if creationists could accept the concept of
natural selection. The answer is, `Of course. We thought of it first' (See Leslie, 1984). But if natural
selection is such a profound idea, and Blyth published it before Darwin, then why isn't Blyth's name a household
word? Perhaps because he was a creationist. It was not principally the scientific applications of natural selection
that attracted attention in 1859; it was its presumed philosophic and religious implications. Evolutionists were not
content to treat natural selection as simply an observable ecological process." (Morris H.M.* & Parker G.E.*,
"What is Creation Science?," [1982], Master Books: El Cajon CA, Revised, 1987, p.82. Emphasis original)
14/04/2003
"Another weakness of the anthropic argument is that it seems the very antithesis of Occam's razor, according to
which the most plausible of a possible set of explanations is that which contains the simplest ideas and least
number of assumptions. To invoke an infinity of other universes just to explain one is surely carrying excess
baggage to cosmic extremes, not to mention the fact that all but a minute proportion of these other universes go
unobserved (except by God perhaps)." (Davies P.C.W., "God and the New Physics," [1983], Penguin: London,
1990, reprint, p.173)" (Davies P.C.W., "God and the New Physics," [1983], Penguin: London, 1990, reprint, p.173)
14/04/2003
"G.K. Chesterton once said that `behind every double standard lies a single hidden agenda'. Advocates of
descent have used demarcation arguments to erect double standards against design, suggesting that the real
methodological criterion they have in mind is naturalism. Of course for many the equation of science with the
strictly materialistic or naturalistic is not at all a hidden agenda. Scientists generally treat `naturalistic' as perhaps
the most important feature of their enterprise. Clearly, if naturalism is regarded as a necessary feature of all
scientific hypotheses, then design will not be considered a scientific hypothesis. But must all scientific
hypotheses be entirely naturalistic? Must scientific origins theories, in particular, limit themselves to materialistic
causes? Thus far none of the arguments advanced in support of a naturalistic definition of science has provided
a non-circular justification for such a limitation." (Meyer S.C.*, "The Methodological Equivalence of Design &
Descent: Can There be a Scientific `Theory of Creation'?" in Moreland, J.P.*, ed., "The Creation Hypothesis:
Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1994, pp.100-101)
14/04/2003
"Nevertheless, the many-universe theorists concede that the 'other worlds' of their theory can never, even in
principle, be inspected. Travel between quantum 'branches' is forbidden. Moreover, the ordered regions in the
infinite or oscillating model universes are separated by such huge expanses of space or time that no observer can
ever verify or refute empirically the existence of the many universes. It is hard to see how such a purely
theoretical construct can ever be used as an explanation, in the scientific sense, of a feature of nature. Of
course, one might find it easier to believe in an infinite array of universes than in an infinite Deity, but such a
belief must rest on faith rather than observation." (Davies P.C.W., "God and the New Physics," [1983], Penguin:
London, 1990, reprint, pp.173-174. Emphasis original)
15/04/2003
"Like ships passing in the night, creationists and evolutionists continue on their own separate courses, each
believing the other is headed in the wrong direction. Evolutionists claim creationist views are not science but
religion. Creationists respond in kind, calling evolution a myth or a religion. Evolutionists claim creation is not
science because it interjects the supernatural into natural science. Creationists respond by claiming evolution is
incurably and unjustifiably naturalistic. On and on the battle goes, with little common ground and, on the popular
level, almost no understanding of what the opposing party believes. It is the thesis of this book that the
misunderstanding arises in part because of the confusion of different kinds of science. Science as normally
understood deals with regularities, that is, with regularly recurring patterns of events against which theories can
be tested. Thus a theory can be falsified or proven wrong if it does not measure up against the regularly recurring
patterns in nature. Usually these regular patterns are observable in the present (e.g., the law of gravity). At other
times these patterns occurred in the past and must be assumed by way of the principle of uniformity (which says
"the present is the key to the past"). Direct observation of the regular pattern is not necessary so long as there is
such a pattern and so long as the theory can in some way be measured against it. But not all science deals with
regular recurring patterns in the present or past. Some events of significance to scientists are singularities. These
are unique events which so far as can be ascertained happened only once, or at least are not recurring." (Geisler
N.L.* & Anderson J.K.*, "Origin Science: A Proposal for the Creation-Evolution Controversy," Baker: Grand
Rapids MI, 1987, p.13)
15/04/2003
"The great events of origin were singularities. The origin of the universe is not recurring. Nor is the origin of life,
or the origin of major new forms of life. These are past singularities over which creationists and evolutionists
debate. Evolutionists posit a secondary natural cause for them; creationists argue for a supernatural primary
cause. The proposal of this book is that both `evolutionist' and `creationist' views (see appendix 2) on origin
should be brought into the domain of singularity science about the past and that each should be judged by the
principles of that kind of science. Such a science about past singularities will be called `science of origin' (Geisler
1983a, 135), or `origin science' (Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen 1984, 204). It will be differentiated from science about
present regularities (called operation science) in that the latter focuses on a recurring pattern of events in the
present against which its theories can be tested; the former does not." (Geisler N.L.* & Anderson J.K.*, "Origin
Science: A Proposal for the Creation-Evolution Controversy," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1987, p.15)
15/04/2003
"So concluding design or intelligent activity after scientific examination of some object or process is not
unscientific in the slightest. ... The real objection arises, however, when the design or intelligent activity
postulated is divine. Appeals to divine intelligent activity are often pejoratively labeled `God of the gaps'
explanation ... many argue that any reference to the supernatural in science is illegitimate in principle. ... But such
objections do not seem compelling. If there are no gaps in the fabric of natural causation, then obviously appeal
to divine activity will get us off track. On the other hand, if there are such gaps, refusing on principle to recognize
them within science will equally get us off track. We should perhaps be wary of both ways of going wrong. If in
our intellectual endeavors we are attempting to get at truth as best we can, then if we have rational reason-from
whatever source-to believe that God has taken a hand in the origin or ongoing operation of the cosmos,
arbitrarily excluding that belief needs some justification." (Ratzsch, D.L.*, "The Battle of Beginnings: Why
Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL, 1996, pp.193-194.
Emphasis original)
15/04/2003
"Whenever historical accounts of the Bible are called in question on the basis of alleged disagreement with the
findings of archaeology or the testimony of ancient non-Hebrew documents, always remember that the Bible is
itself an archaeological document of the highest caliber. It is simply crass bias for critics to hold that whenever a
pagan record disagrees with the biblical account, it must be the Hebrew author that was in error. Pagan kings
practiced self-laudatory propaganda, just as their modern counterparts do; and it is incredibly naive to suppose
that simply because a statement was written in Assyrian cuneiform or Egyptian hieroglyphics it was more
trustworthy and factual than the Word of God composed in Hebrew. No other ancient document in the B.C.
period affords so many clear proofs of accuracy and integrity as does the Old Testament; so it is a violation of
the rules of evidence to assume that the Bible statement is wrong every time it disagrees with a secular
inscription or manuscript of some sort. Of all the documents known to man, only the Hebrew-Greek Scriptures
have certified their accuracy and divine authority by a pattern of prediction and fulfillment completely beyond
the capabilities of man and possible only for God." (Archer G.L.*, "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties,"
Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1982, pp.16-17)
16/04/2003
"Ad Hominem Arguments. A person with the wrong motives may have the right answer. Be careful about ad
hominem arguments, which attack the person making the argument instead of the argument itself. (Ad hominem is
Latin for "to the man. ") Attacking somebody as a creationist, or an atheist, is often a way of distracting attention
from valid arguments that person has to offer. On the other hand, it is not necessarily irrelevant or unfair to point
out that a person has a bias. ... His bias is relevant, but it doesn't necessarily mean he is wrong. That depends on
the evidence. In almost every disputed matter there is a problem of bias on both sides, and it's legitimate to bring
this out. Bible believers may be reluctant to credit evidence that seems to contradict some passage in the Bible,
and atheists may be reluctant to credit evidence that seems to suggest that natural selection can't do all Darwin
claimed for it. ... Scientists may be biased in favor of theories that make their work important and hence tend to
increase their funding. In this imperfect world an ad hominem argument sometimes performs the legitimate
function of showing that a person has a bias and hence that his or her arguments should be examined carefully.
The argument is misused if it does more than that, causing us to ignore worthwhile arguments because of what
we think of the person making them. The point is to recognize and acknowledge bias, and then get beyond it to
evaluate the evidence fairly." (Johnson P.E.*, "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds," InterVarsity Press:
Downers Grove IL, 1997, pp.40-41)
17/04/2003
"The first New York Times story on the Kansas decision quoted me as saying that this is the science educators'
`Vietnam.' What I meant by this is that in the first place they have a determined adversary who is not going to
surrender. They're not gaining ground. That's what the polls show, and that is why there is so much worry. If the
enemy keeps on fighting, he wears you down. The second thing is that it is an adversary--that is, the anti-
Darwinists--that can appeal to the liberal values of a lot of their opponents, just as the Viet Cong appealed to the
anti-imperialist sentiments of the American public. The adversary can say, Let's hear both sides, let's have an
open discussion, you don't know the majority position unless you have heard it effectively challenged, and so
on. Already the polls show that two- thirds of the public favors something of the `teach both sides, teach the
controversy' direction. The Kansas decision is certainly going to encourage other states and localities to do
something like this." (Johnson P.E., "Evolution and the Curriculum: A Conversation with Phillip Johnson and
Gregg Easterbrook," Center Conversations No. 4, September 1999, Ethics and Public Policy Center)
17/04/2003
"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major
morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid. Evaluations of
overall genetic distance, which ignore the fact that large evolutionary steps result from a very small number of
regulatory changes, have little bearing on the distribution of morphologic changes within phylogeny." (Stanley,
S.M., "Macroevolution: Pattern and Process," [1979], The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore MD, 1998,
reprint, p.39)
17/04/2003
"How will all of this end? I suspect there will be an evolutionary ending. As future generations acquire more
knowledge through education, simplistic answers based on belief will be come increasingly unsatisfying. Those
religions that cannot reconcile their beliefs with advancing scientific knowledge and common sense will lose
followers to the more flexible, less dogmatic religions. Religions, after all, are themselves subject to evolution.
The religions that are unable to adapt will leave no offspring, so to speak, and eventually will become extinct. ...
In 1859 Darwin completed the Copernican revolution by removing humans from center stage. By 1900, most of
the scientific world was convinced of the validity of the theory of evolution. It is just a matter of time before this
fruitful concept comes to be accepted by the public as wholeheartedly as it has accepted the spherical Earth and
the Sun-centered solar system." (Berra, T.M., "Evolution and the Myth of Creationism: A Basic Guide to the Facts
in the Evolution Debate," Stanford University Press: Stanford CA, 1990, pp.143-144)
17/04/2003
"I had spent the first part of our interview peppering Craig with objections and arguments challenging the empty
tomb. But I suddenly realized that I hadn't given him the opportunity to spell. out his affirmative case. While he
had already alluded to several reasons why he believes Jesus' tomb was unoccupied, I said, `Why don't you give
me your best shot? Convince me with your top four or five reasons that the empty tomb is a historical fact.' Craig
rose to the challenge. One by one he spelled out his arguments concisely and powerfully. `First,' he said, `the
empty tomb is definitely implicit in the early tradition that is passed along by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, which is a
very old and reliable source of historical information about Jesus. `Second, the site of Jesus: tomb was known to
Christian and Jew alike. So if it weren't empty, it would be impossible for a movement founded on belief in the
Resurrection to have come into existence in the same city where this man had been publicly executed and buried
`Third, we can tell from the language, grammar, and style that Mark got his empty tomb story-actually, his whole
passion narrative-from an earlier source. In fact, there's evidence it was written before A.D. 37, which is much too
early for legend to have seriously corrupted it. `A. N. Sherwin-White, the respected Greco-Roman classical
historian from Oxford University, said it would have been without precedent anywhere in history for leg end to
have grown up that fast and significantly distorted the gospels. `Fourth, there's the simplicity of the empty tomb
story in Mark. Fictional apocryphal accounts from the second century contain all kinds of flowery narratives, in
which Jesus comes out of the tomb in glory and power, with everybody seeing him, including the priests, Jewish
authorities, and Roman guards. Those are the way leg ends read, but these don't come until generations after the
events, which is after eyewitnesses have died off. By contrast, Mark's account of the story of the empty tomb is
stark in its simplicity and unadorned by theological reflection. `Fifth, the unanimous testimony that the empty
tomb was discovered by women argues for the authenticity of the story, because this would have been
embarrassing for the disciples to admit and most certainly would have been covered up if this were a legend.
`Sixth, the earliest Jewish polemic presupposes the historicity of the empty tomb. In other words, there was
nobody who was claiming that the tomb still contained Jesus' body. The question always was, 'What happened
to the body?' ... I would argue that the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead is not at all improbable. In
fact, based on the evidence, it's the best explanation for what happened." (Craig, W.L.*, "The Evidence of the
Missing Body," in Strobel, L.P.*, "The Case For Christ: A Journalist's Personal Testimony of the Evidence for
Jesus," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1998, pp.296-297, 299).
18/04/2003
"What do we mean by `natural selection' Darwin had a perfectly clear concept of it. He emphasized again and
again that various individuals of a population differ from each other in countless ways and that the nature of
these differences had a decisive influence on the evolutionary potential of their bearers. An individual that may
`vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of
life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected.' Unfortunately, Darwin sometimes also
used Spencer's slogan, `survival of the fittest,' and has therefore been accused of tautological (circular)
reasoning: `What will survive? The fittest. What are the fittest? Those that survive.' To say that this is the
essence of natural selection is nonsense! To be sure, those individuals that have the most offspring are by
definition (Lerner 1959) the fittest ones." (Mayr, E.W., "Animal Species and Evolution," The Belknap Press:
Cambridge MA, 1963, p.183).
18/04/2003
"The date was November 8, 1981. It was a Sunday. I locked myself in my home office and spent the afternoon
replaying the spiritual journey I had been traveling for twenty-one months. My investigation into Jesus was
similar to What you've just read, except that I primarily studied books and other historical research instead of
personally interacting with scholars. I had asked questions and analyzed answers with as much of an open mind
as I could muster. Now I had reached critical mass. The evidence was clear. The one remaining issue was what I
would do with it. Pulling out a legal pad, I began listing the questions I had posed as I embarked on my
investigation, and some of the key facts I had uncovered. In a similar way, I could sum up the substance of what
we've learned in our own examination of the evidence. ... The atheism I had embraced for so long buckled under
the weight of historical truth. It was a stunning and radical outcome, certainly not what I had anticipated when I
embarked on this investigative process. But it was, in my opinion, a decision compelled by the facts. All of which
led me to the `So what?' question. If this is true, what difference does it make? There were several obvious
implications. ... I remember writing out these implications on my legal pad and then leaning back in my chair. I had
reached the culmination of my nearly two-year journey. It was finally time to deal with the most pressing question
of all: `Now what?' ... After a personal investigation that spanned more than six hundred days and countless
hours, my own verdict in the case for Christ was clear. However, as I sat at my desk, I realized that I needed more
than an intellectual decision. I wanted to take the experiential step .... Looking for a way to bring that about, I
reached over to a Bible and opened it to John 1:12, a verse I had encountered during my investigation: `Yet to all
who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.' The key
verbs in that verse spell out with mathematical precision what it takes to go beyond mere mental assent to Jesus'
deity and enter into an ongoing relationship with him by becoming adopted into God's family: believe + receive =
become.' ... All this I now believed. The evidence of history and of my own experience was too strong to ignore.
... So on November 8, 1981, I talked with God in a heartfelt and unedited prayer, admitting and turning from my
wrongdoing, and receiving the gift of forgiveness and eternal life through Jesus. I told him that with his help I
wanted to follow him and his ways from here on out. There were no lightning bolts, no audible replies, no tingly
sensations. I know that some people feel a rush of emotion at such a moment; as for me, however, there was
something else that was equally exhilarating: there was the rush of reason." (Strobel, L.P.*, "The Case For Christ: A
Journalist's Personal Testimony of the Evidence for Jesus," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1998, p.349, 360-363)
18/04/2003
"In the remainder of this section, we describe the most widely favored scenario for the origin of life. Keep in
mind, however, that there are valid scientific objections to this scenario as well as to the several others that have
been seriously entertained so that we are far from certain as to how life arose." (Voet D. & Voet J.G.,
"Biochemistry," John Wiley & Sons: New York, Second Edition, 1995, p.21. Emphasis original)
19/04/2003
"Clamorous Insistence on Irrelevancies `red herring' One way of hiding the weakness of a position is to draw
noisy and insistent attention to a side- issue. The side-issue may be the character of an opponent, who is
damned vigorously while the argument gets lost in personalities (see #20). Or it may be some movement or group
that serves as a whipping post. This, the red-herring technique, is the tactic of the familiar speaker who, instead
of meeting the real question, turns his talk into an attack on international communism, or Wall Street, or whatever
else will deflect the attention of the audience. Such speakers often lose all sense of proportion, they pettifog,
they make much of little and little of much. They talk of anything except the issue, at great length, with much
noise and sawing of the air. We all are addicted to this fallacy. It is, of necessity, the patron saint of those being
overwhelmed in argument." (Fearnside, W.W. & Holther, W.B., "Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument," Prentice-
Hall: Englewood Cliffs NJ, 1959, Eleventh printing, pp.124-125. Emphasis original)
21/04/2003
"Some single-celled animals have a light-sensitive spot with a little pigment screen behind it. The screen shields
it from light coming from one direction, which gives it some 'idea' of where the light is coming from. Among many-
celled animals, various types of worm and some shellfish have a similar arrangement, but the pigment-backed
light- sensitive cells are set in a little cup. This gives slightly better direction-finding capability, since each cell is
selectively shielded from light rays coming into the cup from its own side. In a continuous series from flat sheet
of light-sensitive cells, through shallow cup to deep cup, each step in the series, however small (or large) the
step, would be an optical improvement. Now, if you make a cup very deep and turn the sides over, you
eventually make a lensless pinhole camera. There is a continuously graded series from shallow cup to pinhole
camera ... A pinhole camera forms a definite image, the smaller the pinhole the sharper (but dimmer) the image, the
larger the pinhole the brighter (but fuzzier) the image. ... When you have a cup for an eye, almost any vaguely
convex, vaguely transparent or even translucent material over its opening will constitute an improvement,
because of its slight lens-like properties. It collects light over its area and concentrates it on a smaller area of
retina. Once such a crude proto-lens is there, there is a continuously graded series of improvements, thickening it
and making it more transparent and less distorting, the trend culminating in what we would all recognize as a true
lens." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, pp.85-86)
21/04/2003
"One argument often raised against the kind of gradualism described by both Darwin and Dawkins is that a
highly complex, integrated organ such as the human eye could not have evolved by a step-by-step process.
Rather, it must have required the coordinated integration of all its parts, their evolving in synchrony, so as to
produce the fully functioning organ. Dawkins dismisses such an objection as totally groundless:- `Vision that is
5% as good as yours or mine is very much worth having in comparison with no vision at all.' (Dawkins 1988, p.
81). and:- `A simple, rudimentary, half-cocked eye...is better than none at all. Without an eye you are totally
blind.' (p. 41) The above two statements by Dawkins are, of course, correct. Few would disagree that a poor eye
is better than no eye at all. But Dawkins is, I believe, confusing the real issue for he also says `...part of an eye is
better than no eye at all.' (p. 85) and `An ancient animal with 5% of an eye ... used it for 5% vision.' (p. 81)
Recalling that the issue is about trying to explain how to get an improved eye, then both of the last two
statements by Dawkins are clearly incorrect. He fails to distinguish between a crude eye that actually sees
(however crudely) and something that represents just part of an eye that of itself is incapable of seeing anything.
Even the crudest or most primitive eye is an achieving system, i.e. it seesto some limited degree (hence we call it
an eye). But part of an eye is not a going concern and therefore cannot be placed within a seamless continuum of
increasing seeing function (i.e. as in both Dawkins' and Darwin's gradualism) which could be open to selection."
(Broom N.*, "What is Natural Selection?: A Plea for Clarification," International Society for Complexity,
Information, and Design, 2003, pp.4-5)
21/04/2003
"Stephen Jay Gould asked himself `the excellent question, What good is 5 per cent of an eye?,' [Gould,
S.J., "The Problem of Perfection," in "Ever Since Darwin," Penguin: London, 1991, p.107] and
speculated that the first eye parts might have been useful for something other than sight. Richard
Dawkins responded that: `An ancient animal with 5 per cent of an eye might indeed have used it for
something other than sight, but it seems to me as likely that it used it for 5 per cent vision. And actually
I don't think it is an excellent question. Vision that is 5 per cent as good as yours or mine is very much
worth having in comparison with no vision at all. So is 1 per cent vision better than total blindness.
And 6 per cent is better than 5, 7 per cent better than 6, and so on up the gradual, continuous series.'
[Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker," Norton: New York, 1986, p.81] The fallacy in that argument is
that `5 per cent of an eye' is not the same thing as `5 per cent of normal vision.' For an animal to have
any useful vision at all, many complex parts must be working together. Even a complete eye is useless
unless it belongs to a creature with the mental and neural capacity to make use of the information by
doing something that furthers survival or reproduction. What we have to imagine is a chance mutation
that provides this complex capacity all at once, at a level of utility sufficient to give the creature an
advantage in producing offspring." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press:
Downers Grove IL, Second edition, 1993, pp.34-35)
21/04/2003
"In a recent essay in COMMENTARY, `Has Darwin Met His Match?' (December 2002), I discussed, evaluated,
and criticized theories of intelligent design, which have presented the latest challenge to Darwin's theory of
evolution. In the course of the discussion I observed that the evolution of the mammalian eye has always seemed
difficult to imagine. It is an issue that Darwin himself raised, and although he settled the matter to his own
satisfaction, biologists have long wished for a direct demonstration that something like a functional eye could be
formed in reasonable periods of time by means of the Darwinian principles of random variation and natural
selection. Just such a demonstration, I noted in my essay, is what the biologists Dan-Erik Nilsson and Susanne
Pelger seemed to provide in a 1994 paper. (1) Given nothing more than time and chance, a `light-sensitive patch,'
they affirmed, can `gradually turn into a focused-lens eye,' and in the space of only a few hundred thousand
years--a mere moment, as such things go. Nilsson and Pelger's paper has, for understandable reasons, been
widely circulated and widely praised, and in the literature of evolutionary biology it is now regularly cited as
definitive. Not the least of its remarkable authority is derived from the belief that it contains, in the words of one
of its defenders, a `computer simulation of the eye's evolution.' If this were true, it would provide an extremely
important defense of Darwin's theory. ... And not just scientific importance, I might add; so dramatic a
confirmation of Darwinian theory carries large implications for our understanding of the human species and its
origins. This is no doubt why the story of Nilsson and Pelger's computer simulation has spread throughout the
world. Their study has been cited in essays, textbooks, and popular treatments of Darwinism like River Out of
Eden by the famous Oxford evolutionist Richard Dawkins; accounts of it have made their way onto the Internet
in several languages; it has been promoted to the status of a certainty and reported as fact in the press, where it
is inevitably used to champion and vindicate Darwin's theory of evolution. In my essay, I suggested that Nilsson
and Pelger's arguments are trivial and their conclusions unsubstantiated. I also claimed that representations of
their paper by the scientific community have involved a serious, indeed a flagrant, distortion of their work. ... Still
other questions suggest themselves. Although natural selection is mentioned by Nilsson and Pelger, it is a force
that plays no role in their reasoning. Beyond saying that it `constantly favors an increase in the amount of
detectable spatial information,' they say nothing at all. This is an ignominious omission in a paper defending
Darwinian principles. ... FINALLY, THERE is the matter of Nilsson and Pelger's computer simulation, in many
ways the gravamen of my complaints and the dessert of this discussion. ... Whatever the merits of computer
simulation, however, they are beside the point in assessing Nilsson and Pelger's work. In its six pages, their paper
contains no mention of the words `computer' or `simulation.' There are no footnotes indicating that a computer
simulation of their work exists, and their bibliography makes no reference to any work containing such a
simulation. ... ... and no computer simulation has been forthcoming from them in all the years since its initial
publication. ... Dan-Erik Nilsson denies having based his work on any computer simulations ... Why, in the nine
years since their work appeared, have Nilsson and Pelger never dissociated themselves from claims about their
work that they know are unfounded? This may not exactly be dishonest, but it hardly elicits admiration. More
seriously, what of the various masters of indignation, those who are usually so quick to denounce critics of
Darwin's theory ... Why have they never found reason to bring up the matter of the mammalian eye and the
computer simulation that does not exist? And what should we call such a state of affairs? I suggest that scientific
fraud will do as well as any other term." (Berlinski D., "A Scientific Scandal," Commentary, January 1, 2001)
21/04/2003
"Living systems have the ability to replicate themselves. The inherent complexity of such a process is such that
no man made device has even approached having this capacity. Clearly there is but an infinitesimal probability
that a collection of molecules can simply gather at random to form a living entity (the likelihood of a living cell
forming spontaneously from simple organic chemicals has been said to be comparable to that of a modern jet
aircraft being assembled by a tornado passing through a junkyard). How then did life arise? The answer, most
probably, is that it was guided according to the Darwinian principle of the survival of the fittest as it applies at
the molecular level." (Voet D. & Voet J.G., "Biochemistry," John Wiley & Sons: New York, Second Edition, 1995,
p.22)
22/04/2003
"Darwin's prediction that the civilized races would soon exterminate not only the `lesser' races but also the higher
apes is quoted from The Descent of Man (Princeton University Press ed., 1981), p. 201. Darwin was not a
bloodthirsty imperialist but a scientist explaining that extinction by natural selection was responsible for the
absence of intermediate forms and that the process could be expected to continue." (Johnson P.E.*, "Reason in
the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law, and Education," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove
IL, 1995, p.233)
22/04/2003
"Lastly I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than
you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being
overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races
have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what
an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the
world." (Darwin C.R., letter to W. Graham, July 3rd, 1881, in Darwin F., ed., "The Life of Charles Darwin," [1902],
Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64)
22/04/2003
"Of course it would be idle to pretend that Darwin was not theologically heterodox as well. Determined to shield
God from the pretensions of human science and the aspersions of the lower creation, he embraced a 'grander'
theology which amounted to little more than deism. At length, having regarded nature for decades without 'a
constant reference to a supreme intelligent Author', he could scarcely accept even this conception of God. All he
could believe in was 'my deity, "Natural Selection"'. However, in committing himself thus to a causo-mechanical
account of evolution, to 'material substance in nature' and 'empirical methods in natural science', Darwin revealed
where his ultimate loyalties lay." (Moore J.R., "The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant
Struggle to Come to Terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America 1870-1900," [1979], Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1981, reprint, pp.344)
22/04/2003
"There are, of course, difficulties in the theory of evolution. You raised a selection of the most serious ones. I
agree with you that some processes, such as the evolution of the mammalian ear bones, probably occurred by
sudden leaps. In most cases, for example those of hanging nests and aquatic spiders, we can find intermediates.
It is never, however, necessary to postulate a leap which would imply prevision by a designer. That is why one
finds no example of various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect.
Whereas structures half- way between a leg and a wing, for example the patagium of "flying squirrels," are
useful." (Haldane J.B.S., "Haldane to Dewar," in "Is Evolution A Myth?," C.A. Watts & Co. Ltd/The Paternoster
Press: London, 1949 , p.90)
26/04/2003
"He then learned from his father and sisters that a letter (which they appear to have read) had arrived from
Professor Henslow. Enclosed with it was another letter from George Peacock, a Cambridge mathematician and
astronomer who was responsible for nominating naturalists to naval ships making surveys; in it he made that
completely unexpected offer to young Darwin of the post of unpaid naturalist aboard HMS Beagle. Here was a
bolt from the blue. He had never thought of himself as a serious naturalist, a professional naturalist, or indeed
eligible for any scientific job; he was to be a clergy man." (Moorehead A., "Darwin and the Beagle," [1969],
Penguin: Harmondsworth UK, 1971, p.30)
26/04/2003
"DR. C.H. WADDINGTON: I am a believer that some of the basic statements of neo-Darwinism are vacuous; and
I think there is a confusion here, possibly, about whether we are talking about Darwinism or neoDarwinism. Dr.
Medawar mentioned this phrase, `the survival of the fittest,' and it is a very elementary, old-fashioned, long
outdated concept; but, of course, this is what Darwin was talking about. By `fittest,' he meant best able to carry
out the functions of life, best adapted to some environmental situation and some way of life. By a fit horse, he
meant a horse that could gallop fastest and escape best from wolves, or whatever it might be. That is a real
theory which is perfectly capable of refutation. What has happened to it since, in the process of turning this into
a lot of mathematics, is that `fitness' has been redefined, leaving out anything to do with way of life, simply in
terms of leaving offspring. So the theory of neoDarwinism is a theory of the evolution of the changing of the
population in respect to leaving offspring and not in respect to anything else. Nothing else is mentioned in the
mathematical theory of neoDarwinism. It is smuggled in and everybody has in the back of his mind that the
animals that leave the largest number of offspring are going to be those best adapted also for eating peculiar
vegetation, or something of this sort; but this is not explicit in the theory. All that is explicit in the theory is hat
they will leave more offspring. " (Waddington C.H., "Discussion, Paper by Dr. Eden," in Moorhead P.S. & Kaplan
M.M., ed., "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution: A Symposium Held at the
Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, April 25 and 26, 1966," The Wistar Institute Symposium Monograph
Number 5, The Wistar Institute Press: Philadelphia PA, 1967, pp.13-14)
26/04/2003
"There, you do come to what is, in effect, a vacuous statement: Natural selection is that some things leave more
offspring than others; and you ask, which leave more offspring than others; and it is those that leave more
offspring; and there is nothing more to it than that. The whole real guts of evolution-which is, how do you come
to have horses and tigers, and things- is outside the mathematical theory. So when people say that a thing is
vacuous, I think they may be thinking of this part of it, this type of statement. The sheer mathematical statement
is largely vacuous." (Waddington C.H., "Discussion, Paper by Dr. Eden," in Moorhead P.S. & Kaplan M.M., ed.,
"Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution: A Symposium Held at the Wistar
Institute of Anatomy and Biology, April 25 and 26, 1966," The Wistar Institute Symposium Monograph Number
5, The Wistar Institute Press: Philadelphia PA, 1967, p.14)
27/04/2003
"And this was not the worst part. He embraced a terrifying materialism. Only months before he had concluded in
his covert notebooks that the human mind, morality, and even belief in God were artefacts of the brain: 'love of
the deity [is the] effect of organization, oh you Materialist!' he upbraided himself. Working through the
implications gave him migraines, left him writhing on his sick bed, fearing persecution. ... He sat on his theory of
evolution for twenty years, scarcely mooting his innermost thoughts about `monkey-men' and apes evolving
morality, castigating himself as a 'Devil's Chaplain.'" (Desmond A. & Moore J., "Darwin," [1991], Penguin:
London, 1992, reprint, pp.xvi)
27/04/2003
"`What a book a Devil's Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low & horridly cruel works of
nature!' [Darwin C.R., letter 13 July 1856, to J.D. Hooker] Charles Darwin in 1856, about to start the Origin of
Species" (Desmond A. & Moore J., "Darwin," [1991], Penguin: London, 1992, reprint, pp.xiv, 716n)
28/04/2003
"I would also like to suggest that an opposite way to look at the genotype is as a generative algorithm and not as
a blue-print; a sort of carefully spelled out and foolproof recipe for producing a living organism of the right kind if
the environment in which it develops is a proper one. Assuming this to be so, the algorithm must be
written in some abstract language. Molecular biology may well have provided us with the alphabet of this
language, but it is a long step from the alphabet to understanding a language. Nevertheless a language has to
have rules, and these are the strongest constraints on the set of possible messages. No currently existing formal
language can tolerate random changes in the symbol sequences which express its sentences. Meaning is almost
invariably destroyed. Any changes must be syntactically lawful ones. I would conjecture that what one might
call "genetic grammaticality" has a deterministic explanation and does not owe its stability to selection pressure
acting on random variation." (Eden M., "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory," in
Moorhead P.S. & Kaplan M.M., ed., "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution:
A Symposium Held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, April 25 and 26, 1966," The Wistar Institute
Symposium Monograph Number 5, The Wistar Institute Press: Philadelphia PA, 1967, p.11. Emphasis original)
28/04/2003
"DR. WADDINGTON: Could I put your question upside down? You are asking, is there enough time for
evolution to produce such complicated things as the eye? Let me put it the other way around: Evolution has
produced such complicated things as the eye; can we deduce from this anything about the system by which it
has been produced? One possible deduction would be that the thing worked by algorithms rather than by
describing bits. Actually, we know something about the ways in which genes do make embryos and how the
organs are put together. The genes do effectively act by means of instructions to carry out operations. But this
means that in the whole of this sort of arithmetical question, you haven't begun to get numbers that have any
meaning. I think you have got the question upside down. DR. ULAM: It is possible to fall here into pure
teleology. If the idea of the code itself was invented by random mutations, one has our whole problem anew
again. We have to watch out, as Dr. Eiseley pointed out, not to fall into infinite regress. The Chairman, DR.
MEDAWAR: May I make a point here in support of what Waddington says? I think the way you have treated
this is a curious inversion of what would normally be a scientific process of reasoning. It is, indeed, a fact that
the eye has evolved. and, as Waddington says, the fact that it has done so shows that this formulation is, I think,
a mistaken one. (Waddington C.H., Medawar P.B. & Ulam S., "Discussion: Paper by Dr. Ulam," in Moorhead P.S.
& Kaplan M.M., ed., "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo- Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution: A Symposium
Held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, April 25 and 26, 1966," The Wistar Institute Symposium
Monograph Number 5, The Wistar Institute Press: Philadelphia PA, 1967, pp.28-29)
28/04/2003
"What does all this mean to him who wants to simulate evolution with the help of the computer? I think it should
mean one thing in particular, which is that the approach adopted should not be too simplistic. To be sure, one
will have to start with a set of simplified assumptions and expand from them gradually; but in the end one would
have to adopt for every set of factors a far greater range of extremes than was believed necessary or even
possible only twenty years ago. Evolution, again and again, has resulted in unique phenomena and in startlingly
unpredictable phenomena. If we set up our programs in too deterministic a manner, I am afraid we will never be
able to arrive at a realistic interpretation of evolution." (Mayr, E.W., "Evolutionary Challenges to the Mathematical
Interpretation of Evolution," in Moorhead P.S. & Kaplan M.M., ed., "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-
Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution: A Symposium Held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, April
25 And 26, 1966," The Wistar Institute Symposium Monograph Number 5, The Wistar Institute Press:
Philadelphia PA, 1967, p.54)
29/04/2003
"I am in agreement with Mr. Gross when he refers to `new and astonishing evidence' about the origin of the eye.
Herewith the facts. Halder, Callaerts, and Gehring's research group in Switzerland discovered that the ey gene in
Drosophila is virtually identical to the genes controlling the development of the eye in mice and men. The
doctrine of convergent evolution, long a Darwinian staple, may now be observed receding into the darkness. The
same group's more recent paper, "Induction of Ectopic Eyes by Targeted Expression of the Eyeless Gene in
Drosophila" (Science 267, 1988) is among the most remarkable in the history of biology, demonstrating as it does
that the ey gene is related closely to the equivalent eye gene in Sea squirts (Ascidians), Cephalopods, and
Nemerteans. This strongly suggests (the inference is almost irresistible) that ey function is universal (universal!)
among multicellular organisms, the basic design of the eye having been their common property for over a half-
billion years. The ey gene clearly is a master control mechanism, one capable of giving general instructions to
very different organisms. No one in possession of these facts can imagine that they support the Darwinian
theory. How could the mechanism of random variation and natural selection have produced an instrument
capable of anticipating the course of morphological development and controlling its expression in widely
different organisms?" (Berlinski D., "Denying Darwin: David Berlinski and Critics" Commentary, September
1996, pp.28,30)
29/04/2003
"A second case in which Darwinians latched on to imperfections but underestimated costs was that of the eye.
Far from being Panglossians, Darwinians were highly embarrassed by its apparent perfection; Darwin confessed
that at one time the thought of it gave him a cold shudder (Darwin, F. 1887, ii, pp. 273, 296). And understandably.
Its precision engineering seemed to support the utilitarian-creationist doctrine of a grand optic designer far better
than the Darwinian assumption of ad hoc tinkering." (Cronin H., "The Ant and the Peacock: Altruism and Sexual
Selection From Darwin To Today," [1991], Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1993, reprint, p.69)
30/04/2003
"Matt Cartmill, president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, weighs into the debate
mostly on the side of humility in science. `Many scientists are atheists or agnostics who want to believe that the
natural world they study is all there is, and being only human, they try to persuade themselves that science gives
them the grounds for that belief,' he wrote in Discover magazine last year. `It's an honorable belief, but it isn't a
research finding.' Some scientists try to make it so, however. At its 1997 annual symposium in New Orleans, the
Society for Neuroscience heard about the `God module,' a spot in the brain that apparently produces religious
feelings. The evidence came from the gold mine of brain research, the mentally damaged: patients with temporal
lobe epilepsy have religious experiences in their seizures. Christian antievolutionist Johnson shot back: `You may
be sure that scientific materialists will never discover a 'materialist module,' meaning a brain part that causes
people to fantasize that they can explain the mind in strictly materialist terms." (Larson E.J. & Witham L.,
"Scientists and Religion in America," Scientific American, Vol. 281, No. 3, September 1999, pp.78-83, pp.81-82)
30/04/2003
"Faulty Dilemma. ... Here the opponent forces one into an either/or answer when the question has a third
alternative. He says, `Accept this or that, both of which are contrary to your position,' but doesn't mention a third
alternative. The key to avoiding the dilemma is simply to find the third alternative." (Geisler N.L.*& Brooks R.M*
"Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking," Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, MI, 1990, p.110)
30/04/2003
"Thus the peppered moth, Biston betularia, has evolved in the last hundred years from gray to black, but
to the creationist Duane Gish, this is not really evolution: `These moths today not only are still moths, but they
are still peppered moths, Biston betularia,' and no `real' evolutionary change occurred. " (Futuyma D.J.,
"Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution," Pantheon: New York NY, 1982, p.150) [top]
May
1/05/03
"Evolution is a Fact and a Theory. Biologists consider evolution to be a fact in much the same way that
physicists do so for gravity. However, the mechanisms of evolution are less well understood, and it is these
mechanisms that are described by several theories of evolution." ("Biology and Evolutionary Theory," The
Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs, 1999)
1/05/03
"The sequence of events came out quite clearly. In the Tertiary period, when flowering plaints had already
become well established, a temperate flora covered much of northern extremities of all the continents, extending
unbroken between Asia and North America in the Bering Strait region. With the advance of glaciers in the
Northern hemisphere this homogeneous flora was driven southward and sundered into great branches, one in
North America and one in Asia. After the glaciers receded, the temperate floras again moved northward mingling
across the Bering Strait and with the cooling of the climate moved southward again to their present stations.
Thus an unbroken series of causes and effects accounted for the striking disjunction of plants in eastern North
America and eastern Asia. What had been an a priori case for the double creation of species was completely and
convincingly destroyed. Common ancestry and a single center of creation was established as the more
reasonable assumption." (Dupree A.H., "Asa Gray: American Botanist, Friend of Darwin," [1959], The Johns
Hopkins University Press: Baltimore MD, 1988, reprint, p.250)
3/05/03
"Most educated people nowadays, I believe, think of themselves as Darwinians. If they do, however, it can only
be from ignorance: from not knowing enough about what Darwinism says. For Darwinism says many things,
especially about our species, which are too obviously false to be believed by any educated person; or at least by
an educated person who retains any capacity at all for critical thought on the subject of Darwinism. Of course
most educated people now are Darwinians, in the sense that they believe our species to have originated, not in a
creative act of the Divine Will, but by evolution from other animals. But believing that proposition is not enough
to make someone a Darwinian. It had been believed, as may be learnt from any history of biology, by very many
people long before Darwinism, or Darwin, was born. What is needed to make someone an adherent of a certain
school of thought is belief in all or most of the propositions which are peculiar to that school, and are believed
either by all of its adherents, or at least by the more thoroughgoing ones. In any large school of thought, there is
always a minority who adhere more exclusively than most to the characteristic beliefs of the school: they are the
'purists' or 'ultras' of that school. What is needed and sufficient, then, to make a person a Darwinian, is belief in all
or most of the propositions which are peculiar to Darwinians, and believed either by all of them, or at least by
ultra-Darwinians. I give below ten propositions which are all Darwinian beliefs in the sense just specified. Each of
them is obviously false: either a direct falsity about our species or, where the proposition is a general one,
obviously false in the case of our species, at least. Some of the ten propositions are quotations; all the others are
paraphrases. The quotations are all from authors who are so well-known, at least in Darwinian circles, as
spokesmen for Darwinism or ultra-Darwinism, that their names alone will be sufficient evidence that the
proposition is a Darwinian one. Where the proposition is a paraphrase, I give quotations or other information
which will, I think, suffice to establish its Darwinian credentials. My ten propositions are nearly in reverse
historical order. Thus, I start from the present day, and from the inferno-scene - like something by Hieronymus
Bosch - which the 'selfish gene' theory makes of all life. Then I go back a bit to some of the falsities which,
beginning in the 1960s, were contributed to Darwinism by the theory of 'inclusive fitness'. And finally I get back
to some of the falsities, more pedestrian though no less obvious, of the Darwinism of the 19th or early-20th
century." (Stove D.C., "So You Think You Are a Darwinian?," The Royal Institute of Philosophy," Philosophy,
69, 1994, pp.267-277)
3/05/03
"1. The truth is, 'the total prostitution of all animal life, including Man and all his airs and graces, to the blind
purposiveness of these minute virus-like substances', genes. This is a thumbnail-sketch, and an accurate one, of
the contents of The Selfish Gene (1976) by Richard Dawkins. It was not written by Dawkins, but he quoted it with
manifest enthusiasm in a defence of The Selfish Gene which he wrote in this journal in 1981. Dawkins' status, as a
widely admired spokesman for ultra-Darwinism, is too well- known to need evidence of it adduced here. His
admirers even include some philosophers who have carried their airs and graces to the length of writing
good books on such rarefied subjects as universals, or induction, or the mind. Dawkins can scarcely have
gratified these admirers by telling them that, even when engaged in writing those books, they were 'totally
prostituted to the blind purposiveness of their genes Still, you 'have to hand it' to genes which can write, even if
only through their slaves, a good book on subjects like universals or induction. Those genes must have brains
all right, as well as purposes. At least, they must, if genes can have brains and purposes. But in fact, of course,
DNA molecules no more have such things than H2O molecules do." (Stove D.C., "So You Think You Are a
Darwinian?," The Royal Institute of Philosophy," Philosophy, 69, 1994, pp.267-277. Emphasis original)
3/05/03
"Creationism. General meaning: affirms that the universe is a creation of God, and hence that a world-view such
as naturalism is untrue. Young earth creationism: the belief that the earth and universe are less than about 15,000
years old. This is commonly connected with the calendar day interpretation of Genesis 1. Some adherents of the
Calendar Day view, however, do not take a position on the age of the earth; and some adherents of the other
views do not require that the earth be "old." Old earth creationism: creationism that allows that the natural
sciences accurately conclude that the universe is "old" (i.e. millions or even billions of years). Two sub-
categories of old-earth creationism: - theistic evolution: belief that natural processes sustained by God's ordinary
providence are God's means of bringing about life and humanity. - progressive creationism: belief that second
causes sustained by God's providence are not the whole story, but that instead God has added supernatural,
creative actions to the process, corresponding to the fiats of Genesis 1. Some confusion can arise because
progressive creationists vary in the degree of biological change they are willing to countenance in between the
creative events. The progressive creationists and the young earth creationists agree on a key point: namely that
natural processes and ordinary providence are not adequate to explain the world. They both fall into the category
of supernatural creationists or special creationists." ("Report of the Creation Study Committee," Presbyterian
Church in America: Atlanta GA, 2000)
4/05/03
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful
works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and
many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had
condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive
again the third day, 3 as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things
concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. (Josephus, Flavius,
"Jewish Antiquities," 18.3.3, in "The New Complete Works of Josephus," Whiston, W., transl., Kregel Publications:
Grand Rapids MI, Revised Edition, 1999, p.590)
4/05/03
"In a disputed text, Josephus gives a brief description of Jesus and his mission: `Now there was about this, time,
Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,-a teacher of such men as
receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was
[the] Christ and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,
those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. For he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the
divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of
Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day, [Antiquities 18.3.3]' This passage was cited by
Eusebius in its present form (Ecclesiastical History 1.11) and the manuscript evidence favors it. Yet it is widely
considered to be an interpolation, since it is unlikely that Josephus, a Jew, would affirm that Jesus was the
Messiah and had been proven so by fulfilled prophecy, miraculous deeds, and the resurrection from the dead.
Even "Origin [sic] says that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah, nor proclaim him as such" (Contra
Celsus 2.47; 2.13; Bruce, 108). F.F. Bruce suggests that the phrase "if indeed we should call him a man" may
indicate that the text is authentic but that Josephus is writing with tongue in cheek in sarcastic reference to
Christian belief that Jesus is the Son of God (Bruce, 109). Other scholars have suggested amending the text in
ways that preserve its authenticity without the implication that Josephus personally accepted that Christ was the
Messiah (see Bruce, 110- 11). It may be that a tenth-century Arabic text (see McDowell, 85) reflects the original
intent: `At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and [he] was known
to be virtuous. Many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him
to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They
reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was
perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders. In this form it does not affirm that
Josephus believed in the resurrection but only that his disciples `reported' it. This would at least reflect an
honest report of what his immediate disciples believed. Bruce observes that there is good reason for believing
that Josephus did refer to Jesus bearing witness to his date, reputation, family connections to James, crucifixion
under Pilate at the instigation of the Jewish leaders, messianic claim, founding of the church, and the conviction
among his followers of the resurrection." (Geisler N.L.*, "Flavius Josephus," in "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian
Apologetics," Baker Books: Grand Rapids MI, 1999, p.254)
4/05/03
"2. 'it is, after all, to [a mother's] advantage that her child should be adopted' by another woman.' This quotation
is from Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, p. 110. Obviously false though this proposition is, from the point of view of
Darwinism it is well-founded, for the reason which Dawkins gives on the same page: that another woman's
adopting her baby 'releases a rival female from the burden of child-rearing, and frees her to have another child
more quickly.' This, you will say, is a grotesque way of looking at human life; and so, of course, it is. But it is
impossible to deny that it is the Darwinian way." (Stove D.C., "So You Think You Are a Darwinian?," The
Royal Institute of Philosophy," Philosophy, 69, 1994, pp.267-277)
4/05/03
"Scientists almost invariably overstate the case for evolution, and creationists have as much access to the critical
literature as any one else. But when it comes to defending their own theory, creationists do not have a strong
case in terms of biblical scholarship or for a recent creation of the earth. And yet the creationists are stronger in
the 1980s than they have been in many decades, and their influence appears to be still on the increase. This
puzzles, annoys, and frightens the evolutionists, who tend to think that science, logic, history, and truth are all
on their side. They cannot understand why the creationists do not simply blow away. They have no better
explanations than ignorance, irrationality, and dark conspiracies. The most peculiar aspect of the debate is that
the creationists are sustained by events completely outside the question of evolution. The Bible of course does
not end with Genesis. Scattered throughout the Old and New Testaments are a number of prophecies indicating
that the nation of Israel would be reborn with Jerusalem as its capital and that there will eventually be a great,
final, and dramatic last battle between Israel and an alliance of various nations, including one "from the uttermost
parts of the north," (Ezekiel 39:2), a reference many see as pointing to Russia. As everyone knows, Israel has in
fact been reborn. As recently as 1980, the Israelis proclaimed Jerusalem as their eternal, indivisible capital. And
almost every week the political realities in the Middle East can be seen falling ever more precisely into the pattern
required for consummation of the ancient prophecies that are yet to be fulfilled." (Fix W.R., "The Bone Peddlers:
Selling Evolution," Macmillan: New York, 1984, pp.234-235)
5/05/03
"I started this line of inquiry by asking Habermas to describe the postResurrection appearances in Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John. `There are several different appearances to a lot of different people in the gospels and
Acts-some individually, some in groups, sometimes indoors, sometimes outdoors, to sof thearted people like
John and skeptical people like Thomas,' he began. `At times they touched Jesus or ate with him, with the texts
teaching that he was physically present. The appearances occurred over several weeks. And there are good
reasons to trust these accounts-for example, they're lacking in many typical mythical tendencies.' `Can you
enumerate these appearances for me?" From memory, Habermas described them one at a time. Jesus appeared *
to Mary Magdalene, in John 20:10- 18; * to the other women, in Matthew 28:8-10; * to Cleopas and another
disciple on the road to Emmaus, in Luke 24:1332; to eleven disciples and others, in Luke 24:33-49; to ten apostles
and others, with Thomas absent, in John 20:19-23; * to Thomas and the other apostles, in John 20:26 30; * to
seven apostles, in John 21:1-14; * to the disciples, in Matthew 28:16-20. * And he was with the apostles at the
Mount of Olives before his ascension, in Luke 24:50-52 and Acts 1:4-9." (Strobel L.P.*, "The Case For Christ: A
Journalist's Personal Testimony of the Evidence for Jesus," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1998, pp.315-316)
5/05/03
"3. All communication is 'manipulation of signal-receiver by signal-sender.' This profound communication,
though it might easily have come from any used-car salesman reflecting on life, was actually sent by Dawkins, (in
The Extended Phenotype, (1982), p. 57), to the readers whom he was at that point engaged in manipulating. Much
as the devil, in many medieval plays, advises the audience not to take his advice." (Stove D.C., "So You Think
You Are a Darwinian?," The Royal Institute of Philosophy," Philosophy, 69, 1994, pp.267-277)
5/05/03
"4. Homosexuality in social animals is a form of sibling-altruism: that is, your homosexuality is a way of helping
your brothers and sisters to raise more children. This very-believable proposition is maintained by Robert Trivers
in his book Social Evolution, (1985), pp. 198-9. Professor Trivers is a leading light among ultra-Darwinians, (who
are nowadays usually called 'sociobiologists'). Whether he also believes that suicide, for example, and self-
castration, are forms of sibling-altruism, I do not know; but I do not see what there is to stop him. What is there
to stop anyone believing such propositions? Only common sense: a thing entirely out of the question among
sociobiologists." (Stove D.C., "So You Think You Are a Darwinian?," The Royal Institute of Philosophy,"
Philosophy, 69, 1994, pp.267-277)
6/05/03
"Conclusion. Proverbs 18:17 may well have been commenting on arguments concerning the Testimonium: "The
first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him." The present author was once firmly
convinced that both references in the Antiquities were authentic. After reading the study of Ken Olson that
shows the vocabulary of the Testimonium to be not Josephan but rather Eusebian, I was inclined to regard both
references as spurious. But now that I have found evidence that the reference in 20.9.1 does not require an earlier
reference to Jesus, I am presently persuaded to regard the shorter reference as authentic. Even if one is
convinced that the passages are interpolated, there is a satisfactory explanation for the silence of Josephus on
Jesus and Christianity. ... But assuming that at least the shorter reference is authentic, what can we conclude
from this? It shows that Josephus accepted the historicity of Jesus. Simply by the standard practice of
conducting history, a comment from Josephus about a fact of the first century constitutes prima facie evidence
for that fact. It ought to be accepted as history unless there is good reason for disputing the fact. Moreover, it is
reasonable to think that Josephus heard about the deposition of Ananus as soon as it happened. ... Josephus
was close at hand when it happened, and was a man of some standing in the Jewish community. I can't imagine
that he missed it when it was news, and didn't find out about it until he talked to some Christians about 30 years
later." Thus, Josephus' information about the identity of James brings us back to the period prior to the First
Jewish Revolt. If Josephus referred to James as the brother of Jesus in the Antiquities, in all likelihood the
historical James identified himself as the brother of Jesus, and this identification would secure the place of Jesus
as a figure in history." (Kirby P., "Testimonium Flavianum," 2001)
7/05/03
"In one way the eye is eminently understandable. It is so like a camera that you wonder why there is not a law
suit going on somewhere for breach of patent. The dark box, the lens, the iris diaphragm, the light-sensitive
surface - each of these components is there in each case. At deeper levels there are certainly patentable
differences in design. The light-sensitive area at the back of the eye is not actually much like a film. It, and many
other things about the eye, are not by any means fully understood. But what is eminently understandable about
the eye is that it should consist of rather definite components working in collaboration: as remarked in chapter 6
(point two, to which we are now returning) this is what really efficient pieces of machinery are usually like. The
bit that is not so clear about the eye -and a favourite challenge to Darwin - is how its components evolved when
the whole machine will only work when all the components are there in place and working. Not that this problem
is peculiar to the eye. Organisms are full of such machinery, and it is a widely held view that this appearance of
having been designed is the key feature of living things." (Cairns-Smith A.G., "Seven Clues to the Origin of Life:
A Scientific Detective Story," [1985], Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1993, reprint, p.58)
8/05/03
"Political events too have been urged as the fulfillment of some of the prerequisites laid down by Scripture for
the return of Christ. There are many prophecies about the return of the Jews to their homeland. Frequently, it was
expected that these events would be inaugurated by the Messiah him self, but it was also held that they would
precede his return. At just about the time we have proposed for the end of the Chalcedonian era in theology, the
fifteen-hundredth jubilee of 1951, the Jews finally did return to political power in the Holy Land. The state of
Israel was established in 1948. Even more recently, in 1967, the Jewish people gained full possession of Jerusalem
in the Six-Day War. One prophecy of Jesus, unrealized for 1897 years, seems to have been fulfilled: `Jerusalem
shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled' (Luke 21:24). Between 1948, when
Israel was established, and 1967, when Jerusalem was recaptured, the `times of the Gentiles' were brought to an
end-at least for the present-in the Holy Land. ... Does the reconquest of Jerusalem by the new state of Israel have
immediate bearing on the end of the present age? Is it a sign of the imminent return of Christ? Christians have
been warned by Jesus himself to be cautious about trying to discover the time of his return, yet he also advised
them to `watch.' It is in the light of this admonition that we must consider the apparent collapse of Chalcedonian
theology. Is this also a sign? Can it be the beginning of the `falling away' foretold by Paul? ... The geographical
city of Jerusalem had already endured many shocks before the Six-Day War transferred it into Jewish hands once
again in 1967. ... When the calendar stood at one thousand years since the birth of Christ, hundreds of
thousands of Christians took it for a sign of the end, but it was not. Neither were the calendar dates 1200 and
1260. But Jerusalem is more important in the timetable of history than calendar dates. And so is Chalcedon."
(Brown H.O.J.*, "Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the
Present," Doubleday & Co: New York, 1984, pp.448-450)
8/05/03
"On the basis of data drawn from comparative anatomy, embryology, and the experience of breeders, classical
Darwinism asserted that the progression from the early species to the later ones, as observed in the rocks, was a
process of actual physical descent governed by natural selection through such agencies as the struggle for
existence, survival of the fittest, sexual selection, and adaptation, all of which worked in small cumulative steps
through vast periods of relatively undisturbed time. This had two logical corollaries: first, in the evolution of any
structure or function, every intermediate stage must be of advantage to the species; second, natural selection
tends to make each being only as perfect as, or slightly more perfect than, the other inhabitants of the same area,
and does not produce absolute perfection. ... Thus both corollaries have been tried and found wanting. The
predictions have been falsified. This may be why moderate evolutionists admit that Darwinism has no predictive
power. Mayr, for example, says: `The theory of natural selection can describe and explain phenomena with
considerable precision but it cannot make reliable predictions.' (Mayr, E.W., "Cause and effect in biology", Science,
Vol. 134, 1961, 1504)." (Macbeth N., "Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason", Gambit: Boston MA, 1971, pp.4,103)
8/05/03
"There are two definitions of science at work in the scientific culture, and a concealed contradiction between
them is beginning to come out into public view. On the one hand, science is dedicated to empirical evidence and
to following that evidence wherever it leads. That is why science had to be free of the Bible, because the Bible
was seen to constrain the possibilities scientists were allowed to consider. On the other hand, science also
means `applied materialist philosophy.' Scientists who are materialists always look for strictly materialist
explanations or every phenomenon, and they want to believe that such explanations always exist." (Johnson
P.E.*, "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1997, p.80)
9/05/03
"Darwin, however, laid just one stricture on his theory: it could, he maintained, `render each organized being only
as perfect or a little more perfect than other inhabitants of the same country.' It could allow any animal only a
relative superiority, never an absolute perfection-otherwise selection and the struggle for existence would cease
to operate. To explain the rise of man through the slow, incremental gains of natural selection, Darwin had to
assume a long struggle of man with man and tribe with tribe. He had to make this assumption because man had
far outpaced his animal associates. Since Darwin's theory of the evolutionary process is based upon the practical
value of all physical and mental characters in the life struggle, to ignore the human struggle of man with man
would have left no explanation as to how humanity by natural selection alone managed to attain an intellectual
status so far beyond that of any of the animals with which it had begun its competition for survival. To most of
the thinkers of Darwin's day this seemed a reasonable explanation. It was a time of colonial expansion and
ruthless business competition. Peoples of primitive cultures, small societies lost on the world's margins, seemed
destined to be destroyed. It was thought that Victorian civilization was the apex of human achievement and that
other races with different customs and ways of life must be biologically inferior to Western man. Some of them
were even described as only slightly superior to apes. The Darwinians, in a time when there were no satisfactory
fossils by which to demonstrate human evolution, were unconsciously minimizing the abyss which yawned
between man and ape. In their anxiety to demonstrate our lowly origins they were throwing modern natives into
the gap as representing living `missing links' in the chain of human ascent." (Eiseley L.C., "The Real Secret of
Piltdown," in "The Immense Journey," [1946], Vintage: New York NY, 1957, reprint, pp.82-83)
10/05/03
"Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (argument from ignorance). This type of thinking assumes that something should
be believed until it is shown to be false. One who uses this fallacy says, `Accept this because you can't prove it
isn't true.' In other words, if you don't know something is wrong, you should embrace it. But what would happen
if someone approached a snake with the attitude of, `Well, I can't prove that it is poisonous, so I guess it's safe to
pick it up'? There is a place for closed-mindedness. Propositions, unlike defendants in a court of law, are not
presumed true (innocent) until proven false (guilty). Ignorance proves nothing, and all that can be concluded
from nothing is nothing. ... That is no way to find truth! Let positive evidence be presented and evaluated for
both sides, and the truth can be known. As Aquinas said, `the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated.'"
(Geisler N.L*. & Brooks R.M.*, "Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking," Baker: Grand
Rapids MI, 1990, pp.95-96)
10/05/03
"Yet before examining this criterion, I want briefly to clarify the word design. I'm using design in
three distinct senses. First I use it to denote the scientific theory that distinguishes intelligent agency from
natural causes, a theory that increasingly is being referred to as design theory or intelligent
design (ID). Second, I use design to denote what it is about intelligently produced objects that
enables us to tell that they are intelligently produced and not simply the result of natural causes. When
intelligent agents act, they leave behind a characteristic trademark or signat