[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [My Quotes; C/E quotes: Unclassified, Classified; CreationEvolutionDesign blog]
The following are unclassified quotes posted in my email messages in January-June, 2004.
The date
format is dd/mm/yy. See copyright conditions at end.
[Jan-Mar] [Apr-Jun] [Jul, Aug, Sep] [Oct-Dec]
July1/7/04
"Gould has been at the forefront of the discussion of another fascinating phenomenon: the `Cambrian explosion.'
Careful searches show only a smattering of fossils of multicellular creatures in rocks older than about 600 million
years. Yet in rocks just a little bit younger is seen a profusion of fossilized animals, with a host of widely differing
body plans. Recently the estimated time over which the explosion took place has been revised downward from 50
million years to 10 million years-a blink of the eye in geological terms. The shorter time estimate has forced
headline writers to grope for new superlatives, a favorite being the `biological Big Bang.' Gould has argued that
the rapid rate of appearance of new life forms demands a mechanism other than natural selection for its
explanation. Ironically, we have come full circle from Darwin's day. When Darwin first proposed his theory a big
difficulty was the estimated age of the earth. Nineteenth-century physicists thought the earth was only about a
hundred million years old, yet Darwin thought natural selection would require much more time to produce life. At
first he was proven right; the earth is now known to be much older. With the discovery of the biological Big
Bang, however, the window of time for life to go from simple to complex has shrunk to much less than nineteenth-
century estimates of the earth's age." (Behe, M.J.*, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to
Evolution," Free Press: New York NY, 1996, pp.27-28)
8/7/04
"Time was when Western Christendom's deepest division was between relatively homogeneous Protestant
churches and a relatively homogeneous Church of Rome. Today, however, the deepest and most hurtful division
is between theological conservatives (or `conservationists,' as I prefer to call them), who honor the Christ of the
Bible and of the historic creeds and confessions, and theological liberals and radicals who for whatever reason
do not; and this division splits the older Protestant bodies and the Roman communion internally. Convictional
renewal within the churches can only come, under God, through sustained exposition, affirmation, and debate,
and since it is substantially the same battle that has to be fought across the board, a coalition of evangelical and
Catholic resources for the purpose would surely make sense." (Packer, J.I.*, "Why I Signed It," Christianity
Today, December 12, 1994, pp.34-37, pp.35-36)
8/7/04
"But are there any very special occasions when saltations, or macromutations, are incorporated into evolution?
Macromutations certainly occur in the laboratory. Our theoretical considerations say only that viable
macromutations should be exceedingly rare in comparison with viable micromutations. But even if the occasions
when major saltations are viable and incorporated into evolution are exceedingly rare, even if they have occurred
only once or twice in the whole history of a lineage from Precambrian to present, that is enough to transform the
entire course of evolution. I find it plausible for instance, that the invention of segmentation occurred in a single
macromutational leap, once during the history of our own vertebrate ancestors and again once in the ancestry of
arthropods and annelids. Once this had happened in either of these two lineages, it changed the entire climate in
which ordinary cumulative selection of micromutations went on. It must have resembled indeed, a sudden
catastrophic change in the external climate. Just as a lineage can, after appalling loss of life, recover and adapt to
a catastrophic change in the external climate, so a lineage might, by subsequent micromutational selection, adapt
to the catastrophe of a macromutation as large as the first segmentation. (Dawkins R., "Darwin Triumphant:
Darwinism as a Universal Truth," in Robinson M.H. & Tiger L., eds., "Man & Beast Revisited," Smithsonian
Institution Press: Washington DC, 1991, pp.31-32)
9/7/04
"When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which
rearranges within picoseconds to trans- retinal. (A picosecond is about the time it takes light to travel the
breadth of a single human hair.) The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of
the protein rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein's metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now
called metarhodopsin II the protein sticks to another protein, called transducin. Before bumping into
metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with
metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but
critically different from, GDP). GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called
phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its
entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to `cut' a molecule called cGMP (a chemical
relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase
lowers its concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub. Another membrane protein that
binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell.
Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them
out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow
range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel
closes, causing the cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an
imbalance of charge across the cell membrane that, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic
nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision. If the reactions mentioned above were the
only ones that operated in the cell, the supply of 11-cis-retinal, cGME and sodium ions would quickly be
depleted. Something has to turn off the proteins that were turned on and restore the cell to its original state.
Several mechanisms do this. First, in the dark the ion channel (in addition to sodium ions) also lets calcium ions
into the cell. The calcium is pumped back out by a different protein so that a constant calcium concentration is
maintained. When cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channel, calcium ion concentration decreases, too.
The phosphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMF, slows down at lower calcium concentration. Second, a
protein called guanylate cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when calcium levels start to fall. Third while all of
this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically modified by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase. The modified
rhodopsin then binds to a protein known as arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from activating more
transducin. So the cell contains mechanisms to limit the amplified signal started by a single photon. trans-
retinal eventually falls off of rhodopsin and must be reconverted to 11-cis-retinal and again bound by
rhodopsin to get back to the starting point for another visual cycle To accomplish this, trans-retinal is
first chemically modified by an enzyme to trans-retinol- a form containing two more hydrogen atoms. A
second enzyme then converts the molecule to 11-cis-retinol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the
previously added hydrogen atoms to form 11-cis-retinal a cycle is complete." (Behe M.J.*, "Darwin's
Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free Press: New York NY, 1996, pp.18-21)
10/7/04
"George Halder, Patrick Callaerts and Walter Gehring discovered an experimental manipulation that led to ey's
being expressed in other parts of the body. By doctoring Drosophila larvae in cunning ways, they succeeded in
making ey express itself in the antennae, the wings and the legs. Amazingly, the treated adult flies grew up with
fully formed compound eyes on their wings, legs, antennae and elsewhere (Inset Figure 5.29). ... That is
remarkable fact number one. Fact number two is even more remarkable. There is a gene in mice called small eye
and one in humans called aniridia. These, too, are named using the geneticists' negative convention: mutational
damage to these genes causes reduction or absence of eyes or parts of eyes. Rebecca Quiring and Uwe Waldorf,
working in the same Swiss laboratory, found that these particular mammal genes are almost identical, in their
DNA sequences, to the ey gene in Drosophila. This means that the same gene has come down from remote
ancestors to modern animals as distant from each other as mammals and insects. Moreover, in both these major
branches of the animal kingdom the gene seems to have a lot to do with eyes. Remarkable fact number three is
almost too startling. Halder, Callaerts and Gehring succeeded in introducing the mouse gene into Drosophila
embryos. Mirabile dictu, the mouse gene induced ectopic eyes in Drosophila. Inset Figure 5.29 (bottom) shows a
small compound eye induced on the leg of a fruitfly by the mouse equivalent of ey. Notice, by the way, that it is
an insect compound eye that has been induced, not a mouse eye. The mouse gene has simply switched on the
eyemaking developmental machinery of Drosophila Genes with pretty much the same DNA sequence as ey have
been found also in molluscs, marine worms called nemertines, and sea-squirts. Ey may very well be universal
among animals, and it may turn out to be a general rule that a version of the gene taken from a donor in one part
of the animal kingdom can induce eyes to develop in recipients in an exceedingly remote part of the animal
kingdom. What does this spectacular series of experiments mean for our conclusion in this chapter? Were we
wrong to think that eyes have developed forty times independently? I don't think so. At least the spirit of the
statement that eyes evolve easily and at the drop of a hat remains unscathed. These experiments probably do
mean that the common ancestor of Drosophila, mice, humans, sea-squirts and so on had eyes. The remote
common ancestor had vision of some kind, and its eyes, whatever form they may have taken, probably developed
under the influence of a sequence of DNA similar to modern ey. But the actual form of the different kinds of eye,
the details of retinas and lenses or mirrors, the choice of compound versus simple, and if compound the choice
among apposition or various kinds of superposition, all these evolve independently and rapidly. We know this
by looking at the sporadic - almost capricious - distribution of these various devices and systems, dotted around
the animal kingdom. In brief, animals often have an eye that resembles their remoter cousins more than it
resembles their closer cousins. The conclusion remains unshaken by the demonstration that the common
ancestor of all these animals probably had eyes of some kind, and that the embryonic development of all eyes
seems to have enough in common to be inducible by the same DNA sequence." (Dawkins R., "Climbing Mount
Improbable," Penguin: London, 1996, pp.176-177)
10/7/04
"When we speak of 'the' eye, by the way, we are not doing justice to the problem. It has been authoritatively
estimated that eyes have evolved no fewer than forty times, and probably more than sixty times, independently in
various parts of the animal kingdom. In some cases these eyes use radically different principles. Nine distinct
principles have been recognized among the forty to sixty independently evolved eyes." (Dawkins R., "Climbing
Mount Improbable," Penguin: London, 1996, p.127)
11/7/04
"Then again, during the actual period of the Babylonian captivity there were two other major prophets, Daniel
and Ezekiel. They prophesied in the earlier part of the exile. Of these Daniel specified the time when Christ was
destined to come and to suffer, by giving the number of years that were to intervene. It would be a tedious
business to demonstrate this by computation, and it has been done by others before us." (St. Augustine,* "The
City of God," [1467], Bettenson H., transl., Penguin: London, 1984, p.806)
12/7/04
"Intelligent design may mean that the ultimate explanation for life is beyond
scientific explanation. That assessment is premature. But even if it is true, I
would not be troubled. I don't want the best scientific explanation for the
origins of life; I want the correct explanation." (Behe M.J., "Darwin Under the Microscope," The New
York Times, October 29, 1996, p.A25. Access Research Network, 4 November, 1996.
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm. My
emphasis)
14/7/04
"There are numerous examples (I counted 35 in one chapter) in a recent book called The Probability of God by the
Bishop of Birmingham, Hugh Montefiore. ... The Bishop believes in evolution, but cannot believe that natural
selection is an adequate explanation for the course that evolution has taken (partly because, like many others, he
sadly misunderstands natural selection to be 'random' and 'meaningless'). He makes heavy use of what may be
called the Argument from Personal Incredulity. In the course of one chapter we find the following phrases, in this
order: `... there seems no explanation on Darwinian grounds ... It is no easier to explain ... It is hard to understand
... It is not easy to understand ... It is equally difficult to explain ... I do not find it easy to comprehend ... I do not
find it easy to see ... I find it hard to understand ... it does not seem feasible to explain ... I cannot see how ... neo-
Darwinism seems inadequate to explain many of the complexities of animal behaviour ... it is not easy to
comprehend how such behaviour could have evolved solely through natural selection ... It is impossible ... How
could an organ so complex evolve? ... It is not easy to see ... It is difficult to see ... ." The Argument from Personal
Incredulity is an extremely weak argument, as Darwin himself noted. In some cases it is based upon simple
ignorance." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, pp.37-38)
14/7/04
"Let us return to the question, how do we see? Although to Darwin the primary event of vision was a black box,
through the efforts of many biochemists an answer to the question of sight is at hand. When light strikes the
retina a photon is absorbed by an organic molecule called 11-cis-retinal, causing it to rearrange within
picoseconds to trans-retinal. The change in shape of retinal forces a corresponding change in shape of
the protein, rhodopsin, to which it is tightly bound. As a consequence of the protein's metamorphosis, the
behavior of the protein changes in a very specific way. The altered protein can now interact with another protein
called transducin. Before associating with rhodopsin, transducin is tightly bound to a small organic molecule
called GDP, but when it binds to rhodopsin the GDP dissociates itself from transducin and a molecule called GTP,
which is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP, binds to transducin. The exchange of GTP for GDP
in the transducinrhodopsin complex alters its behavior. GTP-transducinrhodopsin binds to a protein called
phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When bound by rhodopsin and its entourage, the
phosphodiesterase acquires the ability to chemically cleave a molecule called cGMP. Initially there are a lot of
cGMP molecules in the cell, but the action of the phosphodiesterase lowers the concentration of cGMP.
Activating the phosphodiesterase can be likened to pulling the plug in a bathtub, lowering the level of water. A
second membrane protein which binds cGMP, called an ion channel, can be thought of as a special gateway
regulating the number of sodium ions in the cell. The ion channel normally allows sodium ions to flow into the
cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump
proteins keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the concentration of cGMP is
reduced from its normal value through cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, many channels close, resulting in a
reduced cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions. This causes an imbalance of charges across
the cell membrane which, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain: the result,
when interpreted by the brain, is vision. If the biochemistry of vision were limited to the reactions listed above,
the cell would quickly deplete its supply of 11-cis-retinal and cGMP while also becoming depleted of
sodium ions. Thus a system is required to limit the signal that is generated and restore the cell to its original
state; there are several mechanisms which do this. Normally, in the dark, the ion channel, in addition to sodium
ions, also allows calcium ions to enter the cell; calcium is pumped back out by a different protein in order to
maintain a constant intracellular calcium concentration. However, when cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion
channel and decreasing the sodium ion concentration, calcium ion concentration is also decreased. The
phosphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMP, is greatly slowed down at lower calcium concentration.
Additionally, a protein called guanylate cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when calcium levels start to fall.
Meanwhile, while all of this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically modified by an enzyme called rhodopsin
kinase, which places a phosphate group on its substrate. The modified rhodopsin is then bound by a protein
dubbed arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from further activating transducin. Thus the cell contains
mechanisms to limit the amplified signal started by a single photon. Trans-retinal eventually falls off of
the rhodopsin molecule and must be reconverted to 11-cis-retinal and again bound by opsin to regenerate
rhodopsin for another visual cycle. To accomplish this trans-retinal is first chemically modified by an
enzyme to transretinol, a form containing two more hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then isomerizes the
molecule to 11-cis-retinol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previouslyadded hydrogen atoms to form
11-cis-retinal, and the cycle is complete. ... Although many details of the biochemistry of vision have not
been cited here, the overview just seen is meant to demonstrate that, ultimately, this is what it means to
'explain' vision. This is the level of explanation that Biological science eventually must aim for. In order to say
that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated. The relevant steps in
biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological
phenomenon such as sight, or digestion, or immunity, must include a molecular explanation. It is no longer
sufficient, now that the black box of vision has been opened, for an 'evolutionary explanation' of that power to
invoke only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the 19th century and as most popularizers
of evolution continue to do today." (Behe M.J.*, "Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design
Inference," C.S. Lewis Society, Cambridge University, Summer 1994.
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm)
15/7/04
"Natural selection is demanding, exacting, relentless. It is intolerant of weakness, indifferent to suffering. It
favours the hardy, the resilient, the healthy. One might expect organisms shaped by such a force to bear its
stamp, to suffer in its own image - expect them to be locked in struggle, pursuing their own interests, uncaring of
others. Natural selection would surely see off chivalrous self-sacrifice. Selfishness should win the day. But look
carefully at nature and you will find that it doesn't always seem like that. You might well see animals that are
apparently strikingly unselfish, particularly with their own species - giving warning of predators, sharing food,
grooming others to remove parasites, adopting orphans, fighting without killing or even injuring their adversaries
and conducting themselves in numerous other civilised ways. Indeed, in some respects they behave in e like the
moral paragons of Aesop - working dutifully for the sake of tie community, noble in spirit and generous in deed -
than the hard-bitten, self-seeking individualists that natural selection would seem to favour. Such behaviour
poses a problem for the Darwinian view of nature. It has become known as the problem of altruism." (Cronin H.,
"The Ant and the Peacock: Altruism and Sexual Selection From Darwin To Today," [1991], Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1993, reprint, p.253)
15/7/04
"However, while Darwinism can and does encompass many elements which do not directly conduce to survival
or reproduction, or do so only through the inexplicable influence of female caprice, what it cannot countenance
are variations which are harmful. Every edition of The Origin of Species contains the following words,
which may be taken as the fundamental axiom of the theory: `If variations which are useful to their possessors in
the struggle for life do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly
survive), that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of
surviving and reproducing their, kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least
degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed.' [Darwin C., "The Origin of Species," 1872, 6th Edition, p.81].
David Stove, who quotes this passage in his article 'So You Think Youare a Darwinian?' [Philosophy, 1994, 267-
278] points out that when we think of human behaviour 'any educated person' can easily think of a hundred
characteristics seriously injurious to their possessors, concerning which, as he puts it, there is not the slightest
evidence that they are in process of being destroyed.' ... I will mention some widely acclaimed virtues which have
little to do with Darwinian success (survival and reproduction) and which are frequently injurious to their
possessors in more than the least degree Darwin argued would lead to their being rigidly destroyed: feeding the
poor, tending the sick, visiting the imprisoned, modesty, chastity, honesty, promisekeeping, integrity, respect for
the rights of others, self-sacrifice, honour, and this is without even mentioning the theological virtues of faith,
hope, and charity." (O'Hear A., "Beyond Evolution: Human Nature and the Limits of Evolutionary Explanation,"
Clarendon Press: Oxford UK, 1989, pp.142-143. Emphasis O'Hear)
15/7/04
"You might think that evolutionary accounts of behavior would kick in only after there is evidence that
the behavior in question is actually inherited. Evolutionary theories might then be invoked to explain how and
why it came to he inherited. But what happens is a curious inversion, where stories are spun out to explain why
the behavior is adaptive, even in cases where there's no independent evidence that it is genetically based.
Consider another example. A few years ago, Pinker published an article in the New York Times applying
evolutionary psychology to the topic of infanticide. This was shortly after the news media had reported the story
of the `Prom Mom,' a teenage girl who gave birth to a baby at a school dance and dumped the newborn in the
trash. Around the same time, an unmarried teen couple killed their newborn as well. The public was shocked, and
so Pinker reassured them that infanticide has been practiced in most cultures throughout history Its sheer
ubiquity suggests that it must have been preserved by natural selection-which in turn means it must have some
adaptive function. `The emotional circuitry of mothers has evolved' to commit infanticide in situations where it is
advantageous, Pinker wrote. `A capacity for neonaticide is built into the biological design of our parental
emotions.' [Pinker S., `Why They Kill Their Newborns,' New York Times, November 2, 1997] There are several
problems with this scenario, beginning with the fact that there is no evidence that neonaticide is a genetic trait to
begin with, let alone one selected by evolution. `Where are the twin studies, chromosome locations, and DNA
sequences supporting such a claim?' Orr demands. `The answer is we don't have any. What we do have is a
story-there's an undeniable Darwinian logic underlying the murder of newborns in certain circumstances.' It is
this `Darwinian logic' that drives the theory, Orr says, not any set of facts: `And so the inversion occurs: the
evolutionary story rings true; but evolution requires genes; therefore, it's genetic. This move is so easy and so
seductive that evolutionary psychologists sometimes forget a hard truth: a Darwinian story is not Mendelian
evidence. A Darwinian story is a story.' [Orr H.A., `Darwinian Storytelling.' Review of `The Blank Slate: The
Modern Denial of Human Nature,' by Steven Pinker, Viking, 2002. New York Review of Books, Vol. 50, No. 3,
February 27, 2003]. ... Yet evolutionary psychology proves to be so elastic that it can explain just about anything,
On one hand, evolution is said to account for mothers who kill their newborn babies. But, of course, If you were
to ask why most mothers do not kill their babies, why, evolution accounts for that too. A theory that
explains any phenomenon and Its opposite, too, in reality explains nothing. It is so flexible that it can be twisted
to say whatever proponents want it to say." (Pearcey N.R.*, "Darwin Meets the Berenstain Bears," in Dembski
W.A., ed., "Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing," ISI Books: Wilmington DE,
2004, pp.57-58. Emphasis in original)
16/7/04
"If this is the case, a single gene mutation cannot generate a structure of new complexity. But according to neo-
Darwinism, genes are distributed within the population. To produce a significantly new structure 3 or 10, or more
generally 30-40 genes closely cooperating would have to be brought together in the same individual. To design a
new style of dress for women, the designer would have to bring together the suppliers of fabrics with their
various colours, suppliers of lace, suppliers of ribbons, etc. Working as a team, the final design would emerge. So
it would be with the group of newly modified genes, which together, working in harmony would generate the new
complexity. The rate of mutation is 1 in million, out of these non harmful mutations are 1 in 1000. For 2 such to
occur would be 1 in 10^3 x 10^3. For 5 to occur 1 in 1000 million million (1 in 10^15)." (Ambrose E.J., "The Mirror
of Creation," Theology and Science at the Frontiers of Knowledge, Number 11, Scottish Academic Press:
Edinburgh UK, 1990, p.167)
17/7/04
"A second category might be labeled errors of judgment: political miscalculations really. The savvy Darwin made
few mistakes in this mode, but he slipped occasionally by giving free rein to fatuous speculations in a treatise
that gained its power by sinking a weighty anchor in sober fact and avoiding the fanciful conjectures of previous
writing about evolution. In a passage that he would later rue, and that gave aid, comfort, rhetorical advantage,
and belly laughter to the enemy, Darwin wrote: `In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming
for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water.... If the supply of insects were
constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of
bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and
larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale (Later editions of the Origin kept the first
factual sentence and expunged all the rest.) A statement like this need not be false (indeed, as a speculation, we
cannot tell); the important thing, as Machiavelli would have said, is to avoid the appearance of silliness." (Gould
S.J., "Full of Hot Air," in "Eight Little Piggies", Jonathan Cape: London, 1993, pp.110-111)
18/7/04
"For other examples of the sudden fossil appearance of taxa, we cannot even reasonably begin to entertain the
hypothesis of a long, unrecorded interval of diversification. One of these is the appearance of most orders of
Cenozoic mammals early in that era .... Nearly all of the higher mammalian taxa of the Paleocene and Early Eocene
evolved from a small number of primitive representatives of the latest Cretaceous .... Among the new mammalian
taxa of the early Cenozoic were the order of bats (Chiroptera) and the order of whales (cetacea); the divergent
nature of both of these orders underscores the point that rates of large-scale evolution were very rapid." (Stanley
S.M., "Macroevolution: Pattern and Process," The Johns Hopkins University Press, [1979], Baltimore, MD, 1998,
p.69)
19/7/04
"The fact that the bone structures of certain large land-dwelling mammals, the mesonychids, ancient
freshwaterdrinking whales, ancient saltwater-drinking whales, and modern whales exhibit an apparent
progression persuades them that modern whales naturally evolved from land-dwelling mammals. Evolutionists
often cite this progression as their best demonstration of Darwinian evolution. Ironically, the evolutionists' "best
example" in reality is their worst. No animal is a less efficient evolver than the whales. No animal has a higher
probability for extinction than the whales. Many factors severely limit their capacity for natural-process changes
and greatly enhance their probability for rapid extinction. The six most significant are: 1. relatively small
population levels 2. long generation spans (the time between birth and the ability to give birth) 3. low numbers of
progeny produced per adult 4. high complexity of morphology and biochemistry 5. enormous sizes 6. specialized
food supplies These factors limit not only whales' capacity to change through natural selection and mutations
but even their ability to adapt to change." (Ross H.N.*, "The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the
Accuracy of Genesis," NavPress: Colorado Springs CO, 1998, pp.51-52)
19/7/04
"Another classic illusion is when evolutionists claim that evolution predicts that fossil mammals will not be
found in Paleozoic rocks. Evolutionists commonly use that argument to show that evolution is scientific. `Our
creationist detractors charge that evolution is an unproved and unprovable bit of secular religion masquerading
as science. They claim, above all, that evolution generates no predictions, never exposes itself to test, and
therefore stands as dogma rather than disprovable science. This is nonsense. We make and test risky predictions
all the time; our success is not dogma, but a highly probable indication that evolution is true. As in any historical
science, most predictions are about an unknown past (technically called postdictions in the jargon) For example,
every time I collect fossils in Paleozoic rocks (225 to 550 million years old), I predict that I will not find fossil
mammals-for mammals evolved in the subsequent Triassic period. ... If I start finding fossil mammals, particularly
late-evolving creatures, such as cows, cats, elephants, and humans, in Paleozoic strata, our evolutionary goose is
cooked.' [Gould S.J., "Magnolias from Moscow," Natural History, September 1992, p.18] First, evolution does not
predict mammals ever. Most evolutionists (especially Gould) emphasize that evolutionary theory never
predicted any particular organisms. Mammals happen to be here, and evolutionists merely accommodate that
fact. ... Quite simply, Gould is using circular reasoning. Mammals are not found earlier than the Triassic, so Gould
conveniently claims they will not be found earlier-and he creates the illusion that evolution predicts this. It is
merely a claim of evolutionists, not a prediction of evolutionary theory. ... Since there is no clear-cut phylogeny
(as tacitly acknowledged by Gould in his theory of punctuated equilibria), any sequence is acceptable to
evolutionary theory. ... evolutionary theory is plastic and can accommodate dramatic changes in our knowledge
of the fossil sequence. For example, Eldredge (1982, p 65-66) uses Peripatus, (a lobe-legged, wormlike
creature that lives in rotting logs in the Southern Hemisphere) as an intermediate between two of the major phyla
on earth today-the segmented worms and the arthropods. Evolutionists felt it was so clear that they traditionally
used it as evidence for evolution. They used it as evidence where they desperately needed it-as an intermediate
form between higher levels of the Linnaean hierarchy. Nonetheless, new fossils from the Cambrian era have now
forced evolutionists to change their position. Gould (1992c) removes Peripatus from its status as an intermediate.
He argues that Peripatus (and its group, the Onychophora) represents, not an intermediate, but a separate
unique group whose closest relatives appeared far earlier, in the Cambrian explosion. Thus evolutionists have
dramatically altered their conceptions of ancestry to accommodate new evidence from fossil sequence. This
happens often, without anyone even raising an eyebrow. It happens because there is no clear-cut phylogeny, so
evolutionary theory can accommodate any new discoveries about fossil sequence. ... contrary to Gould, if
mammals were found in Paleozoic strata it would not falsify evolution. It would be astounding ... at least for a
while. It would make headlines. But it would not refute evolution. Instead, ... it would open the door to different
(and easier) evolutionary stories. Evolutionists would merely change their story." (ReMine W.J.*, "The Biotic
Message: Evolution Versus Message Theory," St. Paul Science: Saint Paul MN, 1993, pp.417-418. Emphasis in
original)
20/7/04
"No serious biologist today doubts the fact of evolution ... In this book we are not concerned with enumerating
so-called proofs of evolution. The fact of evolution is demonstrated on every side in all fields of biology and
indeed forms the basic unifying principle in the study of living systems. We do not need a listing of evidences to
demonstrate the fact of evolution any more than we need to demonstrate the existence of mountain ranges."
(Savage J.M., "Evolution," Modern Biology Series, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963, p.v)
21/7/04
"Devastating as the denial of teleology was for many of Darwin's contemporaries such as Sedgwick and von
Baer, the denial of design was even more sweeping. To explain all the beautiful adaptations of organisms, their
adjustment to each other, their well-organized interdependence, and indeed the whole harmony of nature, as the
result of such a capricious process as natural selection, was quite unacceptable to almost all of Darwin's
contemporaries." (Mayr E., "Darwin, intellectual revolutionary," in Bendall D.S., ed., "Evolution From Molecules
to Men," [1983], Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1985, reprint, p.36)
22/7/04
"The case for Darwinism cannot be based on any edification that is supposed to come from its truths. Through
eugenics, Darwinism was a bad influence on Nazism, one of the greatest killers in world history. Darwinism
probably contributed to the upsurge of racism in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and thus it helped
foment twentieth-century racism generally. Darwinism was also used to exacerbate the neglect of the poor in the
nineteenth century. All things considered, Darwinism has had many regrettable, and sometimes actually vicious,
effects on the social climate of the modern world. Modern Darwinism does not offer any guarantee of unending
progress. It is understandable that so many hate Darwin and Darwinism. It is often a bitter burden to live with
Darwinism and its implications. Unlike so many doctrines, religions, and ideologies, it certainly isn't intellectual
opium. No one can make a case for Darwinism based on moral hygiene." (Rose M.R., "Darwin's Spectre:
Evolutionary Biology in the Modern World," [1998], Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 2000, Third
printing, p.210)
22/7/04
"The American eugenics movement was a crusade to improve humanity via science and was based on the work
of Francis Galton, a renowned geneticist who was a cousin of Charles Darwin. ... During the 1920s, American
eugenicists became more active in the movement to restrict immigration, as they provided a scientific rationale for
an emotional issue, culminating in the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924. Many leading eugenicists were
brilliant publicists, using such gimmicks as sermon contests and `fitter families' contests to generate attention
and funding. ... It was only a short step from being a devout eugenicist to endorsing the philosophy behind Nazi
racial politics." (Caudill E., "Darwinian Myths: The Legends and Misuses of a Theory," The University of
Tennessee Press: Knoxville TN, 1997, pp.62-63)
22/7/04
"... that strange bird, the Archeopteryx, with a long lizard-like tail, bearing a pair of feathers on each joint,
and with its wings furnished with two free claws, has been discovered in the oolitic slates of Solenhofen. Hardly
any recent discovery shows more forcibly than this, how little we as yet know of the former inhabitants of the
world." (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.312-313)
22/7/04
"Even the wide interval between birds and reptiles has been shown by the naturalist just quoted [T.H. Huxley] to
be partially bridged over in the most unexpected manner, on the one hand, by the ostrich and extinct
Archeopteryx, and on the other hand, by the Compsognathus, one of the Dinosaurians-that group
which includes the most gigantic of all terrestrial reptiles." (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.331-332)
22/7/04
"The miniature motor that drives our cells has been caught in the act. Researchers in Japan have taken stunning
new pictures of the cell's power source at work.[Yasuda R., et al., `Resolution of distinct rotational substeps by
submillisecond kinetic analysis of F1-ATPase,' Nature, Vol. 410, 19 April 2001, pp.898-904]
Animals, plants and bacteria rely on the enzyme ATP synthase to convert food or light into ATP, the energy
currency of the cell. ATP synthase is shaped like a lollipop; its 'stick' turns like a crankshaft, driving the 'lolly' to
release ATP molecules with each turn. Spinning at several thousands revolutions per minute, the detailed internal
workings of the tiny motor are tough to decipher. Kazuhiko Kinosita and colleagues at Tiekyo University
Biotechnology Research Center in Kawasaki have used high-speed imaging to snap freeze-frames of the spinning
shaft. Their images reveal the jerky turning of the wheel, which ratchets round 30° , 90° or 120° at a time. They
also show how the motor sticks to and releases ATP as it spins. `It's in exquisite detail,' says Mark Schnitzer, a
biophysicist at Bell Laboratories in New Jersey. `Looking at a molecule on a millisecond timescale is a very
difficult thing to do.' The group achieved the feat by attaching a gold bead to the driveshaft that was big enough
to be seen under a microscope but small enough not to slow the motor down. Understanding how ATP synthase
works could also help those trying to build microscopic machines from biological components, suggests Richard
Cross, who studies the enzyme at SUNY Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, New York. `We couldn't ever
build a motor that small - but nature has,' he says. The lollipop structure of ATP synthase was first seen under
the electron microscope in the 1960s, before anyone even knew what it was. The idea that the enzyme might turn
like a motor was proposed some years later. `Initially, people thought the rotary mechanism was a crazy idea,'
says John Walker of the MRC Dunn Human Nutrition Unit in Cambridge. His deduction of part of the enzyme's
structure backed up the theory - and finally won him a share of the 1997 Nobel Prize for Chemistry. The sceptics
were silenced by earlier work from Kinosita's group, which showed the ATP motor turning for the first time. `It
had major impact - seeing is believing,' says Walker. `It turned the field on its head,' agrees Rod Capaldi of the
University of Oregon in Eugene. `To see it physically going was amazing." (Pearson H., "Japanese take
revolutionary snapshots," Nature Science Updates, 19 April 2001. http://www.nature.com/nsu/010419/010419-
3.html)
22/7/04
"There are, of course, difficulties in the theory of evolution. You raised a selection of the most serious ones. I
agree with you that some processes, such as the evolution of the mammalian ear bones, probably occurred by
sudden leaps. In most cases, for example those of hanging nests and aquatic spiders, we can find intermediates.
It is never, however, necessary to postulate a leap which would imply prevision by a designer. That is why one
finds no example of various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly
perfect." (Haldane J.B.S., "Haldane to Dewar," in "Is Evolution A Myth?," C.A. Watts & Co. Ltd/The Paternoster
Press: London, 1949, p.90)
22/7/04
"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences,
has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the
appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning."
(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.21)
23/7/04
"Nicolas Copernicus shattered the prevailing notion that Earth was seated at the center of creation. Succeeding
generations of astronomers steadily reinforced the Copernican view as they discovered the true nature of stars,
the remote location of our home world within our Galaxy, and the existence of galaxies far, far beyond our own. So
pervasive is this view that in the world of modern science, it is almost considered heresy to assert any special
qualities to our solar system, our planet, or even ourselves. With an estimated 200 billion stars in the Galaxy and
interstellar space filled with the molecules necessary for life, many scientists and laymen naturally conclude that
we could not be alone-we must share our Galaxy with hundreds, thousands, or perhaps millions of other
civilizations. But on closer examination, this simple logic falls apart. Recent studies in a variety of scientific fields
suggest that life must pass through a series of bottlenecks on the road to intelligence. On Earth, a long sequence
of improbable events transpired in just the right way to bring forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar
lottery a million times in a row. Contrary to the prevailing belief, maybe we are special. Maybe humanity stands
alone on a fertile island in the largely sterile waters of the galactic ocean." (Naeye R., "OK, Where Are They?,"
Astronomy, July 1996, Vol. 24, No. 7, pp.36-43, p.38)
24/7/04
"The Earth is the odd planet because nearly all of its carbon dioxide has been removed from the atmosphere and
deposited as carbonate minerals or organic carbon in sedimentary rocks. If all of this carbon were in the
atmosphere, the ratios of carbon to nitrogen would be similar in the atmospheres of all three planets. Why has
the Earth's carbon dioxide been almost completely extracted from the atmosphere? Probably because the Earth
has abundant water, which has made possible the weathering reactions that extract carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere and the development of a biosphere which leads to the burial of organic carbon in sediments. The
atmospheres of Mars and Venus are both very dry. As far as we know, the Earth, Mars, and Venus were
assembled out of more or less the same material with more or less the same complements of water and other
volatile compounds. Why, then, are these atmospheres so dry? Probably because Mars is too cold, Venus is too
hot, and the Earth is just right. That's the Goldilocks problem. Mars is farther from the Sun than is the Earth, and
it has a thin atmosphere with a surface pressure 1/160 that of the Earth. Because temperatures on the surface
never rise as high as 0°C, most of Mars' water is presumed to be preserved in permanent deposits of subsurface
ice; much of Mars' carbon may also be locked in solid form as dry ice. The thin atmosphere is apparently a
consequence of the low temperature. Venus is closer to the Sun than the Earth is and has a massive atmosphere
with a surface pressure 70 times larger than ours. Because of the greenhouse effect of this massive atmosphere,
the surface temperature is a searing 480°C, well above the boiling point of water. Perhaps Venus has always been
too hot for water to condense. Instead, water in the upper atmosphere seems to have been broken apart into
hydrogen and oxygen by ultraviolet radiation from the Sun. The light atoms of hydrogen could have escaped
into space, while the heavier oxygen could have reacted with rocks to become incorporated into the rocks of the
solid planet. From the study of planetary atmospheres, we have learned that a habitable planet like ours is an
improbable object. Small differences in planetary origins led to widely divergent evolutionary paths. A planet a
little too close to the Sun becomes hot and dry like Venus; a planet a little too far away grows cold and dry like
Mars. Too large a planet captures a massive atmosphere like those of Jupiter and Saturn; too small a planet ends
up with no atmosphere at all, like Mercury and the Moon. The requirements for habitability are stringent indeed."
(Skinner B.J. & Porter S.C., The Dynamic Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geology," [1989], Wiley: New York,
Third Edition, 1995, pp.521-522)
24/7/04
"The critical question is why, on Earth, the volume of water was sufficiently large to buffer global temperatures,
but small enough so that shallow seas could be formed by the uplifting of continents. If Earth's ocean volume
had been greater, even the formation of continents would not have produced shallow seas. To show that there
can be great relative volumes of oceans planet, we need only look at Jupiter's moon Europa, where the
planetcovering ocean (now frozen) is 100 kilometers thick. No Mt. Everest rising from the sea floor would ever
poke through an ocean even half that deep. There would be none of the shallows necessary for limestone
formation and no continental weathering. What about the situation where the oceans are lower in volume
than they were on Earth? If the continents covered two-thirds of Earth's surface (rather than their present day
one-third), would we have animal life? The great mass extinction of the late Permian almost ended animal life
because of high temperatures. With greater continental area, we might expect temperature swings to have been
even greater, and the prospects for continued existence of at land animals far lower, because large land areas
create very high and very low seasonal temperatures. Large land areas also reduce CO2 drawdown, because
carbonate formation takes place almost exclusively in oceans. On land dominated worlds, opportunities for life to
thrive would thus be reduced. It appears that Earth got it just right. Without continents there seems a strong
likelihood that a planet will become too hot (especially because main-sequence stars such as the sun increase
their energy output through time, and planets cannot move away from this increasing heat source). With too
much continental area, the opposite is likely to happen, as continental weathering draws down carbon dioxide so
much that glaciations ensue. Earth may have been headed down the path toward a global mean temperature so
high as to boil away its oceans, or perhaps still cool enough to retain its oceans but yet too warm for complex
metazoans to evolve. Animals are not thermophiles." (Ward P.D. & Brownlee D., "Rare Earth: Why Complex Life
is Uncommon in the Universe," Copernicus: New York NY, 2000, pp.264-265. Emphasis in original)
24/7/04
"What is still entirely uncertain is how often this has happened where it has happened, and how much evolution
might have occurred subsequent to the origin of such life. We who live on the earth do not fully appreciate what
an inhospitable place most planets must be. To be able to support life they must be just the right distance from
their sun, have the right temperature, a sufficient amount of water, a sufficient density to be able to hold an
atmosphere, a protection against damaging ultraviolet radiation, and so forth. Furthermore, every planet changes
in the course of its history, and the sequence of changes has to be just right. If, for instance, there were too much
free oxygen at an early stage, it would destroy life. The total set of prerequisites for the origin and maintenance of
life drastically reduces the number of planets that would have been suitable for the origin of life. There is, indeed,
the possibility that the combination and sequence of conditions that permitted the origin of life on earth was not
duplicated on a single other planet in the universe." (Mayr E., "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology:
Observations of an Evolutionist," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1988, p.68
24/7/04
"From the biological view, the differences between humans and other animals are quantitative. The difficulty is
not that we possess physical characteristics lacking in, or radically different from, other animals, but that we
possess the same attributes to a greater or lesser degree. To mention only a few: we are larger than most animals,
but have less hair; our brain is not the largest in relative or absolute size, but it is very large according to the
standards of both these categories. We are not the only animal that is bipedal (birds are, too), but we are the only
primates who are so structured-we have a skeleton adapted for standing upright and walking, which leaves the
hands free for purposes other than locomotion. All these traits, elaborated and coordinated under the control of a
brain capable of abstract thought, give us our remarkable physical uniqueness." (Nelson H. & Jurmain R.,
"Introduction to Physical Anthropology," West Publishing Co: St. Paul MN, Fifth Edition, 1991, p.11)
24/7/04
"... there is a general tendency in all primates for erect body posture and some bipedalism. However, of all living
primates, efficient bipedalism as the primary form of locomotion is seen only in hominids. Functionally, the
human mode of locomotion is most clearly shown in our striding gait, where weight is alternately placed on a
single fully extended hindlimb. This specialized form of locomotion has developed to a point where energy levels
are used to near peak efficiency. Such is not the case in nonhuman primates, who move bipedally with hips and
knees bent and maintain balance in a clumsy and inefficient manner." (Nelson H. & Jurmain R., "Introduction to
Physical Anthropology," West Publishing Co.: St. Paul MN, Fifth Edition, 1991, p.428)
24/7/04
"The bipedal stride is unique in the animal kingdom. It freed the hands and gave the man-apes the potential for
carrying weapons and tools." (Wilson E.O., et al., "Life on Earth," Sinauer Associates: Sunderland MA, 1973,
pp.972-973)
25/7/04
"Quadrupedalism characterises the overwhelming majority of ground dwelling mammalian species. It affords
stable equilibrium, is efficient in energy terms, lends itself readily to speed, and is easily learned by the young,
often within hours of birth. It allows for emergencies: a quadruped with one injured leg walks on the other three
while it heals. The gently arched and cantilevered spinal column has been perfected over millions of years to
combine maximum strength with flexibility. No animal could afford to sacrifice all these assets without an
overridingly powerful selective pressure. The cost of habitual plantigrade bipedalism is high. It is the most
unstable method of mammalian progress known to zoology. Growing bipeds only perfect the art after years of
practice and innumerable tumbles. Even in their prime, damage to one leg can cripple them; once past it,
equilibrium again becomes a problem. The bipedal posture, with viscera and male sex organs exposed to attack, is
ill designed for confronting an enemy or predator." (Morgan E., "Why a New Theory is Needed," in Roede M.,
Wind J., Patrick J.M. & Reynolds V., eds, "The Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction?: The First Scientific Evaluation of a
Controversial Theory of Human Evolution," Souvenir Press: London, 1991, pp.9-10)
25/7/04
"The claim is often made that bipedalism was adaptive because it 'freed the hands'. But an ape's or monkey's
hands are perfectly free except when it is moving from one place to another; human beings, likewise, normally
engage in skilled manual operations only while sitting or standing, and very rarely while actually walking or
running. It could as well be argued that bipedalism reduced our potential for dexterity, since the so-called freeing
of the hands was accompanied pro rata by the `enslavement of the feet' (Richards, 1986). This, in the long run,
has halved our allowance of serviceable manipulative digits. It was long argued that the hominid first evolved a
big brain and the ability to fashion tools and weapons, and that bipedalism became necessary to enable him to
carry a weapon to hurl at his quarry. All theories along these lines had to be abandoned after the discovery of
the Afar hominids such as Lucy-small-brained creatures, clearly bipedal, with no evidence of tools or weapons.
Three separate lines of argument have emerged in an attempt to replace the weapon-carrying hypothesis. Carrier
(1984) has argued that man's physiology may be evidence of strong selective pressure in favour of endurance
running. He has established that, over long distances, bipedal running is an advantage to a human hunter
because his four-footed quarry becomes exhausted sooner than he does. This may well have been a fortunate
consequence of bipedalism, but it is very unlikely to have been the cause, firstly because the fossil discoveries
suggest that bipedal walking was well established before there was any evidence of hunting, and secondly
because animals capable of covering short distances bipedally (for example, apes, bears, vervets, beavers)
invariably revert to quadrupedalism when speed is required. To justify the contention that game-hunting led to
bipedalism, it is not enough to demonstrate that modern Homo sapiens runs more effectively on two legs: it is
necessary to demonstrate than an unadapted pre-Australopithecine anthropoid could have run more effectively
on two legs than on four. Experiments with primates (Taylor and Rowntree, 1973) suggest that bipedalism is
slower and consumes more energy." (Morgan E., "Why a New Theory is Needed," in Roede M., Wind J., Patrick
J.M. & Reynolds V., eds, "The Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction?: The First Scientific Evaluation of a Controversial
Theory of Human Evolution," Souvenir Press: London, 1991, pp.10-11)
26/7/04
"...the Reverend Robert Evans ... is a kindly and now semi-retired minister in the Uniting Church in Australia, who
does a bit of locum work and researches the history of nineteenth-century religious movements. But by night he
is, in his unassuming way, a titan of the skies. He hunts supernovae. A supernova occurs when a giant star, one
much bigger than our own Sun, collapses and then spectacularly explodes, releasing in an instant the energy of a
hundred billion suns, burning for a time more brightly than all the stars in its galaxy. ... But the universe is vast
and supernovae are normally ... so unimaginably distant that their light reaches us as no more than the faintest
twinkle. For the month or so that they are visible, all that distinguishes them from the other a stars in the sky is
that they occupy a point of space that wasn't filled before. It is these anomalous, very occasional pricks in the
crowded dome of the night sky that the Reverend Evans finds. To understand what a feat this is, imagine a
standard dining-room table covered in a black tablecloth and throwing a handful of salt across it. The scattered
grains can be thought of as a galaxy. Now imagine fifteen hundred more tables like the first one - enough to make
a single line two miles long - each with a random array of salt across it. Now add one grain of salt to any table and
let Bob Evans walk among them. At a glance he will spot it. That grain of salt is the supernova. Evans's is a talent
so exceptional that Oliver Sacks, in An Anthropologist on Mars, devotes a passage to him in a chapter on
autistic savants - quickly adding that 'there is no suggestion that he is autistic.' Evans, who has not met Sacks,
laughs at the suggestion that he might be either autistic or a savant, but he is powerless to explain quite where
his talent comes from." (Bryson B., "A Short History of Nearly Everything," Doubleday: London, 2003, pp.27-28)
30/7/04
"Not only had Copernicus concluded by mathematics that the Sun must be at the center of the celestial
movements, he also believed that God had designed it that way. The Sun in fact was `enthroned' in its divine
glory, according to Copernicus, a pre-Renaissance Catholic mystic and alchemist; it was the physical center for
`the movements of the world machine, created for our sake by the best and most systematic Artisan of all.' A few
centuries later, however, science's rejection of a universe existing `for our sake' would be called `the Copernican
Principle,' since he had begun the displacement of humanity from the physical center. The Copernican Principle
would become a central and powerful belief of science as further discoveries of human non-centrality mounted.
After the American astronomer Harlow Shapley showed in 1918 that the solar system was not at the center of the
Milky Way galaxy, he became the evangelist for the philosophical implications of the human displacement. `The
solar system is off center and consequently man is too,' Shapley said. `Man is not such a big chicken. He is
incidental.' The astounding facts kept pouring in. Beyond the Milky Way there were other `island universes,'
great spiral galaxies just as beautiful as the Milky Way. Because the galaxies are made out of the same chemical
elements as the planet Earth, `Copernican modesty has been pushed a stage further,' said Astronomer Royal
Martin Rees. `Even particle chauvinism has to go.' With similar chagrin over human arrogance the search for
extraterrestrial intelligence began in 1959. ... Finally, as the contemporary hypothesis that the universe may be
mostly `dark matter' takes humans down yet another notch, the theory of multiple universes represents `the
ultimate Copernican idea,' says cosmologist James Gunn: `Not only are we of no conceivable
consequence, but even our universe is of no conceivable consequence.' For religious reasons, this trend
in thinking would have troubled even Nicolaus Copernicus. And thus it was ironic that many in science used the
Copernican Principle to chasten the hubris and arrogance of religion ... The medieval mind clearly viewed
humanity as theologically central, but physically lowly. Even today, physical centrality is not essential to
conservative Bible belief, says Bible scholar Robert Newman, who has a doctorate in astrophysics from Cornell
University ... Under the influence of astronomers such as Shapley, and the preference in science to see the
cosmos as everywhere homogeneous, the Copernican Principle was eventually extrapolated into the Principle of
Mediocrity. While mediocre could mean average, in the sense that nothing is special in a homogeneous universe,
it has also come to have a moralistic ring when used by scientists: thou shalt not make theological claims of
human centrality. THE COPERNICAN YEAR, WHICH MARKED a half-millennium since Copernicus was born,
was filled with celebrations, scholarly conferences and dreams of the future. But a quiet revolt was instigated at
Symposium No. 63, which was convened by the International Astronomical Union in Cracow under the title
`Confrontations of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data.' Symposium No. 63 produced perhaps the
only talk in the entire global Copernican celebration that seemed to have any staying power. Given by the
Cambridge astrophysicist Brandon Carter, it was designed to rock the scientific boat. The youthful Carter spoke
on `Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology.' He was obviously eager to debunk a
bit of tired conventional wisdom in the field of cosmology, namely the Copernican Principle. Ever since, the
modest alternative concept of the `anthropic principle' has kept astronomical tongues, and even those of
laypeople, wagging. Carter asked why the unique observational role of humans could not again be taken
seriously by science. He remonstrated against an `exaggerated subservience to the 'Copernican principle.'' And
he called the scientific version of the Principle of Mediocrity `a most questionable dogma.' But his punch line
about the human location in the scheme of things was what galvanized his audience. `What we can expect to
observe must be restricted by the conditions necessary for our presence as observers,' Carter said. Thus,
`although our situation is not necessarily central, it is inevitably privileged." (Witham L., "By Design:
Science and the Search for God," Encounter Books: San Francisco CA, 2003, pp.39-41. Emphasis original)
31/7/04
"But, since there was no decree at all in favor of the Jews before Cyrus B.C. 536, it might be startling enough to
one who does not yet believe in prophecy, that, even from Cyrus, the 490 years come within forty-six years of our
Lord's Birth; and that, although there were four different edicts, from which the 490 years might begin, these too
admit of no vague coincidence. They do but yield four definite dates. There is a distance of 90 years, from the 1st
of Cyrus to the 20th of Artaxerxes Longimanus, but the dates within those 90 years, from which the prophecy
could seem to be fulfilled, are only four. Those dates are, 1) The first year of Cyrus, B.C. 536; 2) The third year of
Darius Hystaspes, B.C. 518, when he removed the hindrances to the rebuilding of the temple, interposed by
Pseudo-Smerdis; 3) The commission to Ezra in the 7th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, B.C. 457; 4) That of
Nehemiah, in the 20th year of the same Artaxerxes, B.C. 444. These would give, at the close of the 490 years,
respectively, the end of 46, B.C. 28, B.C. 83, A.D. 467 A.D. But, further, of these four, two only are principal and
leading decrees; that of Cyrus, and that in the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus. For that of the
20th year of Artaxerxes is but an enlargement and renewal of his first decree; as the decree of Darius confirmed
that of Cyrus. The decrees of Cyrus and Darius relate to the rebuilding of the temple; those of Artaxerxes to the
condition of Judah and Jerusalem. But the decree of Darius was no characteristic decree. It did but support them
in doing, what they were already doing without it. The decree of Artaxerxes was of a different character. The
temple was now built. So the decree contains no grant for its building, like those of Cyrus [Ezr 6:3-5] and Darius
[Ezr 6:3-12]. Ezra thanks God that "He had put it into the king's heart, to beautify (not, to build) the house of the
Lord in Jerusalem." [Ezr 7:27] On the other hand, the special commission of Ezra, was to `enquire concerning
Judah and Jerusalem, according to the law of thy God, which is in thy heart, and to set magistrates and judges,
which may judge all the people that are beyond the river.' [Ezr 7:14,25] These magistrates had power of life and
death, banishment, confiscation, imprisonment, conferred upon them' [Ezr 7:26]. It looks as if the people were in a
state of disorganization. Ezra had full powers to settle it according to the law of his God, having absolute
authority in ecclesiastical and civil matters. The little colony which he took with him, of 1683 males (with women
and children, some 8400 souls) was itself a considerable addition to those who had before returned, and involved
a rebuilding of Jerusalem. This rebuilding of the city, and reorganization of the polity, begun by Ezra and carried
on and perfected by Nehemiah, corresponds with the words in Daniel, `From the going forth of a commandment
to restore and to build Jerusalem.' [Dn 9:25]." (Pusey E.B., "Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, Delivered in the
Divinity School of the University of Oxford. With Copious Notes." Funk & Wagnalls: New York NY, 1885,
pp.186-189. Emphasis original).
August [top]
1/8/04
"The term also corresponds. `Unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks'
[v.25], i. e. the first 483 years of the period, the last 7 being parted off. But 483 years from the beginning of B.C.
457 were completed at the beginning of 27 A.D. which (since the Nativity was 4 years earlier than our era) would
coincide with His Baptism, "being about 30 years of age," when the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Him
manifested Him to be the Anointed with the Holy Ghost, the Christ. Further still, the whole period of 70 weeks is
divided into three successive periods, 7, 62, 1, and the last week's subdivided into two halves. It is self-evident
that, since these parts 7, 62, 1, are equal to the whole, - viz. 70, it was intended that they should be. Every writer
wishes to be understood; the vision is announced at the beginning, as one which is, on thought, to be
understood. `I am come to give thee skill and understanding; therefore understand the matter and consider the
vision.' [v.22] Yet, on this self-evident fact that the sum of the parts is intended to be the same as the whole,
every attempt to explain the prophecy, so that it should end in Antiochus Epiphanes, or in any other than our
Lord, (as we shall see,) shivers. On the other hand, the subordinate periods, as well as the whole, fit in wit the
Christian interpretation. It were not of any account, if we could no interpret these minor details. "De minimis
non curat lex." When the whole distance is spanned over, it matters not, whether we can make out some
lesser details. ... But, in the prophecy of the 70 weeks, the portions also can be traced. The words are; `From the
going forth of a commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks
and threescore and two weeks; street and wall' shall be restored and builded; and in strait of times. And after
threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off.' [vv.25-26] Obviously, unless there had been a meaning in
this division, it would have stood, " shall be threescore and nine weeks," "not, shall be seven weeks, and
threescore and two weeks." For every word in this condensed prophecy has its place and meaning, and the
division would be unmeaning, unless something were assigned to this first portion. The text does assign it. It
says, the street shall be restored and be builded; and that, in troublous times. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah
give the explanation. Ezra came to Jerusalem, B.C. 457; he labored in restoring the Jewish polity, within and
without, for 13 years before Nehemiah was sent by Artaxerxes, B.C. 444. [Neh 2:1ff] Nehemiah, as `governor,'
labored together with Ezra for 12 years, from the `twentieth year even unto the two and thirtieth year of
Artaxerxes the king, twelve years'. [Neh 5:14] Then be returned to the king, and after an undefined time, at the end
of days,' he says, `obtained I leave of the king, and came to Jerusalem.' [Neh 13:6] The interval probably was not
short; for there had been time for corruptions to creep in, nor is the king likely to have sent him back soon; else
why should he have returned at all? The mention of Eliashib's son, Joiada, being high priest then, in place of his
deceased father [Neh 13:28; 12:10,22], fixes this second visit probably in the reign of Darius Nothus, in whose
11th year Eliashib is said to have died. [Neh 13:6] The expulsion of one of his sons who had become son-in-law
to Sanballat, and regulation of the wards of the priests and Levites, are among the last acts of reform which
Nehemiah mentions in his second visit; with them he closes his book. Now from the seventh year of Artaxerxes
to the eleventh of Darius Nothus are 45 years. But it was in the period of the high priesthood of Joiada, not
precisely in the very first year, that this reform took place. We have any how for the period of the two great
restorers of the Jewish polity, Ezra and Nehemiah conjointly, a time somewhat exceeding 45 years; so that we
know that the restoration was completed in the latter part of the 7th week of years, and it is probable that it was
not closed until the end of it. In regard to the strait of times, amid which this restoration was to take place, the
books of Ezra and Nehemiah are the commentary. Up to the completion of the walls, there was one succession of
vexations on the part of the enemies of the Jews." (Pusey E.B.*, "Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, Delivered in
the Divinity School of the University of Oxford. With Copious Notes." Funk & Wagnalls: New York NY, 1885,
pp.189-191)
2/8/04
"Lucretius's great Epicurean poem, with its extended evolutionary passage, ensured that evolution would be in
the air from the 1500s forward. Whether or not Darwin himself ever read Lucretius-he developed a dislike of the
classics from having Greek and Latin drubbed into him as a youth-many others had, and the idea could not help
but circulate widely. 1 quote it again, to drill into the reader how thorough this amazing passage from Lucretius.
`Many were the portents also that the earth then tried to make, springing up with wondrous appearance and
frame: the hermaphrodite, between man and woman vet neither, different from both; some without feet, others
again bereft of hands: some found dumb also without a month, some blind without eyes, some bound fast with all
their limbs adhering to their bodies, so that they could do nothing and go nowhere, could neither avoid mischief
nor take what they might need. So with the rest of like monsters and portents that she made, it was all in vain;
since nature banned their growth, and they could not attain the desired flower of age nor find food nor join by
the ways of Venus. For we see that living beings need many things in conjunction, so that they may be able by
procreation to forge out the chain of the generations. ... And many species of animals must have perished at that
time, unable by procreation to forge out the chain of posterity: for whatever you see feeding on the breath of life,
either cunning or courage or at least quickness must have guarded and kept that kind from its earliest existence;
many again still exist, entrusted to our protection, which remain, commended to us because of their usefulness. ...
But, those to which nature gives no such qualities, so that they could neither live by themselves at their own will,
nor give us some usefulness for which we might suffer them to feed under our protection and be safe, these
certainly lay at the mercy of others for prey and profit, being all hampered by their own fateful chains, until nature
brought that race to destruction. [Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, Loeb Classical Library," Harvard
University Press: Cambridge MA, 1975, 5.837.77]. We see in this passage all the fundamentals of Darwin' s
account: (1) random material variations that bring about modifications in the structure between generations; (2)
the survival of the fittest of these variations as determined by the enhanced abilities of the animals, and by the
conditions in which the animals live; and (3) the necessity of passing along the beneficial variations by
heredity." (Wiker B.D.*, "Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL,
2002, pp.219-220)
2/8/04
"I suppose that everyone is familiar in outline with the theory of the origin of species which Darwin promulgated.
Through the last fifty years this theme of the Natural Selection of favoured races has been developed and
expounded in writings innumerable. Favoured races certainly can replace others. The argument is sound, but we
are doubtful of its value. For us that debate stands adjourned. We go to Darwin for his incomparable collection
of facts. We would fain emulate his scholarship, his width and his power of exposition, but to us he speaks no
more with philosophical authority. We read his scheme of evolution as we would those of Lucretius or of
Lamarck, delighting in their simplicity and their courage. ... In face of what we now know of the distribution of
variability in nature, the scope claimed for natural selection in determining the fixity of species must be greatly
reduced. The doctrine of the survival of the fittest is undeniable so long as it is applied to the organism as a
whole, but to attempt by this principle to find value in all definiteness of parts and functions, and in the name of
science to see fitness everywhere, is mere eighteenth-century optimism. Yet it was in application to the parts, to
the details of specific difference, to the spots on the peacock's tail, to the colouring of an orchid flower, and
hosts of such examples, that the potency of natural selection was urged with the strongest emphasis. Shorn of
these pretensions the doctrine of the survival of favoured races is a truism, helping scarcely at all to account for
the diversity of species." (Bateson W., "The Australian Meeting of the British Association [for the
Advancement of Science]: Inaugural Address by Prof. William Bateson, M.A., F.R.S., President Part I. -
Melbourne," Nature, August 20, 1914. http://home.inreach.com/cliff_lundberg/bateson.html)
3/8/04
"The concept of destructive variation brings us to another strange product of Bateson's belief that genetics had
closed off most of the traditional explanations of how evolution worked. In his presidential address to the
Australian meeting of the British Association in 1914, he hinted at a theory that would reduce all evolution to the
unfolding of a predetermined set of characters. Bateson thought that there was no such thing as a positive
mutation in the germ plasm, that is, a mutation creating a new character. Changes in the germ plasm were always
destructive because they led to the elimination of a previously existing Mendelian factor. To explain why new
characters did appear from time to time, he postulated the widespread existence of inhibiting genes, which
blocked the expression of other characters. When an inhibitor was destroyed by negative mutation, the character
it had once masked would appear in the species. This at least raised the possibility that the whole of evolutionary
"progress" might be the effect of a genetic degeneration, which allowed the gradual appearance of characters
that had all been present in the original forms of life, along with the appropriate inhibitors. `If then we have to
dispense, as seems likely, with any additions from without, we must begin seriously to consider whether the
course of Evolution can at all reasonably be represented as an unpacking of an original complex which contained
within itself the whole range of diversity which living things present.... At first it may seem rank absurdity to
suppose that the primordial form or forms of protoplasm could have contained complexity enough to produce the
divers types of life. But is it any easier to imagine that these powers could have been conveyed by external
additions?' [Bateson W., "The Australian Meeting of the British Association: Inaugural Address by Prof. William
Bateson, M.A., F.R.S., President Part I. - Melbourne, Nature, August 20, 1914
http://home.inreach.com/cliff_lundberg/bateson.html] A little later Bateson suggested that the order of
unpacking might be predetermined, which would cause the regular development of characters that Eimer had
called orthogenesis. This served only to strengthen the implication that the entire evolutionary process had been
nothing but the unfolding of a preexisting pattern (which is, in fact, the original meaning of the term "evolution,"
now forgotten). However puzzled Bateson's contemporaries might have been about the true nature of the
process, they were not about to follow his retreat into this position, which some compared to the old
preformation theory of embryology. Bateson's desperation because of the refusal of his own interpretation of
genetics to yield anything resembling a mechanism for progressive evolution had led him into a position that
resembled little more than a throwback to the old vision of a divine plan built into the very nature of life." (Bowler
P.J., "The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti- Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades around 1900," Johns
Hopkins University Press: Baltimore MD, 1983, pp.195-196)
7/8/04
"Whenever a challenge to the teaching of evolution in the high-schools arises, the scientific establishment and
its allies trot out the Scopes Monkey Trial and attempt to cast the challengers as throwbacks to the Christian
fundamentalists portrayed in the movie Inherit the Wind. It is their position that if the scientific establishment
has ratified a science textbook, such as the book from which Scopes taught evolution, the state should not
engage in "censoring" the material in that book. The Scopes Monkey Trial plays such a prominent role in the
debate that I decided, as part of my investigation of these issues, to purchase a copy of the Scopes trial
transcript; ["The Scopes Trial," Notable Trials Library, Gryphon: Birmingham: AL, 1990, reprint] ... Review of
these source materials-very different from the biased picture presented in Inherit the Wind-was a real eye-opener.
In the Scopes trial, there was never any judgment or verdict that unintelligent evolution is true. (The prosecution
argued and the judge agreed that the Tennessee statute in question barred the teaching of the theory even if it
were true, so its truth was not an issue in the case.) Nor, notably, was the truth of the theory of unintelligent
evolution and the supposed evidence for it ever subjected to cross-examination. Scopes's lawyers presented
extensive written statements from seven scientists stating that evolution is the correct explanation for the
diversity of life on earth. The prosecution sought permission to cross-examine the five pro-Darwinian science
experts whose statements had been read in open Court, but Clarence Darrow and the Scopes lawyers objected
and the court refused to allow it. Nor, ironically, given the popular understanding of the case as a disproof of
Christian fundamentalism, was fundamentalism technically an issue in the case. The Tennessee statute did not
mandate the teaching of fundamentalism or of any other theory that might explain the origin and subsequent
diversification of life on earth. The statute merely barred the teaching of evolution. But Darrow and the entire
defense team wished to make fundamentalism the issue, and they succeeded. Prosecution lawyer William
Jennings Bryan agreed to be questioned by Darrow on his personal interpretation of the Bible (the famous
examination shown in a false light in Inherit the Wind) only if Darrow agreed to be questioned on the evidence
for evolution-and the judge agreed that Bryan could question Darrow after Darrow questioned Bryan. The
bargain by Bryan, submitting to examination so that he could examine Darrow, was a last-ditch attempt to place
some criticism of unintelligent evolution into the Scopes trial record to counteract the one-sided,
unchallenged presentation of the pro-evolution side. But after his famous examination of Bryan, Darrow
unexpectedly changed Scopes' plea to guilty, which closed the evidence and made it impossible for Bryan to call
Darrow to the stand to question him on evolution. Darrow could easily have changed the plea before his
examination of Bryan; the fact that Darrow changed the plea only after he conducted his examination indicates
that his intention all along was to use Bryan to challenge Christian fundamentalism and then to escape any
challenge to the theory of unintelligent evolution. The result was that in the Scopes Monkey Trial, scientists
presented their case for evolution without any challenge to the merits of their arguments that the data they
offered was evidence for its truth. Unintelligent evolution's escape from proper cross-examination is
longstanding. Prof. Hoyle's comments to that effect bear repeating: the scientific challenges to unintelligent
evolution have "never had a fair hearing" because "the developing system of popular education [from Darwin's
day to the present] provided an ideal opportunity for zealots who were sure of themselves to overcome those
who were not, for awkward arguments not to be discussed, and for discrepant facts to be suppressed." [Hoyle F.,
"Mathematics of Evolution," Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, p.106]" (Sisson E.*, "Teaching the Flaws in
Neo-Darwinism," in Dembski W.A., ed., "Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing,"
ISI Books: Wilmington DE, 2004, pp.93-94. Emphasis in original)
7/8/04
"Whenever a challenge to the teaching of evolution in the high-schools arises, the scientific establishment and
its allies trot out the Scopes Monkey Trial and attempt to cast the challengers as throwbacks to the Christian
fundamentalists portrayed in the movie Inherit the Wind. It is their position that if the scientific establishment
has ratified a science textbook, such as the book from which Scopes taught evolution, the state should not
engage in `censoring' the material in that book. The Scopes Monkey Trial plays such a prominent role in the
debate that I decided, as part of my investigation of these issues, to purchase a copy of the Scopes trial
transcript; ['The Scopes Trial,' Notable Trials Library, Gryphon: Birmingham: AL, 1990, reprint] a copy of the
textbook from which Scopes taught, A Civic Biology, [Hunter G.W., `A Civic Biology,' American Book Company:
New York, 1914] and a copy of the companion lab guide to that textbook [Hunter G.W., `Laboratory Problems in
Civic Biology,' American Book Company: New York, 1916] Review of these source materials-very different from
the biased picture presented in Inherit the Wind-was a real eye-opener. ... According to Harvard law professor
Alan Dershowitz in his 1990 introduction to The Scopes Trial, those who advocated for evolution in 1925
included `racists, militarists, and nationalists' who used evolution `to push some pretty horrible programs,'
including the forced `sterilization of 'unfit' and 'inferior'' people; `the anti-immigration movement' that wanted to
bar immigration of people of `inferior racial stock;' and `Jim Crow' laws that evolutionists `rationalized on grounds
of the racial inferiority of blacks.' ... Examination of Scopes's text book, A Civic Biology, demonstrates another
important lesson about whether the scientific establishment should receive the great deference it demands from
our school boards concerning what should be taught in our schools. A Civic Biology and its companion lab
book both contain sections on eugenics-introduced by the statement that `[t]he science of being well born is
called eugenics.' [Hunter G.W., "A Civic Biology," American Book Company: New York, 1914, pp.261-262; Hunter
G.W., "Laboratory Problems in Civic Biology," American Book Company: New York, 1916] The scientific
establishment of the time fully supported this `science' of eugenics. This endorsement by the scientific
establishment meant that eugenics was taught in our schools. Here is what the scientific establishment of that
time caused schoolchildren to learn. As Dershowitz notes, Hunter's A Civic Biology divided humanity into five
races and ranked them in terms of superiority, concluding with `the highest type of all, the Caucasians,
represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.' In its discussion of the legacies of two
families, A Civic Biology taught schoolchildren that the failure to apply eugenics forced the state of New York to
bear the cost of `over a hundred feeble-minded, alcoholic, immoral, or criminal persons' and resulted in the births
of `33 sexually immoral, 24 confirmed drunkards, 3 epileptics, and 143 feeble minded.... The evidence and the
moral speak for themselves! Hundreds of families such as those described above exist today, spreading disease,
immorality, and crime to all parts of this country... [T]hese families have become parasitic on society' Hunter's
textbook-the one that the science establishment of today says that the state should have given maximum
deference in 1925-recommends that society `separat[e] the sexes in asylum ... preventing intermarriage and the
possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race.' [Hunter, "A Civic Biology," 1914, pp.196,262-263]
Such was the position the science establishment promoted to the children of Tennessee at the time of the Scopes
Monkey Trial. I think the state should have rejected this position despite the fact that the science
establishment supported it. The lab book, at Problem 160, asks students to use inheritance charts `[t]o determine
some means of bettering, physically and mentally, the human race,' so that students can answer the concluding
question: `Should feebleminded persons be allowed to marry?' A `Note to teachers' says that `[t]he child is at the
receptive age and is emotionally open to the serious lessons here involved.' [Hunter, "Laboratory Problems in
Civic Biology," 1916, p.182] Ironically, the lab book contains nothing on evolution. Apparently the scientist who
wrote the book, and the scientific establishment that applauded it, felt it was more important for the `receptive'
young students to learn eugenics than evolution. Of course, the scientific establishment of today would
denounce all of this. Thus the very text book from which Scopes taught-the very book that the scientific
establishment of today proclaims Scopes ought to have been able to use in 1925 without any interference by the
state - includes material that today the scientific establishment rejects." (Sisson E.*, "Teaching the Flaws in Neo-
Darwinism," in Dembski W.A., ed., "Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing," ISI
Books: Wilmington DE, 2004, pp.92-96. Emphasis in original)
8/8/04
"Nor, ironically, given the popular understanding of the case as a disproof of Christian fundamentalism, was
fundamentalism technically an issue in the case. The Tennessee statute did not mandate the teaching of
fundamentalism or of any other theory that might explain the origin and subsequent diversification of life on
earth. The statute merely barred the teaching of evolution. But Darrow and the entire defense team wished to
make fundamentalism the issue, and they succeeded. Prosecution lawyer William Jennings Bryan agreed to be
questioned by Darrow on his personal interpretation of the Bible (the famous examination shown in a false light
in Inherit the Wind) only if Darrow agreed to be questioned on the evidence for evolution-and the judge agreed
that Bryan could question Darrow after Darrow questioned Bryan. The bargain by Bryan, submitting to
examination so that he could examine Darrow, was a last-ditch attempt to place some criticism of
unintelligent evolution into the Scopes trial record to counteract the one-sided, unchallenged presentation of the
pro-evolution side. But after his famous examination of Bryan, Darrow unexpectedly changed Scopes' plea to
guilty, which closed the evidence and made it impossible for Bryan to call Darrow to. the stand to question him
on evolution. 31 Darrow could easily have changed the plea before his examination of Bryan; the fact that Darrow
changed the plea only after he conducted his examination indicates that his intention all along was to use Bryan
to challenge Christian fundamentalism and then to escape any challenge to the theory of unintelligent evolution.
The result was that in the Scopes Monkey Trial, scientists presented their case for evolution without any
challenge to the merits of their arguments that the data they offered was evidence for its truth. Unintelligent
evolution's escape from proper cross-examination is longstanding." (Sisson E.*, "Teaching the Flaws in Neo-
Darwinism," in Dembski W.A., ed., "Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing," ISI
Books: Wilmington DE, 2004, p.94)
9/8/04
"Jupiter also played a crucial role in purging the inner solar system of bodies left over from planet formation.
Jupiter is 318 times more massive than Earth, and it exerts enormous gravitational influence. Its gravitational
interactions very efficiently scatter bodies that approach it, and it has largely cleaned out stray bodies from a
large volume of the solar system. In the early solar system, there were tremendous numbers of small bodies that
had escaped incorporation into planets, but over half a billion years, most of the larger ones inside the orbit of
Saturn disappeared. They were accreted by planets, ejected out of the solar system, or incorporated into the Oort
cloud of comets. Jupiter was the major cause of this purging of the middle region of the solar system. The objects
that still impact Earth today are planetesimals that managed to survive in three special ecological niches: the Oort
comet cloud lie yond Pluto, the Kuiper belt of comets just beyond the outer planets, and the asteroid belt, that
special refuge located between Mars and Jupiter. The current impact rate averages one 10-kilometer body every
100 million years The impact of just such a body occurred 65 million years ago, the time of the K/T extinction that
ended the age of the dinosaurs. George Wetherill of the Carnegie Institute of Washington has estimated that the,
flux of these 10-kilometer bodies hitting Earth might be 10,000 times higher if Jupiter had not come into being and
purged many of the leftover bodies of the middle region of the solar system [Wetherill G.W., "Possible
consequences of the absence of Jupiters in planetary systems," Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 212, 1994,
pp. 23-32; Wetherill G.W., "How Special Is Jupiter?" Nature, vol. 373, 9 February 1995, p.470]. If Earth had been
subject to collisions with extinction -causing projectiles every 10,000 years instead of every 100 million years, and
fairly frequently with even larger bodies, it seems unlikely that animal life would have survived." (Ward P.D. &
Brownlee D., "Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe," Copernicus: New York NY, 2000,
pp.238-239)
13/8/04
"The problems of explanation in physical geography caused by the number of factors involved and their
interaction, by the difficulties of scale, by the frequency of change and by the problem of deciphering the role of
man as against that of nature are heightened by the fact that different processes can lead to similar end-forms -
the problem of equifinality. When seeking an explanation for a particular phenomenon it is important to remember
that, although certain phenomena appear to be broadly similar in type, their form may be an inadequate guide to
their origin. One should not be dogmatic as to the origins of many natural phenomena. ... When conducting one's
own fields investigations, therefore, it is necessary to adopt the principal of multiple working hypotheses,
seeking to formulate and test as many explanations as possible." (Goudie, A., "The Nature of the Environment,"
[1984], Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, Third edition, 1993, p.340. Emphasis original)
13/8/04
"The contrast between creationism and science is both strong and significant. Creationism rests on a single
model, the one revealed by study of the Bible. Thus there is little incentive to generate new information from
either field or laboratory study, as reflected in the lack of legitimate geologic research by creationists. Instead,
they use the geologic literature as a source of data to support their model of earth history. To scientists, many
creationists appear to mislead by divorcing such geologic data from their context and by using them in an
unfairly selective way. In contrast, geologists, like scientists in general, are committed to the principle of multiple
working hypotheses. [Chamberlin T.C., "The method of multiple working hypotheses," Journal of Geology, Vol.
5, 1897, pp.837-848] Rather than running the risk of becoming too attached to a single hypothesis or model,
geologists prefer to consider several alternatives concurrently. Field and laboratory data are then sought to
support or refute the competing interpretations. The assumption that continents have always occupied the same
relative geographic positions, for example, was abandoned recently in response to overwhelming evidence for
the alternative models of continental drift and seafloor spreading. However, certain other hypotheses, such as
evolution, have been tested and supported repeatedly so that their rejection may now be accepted as statistically
improbable. Science, then, is a dynamic, multiple-hypothesis discipline in which old hypotheses are abandoned
in the light of new evidence, whereas creationism represents a static, one-hypothesis approach to earth history."
(Glenister B.F. & Witzke, B.J., "Interpreting Earth History," in Wilson D.B. & Dolphin W.D., eds., "Did the Devil
Make Darwin Do It?: Modern Perspectives on the Creation-Evolution Controversy," Iowa State University Press:
Ames IO, 1983, pp.55-56)
13/8/04
"We are the offspring of history, and must establish our own paths in this most diverse and interesting of
conceivable universes-one indifferent to our suffering, and therefore offering us maximal freedom to thrive, or to
fail, in our own chosen way." (Gould S.J., "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History," [1989],
Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, pp.322-323)
14/8/04
"Second, Darwin again displays the explanatory power of his theory by indicating a further dimension of
faisifiability: 'Natural selection will produce nothing in one species for the exclusive good or injury of another;
though it may well produce parts, organs, and excretions highly useful or even indispensable, or highly injurious
to another species, but in all cases at the same time useful to the owner' (ibid., p. 232). In view especially of the
recent brouhaha raised by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene, and by others urging the supposedly
inescapable selfishness of the whole process of evolution, it becomes worth pointing out at once that Darwin
draws too positive an inference. Natural selection does not positively produce anything. It only eliminates, or
tends to eliminate, whatever is not competitive. For some variant characteristic not to be thus eliminated, it does
not need to bestow upon its possessor any actual competitive advantage. It is both necessary and sufficient that
it should not burden that possessor with any competitive disadvantage. Darwin's mistake - a mistake the
correction of which leaves us still with a satisfactorily falsifiable implication - is perhaps consequent upon his
employment of the expressions 'natural selection' or 'survival of the fittest', rather than his own ultimately
preferred alternative 'natural preservation' (Darwin, F., II p. 346). Certainly it cannot be either too early or too
often emphasized that natural selection is no more a kind of (conscious and grounded) selection than Bombay
duck is a species of duck. Nor, of course, are genes, or plants, or any organisms other than specimens of certain
higher animals, ever engaged, whether selfishly or unselfishly, in any conscious or chosen pursuit of anything."
(Flew A.G.N., "Darwinian Evolution," Paladin: London, 1984, pp.25-26)
15/8/04
"The Veritas Forum's emphasis on truth is reinforced by its motto, taken from a quotation attributed to Thomas
Jefferson: "We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is
left free to combat it." To modernists that must seem like a very strange motto for an organization of theists to
adopt, especially an organization of theists dedicated to the proposition that the truth claims of Jesus Christ
really do make sense in the conditions of the late twentieth century. Doesn't "everybody know" that those truth
claims were disposed of long ago by such sages as Hume and Voltaire, and that Nietzsche merely executed a
death sentence on God that had been pronounced even before Darwin supplied the essential mechanism of
naturalistic creation? One of the most important stereotypes in naturalistic thinking is that "religion" is based on
faith rather than reason, and that persons who believe in God are inherently unwilling to follow the truth
wherever it may lead because that path leads to naturalism." (Johnson P.E.*, "Reason in the Balance: The Case
Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1995, pp.198-199)
15/8/04
"In short, our scientific leadership is in a philosophical muddle and is only making things worse with its
campaign of intimidation, factual misrepresentation, and semantic legerdemain. To put things on a more rational
basis, the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion. Too many people, including
journalists, have seen the movie Inherit the Wind and have become convinced that everyone who questions
Darwinism must want to remove the microscopes and textbooks from the biology classrooms and just read the
book of Genesis to the students. It is vital not to give any encouragement to this prejudice, and to keep the
discussion strictly on the scientific evidence and the philosophical assumptions. This is not to say that the
biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated
materialist prejudice from scientific fact." (Johnson P.E.*, "The Wedge: Breaking the Modernist Monopoly on
Science," Touchstone, July/August 1999, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.18-24.
http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/12.4docs/12-4pg18.html. Emphasis in original)
15/8/04
"Nor was Darwin the first to introduce into a biological context the ideas either of natural selection or of a
struggle for existence. Both can be found in the Roman poet Lucretius in the first century B.C., in an account of
how in the beginning our mother earth produced both all the kinds of living things which we now know, and
many other sorts of ill-starred monstrosity. But with these latter: `... it was all in vain they could not attain the
desired flower of age nor find food nor join by the ways of Venus ... And many species of animals must have
perished at that time, unable by procreation to forge out the chain of posterity; for whatever you see feeding on
the breath of life, either cunning or courage or at least quickness must have kept ... from its earliest existence.
([Lucretius, "de Rerum Natura," Heineman: London,] V. pp. 845-8 & 855-9) Lucretius, too, was a disciple, clothing
in Latin verse ideas which he had himself learnt from the fourth-century Greek Epicurus, who was here in his turn
drawing on such fifth-century sources as Empedocles of Acragas (Kirk and Raven, ["The Pre-Socratic
Philosophers," CUP: Cambridge, 1957], pp. 336-40). (Flew A.G.N., "Darwinian Evolution," Paladin: London, 1984,
pp.12-13)
15/8/04
"What will be the fate of Dembski, Gordon, and their Michael Polanyi Center? It's up to one man only -- President
Robert Sloan. He can bow to faculty pressure and dissolve the present Polanyi Center, perhaps restaffing it with
scholars more to the faculty's liking; or clip Dembski's wings by taking away his ability to raise money to run
programs. Or he can stand behind the man he hired, make the case that science should be about facts, not
McCarthyite lynch mobs -- and take the heat that will surely be generated by disgruntled faculty and their
sympathetic media. Either way, the ultimate victim or victor won't be Bill Dembski, it will be unbiased science and
humanity's quest to discover the truth -- wherever that truth leads us." (Heeren F., "The Lynching of Bill
Dembski," The American Spectator, November 2000.
http://www.fsf.vu.lt/filk/mps/Being%20Methodologically%20Correct.htm)
17/8/04
"Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection provides a framework theory for biologists: it encourages them
to interpret their observations in a certain kind of way and suggests particular hypotheses to test. The subsidiary
hypotheses may or may not be right, but their disproof is not itself evidence that the framework theory is wrong.
It merely tells us that the framework theory does not produce its effects in quite the way we supposed. Let me
give you a more specific example. The theory of evolution provides us with a framework theory that allows us to
make sense of the scattered fossil record. Until the early 1970s, it was widely believed that humans and
chimpanzees last shared a common ancestor some 15 million years ago. This suggestion stemmed from
similarities between the teeth of modern humans and those of an extinct group of fossil Asian apes called
Ramapithecines. However, new techniques in molecular biology allowed Alan Wilson and his colleagues at the
University of California to determine from comparisons of human and ape blood proteins that the last common
ancestor probably lived as recently as 3-5 million years ago. A great deal of argument ensued, but in the end
molecular biology won the day. The anatomists went back to look at their fossils again more closely and
concluded that the Ramapithecines were in fact probably ancestral to the orang-utan, the only living Asian great
ape. The mistake had come from relying too heavily on a single character, the thickness of tooth enamel, that
Ramapithecines and humans happened to share because they occupied similar terrestrial environments. The tree
of human evolution had to be redrawn, but the theory of evolution itself remained unaffected. In fact, contrary to
common popular belief, the theory of evolution cannot be disproved by any evidence from the fossil record: the
fossil record can only tell us how evolution occurred and which particular pathways it took, not whether
or not the theory of evolution is true. Disproof of the theory of evolution can only come through studies of the
mechanisms of evolution (for example, natural selection), and these can only be done on living species. In trying
to make sense of the fossil record, we assume that the theory of evolution is true, relying on other scientists to
test the validity of the framework theory. Lakatos also made an important practical point when he observed that
there is no point in rejecting a framework theory just because there is evidence against it. Without a framework
theory, we cannot ask questions or design experiments. So there is no point in abandoning a framework theory
unless we have a better one to replace it with. Abandoning a framework theory in the absence of an alternative is
about as useful as making a series of diary engagements when you don't have a calendar. It is much better to
carry on using the old discredited theory until such time as an alternative appears." (Dunbar R.I.M., "The
Trouble with Science," Faber & Faber: London, 1995, pp.23-24. Emphasis in original
18/8/04
"Why are there so many robots in fiction, but none in real life? I would pay a lot for a robot that could put away
the dishes or run simple errands. But I will not have the opportunity in this century, and probably not in the next
one either. There are, of course, robots that weld or spray-paint on assembly lines and that roll through
laboratory hallways; my question is about the machines that walk, talk, see, and think, often better than their
human masters. ... the gap between robots in imagination and in reality is my starting point, for it shows the first
step we must take in knowing ourselves: appreciating the fantastically complex design behind feats of mental life
we take for granted. The reason there are no humanlike robots is not that the very idea of a mechanical mind is
misguided. It is that the engineering problems that we humans solve as we see and walk and plan and make it
through the day are far more challenging than landing on the moon or sequencing the human genome. Nature,
once again, has found ingenious solutions that human engineers cannot yet duplicate. When Hamlet says,
"What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving bow express
and admirable!" we should direct our awe not at Shakespeare ... but at a four-year old carrying out a request to
put a toy on a shelf." (Pinker S., "How the Mind Works," [1997], Penguin: London, 1998, reprint, pp.3-4)
21/8/04
"Let us recap why we think Earth is rare. Our planet coalesced out of the debris from previous cosmic events at a
position within a galaxy highly appropriate for the eventual evolution of animal life, around a star also highly
appropriate-a star rich in metal, a star found in a safe region of a spiral galaxy, a star moving very slowly on its
galactic pinwheel. Not in the center of the galaxy, not in a metal-poor galaxy, not in a globular cluster, not near an
active gamma ray source, not in a multiple-star system, not even in a binary, or near a pulsar, or near stars too
small, too large, or soon to go supernova. We became a planet where global temperatures have allowed liquid
water to exist for more than 4 billion years-and for that, our planet had to have a nearly circular orbit at a distance
from a star itself emitting a nearly constant energy output for a long period of time. Our planet received a volume
of water sufficient to cover most-but not all-of the planetary surface. Asteroids and comets hit us but not
excessively so, thanks to the presence of giant gas planets such as Jupiter beyond us. In the time since animals
evolved over 600 million years ago, we have not been punched out, although the means of our destruction by
catastrophic impact is certainly there. Earth received the right range of building materials-and had the correct
amount of internal heat-to allow plate tectonics to work on the planet, shaping the continents required and
keeping global temperatures within a narrow range for several billion years. Even as the Sun grew brighter and
atmosphere composition changed, the Earth's remarkable thermostatic regulating process successfully kept the
surface temperature within livable range. Alone among terrestrial planets we have a large moon, and this single
fact, which sets us apart from Mercury, Venus, and Mars, may have been crucial to the rise and continued
existence of animal life on Earth. The continued marginalization of Earth and its place in the Universe perhaps
should be reassessed. We are not the center of the Universe, and we never will be. But we are not so ordinary as
Western science has made us out to be for two millennia. Our global inferiority complex may be unwarranted.
What if Earth is extremely rare because of its animals (or, to put it another way, because of its animal
habitability)?" (Ward P.D. & Brownlee D., "Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe,"
Copernicus: New York NY, 2000, pp.282-283)
27/8/04
"There is no reason why the principles which have acted so efficiently under domestication should not have
acted under nature. In the survival of favoured individuals and races, during the constantly recurrent Struggle for
Existence, we see a powerful and ever-acting form of Selection. The struggle for existence inevitably follows from
the high geometrical ratio of increase which is common to all organic beings. This high rate of increase is proved
by calculation,-by the rapid increase of many animals and plants during a succession of peculiar seasons, and
when naturalised in new countries. More individuals are born than can possibly survive. A grain in the balance
may determine which individuals shall live and which shall die,-which variety or species shall increase in number,
and which shall decrease, or finally become extinct. As the individuals of the same species come in all respects
into the closest competition with each other, the struggle will generally be most severe between them; it will be
almost equally severe between the varieties of the same species, and next in severity between the species of the
same genus. On the other hand the struggle will often be severe between beings remote in the scale of nature.
The slightest advantage in certain individuals, at any age or during any season, over those with which they come
into competition, or better adaptation in however slight a degree to the surrounding physical conditions, will, in
the long run, turn the balance." (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.444)
27/8/04
"He [Darwin] formulated a variety of other ingenious and plausible speculations on how and why the relentless
culling of natural selection would actually create species boundaries, but they remain speculations to this
day. It has taken a century of further work to replace Darwin's brilliant but inconclusive musings on the
mechanisms of speciation with accounts that are to some degree demonstrable. Controversy about the
mechanisms and principles of speciation still persists, so in one sense neither Darwin nor any subsequent
Darwinian has explained the origin of species. As the geneticist Steve Jones (1993) [Jones J.S., "A Slower
Kind of Bang." Review of Wilson E.O., "The Diversity of Life," Belknap: Cambridge MA, 1992. London Review of
Books, April 1993, p.20] has remarked, had Darwin published his masterpiece under its existing title today, `he
would have been in trouble with the Trades Description Act because if there is one thing which Origin of Species
is not about, it is the origin of species.'" (Dennett D.C., "Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings
of Life," Penguin: London, 1995, p.44. Emphasis in original)
28/8/04
"There is a third variety of true sentences which logicians frequently speak of, "true by definition." ... Like the
other kinds of logical truth, definitional truth is also innocent of any factual substance - the only information it
gives is that if you define a term in a certain way, then, the conditions of the definition being met, you can use
the term. ... They give no information about the world, but only about the use of language in reasonable
discourse. It is this lack of material content that is referred to when it is said that such truth is tautological or
trivial." (Fearnside W.W. & Holther W.B., "Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument," Prentice-Hall: Englewood
Cliffs NJ, 1959, 25th printing, pp.136-137)
28/8/04
"A tautology is a contentless statement; something true by definition and uninformative of the real world. `All
bachelors are unmarried men' is a tautology, as is `All triangles have three sides.' Neither statement informs us
that the subject exists. They only mean, `If X exists, then it is X.' If there are any bachelors in the universe, they
are unmarried. The tautology does not tell us that a bachelor really exists. ... Tautologies are usually contrasted
with empirical statements that have content: `The tree outside my window is an oak.' `The car in my yard is black.'
While empirical statements have content, they are not logically necessary. That is, they may be false.
Tautologies, on the other hand, are logically necessary, since they are true by definition. They do not say a
thing, but they are necessarily true." (Geisler N.L.*, "Tautology," in "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian
Apologetics," Baker Books: Grand Rapids MI, 1999, p.714)
28/8/04
"Natural selection is the central concept of Darwinian theory-the fittest survive and spread their favored traits
through populations. Natural selection is defined by Spencer's phrase `survival of the fittest,' but what does this
famous bit of jargon really mean? Who are the fittest? And how is `fitness' defined? We often read that fitness
involves no more than `differential reproductive success'-the production of more surviving offspring than other
competing members of the population. ... This formulation defines fitness in terms of survival only. The crucial
phrase of natural selection means no more than `the survival of those who survive'-a vacuous tautology. (A
tautology is a phrase-like `my father is a man' - containing no information in the predicate ('a man') not inherent in
the subject ('my father'). Tautologies are fine as definitions, but not as testable scientific statements-there can be
nothing to test in a statement true by definition.) But how could Darwin have made such a monumental, two-bit
mistake? Even his severest critics have never accused him of crass stupidity. Obviously, Darwin must have tried
to define fitness differently-to find a criterion for fitness independent of mere survival. Darwin did propose an
independent criterion, but Bethell argues quite correctly that he relied upon analogy to establish it, a dangerous
and slippery strategy." (Gould S.J., "Darwin's Untimely Burial," in "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural
History," [1978], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, pp.40-41)
28/8/04
"The famous philosopher of science Karl Popper at one time wrote ... `some of the greatest contemporary
Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms
that leave most offspring leave most offspring,' citing Fisher, Haldane, Simpson, `and others.' One of the others
was C.H. Waddington ... `Natural selection, which was at first considered as though it were a hypothesis that
was in need of experimental or observational confirmation, turns out on closer inspection to be a tautology, a
statement of an inevitable but previously unrecognized relation. It states that the fittest individuals in a
population (defined as those which leave most offspring) will leave most offspring. This fact in no way reduces
the magnitude of Darwin's achievement; only after it was clearly formulated, could biologists realize the
enormous power of the principle as a weapon of explanation.' [Waddington C.H., in `The Evolution of Life,' in Tax
S., ed., `Evolution After Darwin', University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL., Vol. 1, 1960, p.385]. That was not an
offhand statement, but a considered judgment published in a paper presented at the great convocation at the
University of Chicago in 1959 celebrating the hundredth anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species.
Apparently, none of the distinguished authorities present told Waddington that a tautology does not explain
anything. ... It is not difficult to understand how leading Darwinists were led to formulate natural selection as a
tautology. The contemporary neo-Darwinian synthesis grew out of population genetics, a field anchored in
mathematics and concerned with demonstrating how rapidly very small mutational advantages could spread in a
population. The advantages in question were assumptions in a theorem, not qualities observed in nature, and the
mathematicians naturally tended to think of them as `whatever it was that caused the organism and its
descendants to produce more offspring than other members of the species.' This way of thinking spread to the
zoologists and paleontologists, who found it convenient to assume that their guiding theory was simply true by
definition." (Johnson P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition,
1993, pp.21-22)
30/8/04
"Also vitally important is a planet's mass. A planet's habitability depends on its mass in many ways; terrestrial
planets significantly smaller or larger than Earth are probably less habitable. Because Its surface gravity is
weaker, a less massive Earth twin would lose its atmosphere more quickly, and because of its larger surface-area-
to-volume ratio, its interior might cool too much to generate a strong magnetic field. And as we will show in
Chapter Five, smaller planets also tend to have more dangerously erratic orbits. In contrast, without getting more
habitable, a more massive Earth-twin would have a larger initial inventory of water 14 and other volatiles, such as
methane and carbon dioxide, and would lose less of them over time. Such a planet might resemble the gas giant
Jupiter rather than our terrestrial Earth. In fact, Earth may be almost as big as a terrestrial planet can get. While life
needs an atmosphere, too much atmosphere can be bad. For example, high surface pressure would slow the
evaporation of water and dry the interiors of continents. It would also increase the viscosity of the air at the
surface, making it more difficult for big-brained, mobile creatures like us to breathe. In addition, more surface
gravity would create less surface relief, with smaller mountains and shallower seas. Even with more vigorous
tectonic churning, rocks could not support mountains as high as those we enjoy. The planet probably would be
covered by oceans and too mineral-starved at the surface (and too salty throughout) to support life. Even a gilled
Kevin Costner, cast as a lone mariner, would find such a waterworld unappealing. To add insult to injury, the
surface gravity of a terrestrial planet increases with mass more rapidly than you might guess. Intense pressures
compress the material deep inside, so that a planet just twice the size of Earth would have about fourteen times
its mass and 3.5 times its surface gravity. This higher compression would probably result in a more differentiated
planet; gases like water vapor, methane, and carbon dioxide would tend to end up in the atmosphere. Earth has
kept dry land throughout its long history, in part, because some of its water has been sequestered in the mantle;
in contrast, a more massive planet would probably have degassed more than Earth. Maybe you're still pining
away for some adventure on a sci-fi-inspired giant terrestrial planet, but there's another problem with larger
planets impact threats. To put it simply, they're bigger targets. Asteroids and comets have a really hard time
avoiding larger planets, so these planets suffer more frequent, high-speed collisions. While their bigger surfaces
distribute the greater impact energy over more area, this doesn't compensate for the larger destructive energy,
since surface area increases slowly with mass for terrestrial planets more massive than Earth." (Gonzalez G. &
Richards J.W.*, "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed For Discovery," Regnery:
Washington DC, 2004, pp.59-60) .
September [top]
2/9/04
"Perhaps the foremost believer is Professor Cyril Ponnamperuma, who heads the Laboratory of Chemical
Evolution at the University of Maryland. According to Ponnamperuma: `Nobody doubts now that the
components of nucleic acids can be made by a path that can be called natural.' Perhaps a bit more organic
chemistry should be done to smooth out some difficulties, but this will surely take place. The pathways did not
operate at random: `There are inherent properties in the atoms and molecules which seem to direct the synthesis
in the direction most favorable" for the molecules of life. He made these remarks when I interviewed him in his
laboratory, actually a series of laboratories brightly decorated with posters from the space program, a display of a
meteorite fragment, photographs of the Miller- Urey type of apparatus, as well as the apparatus itself, and a can
marked `primordial soup.' ... Ponnamperuma is perhaps the best known of living scientists who devote their full
time to the study of the origin of life. He was the first recipient of the recently created Oparin Medal of the
International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life, and is the president of the society at the time of this
writing. .... As we have noted, his approach to the area is pervaded by an optimism and a sense of cosmic
purpose that seems to come from some inner faith. This purpose begins in outer space. He stated his feelings
eloquently in a recent comment: `You look at the interstellar molecules and you see cyanide and formaldehyde.
These two can provide the pathway for everything else. There is a simplicity in the whole scheme so much so
that you practically feel that the whole universe if trying to make life.' Because of the operation of these favorable
factors leading to our own chemistry, `we are the brothers and sisters of the stars.' ... `I wouldn't be surprised if
you landed on some planet like earth and somebody about five feet two with two eyes came up to you and said
hello.'" (Shapiro, R., "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth," Summit Books: New York NY,
1986, pp.186-187)
2/9/04
"The new discovery of a crustacean-like fossil (Phophatocope) in the early Cambrian pushes the branching
events leading up to it and its relatives further back in time-into the Precambrian. This squares with previous
critiques, which noted that in the early Cambrian, some arthropods-especially the ubiquitous trilobites-had
already differentiated into different kinds with separate geographical distributions. This differential evolution and
dispersal, too, must have required a previous history of the group for which there is no fossil record .
Furthermore, cladistic analyses of arthropod phylogeny revealed that trilobites, like eucrustaceans, are fairly
advanced `twigs' on the arthropod tree (see the figure). Trilobite-like trace fossils extend to the base of the
Cambrian in Newfoundland, and it would be easy to conclude that appropriate trace makers must have appeared
still earlier, in the late Precambrian. But fossils of these alleged ancestral arthropods are lacking. Another,
independent test of the divergence times is provided by molecular `clocks.' ... The divergence estimates vary
widely, however, reflecting both methodological assumptions and choice of genes. They agree only in being
Precambrian. Critics of this method point to the possibility that there may be a systematic bias in evolutionary
rates (a speeding up) at times of `explosion.' Divergence times made under the assumption of standard, clocklike
behavior would then be greatly overestimated. ... Even if evidence for an earlier origin is discovered, it remains a
challenge to explain why so many animals should have increased in size and acquired shells within so short a
time at the base of the Cambrian. At the moment, there are almost as many explanations as there are animals
caught in this belated `explosion.'" (Fortey R., "The Cambrian explosion exploded?" Science, Vol. 293, No. 5529,
July 20, 2001, pp.438-439)
3/9/04
"In what may well go down in history as the greatest paleontological discovery of the late twentieth century,
Shuhai Xiao ... and ... Andrew H. Knoll, have just reported their discovery of the oldest triploblastic animals,
preserved as phosphatized embryos in rocks from southern China estimated at 570 million years of age (and thus
even older than the richest Ediacaran faunas found in strata about 10 million years younger [see Xiao, Zhang,
and Knoll, `Threedimensional preservation of algae and animal embryos in a Neoproterozoic phosphorite,' 1998,
Nature, vol. 391, pp. 553-58]). These phosphatized fossils include a rich variety of multicellular algae, showing,
according to the authors, that `by the time large animals enter the fossil record, the three principal groups of
multicellular algae had not only diverged from other protistan [unicellular] stocks but had evolved a surprising
degree of the morphological complexity exhibited by living algae.' Given our understandably greater interest in
our own animal kingdom, however, most of the attention will be riveted upon some smaller and rarer globular
fossils, averaging half a millimeter in diameter and found phosphatized in the same strata: an exquisite series of
earliest embryonic stages, beginning with a single fertilized egg and proceeding through twocell, four-cell,
eightcell, and sixteen-cell stages to small balls of cells representing slightly later phases of early development.
These embryos cannot be assigned to any particular group (more distinctive, later stages have not yet been
found) but their identification as earliest stages of triploblastic animals seems secure, both from characteristic
features (especially the overall size of the embryo during these earliest stages, which remains unchanged as
average cell size decreases to pack more cells into a constant space) and from their uncanny resemblance to
particular traits of living groups (several embryologists have told Knoll and colleagues that they would have
identified these specimens as embryos of living crustaceans had they not been informed of their truly ancient
age)." (Gould S.J.,"On embryos and ancestors," Natural History, Vol. 107, No. 6, July/August 1998, pp.20ff)
6/9/04
"In one respect I plead to distance myself from professional advocates. A lawyer or a politician is paid to exercise
his passion and his persuasion on behalf of a client or a cause in which he may not privately believe. I have
never done this and I never shall. I may not always be right, but I care passionately about what is true and I
never say anything that I do not believe to be right. I remember being shocked when visiting a university
debating society to debate with creationists. At dinner after the debate, I was placed next to a young woman who
had made a relatively powerful speech in favour of creationism. She clearly couldn't be a creationist, so I asked
her to tell me honestly why she had done it. She freely admitted that she was simply practising her debating
skills, and foun