Stephen E. Jones

Creation/Evolution Quotes: Unclassified quotes: January - March 2004

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

The following are unclassified quotes posted in my email messages in January-March, 2004.
The date format is dd/mm/yy. See copyright conditions at end.

[Jan, Feb, Mar] [Apr-Jun] [Jul-Sep] [Oct-Dec]

January [top]
1/01/04
"The theory of evolution cannot take the place of the doctrine of creation. Some speak as if the hypothesis
of evolution offered an explanation of the origin of the world, but this is clearly a mistake, for it does no such
thing. Evolution is development, and all development presupposes the prior existence of an entity or
principle or force, out of which something develops. The non-existent cannot develop into existence. Matter
and force could not have evolved out of nothing. It has been customary for evolutionists to fall back on the
nebular hypothesis, in order to explain the origin of the solar system, though in present day science this is
supplanted by the planetesimal hypothesis. But these only carry the problem one step farther back, and fail
to solve it. The evolutionist must either resort to the theory that matter is eternal, or accept the doctrine of
creation." (Berkhof L., "Systematic Theology," [1932], Banner of Truth: London, British Edition, 1958, Third
Printing, 1966, p.161)

2/01/04
"Fundamentalism, as I intimate throughout this book, is a parody of the American Religion, but its defensive
anxieties and its wounded aggressivities stem nevertheless from what is most authentic in the American
Gnosis. The true issue is by no means Biblical Inerrancy, because the Fundamentalists, as unwitting
Gnostics, do not believe anyway that God made them. Their deepest knowledge is that they were no
part of the Creation, but existed as spirits before it, and so are as old as God himself. To be told that they
evolved from a common ancestor both of themselves and of apes is no better or worse for them than to be
assured that they all descend from a single African woman. What wounds them unforgivingly is not the idea
of evolution (in whatever version) but the demonstration that they were never God, or part of God. Their
sense of their freedom depends ultimately upon being free not only of time and of nature but, more
secretively, being free of the very Creationism they urge upon all the rest of us." (Bloom H., "The American
Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation," [1992], Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1993,
pp.56-57)

2/01/04
"If science should render it certain that all the present species of living creatures were derived by natural
descent from a few original germs, and that these germs were themselves an evolution of inorganic forces
and materials, we should not therefore regard the Mosaic account as proved untrue. We should only be
required to revise our interpretation of the word bara in Gen. 1:21, 27, and to give it there the meaning of
mediate creation, or creation by law. Such a meaning might almost seem to be favored by Gen, 1:11-`let the
earth put forth grass'; 20 `let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life'; 2:7-`the
Lord God formed man of the dust'; 9-`out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree'; cf. Mark 4
:28 ... `the earth brings forth fruit automatically.'" ... (Strong A.H., "Systematic Theology," [1907], Judson
Press: Valley Forge PA, 1967, reprint, pp.392-393)

2/01/04
"The present author sternly resists any effort to dogmatize about the time involved in creation, and any
effort of fiat creationism to reduce progressive creationism to evolution or to impiety, as if progressive
creationism questioned the omnipotence of God. `For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it
stood fast' (Psa. 33:9) has been one of the verses repeatedly used in the history of Bible-and-science to
refute science, and yet the fiat-heliocentric interpretation of this verse has been continually put to rout. The
verse asserts nothing about time in creation, but it does assert the certainty with which
Nature obeys the divine will. The command of a great and powerful general is faithfully and obediently
carried out. The amount of time consumed in carrying out the will of the general is dependent on the task,
and a task which takes a long time is no depreciation of the general's authority, as a task which takes a short
time is no necessary tribute to his authority." (Ramm B.L., "The Christian View of Science and Scripture,"
[1955] Paternoster: Exeter, Devon UK, 1967, reprint, p.77. Emphasis in original)

2/01/04
"Writing on 'Creation, Evolution, and Mediate Creation' for The Bible Student in 1901 (pp. 197-210), for
example, Warfield reviewed the `scientific theology' of Otto Pfleiderer which, on inspection, revealed a
wholesale importation of evolutionism into theological reflection. What Pfleiderer's project amounted to
was-ultimately-a denial of God's creative intervention by an overemphasis on providential superintendence.
Pfleiderer's conclusions prompted Warfield to insist that `when we say 'evolution,' we definitely deny
creation. and when we say 'creation,' we definitely deny evolution. Whatever comes by the one process by
that very fact does not come by the other. Whatever comes by evolution is not created; whatever is created
is not evolved.' Evolution and creation were mutually exclusive categories. ... This 1901 essay was Warfield's
most articulate presentation yet of a crucial distinction he was drawing between three modes of divine
action or superintendence of the physical world. Warfield saw them as methods that God used to generate
physical forms, species, and individuals. First was theistic evolution, or the providentially controlled
unfolding of nature. Second was creation ex nihilo, or out of nothing. Warfield's third category was the most
complicated and the one that least resembles schemes developed since his time. This was the category of
mediate creation-in effect, a via media between evolution and creation ex nihilo that he developed from hints
in earlier Reformed theologians. By mediate creation Warfield meant that God acted, or intervened, with
already existing material to bring something new into existence that could not have developed from the
forces latent in the material itself. Like creation ex nihilo, mediate creation required a direct act of God. Like
evolution, mediate creation featured already existing material." (Noll M.A. & Livingstone D.N.,
"Introduction," in Noll M.A. & Livingstone D.N., eds, "B.B. Warfield: Evolution, Science and Scripture:
Selected Writings," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 2000, pp.34-35)

4/1/04
"Your coverage of Robert Gallo's annual lab meeting (F. Hoke, The Scientist, Nov. 14, 1994, page 1) revealed
unmistakably that research based on the HIV theory of AIDS is at a standstill. Ten years after the discovery
of what the newspapers call `HIV, the virus that causes AIDS,' it is clear that scientists haven't a clue as to
what HIV is supposed to be doing to the cells of the immune system. Gallo's own summary said that there
are `conflicting views on the question of whether HIV kills T cells directly or indirectly. That general area
was, to me, one of the high points of the meeting, but without clear-cut resolution.' After a decade of futility,
HIV scientists are making no progress in explaining how a retrovirus can be killing cells it doesn't infect.
How many more years will it take before biomedical science is willing to reconsider a theory that was
established by a press conference, and that has generated nothing since but a steady stream of failed
predictions?" (Johnson, P.E.*, "HIV And AIDS," The Scientist, Vol. 9, No. 2, January 23, 1995, p.13)

5/1/04
"Likewise, if the impacts transferred life-bearing rocks from Earth to Mars, or from Mars to Earth, the arrival
of these rocks from another planet might well have occurred not once but dozens, hundreds, or even
thousands of times, depending on how many rocks each impact blasted loose. Even if most of these
transfers failed to strike a spark on the new planet, the large number of interplanetary rock voyages
suggests that primitive Earth may well have received samples of early Martian life, if it existed, and that Mars
should have received a smaller, but still significant number, of life-bearing rocks from Earth." (Goldsmith
D.A., "The Hunt for Life on Mars," Dutton: New York NY, 1997, p.141)

6/1/04
"At the risk of repetition, let us also note that science offers one particular way to regard the world, a view
that has yielded great benefits not only to its adherents but also to those who know nothing of science.
However, you never gain something but that you lose something, as Thoreau said. Since science depends
on its skepticism, an attitude different from what we feel in our inner selves, we should never lose sight of
the fact that science is only one way to tell a story, only one myth that `explains' the world around us.
Science differs only because the story and myth concern what is generally called physical reality; for those
who find this fact incomplete or even low on the hierarchy of importance, science can never rank as much
more than a source of fascinating tidbits of information. Many a scientist feels the split between his or her
skeptical side, which leads to greater understanding of the physical world, and a more ethereal side, which
takes an interest in other matters. In what may be seen as an attempt to unite these two aspects, Albert
Einstein once said that `the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.' A fair
amount of mystery still lies within that word "comprehensible." (Goldsmith D.A., "The Hunt for Life on
Mars," Dutton: New York NY, 1997, pp.232-233)

6/1/04
"Chapter 9. The Seventy Weeks. The Captivity, which was then drawing to a closes had lasted 70 years.
Daniel is here told by the angel that it would yet be `70 weeks' till the coming of the Messiah (24). The `70
weeks' is generally understood to mean 70 weeks of years, that is as 70 sevens of years, or seven times 70
years, that is 490 years. As if the angel were saying, The Captivity has been 70 years; the period between
the Captivity and the Coming of the Messiah will be seven times that long. Seven, and cycles of seven,
sometimes have symbolic meanings; yet the actual facts of this prophecy are most amazing, as follows: The
date from which the 70 weeks was to be counted was the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (25). There were three
decrees issued by Persian kings for this purpose (536 B.C., 457 B.C., 444 B.C., see under Ezra). The principal
one of these was 457 B.C. The 70 weeks is subdivided into 7 weeks, 62 weeks, and 1 week (25, 27). It is
difficult to see the application of the `7 weeks'; but the 69 weeks (including the 7) equal 483 days, that is, on
the year-day theory (Ezekiel 4:6), which is the commonly accepted interpretation, 483 years. This 483 years is
the period between the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the coming of the `Anointed One' (25). The decree to
rebuild Jerusalem, as noted above, was 457 B.C Adding 483 years to 457 B.C. brings us to A.D. 26, the very
year that Jesus was baptized and began his public ministry. A most remarkable fulfillment of Daniel's
prophecy, even to the year. Further, within 3 1/2 years Jesus was crucified, that is, `in the midst of the one
week' `the Anointed One' was `cut off,' `purged away sin and brought in everlasting righteousness' (24, 26,
27). Thus Daniel foretold not only the Time at which the Messiah would appear, but also the Duration of his
Public Ministry, and his Atoning Death for Human Sin. Some think that God's chronology was suspended at
the death of Christ, to remain so while Israel is scattered, and that the last half of the `one week' belongs to
the time of the End." (Halley H.H.*, "Halley's Bible Handbook: An Abbreviated Bible Commentary," [1927],
Oliphants: London, Twenty-Fourth Edition, 1965, p.349)

8/1/04
"C. THE SEVENTY SEVENS (OF YEARS) (9). One of the most amazing predictions in the Bible foretold the
very time of Christ's coming. While meditating on the seventy-years captivity, as Jeremiah (ch. 25) had
predicted it, Daniel was told by the angel Gabriel that seventy sevens (of years) would be decreed upon
Jerusalem and the Jewish people before the messianic age would come. The first sixty-nine sevens (483
years) would run from the command of Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem (445 B.C.) to the cutting off of the
Messiah (the Crucifixion). Taking these to e lunar years (i.e., twelve 30-day months = 360 days) one comes
up with about 476 solar years, which takes US to A.D. 31, the time of the Crucifixion of Christ. Some scholars
believe this is the exact number of years, even days, to Christ. Others are content with a round number
approximation (70 x 7). Whatever the case, it is sufficiently close to be amazing, especially in view of the fact
that the most skeptical critic admits that the prophecy was given at least 165 years before Christ!" (Geisler
N.L.*, "A Popular Survey of the Old Testament," [1977], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1984, Eighth printing,
p.288)

8/1/04
"Darwinian evolution with its blind watchmaker thesis makes me think of a great battleship on the ocean of
reality. Its sides are heavily armored with philosophical barriers to criticism, and its decks are stacked with
big rhetorical guns ready to intimidate any would-be attackers. In appearance, it is as impregnable as the
Soviet Union seemed to be only a few years ago. But the ship has sprung a metaphysical leak, and the more
perceptive of the ship's officers have begun to sense that all the ship's firepower cannot save it if the leak is
not plugged. There will be heroic efforts to save the ship, of course, and some plausible rescuers will invite
the officers to take refuge in electronic lifeboats equipped with high-tech gear like autocatalytic sets and
computer models of self-organizing systems. The spectacle will be fascinating, and the battle will go on for a
long time. But in the end reality will win." (Johnson P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," InterVarsity Press: Downers
Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, pp.169-170)

8/1/04
"The sinking ship. I beg readers' indulgence for the perhaps overly dramatic metaphor of the final paragraph.
A writer should be allowed his bit of fun. The reference to "high-tech" damage-control mechanisms is to the
school represented by Stuart Kauffman's Origins of Order (1993). I assume this is what Gould had in mind
when he referred to "the self-organizing properties of molecules and other physical systems." If the rulers of
science really mean to jump into this lifeboat, I will be happy to participate in the ensuing discussion, but I
think that after assessing the prospects they will elect to stay on the sinking ship and keep trying to plug
the holes. (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993,
p.213)

9/1/04
"We live in a most uncommon time. Opposition to recent changes in Western society is not mere
sentimental idealization of yesteryear, or the fear of change. We are not faced with differences between
miniskirts and maxiskirts, wide ties or narrow. Ours is a choice of civilization. It is not a question of turning
back the clock to the rosy world of the '50s. it is the question of whether we opt for a Christian or pagan
society. Our society struggles at the brink of a new age, characterized by an unusual mixing of
fundamentally antithetical views regarding the world and God. In the confusion of worldviews, monism and
theism lock in a battle to the death. Which will emerge victorious to affect the future of the next generations?
Though ultimate victory belongs to the Creator, the Church has never been promised every battle. As
Professor Wilken of the University of Virginia has observed, with exceptional insight: `The ferocity of the
current assault on the legacy of Christian culture ... has brought a new clarity of vision. The alternatives are
set before us with unusual starkness: either there will be a genuine renewal of Christian culture-there is no
serious alternative-or we will be enveloped by the darkness of paganism in which the worship of the true
God is abandoned and forgotten. The sources of the cultural crisis, it turns out, are theological.'" (Jones P.*,
"Pagans in the Pews," Regal: Ventura CA, 2001, p.39)

9/1/04
"Does the average Christian know what is going on in our ostensibly civilized society? Pagan ideology,
sometimes of the most radical and anti-Christian nature, is taught in university departments of religion,
theological seminaries, mainline church agencies, feminist networks and Wicca covens across the land. It
adopts the name of Christianity but will render our world unrecognizable. ... If you doubt the success of this
revolution, note the following statistic: 71 percent of Americans and 40 percent of those who, based upon
their core beliefs, are considered Evangelicals, no longer believe in absolute truth. Since the '60s,
consciousness has changed. The present hour is crucial. `The church faces a crisis of identity possibly
unmatched since the second century. ... The threat has monumental implications for believers and especially
for their children." (Jones P.*, "Pagans in the Pews," Regal: Ventura CA, 2001, pp.39-40)

9/1/04
"Owing to my having accidentally omitted to mention that Dr. Krause had enlarged and corrected his article
in German before it was translated, Mr Samuel Butler abused me with almost insane virulence. How I
offended him so bitterly, I have never been able to understand. The subject gave rise to some controversy
in the Athenaeum newspaper and Nature. I laid all the documents before some good judges, viz. Huxley,
Leslie Stephen, Litchfield, etc., and they were all unanimous that the attack was so baseless that it did not
deserve any public answer; for I had already expressed privately my regret to Mr. Butler for my accidental
omission. Huxley consoled me by quoting some German lines from Goethe, who had been attacked by
someone, to the effect `that every Whale has its Louse.'" (Darwin C.R., in Barlow N., ed., "The
Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882: With Original Omissions Restored," [1958], W.W. Norton &
Co: New York, 1969, reprint, p[.134-135)

9/1/04
"The theory of biological evolution is based on the struggle for life and the survival of the fittest. Yet
cooperation is common between members of the same species and even between members of different
species. Before about 1960, accounts of the evolutionary process largely dismissed cooperative phenomena
as not requiring special attention. ... To account for the manifest existence of cooperation and related group
behavior, such as altruism and restraint in competition, evolutionary theory has recently acquired two kinds
of extension. These extensions are, broadly, genetical kinship theory and reciprocity theory. Most of the
recent activity, both in fieldwork and in further developments of theory, has been on the side of kinship. ... If
the players are sufficiently closely related, altruism can benefit reproduction of the set, despite losses to the
individual altruist. In accord with this theory's predictions, almost all clear cases of altruism, and most
observed cooperation-apart from their appearance in the human species-occur in contexts of high
relatedness, usually between immediate family members. The evolution of the suicidal barbed sting of the
honeybee worker could be taken as paradigm for this line of theory (Hamilton 1972). Conspicuous examples
of cooperation (although almost never of ultimate self-sacrifice) also occur where relatedness is low or
absent. Mutually advantageous symbioses offer striking examples such as these: the fungus and alga that
compose a lichen; the ants and ant-acacias, where the trees house and feed the ants which, in turn, protect
the trees (Janzen 1966); and the fig wasps and fig tree, where wasps, which are parasites of fig flowers, serve
as the tree's sole means of pollination and seed set (Wiebes 1976; Janzen 1979). Usually the course of
cooperation in such symbioses is smooth, but sometimes the partners show signs of antagonism, either
spontaneous or elicited by particular treatments (Caullery 1952).3 Although kinship may be involved, as will
be discussed later, symbioses mainly illustrate the other recent extension of evolutionary theory-the theory
of reciprocity." (Axelrod R.M., "The Evolution of Cooperation," Basic Books: New York NY, 1984, pp.89-90)

10/1/04
"In this highly polemic volume James Barr of Oxford uses `fundamentalism' according to British parlance, as
equivalent to `conservative evangelicalism.' Only secondarily does he deal with `fundamentalists' in the
current American sense of strict separatists, such as the dispensationalist variety. He mainly attacks British
conservative evangelical scholars associated with Inter-Varsity Fellowship, their American counterparts
such as those associated with Christianity Today, and their intellectual forebears, especially Charles Hodge
and B.B. Warfield. Throughout this work, Barr displays, almost nothing but disdain and contempt for
conservative evangelical scholarship. He says that he does `not find any of its arguments to have validity
except in very minor respects' (p. 9). Fundamentalism, he maintains, is `a pathological condition of
Christianity' (p.5). ... The values of such criticisms are offset considerably by being placed in the context of
other arguments, which are simply untrue or unfair. For instance, repeatedly he accuses conservative
scholars of sheer ignorance: "... the fundamentalist picture of what non conservative theology is like is not
based on any deep study of the latter ..." (p. 164). Moreover, many times (as in the instance just quoted) he
attributes to all conservative evangelicals the traits of some. Furthermore, he sets up several no-win
situations for conservative evangelical scholars. If they reject all modern critical methods or insights, they
are obscurantists; if they do consider some, they are inconsistent or `simply hanging on the coat-tails of
non conservative work...' (p. 232). This book apparently is written to free young converts from the shackles
of conservative evangelical influences. ... But the irony of this volume is that it has so many of the very
traits it most strongly criticizes." (Marsden G., "Fundamentalism." Review of "Fundamentalism," by James
Barr Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1978. Theology Today, Princeton Theological Seminary: Princeton NJ,
Vol. 35, No. 4, January 1979)

10/1/04
"Imagine that you are driving down a narrow road with a cliff on one side and a precipice on the other, when
you find that a huge, thick log blocks the way forward. The log is too heavy to lift, and there is no way
around it. If you are going to proceed, you must find some way to split the log into segments, so you can
move the barrier out of the way. Fortunately, this can be done. The log seems solid, but there are bound to
be cracks, some of which penetrate deep into the interior. What you need to do is insert the thin edge of a
wedge into the most profound crack and gradually drive the broader parts of the wedge into the log until the
crack widens and the log is split. The log in this metaphor is the ruling philosophy of modern culture, a
philosophy called naturalism or materialism or physicalism or simply modernism. Under any of those
names this philosophy assumes that in the beginning were the fundamental particles that compose matter,
energy and the impersonal laws of physics. To put it negatively, there was no personal God who created the
cosmos and governs it as an act of free will. If God exists at all, he acts only through inviolable laws of
nature and adds nothing to them. In consequence, all the creating had to be done by the laws and the
particles, which is to say by some combination of random chance and lawlike regularity. It is by building on
that philosophical assumption that modernist scientists conclude that all plants and animals are the
products of an undirected and purposeless evolutionary process and that humankind is just another animal
species, not created uniquely in the image of God. This philosophy controls academic work not only in
science but in all fields, including law, literature and psychology. It is promulgated throughout the
educational system and the mainstream media, and government backs it. Superficially it seems as immovable
as that great log that bars your progress on that mountain road. But on closer examination, the log is marked
by cracks. The most important crack in the modernist log is the difference between two distinct definitions
of science. On the one hand, modernists say that science is impartial fact-finding, the objective and
unprejudiced weighing of evidence. Science in that sense relies on careful observations, calculations, and
above all, repeatable experiments. That kind of objective science is what makes technology possible, and
where it can be employed it is indeed the most reliable way of determining the facts. On the other hand,
modernists also identify science with naturalistic philosophy. In that case science is committed to finding
and endorsing naturalistic explanations for every phenomenon - regardless of the facts. That kind of
science is not free of prejudice. On the contrary, it is defined by a prejudice. The prejudice is that all
phenomena can ultimately be explained in terms of purely natural causes, which is to say unintelligent
causes. The Wedge of my title is an informal movement of like-minded thinkers in which I have taken a
leading role. Our strategy is to drive the thin edge of our Wedge into the cracks in the log of naturalism by
bringing long-neglected questions to the surface and introducing them into public debate. Of course the
initial penetration is not the whole story, because the Wedge can split the log only if it thickens as it
penetrates. If we are raising the right questions after a long period in which those questions were
suppressed, then new avenues of inquiry should be suggested, and thinking will go off in new directions. A
new body of research and scholarship will gradually emerge, and in time the adherents of the old dogma will
be left behind, unable to comprehend the questions that have suddenly become too important to ignore."
(Johnson P.E.*, "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism," Intervarsity Press:
Downers Grove IL, 2000, pp.13-15. Emphasis in original)

10/1/04
"This perception of legitimacy was reinforced and rendered nearly irresistible by the inherent attractiveness
of the positive type of plot line of the rise of Design. A Darwinian (negative) telling of the Design story is a
flat, boring, and increasingly implausible tale of grim siege by emotional, ignorant villains. Therein, Design
scholars are construed as professors driven by `religious motivations,' who are `fearful' of evolution, who
aren't `Patient enough' to wait for the answers to be found, who don't understand how science works, or
who want to shut down science with a vision of a universe bursting with miracles.' By contrast, the tale of
Design told from a friendly point of view is a story that is fresh, profoundly interesting, and fascinating-
dramatic, in the most basic sense of the word. It seems to have what Walter Fisher described as `narrative
fidelity,' in ringing true to the experiences of our lives. One does not have to hold already to some sort of
divine intervention in nature to grasp this point. By thought experiment, anyone can imagine this story-that
scientists might be found profoundly misguided in their decades old pronouncement of `overwhelming
evidence' for evolution-and in this imagining, one realizes that such a drama contains powerful human-
interest themes. It is a moral tale of self-deluded blindness, long overlooked, but finally-at great sacrifice-
brought to light. Also, it is a story with broad cultural impact." (Woodward T.E.*, "Doubts about Darwin: A
History of Intelligent Design," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 2003, pp.196-197)

11/1/04
"The coming of prince Messiah is predicted in Daniel 9:25 as occurring sixty-nine; weeks (or heptads-
periods of seven) after the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem. ... [A] logical terminus a quo is to
be found in the restorations under Ezra or Nehemiah - which were of similar purpose and only twelve years
apart. The Temple had been rebuilt and its worship reestablished for many a year. But Jerusalem's wall was
still broken down and the city itself, with the exception, probably, of the estates of the rich, lay in ruins. The
purpose of Ezra and Nehemiah was to rebuild the city, and they received permission from the kings of Persia
to do precisely that Nehemiah's commission is very explicit (Neh. 2:5). Ezra had a similar purpose and work
(Ezra 7:8,9). Now, 48 years from Ezra's date of 456 B.C. is 26 A.D. (26 rather than 27, for there is no year 0
A.D.), the time, as nearly as we can tell, when John the Baptist proclaimed to the people of Judea, "Behold
the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." There would seem to be no need to look further
or to say that the author of Daniel is vague in his predictions of events which occurred after the days of the
Maccabees.' (Harris R.L.*, "Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible: An Historical and Exegetical Study,"
Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1957, pp.150-151"The prophecy of the seventy weeks has been variously
interpreted. One conclusion seems self-evident. Each week or "heptad" must be a period of seven years or a
total of 490 years. Daniel divides this period into three parts: the first has seven weeks or forty-nine years,
the second has sixty-two weeks or 434 years, and the third has one week or seven years. Some interpreters
hold that the entire seventy weeks were to follow one upon another without interruption. This
interpretation, however, encounters the difficulty that, according to the received Hebrew text of verse 25,
there are to elapse only sixty-nine weeks, after which time (according to verse 26) the anointed one is to be
cut off. (Moreover, a full 490 years can hardly be made out between any of eligible decrees-538, 457, and 445
B.C.- and the cutting off of the Messiah.) Others hold that sixty-nine weeks only were by fulfilled the time
the anointed one was cut off at Calvary, and that the last week belongs to the period of the great tribulation.
The early church fathers held this view. Some of those who hold to the latter view interpret the New
Testament church age as an unrevealed mystery during Old Testament times, constituting a "parenthesis"
until the beginning of the seventieth week. (Others who hold the deferment of the seventieth week
acknowledge that the New Testament church was quite frequently alluded to in the Old Testament.) The
terminus a quo for the commencement of these sixty nine weeks of years is stated to be from the going forth
of the word (or decree) to restore and build Jerusalem (ver 25). This may refer to the divine decree, or one of
three historical edicts: (1) decree of King Cyrus in 538 B.C. (Ezra -4); (2) the order of Artaxerxes to Ezra in 457
B.C. (which apparently involved authority to erect the walls of Jerusalem, cf. Ezra 7.6, 7; 9.9); (3) the order to
Nehemiah in 445 B.C. to carry through the rebuilding of the walls (which Ezra had not been able to
accomplish). Of these choices, (1) must be ruled out as coming nowhere to the time of Christ's ministry; (3)
coming out too late, unless lunar years are used the computation. Only (2) comes out right according to
regular solar years, for it yields the result as A.D. 27, or the commencement of Christ's ministry. Ezra and
Nehemiah render an account of the rebuilding of Jerusalem in forty-nine years and troublous times. Then
follow the sixty-two weeks, after which Messiah was cut off for sin. One's view of the remaining week is
colored by his whole scheme of prophetic interpretation." (Lindsell H.*, ed., "Harper Study Bible," Revised
Standard Version, [1964], Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1965, Nineteenth Printing, pp.1312-1313)

13/1/04
"The Seventy Weeks The future of Jerusalem and the nation of Israel was outlined for Daniel as he realized
that the seventy years of captivity prophesied by Jeremiah (29:10) were almost over. That future involved
seventy sevens or weeks (Dan. 9:20-27) arranged in three groups: (1) one set of seven weeks, (2) another of
sixty-two weeks, and (3) a final set of one week. Hence 490 weeks (i.e., years) were to be divided into 49, 434,
and 7 years respectively. The purpose of this further extension of time before the awaited Consummation set
in was described in the six infinitives of verse 24: to finish the transgression to abolish sin to atone for
iniquity to bring in everlasting righteousness to seal vision and prophet to anoint the most holy [place]. The
order of events before the full redemption arrived included the complete deliverance from sin and guilt, the
conclusion of prophetic activity, and the introduction of the righteous kingdom with its anointed sanctuary
in Zion as predicted in Ezekiel 40-48, Zechariah 3:9ff., and their predecessors. Most commentators agree that
the 490 years began with the decree of Artaxerxes in his twentieth year of reign in 445 B.C. (Neh. 2:1-8), 7
which allowed the city of Jerusalem to be rebuilt, and continued through 483 of those 490 years, until the
first advent of Messiah. But commentators differ widely on whether there is a gap of undetermined length
between the first 69 weeks or 483 years and the last week of 7 years or whether that week also did not expire
during the first Christian century during the persecution of the early church as symbolized by Stephen's
martyrdom The former position points to the temporal notation of "after the sixty-two weeks [period]" (9:26)
and the cutting off of Messiah (approx. A.D. 30) and the destruction of the temple (A.D. 70) while the latter
group tends to equate the "anointed one" and the "prince" of verse 26 and to argue for the completion of
the seventieth week during the first century A.D." (Kaiser W.C.*, Jr, "Toward an Old Testament Theology,"
[1978], Academie Books/Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1990, reprint, pp.247-248)

13/1/04
"Equivocation is when the meaning of words is shifted. Many false arguments use equivocation to
convince an audience. Equivocation makes natural selection slippery and provides its apparent scientific
power. If natural selection were consistently either tautology, or special definition, or metaphysics or lame,
then it would not have lasted so long in the scientific arena. Natural selection seems like powerful science
because 'fitness' is shifted to mean different things. Fitness can appear in three different ways. ... T
Tautology ... SD Special Definition ... M Metaphysics ... Alternatively, all references to fitness and
adaptation may be abandoned. Natural selection then appears as ... L Lame ... The illusion is achieved by
shifting between T, SD, M, and L. In this way natural selection can appear to have all the good qualities one
could want in science: empirical, measurable, explanatory, general, testable, non-tautologous, and true. This
shift can happen rapidly during a book or lecture. Once we understand the principle, watching natural
selection in action is like watching the three-shell game at the carnival. One never knows which of the
walnut shells the pea will be under next." (ReMine W.J.*, "The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message
Theory," St. Paul Science: Saint Paul MN, 1993, p.107)

14/1/04
"The prophecy of the seventy weeks also concerns the sufferings of the kingdom of God (ix. 24-27). The
prophetic era from which the weeks are reckoned is a decree, either of God or of an earthly king, for restoring
and building Jerusalem (25). The anointed one, the prince (25), and the anointed one (26) are interpreted,
with more or less soundness of reasoning, as referring to one person or two persons, and as being Cyrus or
a high priest or the line of high priests or Christ. The seven weeks and sixty-two weeks and one week,
amounting in all to seventy weeks (24-27), are variously distributed. They are taken successively, so as to
measure a period of 490 years; or the sixty-two is held to include the seven, so that a period of 431 years
only is covered- or the numbers are taken in the reverse order from their mention in verse 25, and a
significant period of seven weeks is made to follow the periods of sixty-two weeks and one week. The
theories which regard the decree as an edict of God are mainly two. They make the era either the beginning
of the exile, 605 B.C. (cp. Jer. xxv. 11), or the destruction of Jerusalem, 587 B.C. (cp. xxix. 10, written soon
after-the beginning of Jehoiachin's captivity verse 2; xxx. 18; xxxi. 38). Need it be added that the year 450 B.C.
has also been sought, on the theory that the seventy years of punishment were doubled (Jer. xvi. 18; but see
Is. xl. 2), and a divine decree of favor to Zion is implied at their close? The theories which date the era from
the decree of an earthly monarch are four: 1. The edict of Cyrus, 538 B.C. (Ezra i. 2-4; vi. 3-5; cp. Is. xliv. 28;
xlv. 1, 13), under the provisions of which the rebuilding of the temple was begun (Ezra vi. 14,15; Hag. i. 14,
15). 2. The edict of Darius (Ezra vi. 6-12). 3. The edict of the seventh year of Artaxerxes, 457 B.C. (vii. 7, 11-
26), which granted to the Jews absolute authority in civil and religious matters (25, 26), and under which
they proceeded to build the city walls (iv. 12). The work was temporarily interrupted by a new decree (iv. 21).
4. The edict of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, 444 B.C., which included permission to restore and fortify
the city (Neh. ii. 3, 5, 8, 17, 18). The problem thus has three factors, to each of which several interpretations
are given: the decree, the anointed one, and the weeks- and these factors are susceptible of various
combinations. Of all these combinations, using any one of the decrees as a starting-point, and reckoning
forward either sixtytwo or sixty-nine weeks of seven years each, and expecting either the time of Antiochus
Epiphanes or that of Christ to be reached by this measurement only one combination yields a result. All
others require an invention of history or involve an unusual chronological artifice or end in an unsolved
mystery or assume a gross miscalculation of the interval by the author. The one combination which
coincides with known history throughout starts with the decree of Artaxerxes in his seventh year, 457 B.C.
A period of seven weeks or forty-nine years came to a close about 408 B.C., and the reformation under Ezra
and Nehemiah was conducted during this period and characterized this period as a whole. When this reform
ceased to be the dominating feature of God's kingdom is unknown, but Nehemiah's successor, who was a
Persian and naturally not a maintainer of the exclusiveness of Jehovah's religion, was in office in 411 B.C.,
before the close of the seventh week. Then follow sixty-two weeks or 434 years, coming down through A.D.
26 to the time when Jesus began his public ministry, A.D. 27, probably early in that year. After these
threescore and two weeks an anointed one was cut off (Dan. ix. 26), making, it may well be, the reconciliation
for iniquity and bringing in the everlasting righteousness spoken of in verse 24; and in the midst of this last
week one caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease, not by forbidding them, but by the one sacrifice on
Calvary that rendered all others henceforth unnecessary. " (Davis J.D.*, "A Dictionary of the Bible," [1898],
Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth Edition, 1966, Fifteenth Printing, pp.162-163)

15/1/04
"The Prophecy of Daniel Nine. Because our Lord quotes from the prophecy of Daniel, it may be profitable to
study that passage ... Daniel 9:24-27 ... The seven weeks are, in prophetic language, weeks of years. The
period in which the above was to find fulfillment consisted of 490 years. During this period four things were
to be accomplished: (1) reconciliation for iniquity, (2) righteousness established, (3) sealing up vision and
prophecy, and (4) the anointing of the Most Holy. All these things were to be accomplished by the
Messiah. The whole design of Christ's coming upon earth and dying upon Calvary's Cross was "to finish
transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity." Daniel, in his prayer
previous to this particular prophecy, was deeply concerned with the forgiveness of both his and the
people's transgressions, sins, and iniquities. God assures him that within the prophetic seventy weeks one
would come who would remove these things. The whole of the New Testament proclaims that Christ did
exactly what Daniel prophesied. ... (Acts 3:18,19,26). Everlasting righteousness has been brought into this
world by the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. ... Also Christ sealed up both vision
and prophecy by fulfilling the same. ... This period, referred to in Daniel, saw also the fulfillment of the
anointing of the Most Holy. This anointing took place at the baptism of Jesus. ... (Acts 10:38). ... (Dan. 9:25).
The seventy weeks are divided into three divisions: 7-62-1. They form in years: 49-434-7. At the time Daniel
made this prophecy the children of Israel were in captivity and Jerusalem and its Temple were in ruins. The
first period Of 49 years was to accomplish the rebuilding of the city. This actually took place when
Zerubbabel was governor over Judah. A number of Israelites were released from captivity, and they rebuilt
the city. The books of Nehemiah and Ezra relate the troublous times that were experienced in the rebuilding.
However, in spite of all these handicaps, the city was rebuilt. ... (Dan. 9:26). Notice that the above verse
states after the threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off. The Anointed One is, of course,
Christ Jesus. The 483 years (7 plus 62 weeks) takes us up to the ministry of Christ. During the last week of
years the Messiah was to be cut off. We know that after three and a half years of his ministry the Anointed
One suffered a violent death. Isaiah used the same expression in his fifty third chapter: "He was cut off out
of the land of the living." The prophecy records that this cutting off of Christ was after the sixty
ninth week. There are those who maintain that the last week of this prophecy has as yet not been fulfilled in
history. This amounts to a denial of the plain import of the prophecy that the death of the Anointed One
was to be after the sixty ninth week and during the seventieth week. ... The expression, "And shall have
nothing," seems to refer to the city and its Temple. ... The Temple and the city were nothing to Christ after
their rejection of him. And it was because of this cutting off of the Messiah that the destruction of the city
and its sanctuary was determined. ... Dr. Edward J. Young ... writes: "They seem to indicate that all which
should properly belong to the Messiah, he does not have when he dies. This is a very forceful way of
setting forth his utter rejection, both by God and man. ... The prophecy indicates that the destruction was to
be accomplished by the people of the Prince, namely, the Romans under the command of the general Titus.
As a matter of fact, the Roman soldiers destroyed the city and its sanctuary directly against his wishes. And
that destruction was certainly as a flood, for the city and its Temple were completely destroyed. ... (Dan.
9:27). That firm covenant is none other than that which Christ made with many. ... (Matt. 26:28). We know
that Christ by his death caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease by fulfilling the shadow and becoming
the substance. ... (Heb. 7:27). When Christ died upon the Cross the veil of the Temple was rent in twain.
Gone was the old system with its shadows. ... Jesus caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease by the
destruction of the Temple and the city and by the dispersion of the Jews. This is true even unto this day.
Thus the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 finds its fufillment in the atoning sacrifice of Christ and the destruction
of Jerusalem. ... The only valid objection against this general interpretation is that the destruction of
Jerusalem did not occur within he seventieth week-within the period of seven years. The seventy weeks
extended to about 33 A.D. The destruction of Jerusalem, of course, came in 70 A.D. A close examination of
the passage in Daniel does not disclose ant statement that the people of the prince were to cause this
destruction within the seven years. Within the seven years the destruction of the city was
determined by its rejection of Christ and his apostles. Because of this rejection "the people of the prince
that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." Christ himself stated that for a short period after
his death he would send his prophets: "Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets and wise men, and
scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues,
and persecute them from city to city." [Mt 23:34] This actually happened before the seven year period was
up. After the stoning of Stephen, the Church was scattered abroad and the message went to the Samaritans
and Gentiles. Jerusalem, by the crucifixion of Christ and the persecution of his followers, overflowed the cup
of iniquity. Jerusalem was nothing but a stinking carcass. As Jesus stated: "For wheresoever the carcass is,
there will the eagles be gathered together." [Mt 24:28] Jerusalem became a "carcass" during the seventieth
week. It was only a matter of time when the "eagles" would come with the outward destruction. Daniel
prophesied that the events he enumerated were to occur in the continuous period of 490 years. Would not
God have revealed to him that the last seven years were not to be joined to the 483? Did not God know that
the Jews would reject his Son? The Scriptures and history have revealed that the prophecy of Daniel has
been wonderfully fulfilled. The Scriptures do not tell us that the seventieth week has been postponed. If it
were postponed, I repeat, we would still be in our sins and without hope. If one can believe Luke, that the
abomination of desolation is the Roman army [Lk 21:20] ..." (Kik J.M.*, "Matthew Twenty-Four: An
Exposition," Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co: Philadelphia PA, 1948, pp.46-53. Emphasis in original)

15/1/04
"So, what do we mean by a miracle? A miracle is something that happens, but which is exceedingly
surprising. If a marble statue of the Virgin Mary suddenly waved its hand at us we should treat it as a
miracle, because all our experience and knowledge tells us that marble doesn't behave like that. I have just
uttered the words 'May I be struck by lightning this minute'. If lightning did strike me in the same minute, it
would be treated as a miracle. But actually neither of these two occurrences would be classified by science
as utterly impossible. They would simply be judged very improbable, the waving statue much more
improbable than the lightning. ... In the case of the marble statue, molecules in solid marble are continuously
jostling against one another in random directions. The jostlings of the different molecules cancel one
another out, so the whole hand of the statue stays still. But if, by sheer coincidence, all the molecules just
happened to move in the same direction at the same moment, the hand would move. If they then all reversed
direction at the same moment the hand would move back. In this way it is possible for a marble statue to
wave at us. It could happen. The odds against such a coincidence are unimaginably great but they are not
incalculably great. A physicist colleague has kindly calculated them for me. The number is so large that the
entire age of the universe so far is too short a time to write out all the noughts! It is theoretically possible for
a cow to jump over the moon with something like the same improbability." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, pp.159-160)

15/1/04
"Daniel's Prayer and Vision of the Seventy Weeks (9:1-27) A. Daniel's prayer (9:1-19). In the first year of
Persian rule (539/8 B.C.), Darius, son of Xerxes (Heb. Ahasuerus) and a Mede by descent, became the
governor of Babylon (v. 1). Daniel is drawn to meditate on the prophecy of Jeremiah, who was one of the
prophets predicting the era of restoration, consisting of covenant renewal, restoration of the people to the
land, and the continuous service of the priesthood in the temple (chaps. 3034). Jeremiah had also predicted
that the Babylonian kingdom was to last seventy years (Jer. 25: 12) and that subsequently Jerusalem would
be restored. Daniel longs for the era of restoration, for the establishment of the kingdom of God and of the
messianic kingdom. To this end he fasts and prays for the restoration of his people to the land. Daniel's
prayer consists of confession and petition. In the confession he identifies with the history of his people,
with their sin and punishment. The prayer of confession consists of a repetition of four themes: Israel's
rebellious attitude to the Law and the Prophets, Yahweh's righteousness in judgment, the fulfillment of the
curses, and the hope in renewal of divine mercy and grace. Daniel begins with an affirmation of God's mercy,
inherent in Israel's confession of who Yahweh is: "Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his
covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands" (v. 4). In contrast Israel has sinned against
their covenant God: "We have been wicked and have rebelled; we have turned away from your commands
and laws" (v. 5). They have rejected the prophets. Therefore the Lord is righteous in his judgment. Yet, the
disgrace of Israel is apparent wherever they have been scattered. Their lot has changed by their own doing,
but the Lord is still the same. Israel has received the curses of the covenant (Lev. 26:33; Deut. 28:63-67). The
Lord has been faithful in judgment, even in bringing about the desolation of Jerusalem. Again Daniel affirms
the righteousness of Yahweh. Daniel throws himself on the mercy of God, as he prays for the restoration of
Jerusalem, the temple, and God's presence among his people. B. God's response (9:20-27). Daniel prays from
the conviction that the Lord has decreed an end to the Babylonian rule. Now that this has taken place,
Daniel prays for the speedy restoration of the people, the city, Jerusalem, and the temple. He has
acknowledged the sin of Israel, but trusts the Lord to be faithful to his promises. Suddenly, the angel Gabriel
appears to him in a vision. He was sent to explain God's plan as soon as Daniel had begun to pray (v. 23)!
This speedy response is an expression of God's special love for Daniel. Building on the seventy-years motif,
the angel reveals that the Lord has decreed "seventy 'sevens'" (v. 24). The purpose of the "seventy 'sevens'
" is to finalize judgment on sin, to atone for sin and transgression, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to
fulfill all the prophetic word, and to anoint the most holy (v. 24). The exact identification of the phrase is
open to interpretation. If we take it to refer to seventy periods of time, the happenings may come to the
foreground, rather than the speculations on the length of time. The first period of seven "sevens" pertains
to the return of the people from exile and the rebuilding of the temple and Jerusalem (ca. 536-445 B.C.). This
period begins with the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, but opinions differ on when
this took place: 538 B.C. (Cyrus's decree to restore the temple in Jerusalem) or 445 B.C. (Nehemiah's
permission to restore the walls of Jerusalem). There is little disagreement on the identification of "the
Anointed One, the ruler," with our Lord Jesus. From the decree to the coming of our Lord the progression of
redemption took place: the people returned to the land, homes and cities were rebuilt, temple worship was
restored, and above all the people enjoyed God's favor and covenant renewal. A longer period of sixty-two
"sevens" brings us to the crucifixion of the Messiah. The last "seven" will witness the confirmation
(renewal) of the covenant by the Messiah and the desecration of the temple. Gabriel promises that "he will
confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven'" (v. 27), but our problem is the identity of the "he." Some hold
that the Messiah is the subject of the sentence, but others see here a reference to Titus and the Antichrist.
Indeed, Titus brought an end to sacrifices and offerings and set up pagan symbols in the temple court. This
is the "abomination that causes desolation" (v. 27). on the other hand the confirmation of covenant could be
a reference to the Anointed, whereas the abomination of desolation is an allusion to Titus. These events are
associated with the Romans, who destroyed the city and the sanctuary. This marks the beginning of the
end. It appears that the vision refers to the restoration of God's covenant in the postexilic community, the
renewal of the covenant by the Messiah, and the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. According to another
view, the last "seven" pertains to the Jewish people and marks the period of great tribulation before the
millennial kingdom." (VanGemeren W.A., "Daniel," in Elwell W.A., ed., "Evangelical Commentary on the
Bible," [1989], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1990, pp.598-599)

16/1/04
"THE DNA CODE AND THE INCARNATION. ... WE SHALL DRAW TOGETHER SOME OF THE varied
strands of our inquiry not only as they resolve themselves into a cohesive pattern, revealing purpose in the
mystery of existence, but also as they may bear upon the unique personality of Jesus Christ whom Paul
significantly called `the second Adam' [1 Cor. 15:45, 47] and who for him as for all Christians is uniquely the
Son of God, `God manifest in flesh'. [1 Tim. 3:16] Ultimate understanding of this mystery may well defeat our
finite knowledge, but it will not do simply to beg the question, as do those who blandly declare that they do
not believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ. This defeatist attitude fails to take account of our growing
knowledge of the details and mechanisms of genetics, and particularly of the DNA code. Yet even as we
consider, we do so in no arrogant spirit, but are conscious that we are treading on holy ground. The
prologue to the fourth Gospel is a striking application of the - phraseology of Genesis 1. It becomes very
much more arresting today as we are able to reconsider it in the light of our knowledge of genetic coding.
`The Word' of John 1, known to the Greeks as the Logos, is an application of the repeated expression of
Genesis, `God said'. This is emphasized by other analogies which John makes. The passage is among the
best known of the Bible: `In the beginning was the Word, And the Word was with God, And the Word was
God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him: And without him was not
anything made that was made. [Jn 1:1-3]. The prologue concludes with a statement demonstrating to us that
this same `Word' who Himself coded all life in the beginning, graciously allowed Himself to become coded in
the DNA of the Incarnation: `And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, And we beheld his glory,
The glory as of the only begotten of the Father, Full of grace and truth.' We are not concerned with what
God `could' or `could not' do by the exercise of supra-natural powers. What we note is that apparently He
chooses not to go contrary to His original creation, but to use the mechanism He has already placed within
that creation to bring about His purpose. He chose a human body of a woman, with its normal cellular
constitution. He chose to use the normal nine months' gestation (Luke 1:40 45, 56; 2:5, 6). He appointed a
doctor (Luke), to record it in Holy Scripture. The growth of Jesus Christ to physical, human maturity was
also through the natural laws of God's own pre-set engineering, within the normal human experience (Luke
2:40, 51, 52). It is Luke who tells us how the Word was coded in the DNA of the Virgin Mary: `The angel said
to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. And behold you will conceive in your
womb and bear a son Jesus - Son of the Most High .." Mary said to the angel `How can this be, since I have
no husband?' [Lk 1:30-32,34] The angel then revealed that the conception would be accomplished by two
agencies, the Holy Spirit, and the Most High: `The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the
Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. ... For
with God nothing will be impossible. [Lk 1:35] We take the last points first. .. at the Incarnation the Holy
Spirit was active, organizing and making available the nucleic acids, with their sugar and phosphate bonds,
in other words, the polymers of the DNA strand ... But the instructions to be recorded in code had to be
superimposed. ... We may also assume, therefore, that when the same Holy Spirit came upon the Virgin, He
likewise assembled these nucleic acids and bonds which would be already available in the body of the
Virgin. We speak with all reverence. These volumes would be assembled into the 23 chromosomes required
to match the 23 in the Virgin's ovum, but would include a `Y' chromosome necessary for a male child. ... In
the case of the Virgin, the `Most High' was the dynamic (Luke 1:35). This might be because it was `the Word'
Himself who was being recorded in those nucleic acids, for He was `begotten of the Father' (John 1:14). The
eventual result was that in Christ dwelt `all the fullness of the Godhead bodily' (Col. 2:9). In this way all the
fullness of the Trinity would be involved in those 23 chromosomes prepared for fusion with the ovum of the
Virgin - the Holy Spirit assembling the DNA code bases, the Father sending forth the Word and the Word
Himself becoming recorded upon those bases. Thus far we have spoken of the Divine side of Christ's
nature, but we should realize that the physical and spiritual, the human and divine, are not in two watertight
compartments. The human side is given more fully by Luke and Matthew. Within the Virgin, the ovum to be
fertilized would contain the usual 23 chromosomes there in DNA code would be recorded already an
inheritance reaching back to David, Abraham and Eve, with cellular instructions shared with the whole of
mankind. Luke therefore records the genealogy of Mary back to Adam. ... the Virgin did conceive, but it was
without any human male union. It was by the Holy Spirit, and that would be why God is referred to as the
Father, and Jesus as the Son of God, and why He is stated to be born holy (Luke 1:35; Matt. 1:20, 25; John
1:14). Our knowledge that a foetus receives a complete set of 23 chromosomes from each of its parents gives
insight into the oneness of Christ's nature. Those of Divine origin and those of the Virgin would pair and
fuse (in the sense of producing gametes), resulting in the one personality, fully divine, fully human, without
sin. This insight into the possible mechanics of the Incarnation is a reply to those who contend that the
incarnation of the Lord is scientifically impossible. It is also a help in the difficulties which some in the early
centuries and the middle ages had in their speculations on how two natures could become one. Modern
genetics reveal that the alleles from both parents make one person at conception. The statement `That which
is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit' [Mt 1:20], shows how God was the Father and the Virgin Mary the
mother. Also, the fact that DNA is a code demonstrates how the speech, or `Word', of God, recorded upon
the nucleic acids, would form the real genetic contribution from the Divine side. We see how that Christ was
fully and truly man, and yet ... God ... thus illustrating physically what had been arrived at
theologically by earlier divines. Yet ultimately our only authoritative source for the doctrine of the
Incarnation is still the revelation of God in Holy Scripture. We could not discover such things through the
medium of science, but having received the revelation of God, we can note that increasing discoveries in
science do show how it could come about, and justify the terms of reference, hitherto not fully understood
by us, which God's revelation uses..... Thus the Word became flesh, whom we know as Jesus Christ, Son of
God, fully God, fully man, without sin." (Pearce E.K.V.*, "Who Was Adam?" Paternoster: Exeter UK, 1969,
pp.137-141. Emphasis in original)

17/1/04
"The prophecy of the seventy weeks (ix. 24-27) is felt to be of crucial importance for biblical eschatology.
The writer believes that the seventy sevens of years are to be reckoned from the decree of Artaxerxes I to
rebuild Jerusalem in 444 BC (Ne. ii. 1-8) and terminate with the establishment of the millennial kingdom (ix.
24), It seems clear that a gap or hiatus separates the end of the sixty-ninth week from the beginning of the
seventieth (ix. 26), for Christ placed the abomination of desolation at the very end of the present age (Mt.
xxiv. 15 in context; cf. Dn. ix. 27). Such prophetic gaps are not uncommon in the Old Testament (e.g. Is. lxi. 2;
cf. Lk. iv. 16-21). Thus, the seventieth week, according to dispensationalist premillennialists, is a seven-year
period immediately preceding the second advent of Christ, during which time antichrist rises to world
dominion and persecutes the saints." (Whitcomb J.C.*, "Daniel," in Douglas J.D., et al., eds., "The New
Bible Dictionary," [1962], Inter-Varsity Fellowship: London, 1967, reprint, pp.292-293)

18/1/04
"The `Traditional' Interpretation of the Seventy Weeks. (1) According to this view, all of the great
transactions referred to in vs. 24 are to be regarded as having been' fulfilled at the first advent and, more
specifically, in what is to be regarded as the climactic event of the prophecy, the redemption at Calvary,
which is referred to literally in vs. 26 and figuratively in vs. 27. Thus the words, `to' finish transgression and
to make an end of (or seal up) sins and to make reconciliation for iniquity,' are to be regarded as referring to
that atonement for sin which was accomplished, fully and completely, once for all, on the cross. This
interpretation is quite in accord with many New Testament statements (e.g., Heb. x. 12-14). Thus, Paul says
that Jesus has `abolished death' (2 Tim. i.10). Death was a very real thing to Paul. He was living under its
shadow, when he wrote these words to Timothy. But, the fear of death and the power of death had been
destroyed, because Christ had brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. For Paul, death was
indeed `abolished.' Sin is, likewise, very much alive; it is very active in the world. But sin was finally dealt
with (`made an end of') 8 and reconciliation brought about through the death of Christ, His passive
obedience as a sufferer for sin. It only remains that the benefits of that finished work be applied to all those
for whom it was performed. The same applies to the three other matters referred to in this verse. An
`everlasting righteousness' was provided for all. the redeemed through the active obedience of Christ, His
perfect keeping of the law of God. Prophecy was `sealed,' i.e., authenticated in a unique way by the life and
death and resurrection and ascension of Christ; and prophetic gifts ceased in the Christian Church with the
close of the apostolic age. The `anointing of a most holy" may refer either to a person or to a place. If to a
person, the reference may be to the descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus to fit Him for His Messianic work
(Lk. iii. 22, iv. 18); if to a place, it may refer to the entrance of the risen Christ into heaven itself, when
`through his own blood he entered once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption"
(Heb. ix. 12) for all His elect. In a word, we have in vs. 24 the prophecy of the `satisfaction of Christ," of His
obedience and sufferings, by virtue of which the sinner obtains forgiveness and acceptance with God. (2)
According to this view, the 69th week ended with the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist and the
baptism of Jesus; and the 70th week followed immediately upon it. Consequently, the `cutting off" of the
Anointed One which occurred `after the threescore and two weeks" must be regarded as having taken place
in the 70th week; and a reference to it is to be found in the words, `in the midst [half] of the week, he [the
Messiah] shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." That Christ by His death put an end to the
Jewish ritual of sacrifice, substituting for bulls and goats `a sacrifice of nobler name and richer blood than
they," is the great argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews. So interpreted, it is the Messiah who makes firm
or confirms the covenant for the one (the 70th) week; and the crucifixion which takes place in the midst of it
is the great event of that week and may be regarded as the climax of the entire prophecy. A difficulty with
this interpretation is to be found in the fact that it does not clearly define the terminus of the 70th week.
Unless the view is taken that `in the midst of the week" means `in the second half" of it, and even at the end
of that half, the end is not definitely fixed. It seems very unlikely that if `in the midst" really meant `at the
end," it would have been described in this way. On the other hand if `in the midst" is taken in its natural
sense, a half-week, or three and a half years, remains to be accounted for after the crucifixion. Many
interpreters regard this as referring to the period of the founding of the Church and the preaching of the
gospel exclusively to the Jews, a period ending with or about the time of the martyrdom of Stephen. Others
hold that the period of three and a half years was graciously extended to some 35 years, to the date of the
destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, a reference to which is found in vs. 26. Both of these explanations may be
regarded as possible. With regard to the claim that the prophecy extends to the date of the destruction of
Jerusalem in A.D. 70 it is to be noted that while the language of vs. 26 may seem to favor this, it does not
require it. Vs. 26 speaks of events which will come `after the threescore and two weeks." Of these events it
mentions first the cutting off of Messiah which vs. 27 describes as taking place in the midst of the week.
Then it speaks of the destruction of the city and sanctuary and finally of an `end" or an `end of war," which
is a very indefinite expression. Vs. 27 declares that a covenant is to be made firm for `one week," that `in the
midst of the week" someone will cause sacrifice and oblation to cease. Then it goes on to speak of the
coming of a `desolator" and of a `full end." None of the predictions of desolation and vengeance contained
in these verses can be regarded as so definitely included in the program outlined in vs. 24 that we can assert
with confidence that they must be regarded as fulfilled within the compass of the 70 weeks. They are
consequences of the cutting off, they may be regarded as involved in it, but their accomplishment may
extend, and if this interpretation is correct, clearly does extend beyond the strict limits of the 70 weeks, since
the destruction of Jerusalem was much more than three and a half years after the crucifixion. But, in either
case, the great climactic event of the last week was the crucifixion which took place `in the midst" of that
week. So interpreted there can be no interval between the 69th and the 70th weeks." (Allis O.T.*, `Prophecy
and the Church: An Examination of the Claim of Dispensationalists," [1945], Presbyterian & Reformed
Publishing Co: Philadelphia PA, 1964, Third Printing, pp.113-115)

18/1/04
"But this was only an entertaining diversion from the main issue. How is the factor 10⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰
really to be faced? Not by a galaxy-wide ensemble of living cells. Not even by adding other nearby galaxies
to the ensemble, or even the totality of galaxies observable with the largest telescopes. To face
10⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰ the ensemble of life must be hugely cosmological in its scale, and our cosmology has
to extend into the past by a time interval exceeding ten billion years by an enormous factor. So we are back
to the starting point, but now with more substance to the argument. It will of course be in the reader's mind
to ask if 10⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰ is really inevitable. The answer is yes, if life is to originate by what are called
the `blind' forces of nature, which is to say without initial information. Nothing is to be gained by attempting
to shake the calculation of 10⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰. The issue you will recall was the probability of a set of
amino acids randomly falling together into a workable aggregate of enzymes. Certainly it is easy to frame a
deceitful argument, in the following way for example. Start with much simpler, much smaller, enzymes that are
sufficiently elementary to be discoverable by chance. Then let evolution in some chemical environment
cause the simple enzymes to change gradually into the complex ones we have today. The first retort to this
mental deception is that an appeal to initial simplicity has been allowed for already. thus the number
10⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰ was obtained from a calculation in which less than twenty amino acids were required
to be in specific sequential positions for each of two thousand enzymes. If the calculation is to be criticized
it should be on the grounds of being much too conservative. But the real deceit comes from ignoring the
problem of what it was in the environment that caused simple enzymes to evolve into complex ones. If the
environment contained information, what was its source'? If not, then an improbability of the order of
10^-40000 has been concealed in the behavior of the environment. To face
10⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰ one must think unthinkable thoughts, which means any thought with a chance
greater than 1 in 10⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰ of being right, a condition that permits a wide class of possibilities!
One such possibility is that the enzymes were put together in accordance with instructions. Given a
knowledge of the appropriate ordering of amino-acids, it would need only a slightly superhuman chemist to
construct the enzymes with one hundred percent accuracy. It would need a somewhat more superhuman
scientist (again given appropriate instructions) to assemble a living cell, but not a level of skill outside our
comprehension. Rather than accept a probability less than 1 in 10⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰ of life having arisen
through the `blind' forces of nature, it seems better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate
intellectual act. By `better' I mean less likely to be wrong." (Hoyle F., "The Universe: Past and Present
Reflections," Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 20, 1982, pp.1-35, pp.13-14)

20/1/04
"Consilience is the key to unification. I prefer this word over `coherence' because its rarity has preserved its
precision, whereas coherence has several possible meanings, only one of which is consilience. William
Whewell, in his 1840 synthesis The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, was the first to speak of
consilience, literally a `jumping together' of knowledge by the linking of facts and fact-based theory across
disciplines to create a common groundwork of explanation. He said, `The Consilience of Inductions takes
place when an Induction, obtained from one class of facts, coincides with an Induction, obtained from
another different class. This Consilience is a test of the truth of the Theory in which it occurs." (Wilson
E.O., "Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge," [1998], Vintage: New York NY, 1999, reprint, p.8-9)

20/1/04
"According to ancient historians, the first century AD was a time of unusual expectation `among the Jews.
The feeling was widespread that some prophecy regarding the time of Messiah's coming was about to
expire. The Roman historian Suetonius (early 2nd cen) says of the Jewish revolt against Rome (AD 66-73):
`There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that time for men
coming from Judaea to rule the world. This prediction, referring to the Emperor of Rome, as afterwards
appeared from the event, the people of Judaea took to themselves.' [Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars,
"The Deified Vespasian," 4.5] Suetonius' contemporary Tacitus also speaks of this prophecy, supplying
more information about its source: `... in most there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their
priests was contained a prediction of how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers,
coming from Judaea, were to acquire universal empire. These mysterious prophecies had pointed to
Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, with the usual blindness of ambition, had interpreted these
mighty destinies of themselves, and could not be brought even by disasters to believe the truth.' [Tacitus,
Histories, 5.13] Closer to the scene, and writing less than ten years after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, was
the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Josephus wrote before Titus succeeded his father Vespasian as
emperor, and he indicates only a single expected ruler: `But now, what did most elevate them in undertaking
this war was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how "about that time, one
from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong
to themselves in particular; and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now
this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea.'
[Josephus, Jewish War, 6.5.4] Josephus' application of the prophecy to his patron Vespasian is
understandable, but it is doubtful that his fellow Jews agreed!" (Newman R.C.*, "The Time of the Messiah,"
in Newman, R.C., ed., "The Evidence of Prophecy: Fulfilled Prediction as a Testimony to the Truth of Christianity,"
[1988], Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute: Hatfield PA, Fourth Printing, 1998, p.111)

23/1/04
"Darwin always considered his greatest contribution to evolutionary thought to be his collection of facts
supporting the notion of evolution in general, and his own ideas in particular. However as early as this first
chapter we learn about the way Darwin handled his facts; when they did not fit his views he ignored them or
tried to explain them away." (Lovtrup S., "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth," Croom Helm: London,
1987, p.108)

23/1/04
"If Darwin's theory of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless
competition to survive: a competition in which only a few in any generation can be winners. But it is
perfectly obvious that human life is not like that, however it may be with other species.
This inconsistency, between Darwin's theory and the facts of human life, is what I mean by 'Darwinism's
Dilemma', The inconsistency is so very obvious that no Darwinian has ever been altogether unconscious of
it. There have been, accordingly, very many attempts by Darwinians to wriggle out of the dilemma. But the
inconsistency is just too simple and direct to be wriggled out of, and all these attempts are conspicuously
unsuccessful. They are not uninstructive, though, or unamusing."
(Stove D.C., "Darwinian Fairytales," Avebury: Aldershot UK, 1995, p.2)

23/1/04
"Second, there were a number of decrees having to do with the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Most people
recognize that between one of these decrees and the appearance of `the Anointed One' (that is, the
Messiah) there should be 483 years, that is, seven plus sixty-two (or sixty-nine) times seven. But because
there are different points from which to begin, there are also different ways of arriving at an appropriate year
connected to the lifetime of Jesus Christ. There are three main possibilities. The most obvious one from
which these 483 years could start is the decree issued by Cyrus recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:23 (at the very
end of the book) and in Ezra 1:2-4, but this is a number of years too early. Besides, both biblical versions of
the decree mention only the reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple. They say nothing about rebuilding the
city itself. The second possibility is the decree issued by Artaxerxes 1 (464-424 B.C.) in the seventh Year of
his reign recorded in Ezra 7:12-26. This decree was issued in 457 B.C. If we move forward forty-nine years
from that point, we come to 408 B.C. by which time the walls, streets, and moat around the city were
completed. Then moving on 433 more years we come to A.D. 27. (The numbers bring us to A.D. 26, but it is
necessary to add one year to account for the `zero' year when we pass from 1 B.C. to A.D. 1.) This seems a
bit early at first. But it is probably just right if we are to understand Gabriel's wording as referring to the start
of Christ's ministry. The ministry was three years long. So this would give us a date for Jesus' death of A.D.
30, which (in my judgment) is exactly right by other calculations. 3. The third possibility is the decree
recorded by Nehemiah in 2:5-8. This occurred in the twentieth year of the reign of Artaxerxes 1, which is
therefore thirteen years after the earlier decree in Ezra. Calculating from this point brings us to the year A.D.
39 or 40. This seems too late. But it was a popular identification of the time frame years ago, and it was
defended by adjusting the years on the basis of a so-called `prophetic year' of 360 days. At one time I was
attracted by this possibility, but I now think that the second of these alternatives should be preferred."
(Boice J.M.*, "Daniel: An Expositional Commentary," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1989, pp.100-101)

23/1/04
"When the first insectivore went into trees and jumped and started to flutter, it went through that
transitional stage, quite likely in a period of a few million years. However, once the bat stage had been
reached 65 million years ago, very little new has happened. An Eocene bat looks just like a modern bat. So, I
think that during this stage of the reshuffling of the genotype, all sorts of things can happen that cannot
happen before nor afterwards." (Mayr E., "Discussion: Paper by Dr. Mayr," 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.58)

25/1/04
"Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him.
Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree
staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are
not, I think, fatal to the theory. " (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,"
[1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.156)

25/1/04
"CHRIST (Gk., lit. 'Anointed One'), The word is a Gk. translation of the Heb. *Messiah. Originally a title, it
soon came to be used by the followers of the risen Jesus as a proper name for their Lord, so that they
themselves came to be known as *Christians. ...CHRISTIAN. The name was originally applied to the
followers of Christ by outsiders, acc. to Acts 11: 26 being first used at *Antioch c. 40-4. Acc. to *Tacitus it
was current among the people at Rome at the time of the *Neronian persecution (A.D. 64) and it was always
the official Roman designation of members of the Church; thus in times of persecution it was often the
confession or denial of this name that was crucial. It was later adopted by the Church as a designation to
distinguish itself from other religions. In modern times the name Christian has been claimed by every form of
belief stemming from historical Christianity, and has tended, in nominally Christian countries, to lose any
credal significance and imply only what is ethically praiseworthy." (Livingstone E.A., ed., "The Concise
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church," Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1977, p.105)

25/1/04
"The most important statement in Scripture about creation is not contained in Genesis but in the opening
verses of the Gospel of John: `In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not
one thing came into being.' (John 1:1-3) This statement plainly says that creation was by a force that was
(and is) intelligent and personal. The essential, bedrock position of scientific naturalism is the direct
opposite of John 1:1-3. Naturalistic evolutionary theory, as part of the grand metaphysical story of science,
says that creation was by impersonal and unintelligent forces. The opposition between the biblical and
naturalistic stories is fundamental, and neither side can compromise over it. To compromise is to surrender."
(Johnson P.E.,* "Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education,"
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1995, pp.107-108)

26/1/04
"Unfortunately the uniqueness of this Christian doctrine of Creation and the Creator is continually being
obscured by the fact that theologians are so reluctant to begin their work with the New Testament; when
they want to deal with the Creation they tend to begin with the Old Testament, although they never do this
when they are speaking of the Redeemer. The emphasis on the story of Creation at the beginning of the
Bible has constantly led theologians to forsake the rule, which they would otherwise follow, namely, that the
basis of all Christian articles of faith is the Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ. So when we begin to study the
subject of Creation, in the Bible we ought to start with the first chapter of the Gospel of John, and some
other passages of the New Testament, and, not with the first chapter of Genesis. If we can make up
our minds to stick to this rule, we shall be saved from many difficulties, which will inevitably occur if we
begin with the story of Creation in the Old Testament. Of course, I do not wish to deny the permanent
significance of, and the absolute necessity for, the Old Testament accounts of the Creation-not only in the
first two chapters of Genesis but also in the Prophets, the Psalms, and in the Book of Job. In order to expand
the somewhat scanty statements of the Testament we certainly need the weighty and enriching testimony of
the Old Testament; but in principle these statements are as introductory in character as the Old Testament
witness is to the Messiah is to that of the New Testament." (Brunner E., "The Christian Doctrine of Creation
and Redemption," Dogmatics Vol. II, Wyon O., trans, [1952], Lutterworth: London, 1955, Second Impression,
pp.6-7. Emphasis in original)

26/1/04
"There was a way to test the theory by fossil evidence, however, if Darwin and his followers had wanted a
test. Darwin was emphatic that the number of transitional intermediates must have been immense, even
`inconceivable.' Perhaps evidence of their existence was missing because in 1859 only a small part of the
world's fossil beds had been searched, and because the explorers had not known what to look for. Once
paleontologists accepted Darwinism as a working hypothesis, however, and explored many new fossil beds
in an effort to confirm the theory, this situation ought to change. In time the fossil record could be expected
to look very different, and very much more Darwinian. The test would not be fair to the skeptics, however,
unless it was also possible for the theory to fail. Imagine, for example, that belief in Darwin's theory were to
sweep through the scientific world with such irresistible power that it very quickly became an orthodoxy.
Suppose that the tide was so irresistible that even the most prestigious of scientists-Harvard's Louis
Agassiz, for example- became an instant has-been for failing to join the movement. Suppose that
paleontologists became so committed to the new way of thinking that fossil studies were published only if
they supported the theory, and were discarded as failures if they showed an absence of evolutionary
change. As we shall see, that is what happened. Darwinism apparently passed the fossil test, but only
because it was not allowed to fail." (Johnson P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], Inter Varsity Press: Downers
Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, pp.48-49)

27/1/04
"Darwin, Marx and Freud. Whenever anyone is asked to name the thinkers who have had the greatest
influence in the twentieth century, these three names always head the list. Darwin's achievement was the
most fundamental of the three, because Marx and Freud relied heavily on their understanding of Darwinist
concepts, and especially upon the general impression that Darwin had provided scientific support for
metaphysical materialism and atheism. Before the triumph of Darwinism atheism was a minority position
among intellectuals , because atheists had to posit a self created universe, which seemingly violated
common sense. During the nineteenth century, however, the will to discard theistic religion and substitute a
naturalistic understanding of reality was very strong. Half baked theories of evolution were in the air, and
they were everywhere connected with revolt against religious and political traditions that were based upon a
theistic worldview. What was needed to make the naturalistic program plausible was a thoroughly
materialistic mechanism for evolution. By supplying the crucial blind watchmaker thesis, Darwin paved the
way for a century and more of atheistic domination of intellectual life. When I say that Darwinism gave a
huge boost to atheism, I am not denying that many persons found it possible to reconcile naturalistic
evolution with a belief in God. ... Darwinism furthered the cause of atheism not by making it impossible to
believe in God, but by making it easier not to believe." (Johnson P.E.*, "Disestablishing Naturalism," 1992
Founder's
Lectures, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Revised, February 17, 1992)

28/1/04
"The several difficulties here discussed, namely-that, though we find in our geological formations many
links between the species which now exist and which formerly existed, we do not find infinitely numerous
fine transitional forms closely joining them all together;-the sudden manner in which several groups of
species first appear in our European formations;-the almost entire absence, as at present known, of
formations rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian strata,-are all undoubtedly of the most serious nature. We
see this in the fact that the most eminent palaeontologists, namely, Cuvier, Agassiz, Barrande, Pictet,
Falconer, E. Forbes, etc., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, etc., have
unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species." (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of
Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition,
1928, reprint, p.318)

28/1/04
"That the geological record is imperfect all will admit; but that it is imperfect to the degree required by our
theory, few will be inclined to admit." (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,"
[1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.443)

29/1/04
"But I have said that the Enlightenment, or more generally, the rebirth of reason in Western culture, had
both a `good' and a `bad' side. This is an important dimension of modern history that has often been
overlooked, especially by contemporary admirers of Enlightenment thinking. As a historical matter, reason
did not free human beings from dogmatism or tribalism or the worst cruelties-as we have witnessed firsthand
well into our own century. The rational or `scientific' faith of Marxist-Leninist ideology sanctioned cruelties
of a type and on a scale hardly imagined by the Inquisition in its darkest hours. Some estimates place the
number of victims of Soviet Communism as high, as 60 million, and the methods of torture employed by the
Soviet regime marked a kind of `progress' in this cruel art. Moreover, scientific rationalism, ironically, became
the basis of the most absurd form of dogma and dogmatism that history records-the `scientific' ideology of
Marxism-Leninism." (Glynn P., "God: The Evidence: The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular
World," Forum: Rocklin CA, 1997, p.188)

29/1/04
"CLEVER HANS, THE MATHEMATICAL HORSE. IN THE EARLY YEARS of the twentieth century there
was a horse in Germany who could read, do mathematics and exhibit a deep knowledge of world political
affairs. Or so it seemed. The horse was called Clever Hans. He was owned by Wilhelm von Osten, an elderly
Berliner whose character was such, everyone said, that fraud was out of the question. Delegations of
distinguished scientists viewed the equine marvel and pronounced it genuine. Hans would reply to
mathematical problems put to him with coded taps of his foreleg, and would answer nonmathematical
questions by nodding his head up and down or shaking it side to side in the conventional Western way. For
example, someone would say, 'Hans, how much is twice the square root of nine, less one?' After a moment's
pause Hans would dutifully raise his right foreleg and tap five times. Was Moscow the capital of Russia?
Head shake. How about St. Petersburg`? Nod. The Prussian Academy of Sciences sent a commission,
headed by Oskar Pfungst, to take a closer look; Osten, who believed fervently in Hans's powers, welcomed
the inquiry. Pfungst noticed a number of interesting regularities. Sometimes, the more difficult the question,
the longer it took Hans to answer; or when Osten did not know the answer, Hans exhibited a comparable
ignorance; or when Osten was out of the room, or when the horse was blindfolded, no correct answers were
forthcoming. But other times Hans would get the right answer in a strange place, surrounded by sceptics,
with Osten not only out of the room, but out of town. The solution eventually became clear. When a
mathematical question was put to Hans, Osten would become slightly tense, for fear Hans would make too
few taps. When Hans, however, reached the correct number of taps, Osten unconsciously and imperceptibly
nodded or relaxed - imperceptibly to virtually all human observers, but not to Hans, who was rewarded with
a sugar cube for correct answers. Even teams of sceptics would watch Hans's foot as soon as the question
was put and make gestural or postural responses when the horse reached the right answer. Hans was totally
ignorant of mathematics, but very sensitive to unconscious nonverbal cues. Similar signs were unknowingly
transmitted to the horse when verbal questions were posed. Clever Hans was aptly named; he was a horse
who had conditioned one human being and discovered that other human beings he had never before met
would provide him the needed cues. But despite the unambiguous nature of Pfungst's evidence, similar
stories of counting, reading and politically sage horses, pigs and geese have continued to plague the
gullible of many nations." (Sagan C., "Broca's Brain: The Romance of Science," [1974], Coronet: London,
1980, reprint, pp.61-62)

30/1/04
"9:20-27 Another 'seventy' The time of the revelation was about the time of the evening sacrifice (21, i.e. mid-
afternoon) - a remarkable indication of Daniel's city-of-God-centred approach to life, since he had now been
absent from Jerusalem for about seventy years (cf. 6:10). Gabriel appeared with dramatic swiftness in
response to his prayer, bringing a further divine communication which extended Daniel's horizon beyond the
seventy years of Jeremiah's prophecy to a period of seventy 'sevens' (24). There is a further peak in the
mountain ranges of God's purposes on which he is now to focus. The enigmatic revelation which follows
first outlines the divine programme, including six things to be accomplished within the period of seventy
'sevens' ordained by God (24). The first sixty-nine 'sevens' lead to the coming of the Anointed One (25) and
are divided into two unequal periods (seven 'sevens' and sixty-two 'sevens' = sixty-nine 'sevens'). This
division is one of the most enigmatic features of the whole book. Possibly the first 'sevens' look towards the
completion of the temple. Vs 26 and 27 may contain a miniature 'progressive parallelism': v 26 describing the
final 'seven' in panoramic terms while v 27 describes it in specific detail. Interpretations of this message vary
enormously, and depend on the interpreter's wider view of the fulfilment of prophecy. Critical scholarship,
setting the writing of Daniel in the context of the second century BC, sees the period in view as intended to
stretch from the sixth century to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (the four hundred and ninety years being
understood either in round terms, or literally and, perhaps, mistakenly). But from the perspective of the NT,
it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Anointed One (25) is fulfilled in Jesus Christ whose coming brings
atonement and the end of guilt (24). Some conservative interpreters have, in addition, employed various
chronologies to show that the figure of four hundred and ninety is a chronologically exact prediction of the
death of Christ. No agreement has been reached either about this or about the detailed interpretation of the
final 'seven'. If the Christological analysis is generally correct, the sixty-nine 'sevens' may represent the
period beyond the restoration until the coming of Christ and the kingdom he inaugurates. While difficult, v
26, the Anointed One will be cut off (the verb is one also used of confirming a covenant) and will have
nothing (see NIV mg.) is reminiscent of Is. 53:8 and an indication of absolute desolation (my Mt. 26:31,
27:46). V 27 could then be taken to refer to the ruler who will come (26), finding its fulfilment in Titus
Vespasian, the defilement of the temple and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (if Mt. 24:3-25).
Alternatively, v 27a could refer to Christ confirming the covenant of God for one 'seven', i.e. for all future
ages (cf: 1 Cor. 11:25-26); vs 27b and 27c to the desecration of Jerusalem." (Ferguson S.B.*, "Daniel," in
Carson D.A., et al., eds, "New Bible Commentary," [1953], Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester UK, Fourth Edition,
1997, reprint, p.759)

30/1/04
"One more thing needs to be said. Evolutionists have often protested unfair to quoting an evolutionist as if
he were against evolution itself. So let it be said from the outset that the vast majority of authorities quoted
are themselves ardent believers in evolution. But that is precisely the point, and the value of The Revised
QUOTE BOOK. The foundations of the evolutionary edifice are hardly likely to be shaken by a collection of
quotes from the many scientists who are biblical creationists. In a court of law, an admission from a hostile
witness is the most valuable. Quoting the evolutionary palaeontologist who admits the absence of in-
between forms, or the evolutionary biologist who admits the hopelessness of the mutation/selection
mechanism, is perfectly legitimate if the admission is accurately represented in its own right, regardless of
whether the rest of the article is full of hymns of praise to all the other aspects of evolution."(Snelling A.*,
"The Revised Quote Book," [1984], Creation Science Foundation: Brisbane QLD, 1990, inside cover)

31/1/04
"Suppose for a moment that Darwin's theory of natural selection is a mistaken view about the origin and
development of life. If so, wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that scientists themselves would become
increasingly aware of this and publicly state their findings? After all, how could scientists in different
disciplines not say something if they were becoming more aware of the absence of hard evidence in support
of Darwin's theory and were face to face with scientific data that pointed to a completely different theory-
one that suggests the world was designed and exists for a purpose? Anyone who reads the private and
published reports of evolutionary scientists, especially since the 1980s, cannot help but notice that there are
many who admit they doubt the whole paradigm of evolutionary belief. First, despite their specific criticisms,
most of these scientists are not seeking to discredit what they view as the probable truthfulness of
evolution itself. Second, our citation of those who criticize not just part of evolutionary theory but the entire
concept does not imply that these individuals are creationists. In rejecting evolution as a whole, they
usually remain agnostic on the subject of origins. Third, some evolutionists have made controversial
statements that were widely circulated and resulted in their embarrassment. Under pressure from their
colleagues they "recanted" their views. Nevertheless, for whatever reason those statements were given, the
fact is that they were initially made in good faith. When we quote them, all we are saying is that they have
made these statements-and we think they have made some astute observations. Finally, when one considers
the great number of scientists who have expressed serious reservations regarding a particular area of
evolutionary thought, their collective weight is formidable. Virtually all aspects of evolutionary theory have
recently encountered major critique by someone. Thus collectively considered, what now remains factually
and scientifically established in evolutionary theory as a whole would appear to be marginal. Therefore we
think it is appropriate to consider new paradigms." (Ankerberg J.* & Weldon J.*, "Rational Inquiry & the
Force of Scientific Data: Are New Horizons Emerging?" in Moreland J.P.*, ed., "The Creation Hypothesis:
Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer", InterVarsity Press: IL, 1994, pp.270-271)
February [top]
1/2/04
"The day before the publication of The Origin of Species, Thomas Huxley wrote to Charles Darwin:
'You have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum so
unreservedly.' (quoted in Gould & Eldredge 1977). In other words, though Huxley was the great defender of
Darwin, he was criticizing him for presuming that 'Nature does not make jumps'. One of the most fundamental
changes that have happened in recent years in our thoughts about the geological past was again one
towards concepts of episodicity, this time in the evolution of life. Thus the doctrine of what is called
'punctuated equilibria' replaced that of 'phyletic gradualism', which had been the almost subconscious
presumption of palaeontologists since the days of Darwin. This intellectual revolution was brought about
chiefly by Stephen J. Gould of Harvard and his colleague Niles Eldredge. The first epoch making paper by
Eldredge & Gould (1972) put forward the idea that Nature did indeed make jumps. They maintained that
evolution proceeded by short, sharp changes, punctuating long periods of stasis, rather than by slow
progressive changes, which had been assumed since Darwin (1859) wrote of `descent with slow and slight
modifications' and the 'accumulation of successive slight favourable variations'. On the other hand Engels,
that remarkable capitalist who supported Karl Marx, said that 'nature is composed entirely of leaps'. I regret
to say that I prefer the view of one of the founding fathers of communism to that of one of the founding
fathers of evolution by natural selection." (Ager D.V., "The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare
Event in Geological History," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1993, p.129)

1/2/04
"Lyell's book [`Principles of Geology'] contained facts which would be of importance to Darwin during his
travels, and Professor Henslow recommended that he read it for that reason. However, he advised Darwin,
`on no account to accept the views therein advocated.' (Darwin F., ed., `The Life and Letters of Charles
Darwin,' D. Appleton and Co., 1888, Vol. 1, p.60) But this advice was not heeded, and Darwin's acceptance of
Lyell's theory marked the turning point in his life. One of Darwin's biographers says, `Darwin's point of
departure from orthodoxy on this voyage was, of course, his reading of the first volume of Lyell's Principles
of Geology.' (Haber F., in Glass B., ed., `Forerunners of Darwin, 1745-1859,' Johns Hopkins Press, 1959, p.259)
Another biographer calls it `the book which influenced him more than any other.' (Ward H., `Charles Darwin,'
Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1927, p.61) Still another biographer remarks, `Possibly, without Lyell's Principles of
Geology, Darwin would not have written his Origin of Species' (Dorsey G.A., `The Evolution of
Charles Darwin,' Doubleday Page & Co., 1927, p.152) Darwin himself acknowledged his indebtedness to
Lyell. He dedicated to Lyell his report of the voyage of the Beagle `as an acknowledgment that the chief part
of whatever scientific merit this Journal and the other works of the author may possess has been derived
from studying the well-known and admirable Principles of Geology.' (Ward H., `Charles Darwin,' Bobbs-
Merrill Co., 1927, p.67) In 1844 Darwin wrote, `I always feel as if my books came half out of Lyell's brain, and
that I never acknowledge this sufficiently... for I have always thought that the great merit of the Principles
[of Geology] was that it altered the whole tone of one's mind... ` (Darwin F., ed., `More Letters of Charles
Darwin,' D. Appleton and Co., 1903, Vol. 2, p.115). At the time of Lyell's death in 1875 he said, I never forget
that almost everything which I have done in science I owe to the study of his great works." (Darwin F., ed.,
"The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin", D. Appleton and Co., 1888, Vol. 2, p.37) (Davidheiser B.,
"Evolution and the Christian Faith", Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co: Nutley NJ, 1969, pp.60-61)

1/2/04
"Darwin repeatedly apologized for the inadequacy of the fossil record and palaeontologists; have continued
to do so ever since, but I think they are unduly pessimistic. It is obviously inadequate if we are concerned
with some popular group such as the birds, whose skeletons make their preservation highly unlikely, but the
pessimism is not so justified if we consider the less showy marine invertebrates, especially if we consider
them on a world-wide basis and not just in our own back-yards."
(Ager D.V., "The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History," Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge UK, 1993, p.151)

3/2/04
"The figure of sixty million dead Russians did not include the twenty million dead the Russians lost in
World War II. Stalin must bear at least some share of the responsibility for the war. His pact with Hitler led
directly to the joint Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland, which led Britain and France to declare war on Hitler,
though not on Stalin. This means that Stalin was responsible for about eighty million violent deaths. In
tandem with Hitler, his sometime ally and fellow Darwinian, he can be linked to about one hundred million
violent deaths. Secular humanists who liked to cite religious intolerance as the major cause of man's
inhumanity to man might want to stop and ponder that figure." (Koster J.P., "The Atheist Syndrome,"
Wolgemuth & Hyatt: Brentwood TN, 1989, p.178)

3/2/04
"Christianity gave birth to liberty. Constitutional republics, the separation of powers, limited government
and freedom of conscience are a result of the Reformation. It is the secular humanists who have a heritage of
oppression. The 44 secular or atheistic states have caused the deaths of over 160 million people in this
century alone. The abuse of human rights, atrocities and massacres in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Red
China, North Korea, Eastern Europe, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique and Cuba
were an inevitable result of rejecting God's Law. Either men will be governed by God's Law or they will be
ruled by tyrants." (Hammond, P., "Our Christian
Heritage," Chalcedon Conference for Christian Culture, Lusaka, Zambia, June 28, 1997. Christian Action
Magazine, Vol. 4, 2003)

3/2/04
"Adolf Hitler's mind was captivated by evolutionary teaching-probably since the time he was a boy.
Evolutionary ideas-quite undisguised-lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf and in his public
speeches. A few quotations, taken at random, will show how Hitler reasoned. In a speech at Nuremberg, in
1933, he argued that a higher race would always conquer a lower. `Thus there results the subjection of a
number of people under the will, often of only a few persons, a subjection based simply upon the right of
the stronger, a right which, as we see it in Nature, can be regarded as the sole conceivable right, because it
is founded on reason.' He went on to explain that it was for this reason that he hated communism. `For
communism is not a higher stage of development; rather it is the most primitive form of life- the starting-
point.' Hitler's hatred of the Jews was rationalized in the same way. The Germans were the higher race,
destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be
segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature's efforts `to
establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile' ... Hitler's attitude to the League
of Nations and to peace and war were based upon the same principles. `A world-court without a world
police would be a joke...the whole world of Nature is a mighty struggle between strength and weakness-an
eternal victory of the strong over the weak.' ... Evolutionary views were drilled into the German people
Germans were told they must suffer but that, when the day of victory came, they would be rewarded at the
cost of conquered peoples. As a German writer puts it- `To those Germans whose conscience was disturbed
by these promises, Darwin's materialistic doctrine of the struggle of species was expounded. Since all natural
history was simply a struggle for the survival of the fittest any trick or ruse was permissible in order to
facilitate the victory of one's own species." (Clark R.E.D.*, "Darwin: Before and After: An Examination and
Assessment," [1948] Paternoster: London UK, 1966, reprint, pp.115-116)

3/2/04
"But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them
embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be more convenient to discuss this question
in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state that I believe the
answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed." (Darwin C.R.,
"The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons:
London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.157)

3/2/04
"D-Days at Dayton is intended to provide judgement on the effects of the trial after 40 years. It contains the
contemporaneous accounts of an iconoclastic reporter E.L. Mencken. and the contemporaneous affidavits
of the three teachers of science, W.C. Curtis, K.F. Mather and F.-C. Cole. The main offering, however, is a
series of eight newly written essays by two ministers, a theologian, three scientists, a scientific journalist,
and a former director of the American Civil Liberties Union. Some of these were present at the trial, but none
had an active part in it and for some the only connection is that they remember hearing about the trial when
they were children. There is also an essay by Scopes himself, and this is extraordinary. Scopes apparently
had little interest in the trial at the time, has virtually none now, and is most nearly moved by his belief that
Bryan. his rabble rousing, anti-intellectual prosecutor, was "the greatest man produced in the United States
since the days of Thomas Jefferson". The not very clearly expressed thesis of the editor and some
contributors seems to be that the Scopes trial has current relevance because it marked the opening of a
largely successful attack on anti-evolutionism in the United States. As one contributor (Carlyle Marney, a
Southern Baptist minister and evidently a unique one) does point out, the thesis is flatly wrong on both
counts: the battle against anti-evolutionary fundamentalism began long before 1925 and was far from won in
1965. The strongest argument is that Tennessee was so ridiculed that no other States dared be so foolish.
But all the evidence suggests that Tennesseeans were delighted by the publicity and unconscious of the
ridicule. And in fact to-day the teaching of evolution is prevented in an enormous number of school districts
(locally almost autonomous in the United States) by devices much more effective than unenforced State
laws. This somewhat interesting but unconvincing and patchwork volume does nothing to alter the feeling
that the Scopes trial was a farce and that its only present importance is that it inspired a more successful and
more frank farce, the play Inherit the Wind." (Simpson G.G., "Good Enough for Moses?," review of "D-Days
at Dayton: Reflections on the Scopes Trial." Edited by Jerry R. Tompkins, Louisiana State University Press:
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1965, in Nature, Vol 210, No. 5042, June 18, 1966, pp.1194-1195)

4/2/04
"Daniel Dennett's 1995 book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, presents itself as the ultras' philosophical manifesto
of pure adaptationism. Dennett explains the strict adaptationist view well enough, but he defends a miserly
and blinkered picture of evolution in assuming that all important phenomena can be explained thereby. His
limited and superficial book reads like a caricature of a caricature--for if Richard Dawkins has trivialized
Darwin's richness by adhering to the strictest form of adaptationist argument in a maximally reductionist
mode, then Dennett, as Dawkins's publicist, manages to convert an already vitiated and improbable account
into an even more simplistic and uncompromising doctrine. If history, as often noted, replays grandeurs as
farces, and if T.H. Huxley truly acted as `Darwin's bulldog,' then it is hard to resist thinking of Dennett, in
this book, as "Dawkins's lapdog." (Gould S.J., "Darwinian Fundamentalism," New York Review of
Books, June 12, 1997)

5/2/04
"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number
of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such
finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be
urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological
record." (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library,
J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, pp.292-293)

5/2/04
"I have attempted to show that the geological record is extremely imperfect. ... He who rejects this view of
the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory. For he may ask in vain where
are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative
species found in the successive stages of the same great formation? He may disbelieve in the immense
intervals of time which must have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how
important a part migration has played, when the formations of any one great region, as those of Europe, are
considered; he may urge the apparent, but often falsely apparent, sudden coming in of whole groups of
species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed
long before the Cambrian system was deposited?" (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of
Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, pp.342-
343)

5/2/04
"I can answer these questions and objections only on the supposition that the geological record is far more
imperfect than most geologists believe. " (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.441)

5/2/04
"If we admit that the geological record is imperfect to an extreme degree, then the facts, which the record
does give, strongly support the theory of descent with modification. " (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928,
reprint, p.450)

5/2/04
"The noble science of Geology loses glory from the extreme imperfection of the record. The crust of the
earth with its embedded remains must not be looked at as a well-filled museum, but as a poor collection made
at hazard and at rare intervals." (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872],
Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.461)

6/2/04
"Genesis 4:21-22. Lamech, a descendant of Cain, had three sons by his two wives. Jabal `was the father of
such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.' A second son Jubal, `was the father of all such as handle
the harp and organ.' In just eight generations counting Adam, there are tents, livestock, and musical
instruments; not caves, woolly mammoths, and hand axes. For many reasons, we can conclude that Adam
was not contemporary with the `Flintstones.' A wealth of Stone Age artifacts have been uncovered giving
silent testimony to a culture long disappeared at this point. So where does Adam fit in the history of man?
The next verse tells us. Genesis 4:22. One of Cain's descendants, Tubal-cain, was `an instructor of every
worker in brass and iron.' There is the proverbial smoking gun! Adam belongs after the old Stone Ages, at
the end of the Neolithic, at the threshold of a period called the Chalcolithic when traditional stone tools were
augmented by crude copper implements. Adam's descendants saw the dawning of the Bronze Age."
(Fischer D.*, "The Origins Solution: An Answer in the Creation-Evolution Debate," Fairway Press: Lima OH,
1996, pp.238-239)

7/2/04
"Does our culture, like many others, have an unpardonable heresy? Every culture constructs an idol unto
itself, punishing heresy by excommunication. We can discover the sacred idol of any culture by finding its
taboo question. In Medieval Europe, the peasant was forbidden to question the truth of the Church. Under
Communism, comrades doubting the Party were thrown in gulag labor camps. Now, citizens must recite
principles of Darwinism through compulsory schooling. We are encouraged to learn nuances like
punctuated equilibrium and neo- Darwinism, but questioning the universal explanatory power of evolution is
met with intellectual excommunication. ... Anti-religious prejudice among scientists significantly impeded
20th century scientific advance. Stephen Hawking wrote in A Brief History of Time that evidence for the Big
Bang was ignored for decades because it `smacks of divine intervention.' For fear of theological
implications, there were `a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a Big Bang.'
Intellectual honesty requires rationally examining our fundamental premises-yet expressing hesitation about
Darwin is considered irretrievable intellectual suicide, the unthinkable doubt, the unpardonable sin of
academia. Although the postmodern era questions everything else-the possibility of knowledge, basic
morality and reality itself-critical discussion of Darwin is taboo. While evolutionary biologists test Darwin's
hypothesis in every experiment they conduct, the basic premise of evolution remains an scientific Holy of
Holies, despite our absurd skepticism in other areas. Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins writes: `It is
absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who does not believe in evolution, that person is either
ignorant, stupid, or insane.' ... Skip Evans, of the National Center for Science Education, worried that
classroom discussions of evidence against evolution might `cast seeds of doubt in students' minds.'
Professors expressing doubts about evolution are often ostracized, demoted or fired. A Baylor University
professor found research funds rescinded because his project would undermine evolutionary
presuppositions. Other skeptical professors have resorted to using pseudonyms, fearing for their jobs and
careers if they openly publish contrary evidence. Evolution skeptics are almost universally dismissed with
an ad hominem charge of `religiously-motivated propaganda.' .... These dissenting voices are systematically
marginalized and silenced by academic McCarthyism. We must refuse to bow to our culture's false idols.
Science will not benefit from canonizing Darwin or making evolution an article of secular faith. We must
reject intellectual excommunication as a valid form of dealing with criticism: the most important question for
any society to ask is the one that is forbidden." (Halvorson R.T., "Confessions of a Skeptic," The Harvard
Crimson, April 07, 2003)

7/2/04
"Hart's CHZ [continuous habitable zone] is now believed to be too narrow because of several effects that he
did not take into account. One of these is the discovery of a remarkable chemical process known as the CO2-
silicate cycle that, on Earth, acts as a regulating thermostat to keep the planetary temperature within
"healthful" limits. This cycle can maintain habitable surface temperatures over moderate range of solar
heating effects. CO2 is a trace gas that constitutes, only 350 parts per million of the atmosphere, but it is a
`greenhouse' gas: infrared-absorbing properties retard the escape of heat back into space. The greenhouse
effect warms Earth's surface about 40�C above the temperature it would otherwise have. As we will see later
in the book, the thermostatic control of the CO2-silicate cycle (which is also known as the CO2-rock cycle)
occurs because of the effects of weathering. If the planet warms, in creased weathering removes CO2 from
the atmosphere, and the loss of CO2 leads to cooling. When Earth is too cool, weathering and CO2 removal
decrease, while the continual atmospheric buildup of volcanic CO2 leads to warming. This remarkable
negative-feedback system widens the continuously habitable zone and also complicates efforts to determine
its boundaries precisely, because the CO2-rock cycle is not perfectly understood on a planetary scale. Using
this new information, astrobiologist James Kasting and his colleagues defined the HZ as "the region around
a star in which an Earth-like planet (of comparable mass) and having an atmosphere containing nitrogen,
water, and carbon dioxide is climatically suitable for surface dwelling, water-dependent life." They estimated
in 1993 that the width of the CHZ is from 0.95 to 1.15 AU (1 astronomical unit represents the distance from
Earth to the sun, 93 million miles). This is much wider than Hart's estimate but still quite narrow. (Ward P.D.
& Brownlee D., "Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe," Copernicus: New York, 2000,
pp.18-19)

8/2/04
"A more difficult case, which Gould himself takes on (in The Panda's Thumb), is that of a Philippine
anglerfish. In anglerfish generally, a fin spine has been elongated to project forward in front of the fish's
head. At the end of this spine is a `bait' which the angler uses to attract its prey. In a Philippine variety the
bait has developed into a remarkably fishlike lure, which the angler wiggles near its mouth while sitting on
the sea floor pretending to be an algae-encrusted rock. In form and coloring, this lure is an extraordinarily
good representation for an actual fish. It has spots of pigment to simulate eyes, compressed filaments and
extensions representing all the standard fish fins and even a rear projection perfectly mimicking a tail. The
Philippine angler even moves its bait so as to simulate the lateral undulations of a swimming fish. How did
this anglerfish's lure come into existence? Gould himself acknowledges the inconsistency of ascribing this
`adaptation' to small, cumulative, partial modifications. If we suppose the development of this lure required
500 separate steps, of what value, Gould asks, is the first step? `Is a five hundredth of a fake enough to
inspire the curiosity of any real, item?' And if we believe in small, cumulative modifications, we have to
explain how the process began. We are driven to postulate some `non-Darwinian' force establishing a goal
and directing the life-force of the fish to accomplish that end. And Gould, of course, is dead set against any
such `non-Darwinian' force. Moreover, in the punctuational model of evolution, Gould doesn't have time for
five hundred successive modifications. He has to explain how this anglerfish's lure arose relatively quickly."
(Fix W.R., "The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution," Macmillan: New York NY, 1984, pp.202-203)

8/2/04
"It's true that for the last eighteen months or so I've been kicking around non-evolutionary or even anti-
evolutionary ideas. ... One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a non-
evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was
working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night and it
struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it.
... Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, that is true? I tried that
question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence.
... Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge but does it convey any? Well
we're back to the question that I've been putting to people. "Is there any one thing you can tell me about
evolution?" The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any
knowledge or if so, I haven't yet heard of it. ... evolution not only conveys no knowledge but seems
somehow to convey anti-knowledge ..." (Patterson C., "Evolutionism and
Creationism," Transcript of Address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York NY,
November 5, 1981, pp.1-4. Ellipses mine)
"All of the Friedmann solutions have the feature that at some time in the past (between ten and twenty
thousand million-years ago) the distance between neighboring galaxies must have been zero. At that time,
which we call the big bang, the density of the universe and the curvature of spacetime would have been
infinite. Because mathematics cannot really handle infinite numbers, this means that the general theory of
relativity (on which Friedmann's solutions are based) predicts that there is a point in the universe where the
theory itself breaks down. Such a point is an example of what mathematicians call a singularity. In fact, all
our theories of science are formulated on the assumption that space-time is smooth and nearly flat, so they
break down at the big bang singularity, where the curvature of space-time is infinite. This means that even if
there were events before the big bang, one could not use them to determine what would happen afterward,
because predictability would break down at the big bang. Correspondingly, if, as is the case, we know only
what has happened since the big bang, we could not determine what happened beforehand. As far as we are
concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences, so they should not form part of a
scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a
beginning at the big bang. Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it
smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic Church, on the other hand, seized on the big bang model and in
1951 officially pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible.) There were therefore a number of attempts
to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang." (Hawking S.W., "A Brief History of Time: From the
Big Bang to Black Holes," [1988], Bantam: London, 1991, reprint, p.50)

10/2/04
"MR. WATTENBERG: Well, now, you