[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [Quotes, Unclassified, Classified]
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-Sep] [Oct, Nov, Dec]
October
[top] 1/10/2004
"Lamarck, Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de (1744-1829) French natural historian. In 1778
he published a flora of France, which included a dichotomous identification key, and later worked on the
classification of invertebrates, published in a seven-volume natural history (1815-22). In 1809 he put forward
a theory of evolution that has become known as Lamarckism (later rejected in favour of Darwinism).
Lamarckism One of the earliest superficially plausible theories of inheritance proposed by Jean-Baptiste de
Lamarck in 1809. He suggested that changes in an individual are acquired during its lifetime, chiefly by
increased use or disuse of organs in response to `a need that continues to make itself felt', and that these
changes are inherited by its offspring. Thus the long neck and limbs of a giraffe are explained as having
evolved by the animal stretching its neck to browse on the foliage of trees. This so-called inheritance of
acquired characteristics has never unquestionably been demonstrated to occur and the theory was largely
displaced by the genetic theories of Mendel and his successors (see Mendelism). See also Lysenkoism."
(Martin E. & Hine R.S. eds., "Oxford Dictionary of Biology," [1985], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK,
Fourth Edition, 2000, pp.338-339)
1/10/2004
"Lysenko claimed to be a Darwinist, which was the 'official line' in the purging of Bukharin. Prezent, an ally
of Lysenko, accused Bukharin of erroneous and anti-Darwinian theories" and also said that bandits" had
annihilated instruction of students in Darwinism in the Leningrad State University (Medvedev Z.A., "The
Rise and Fall of T.D. Lysenko," Columbia University Press: New York NY, 1969). Dunin said: `the enemy of
the people, Bukharin, fought Darwinism ...' Lysenko wrote a polemic `Of the distorting mirror and some anti-
Darwinians' grouping them with his hated Morganist-Mendelists. Lysenko said that Darwinism was part of
Marxism. He also said `[Prezent] showed me that the roots of the work I am doing lie in Darwin. And I,
comrades, must confess here straightforwardly in the presence of Iosif Vissarionovich [Stalin] that to my
shame I have not studied Darwin properly'. Evidently Lysenko tried to justify his nonsense by calling on
Darwin." (Jukes T.H., "Darwinist Lysenko?" Nature, Vol 373, 16 February 1995, p.554)
1/10/2004
"From the facts alluded to in the first chapter, I think there can be no doubt that use in our domestic
animals has strengthened and enlarged certain parts, and disuse diminished them; and that such
modifications are inherited. Under free nature, we have no standard of comparison by which to judge of
the effects of long-continued use or disuse, for we know not the parent-forms; but many animals
possess structures which can be best explained by the effects of disuse." (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.130. My emphasis)
1/10/2004
"On the whole, we may conclude that habit, or use and disuse, have, in some cases, played a
considerable part in the modification of the constitution and structure; but that the effects have often been
largely combined with, and sometimes overmastered by, the natural selection of innate variations." (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.136. My emphasis)
1/10/2004
"When discussing special cases, Mr. Mivart passes over the effects of the increased use and disuse of
parts, which I have always maintained to be highly important, and have treated in my Variation under
Domestication at greater length than, as I believe, any other writer." (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.201. My emphasis)
1/10/2004
"The giraffe, by its lofty stature, much-elongated neck, forelegs, head and tongue, has its whole frame
beautifully adapted for browsing on the higher branches of trees. It can thus obtain food beyond the reach
of the other Ungulata or hoofed animals inhabiting the same country; and this must be a great advantage to
it during dearths." (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.201)
1/10/2004
"Variability is governed by many complex laws,-by correlated growth, compensation, the increased use
and disuse of parts, and the definite action of the surrounding conditions. There is much difficulty in
ascertaining how largely our domestic productions have been modified; but we may safely infer that the
amount has been large, and that modifications can be inherited for long periods." (Darwin C.R., "The Origin
of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th
Edition, 1928, reprint, p.443. My emphasis)
1/10/2004
"I have now recapitulated the facts and considerations which have thoroughly convinced me that species
have been modified, during a long course of descent. This has been effected chiefly through the natural
selection of numerous successive, slight, favourable variations; aided in an important manner by the
inherited effects of the use and disuse of parts; and in an unimportant manner, that is in relation to
adaptive structures, whether past or present, by the direct action of external conditions, and by variations
which seem to us in our ignorance to arise spontaneously. It appears that I formerly underrated the
frequency and value of these latter forms of variation, as leading to permanent modifications of structure
independently of natural selection. But as my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has
been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to
remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position-
namely, at the close of the Introduction-the following words: `I am convinced that natural selection has been
the main but not the exclusive means of modification.' This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady
misrepresentation; but the history of science shows that fortunately this power does not long endure."
(Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection," [1859], John Murray: London, Sixth
edition, 1872, Reprinted, 1882, p.421. My emphasis)
1/10/04
"It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing
on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to
reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each
other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the
largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction;
Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse: a Ratio of
Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing
Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from
famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the
higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been
originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling
on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural
Selection," [1859], John Murray: London, Sixth edition, 1872, Reprinted, 1882, p.429. My emphasis)
1/10/2004
"It is interesting to observe the result of habit in the peculiar shape and size of the giraffe (camelo-pardalis):
this animal, the largest of mammals, is known to live in the interior of Africa in places where the soil is nearly
always arid and barren, so that it is obliged to browse on the leaves of trees and to make constant efforts to
reach them. From this habit long maintained in all its race, it has resulted that the animal's fore-legs have
become longer than its hind legs, and that its neck is lengthened to such a degree that the giraffe, without
standing up on its hind legs, attains a height of six metres. [Lamarck J.-B., "Zoological Philosophy," Elliot H.,
transl., Macmillan: London, 1914, p.122]" (Lovtrup S., "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth," Croom Helm:
London, 1987, p.54)
2/10/2004
"My purpose is to examine the scientific evidence on its own terms, being careful to distinguish the
evidence itself from any religious or philosophical bias that might distort our interpretation of that evidence.
I assume that the creation-scientists are biased by their precommitment to Biblical fundamentalism, and I will
have very little to say about their position. The question I want to investigate is whether Darwinism is based
upon a fair assessment of the scientific evidence, or whether it is another kind of fundamentalism." (Johnson,
P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, p.14)
2/10/2004
"Scientific American, the bastion of the scientific-materialism project--and the same magazine that is calling
for a boycott of Kansas high school students to punish the school board--published an article [September
1999] in which Ed Larson and Larry Witham commented on this "neutrality" position. The authors noted
that when you measure opinion among elite scientists, that is, members of the National Academy of
Sciences, less than 5 per cent believe in God. They gave a number of quotations to show that this disbelief
really derived from the conviction that science itself had discredited belief in God. Against that background,
Larson and Witham quote the National Academy's official booklet on how to teach evolution: before
launching its broadside of scientific arguments against religious objections to teaching evolution, the
booklet asserts that whether or not God exists is a question about which science is neutral. The irony is
remarkable. A group of specialists almost all of whom are non-believers-- that is, scientific materialists, either
atheist or agnostic--and who believe that science compels such a conclusion say to the public that science
is neutral on the God question. This has been figured out, I can assure you, by the people in Kansas and
lots of other people. They consider that the scientific elite is simply lying through its teeth about this issue."
(Johnson, P.E.*, "Evolution and the Curriculum: A Conversation with Phillip Johnson and Gregg
Easterbrook," Ethics and Public Policy Center, February 2000, No. 4)
3/10/2004
"The Day One/Day Four Problem. One exegetical marker suggesting a figurative meaning for the days is that
the creation of the luminaries on Day 4 is a temporal recapitulation of the creation of daylight on Day 1.
Duncan and Hall respond without any exegesis, asserting only that this argument `calls into question God's
capacity to work with or without, above or against, second causes.' But how? Our argument is that Genesis
2:5-6 informs us that the mode of divine providence during the creation period was ordinary rather than
extraordinary. This rules out the possibility that the daylight was caused by a supernatural or nonsolar light
source for the first three days, thus forcing us to view the fourth day as a temporal recapitulation and the
days in general as being nonsequential. Observe, how, ever, that this possibility is not ruled out on a priori,
but exegetical, grounds. Certainly God has the capacity to work without, above, or against second causes,
but the text reveals that God employed ordinary means in His providential sustaining of His creatures during
the creation period. To argue that the framework interpretation calls God's omnipotence into question begs
the question and betrays an inadequate familiarity with the published arguments. Duncan and Hall have not
wrestled sufficiently with the problem of the relationship between the first and fourth days. When
attempting to explain how there could be a literal evening and morning during the first three days, they
hypothesize that God `may have employed nonsolar sources of light before creating the sun.' But what
internal, exegetical justification can they provide for this arbitrary speculation? On the contrary, the text
makes clear that when God created daylight on the first day, He created the physical reality with which
Moses' audience was familiar; namely, a normal day divided into alternating periods of light and darkness
(Gen. 1:5). Doesn't the plain meaning of Genesis 1:3-5 contradict Duncan and Hall's hypothetical nonsolar
light source? And shouldn't this fact suggest that the fourth day is not to be taken sequentially and so is
separated from the first day? Doesn't this fact strongly suggest instead that the author of Genesis presents
us with a two-triad framework in which each triad is headed by a parallel (nonsequential) treatment of the
creation of light/ luminaries?" (Irons L.* & Kline M.G.*, "The 24-Hour View: The Framework Response," in
Hagopian D.G., ed., "The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation," Crux Press: Mission Viejo
CA, 2001, p.86)
3/10/2004
"The Luminaries and the Fourth Day. The second major area where the attempt to find maximal harmony
with science leads to untenable exegesis is the approach Ross and Archer take to the statements in Genesis
1:14-19 concerning the luminaries of the fourth day. In their attempt to make the textual sequence harmonize
with the scientific sequence, Ross and Archer do violence to the language of the fourth day. The text
describes the events as the creation of the luminaries on that day. Because Ross and Archer believe that the
luminaries were created during day-age one or before, they are forced to conclude that the events recorded
on the fourth day do not describe the creation of the luminaries; rather, they describe the luminaries
becoming visible to an earthbound observer by reason of the "transformation of the atmosphere from
perpetually translucent to occasionally transparent." But the text explicitly says that God "made" (v. 16) the
luminaries on Day 4 and employs the same fiat-fulfillment language employed on the other five days for acts
of creation. If Genesis 1 were intended to provide astounding predictions of future scientific discoveries as
Ross and Archer maintain, why didn't the Holy Spirit simply say that the luminaries "became visible" on Day
4? The attempt to find exact sequential harmony between Genesis 1 and science, which is essential to the
day-age interpretation, founders on the insoluble difficulties raised by the fourth day." (Irons L.* & Kline
M.G.*, "The Framework Response," in Hagopian D.G., ed., "The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days
of Creation," Crux Press: Mission Viejo CA, 2001, p.185)
3/10/2004
"The second defining element of the framework interpretation is the conviction that the eight historical
creative works of God have been arranged according to other than strictly sequential considerations. An
outstanding instance of this nonsequential ordering is found in the relation of Days 1 and 4, where the
narrative order does not coincide with the historical sequence. The framework interpretation maintains that
the creation of the luminaries, and in particular the solar system, on Day 4 actually coincides with the
creation of daylight on Day 1. Thus, the text is narrated in a topical rather than a purely sequential order.
However, we cannot conclude that nothing in the text has been arranged sequentially. The Sabbath of the
seventh day, for example, must follow the previous six days of creation, and man is created last due to his
position of delegated dominion over all creation. In these cases the narrative sequence and the actual
historical sequence are the same. But the order of narration alone is not sufficient in itself to determine the
historical sequence; other considerations, such as theological concerns and general revelation, must be
factored in as well. In most cases, the text's predominantly topical nature will preclude detailed conclusions
regarding sequence." (Irons L.* & Kline M.G.*, "The Framework View," in Hagopian D.G., ed., "The Genesis
Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation," Crux Press: Mission Viejo CA, 2001, p.220)
3/10/2004
"Indeed the six days now to be described can be viewed as the positive counterpart of the twin negatives
'without form and void' matching them with form in and fullness. They may be set out as follows:
Form Fullness
Day 1 Light and Dark Day 4 Lights of Day and Night
Day 2 Sea and Sky Day 5 Creatures of Water and Air
Day 3 Fertile Earth Day 6 Creatures of the Land"
(Kidner D.*, "Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale Press: London, 1967, p.45.
Emphasis original)
3/10/2004
"It is noteworthy that in the Hebrew of verse 2 the adjectives `formless' and `empty' seem to be the key to
the literary structure of the chapter. The record of the first three days refers to the heaven and earth
receiving their `form,' and the record of the last three days to the filling-up of their `emptiness.' An outline
will show this clearly:
"FORMLESS" "EMPTY"
First Day. Light. Fourth Day. Lights.
{Air {Fowls
Second Day. {Water Fifth Day. {Fish
{Land. {Animals.
Third Day. {Plants. Sixth Day. {Man.
Thus, the first and fourth days correspond, the second and fifth, and the third and sixth.
First comes `form,' and then `fulness.' the literary structure of the chapter is clear, and is one of many proofs
of Hebrew parallelism and love of parallelistic structure. ..." (Griffith Thomas W.H.*, "Genesis: A Devotional
Commentary," [1953], Wm. B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1979, Eleventh Printing, pp.28-29)
3/10/2004
"Taking the chapter [Genesis 1], however, just as it stands, without any such break, we read it through, and
are at once impressed with two things: (1) There is only one species mentioned in the entire chapter, "And
God created great whales" (ver. 21). Everything else is generic. Why this exceptional reference? Why are
these "water monsters" singled out in this way? Is it possible that we have here a hint of the writer's
purpose? Was he striking at the root of some ancient worship of sacred animals? Is it impossible that if the
materials for the composition of Genesis were associated with Egypt this has reference to the worship of
some sacred animal like the crocodile? ... Then in verse 16 special reference is made to the creation of the
sun and moon. Is it possible that we have here another blow to a prevalent form of Eastern worship of the
heavenly bodies? These two hints at any rate possibly suggest the religious purpose of the writer. ... Are we
not right, then, in thinking that this chapter was intended as an account of creation from the religious point
of view, and written for the instruction of mankind in all ages? ...What is its Relation to Science?-It is
inevitable that this question should be asked since on the assumption that religion and science both come
from God there should be at least some general agreement or points of contact between them. At the same
time the truest method of comparison is not between this chapter and the results of modern science, but
rather between this chapter and all other ancient Cosmogonies. It is when Genesis is compared with such
other ancient accounts of creation that its immeasurable superiority is seen. ... Is the chapter written in
sufficiently elastic and pliant language to admit of the inclusion of continuous scientific discoveries? It must
be obvious to every thoughtful reader that this early chapter could not be expected to be in exact agreement
with the latest details of scientific research, since science is continually changing and is ever incomplete. If
it had been written in strict scientific language it would, of course, have been unintelligible for centuries. ...
Yet there are indications that the very language of Genesis is pliant enough to allow of not a little scientific
discovery being inserted. Thus there are two words used for creation. One, Bara, is used three times
only in the chapter-(1) at the beginning (ver. 1); (2) at the commencement of life (ver. 21); (3) at the creation
of man (ver. 27). "Bara is thus reserved for marking the first introduction of each of the three great
spheres of creation-the world of matter, the world of life, and the spiritual world represented by man"
(Green). The other word, Asah, is found throughout the rest of the chapter, and is used of God
making or moulding from already created materials. Surely in this we have at least a hint of the modern
scientific ideas of primal creation and mediate creation." (Griffith Thomas W.H.*, "Genesis: A Devotional
Commentary," [1953], Wm. B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1979, Eleventh Printing, pp.29-31)
5/10/2004
"In a similar way, Johnson cut through the conflicting claims of a vast variety of positions on origins by
showing the crucial role played by initial philosophical commitments: Either nature is all that exists, and
science is permitted to consider only naturalistic theories-in which case science is little more than applied
naturalism - or there is something that transcends nature, and we must define science in terms that allow it to
follow the evidence wherever it leads....One of the beauties of Johnson's approach is that it has the potential
to unite Christians across a broad spectrum. They might disagree over such details as the age of the
universe, but all orthodox Christians can concur in rejecting a blind, mindless, materialistic mechanism for
the origin and development of life. Johnson's approach is sometimes described as a middle ground or
compromise position, but that's a misunderstanding. In fact, what he has proposed is not one more
competing position at all; he has offered a logical analysis of the foundational ideas that unite all Christians,
regardless of the details of their positions. Having united on these defining principles, Christians may well
discover a new spirit of unity and charity for taking up the old contentious issues once again. They can now
treat the questions that once divided them as the subjects of friendly in-house debates. They can engage in
amicable discussions over the interpretation of Genesis, the age of the universe, the range and limits of
microevolution and common descent, and so on. Such lively debate is what science is all about. Indeed, it's
not too much to say that the Intelligent Design Movement has largely achieved this unity. It has become a
"big tent" drawing together Christians across a wide range of disciplines and positions, from strict young-
earth creationists to theistic evolutionists (at least those among the latter who acknowledge a role for divine
direction). "(Pearcey N.R.*, "Foreword," in "The Right Questions: Truth, Meaning & Public Debate,"
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2002, pp.10-11)
5/10/2004
"Lamarck, Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet (1744-1829) French naturalist best known for his theory of
the inheritance of acquired characters (see LAMARCKISM). Whilst this theory is now generally
discredited, Lamarck deserves recognition for popularizing the word 'biology' and being effectively the
founder of modern invertebrate zoology. He was one of the first true scientists to give real consideration to
the evolutionary development of life. Lamarckism, n. the theory of inheritance Of ACQUIRED
CHARACTERS, which suggests that the structures developed during the lifetime of all organism, through
use, are passed on as inherited characters to the next generation. Evolutionary change might thus be
achieved through the transmission of these acquired characters. This theory, proposed by Jean Baptiste de
LAMARCK, is now generally discounted in favour of DARWINISM, where favoured characters of use to a
particular organism are maintained by selection, whereas unfavourable characters are selected against.
Thus, Lamarck might have claimed that blacksmith's sons were brawny because of their father's profession,
whereas Darwin would say that the reason the father was a blacksmith was because he was brawny and
brawny men tend to have brawny offspring. LYSENKO attempted unsuccessfully to apply Lamarckian
theory to the development of crop plants in the USSR in the 1930s." (Hale W.G. & Margham J.P., "Collins
Reference Dictionary of Biology," Collins: London, 1988, Tenth printing, p.312)
5/10/2004
"Patrick Matthew was not the only individual to be treated by Darwin to this double standard of deference
in public statements and denigration in his private letters. Lamarck, as one might perhaps expect, also
received this treatment. In the Origin, Lamarck is referred to as a justly-celebrated naturalist' but in
his private letters, as for instance in the letter to Hooker (LLD Vol 2, 23, 1844), we can read about 'Lamarck
nonsense' and several misinterpretations. Through the medium of the widely-read Collected Letters,
succeeding generations were to meet the 'obscure writer on forest trees' and 'Lamarck nonsense' more
frequently than Darwin's public statements. In the Origin, wherever possible, Darwin would omit
names such as Lamarck. In the course of reading the proofs of the Origin, Lyell was astonished to
read, '... the most eminent naturalists have rejected the view of mutability.' He wrote to Darwin, 'You do not
mean to ignore G. St Hilaire and Lamarck?' But this was certainly Darwin's intention since the above
sentence was altered to '... eminent living naturalists'! Even this was wrong because the distinguished
Robert Grant and associated radicals had canvassed Lamarckian ideas since 1828." (Dempster W.J., "Natural
Selection and Patrick Matthew: Evolutionary Concepts in the Nineteenth Century," Pentland Press:
Edinburgh, 1996, pp.34-35)
8/10/2004
"The characteristic tool kit of the Neanderthals, the Mousterian culture, used flakes, scrapers and carefully
shaped hand axes produced by the Levallois, technique (a prepared core off which predictable flakes could
be struck). It appeared around 100,000 years ago, and remained basically uniform across Europe for 65,000
years. In this cultural stasis Neanderthal populations clearly resembled H. erectus rather than the
Cro-Magnon people (anatomically modern) which followed them. Cro-Magnon culture changed
continuously from one technique to another (Mellars, 1989). In less than half the tenure of the Neanderthals,
they were walking on the moon!" (Wilcox D.L.*, "The Creation: Spoken in Eternity, Unfolded in Time,"
Unpublished manuscript, Eastern College: St. Davids PA, 1990, Chapter 7, p.12)
11/10/2004
"An array of new instruments is allowing researchers their closest-ever look at biomolecules' inner
workings.This new view focuses all the way down to the atomic level. And the sights that meet
biophysicists eyes are awe-inspiring, to say the least. A group of Japanese scientists exploring the crystal
structure of the F1-ATPase enzyme discovered nature's own rotary engine - no bigger than ten billionths by
ten billionths by eight billionths of a meter. [Noji H., Yasuda R., Yoshida M., and Kinosita K., "Direct
Observation of the Rotation of F1- ATPase," Nature, 386, 1997, pp. 299-302] The tiny motor includes the
equivalent of an engine block, a drive shaft, and three pistons. It runs at speeds between 0.5 and 4.0
revolutions per second. This motor not only ranks as the smallest ever seen, it also represents the smallest
motor that the laws of physics and chemistry will allow. In Germany, a research team used the new
instruments to examine an enormous molecule, the yeast 26S proteasome. [Groll M., et al, "Structure of 20S
Proteasome from Yeast at 2.4 A° Resolution," Nature, 386 (1997), pp. 463-471] Though not the largest
molecule in existence, the yeast 26S proteasome contains over two million protons and neutrons and is the
largest non-symmetrical molecule mapped to date. This molecule can only be described as a `wonder.' It
serves as an intracellular waste- disposal and recycling system. Tiny molecules within the proteasome
attach markers (called ubiquitin) to waste material (apparently the cell's command center informs the marker
molecules which proteins are ready for disposal). Since these ready-for-disposal proteins resemble tangled
balls of yarn, the first job of the 26S proteasome, after identifying a tagged protein, is to unfold, untwist, and
unravel it. This function is performed by an apparatus at each end of the proteasome. Once the targeted
protein is straightened out, the proteasome drags it into its core and cuts the protein into segments. These
segments are precisely measured by a `ruler' inside the proteasome. The cut-up pieces are then ejected from
the proteasome, and a `sanitation' fleet (other proteins) drives by to pick them up and sort them, separating
the stuff that can be reused from the stuff that cannot. The complexity of such systems - and these are just
two of many - within both the tiny enzyme and the huge yeast reflect a mind-boggling quantity, not to
mention quality, of information. Where did that information come from? Who structured these molecules
and taught them to perform their functions? Did blind chance and random process? Are they simply self-
programmed? Does anything in reality self-program without intelligent input? I see these discoveries as a
formidable challenge to the assumption that life arose on its own over a few million years.Perhaps at least
some scientists will be prompted by the new data to reconsider their conclusion, to accept the possibility-
more accurately, the probability-that living molecules and all living creatures evidence the matchless
brilliance and power of a Supreme Creator." (Ross H.N.*, "Small-Scale Evidence of Grand-Scale Design,"
Facts & Faith, Second Quarter, 1997)
14/10/2004
"Patrick Matthew saw no reason to change these views during the rest of his life. His theory was a formal
expression of rational experience. Darwin, on the other hand, chopped and changed his ideas between 1859
and 1872 so much it is now rather difficult to decide what is Darwinism and what is Lamarckism. ... Darwin
had claimed the theory of Natural Selection as his own but this gradually became transformed into a theory
of evolution which seemed little more than Lamarckian evolution. It became more and more difficult to detect
any subtle difference because Darwin persisted in ridiculing Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck and disclaiming
any influence of these writers on his own work. " (Dempster W.J., "Natural Selection and Patrick Matthew:
Evolutionary Concepts in the Nineteenth Century," Pentland Press: Edinburgh, 1996, pp.94-95)
15/10/2004
"Events began in 1995, when the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued national standards calling for
`dramatic changes' in the way public schools teach science. The Kansas Commissioner of Education and the
Board of Education appointed a committee to bring state guidelines into conformity with the standards, as
many other states had already done. The new guidelines greatly increased classroom coverage of evolution,
even elevating it from a theory to a `Unifying Concept' of science (along with such things as `measurement'
and `evidence'). That was too much for some members of the state board of education. They were willing to
increase the teaching of microevolution--testable, observable variations caused by adaptation, natural
selection, and genetic drift. But macroevolution--the `particles-to-people' variety--they regarded as
speculative. The board voted to remove macroevolution from state tests, giving local school districts the
freedom to set their own standards for teaching the subject. In short, the board did not forbid the teaching
of anything. On the contrary, it actually increased coverage of topics related to evolution, though it did not
go as far as the scientific establishment wished." (Pearcey N.*, "We're Not in Kansas Anymore,"
Christianity Today, May 22, 2000, Vol. 44, No. 6, p.42)
15/10/2004
"Wizard of Oz jokes are in vogue as the news media scramble to ridicule Kansas for downplaying,
eliminating, or even banning evolution in its public schools. But the people who are writing such stuff
apparently haven't read the Kansas Science Education Standards. The truth is that the August 11 School
Board decision actually increased public school emphasis on evolution. The old science standards, in effect
since 1995, devoted about 70 words to biological evolution. Standards proposed to the Board earlier this
year by a 27- member Science Education Standards Writing Committee would have increased this to about
640 words. The standards actually adopted by the Board on August 11 include about 390 words on the
subject. So the Kansas State School Board, asked to approve a ninefold increase in the standards for
evolution, approved a fivefold increase instead." (Wells J.*, "Ridiculing Kansas school board easy, but it's
not good journalism," The Daily Republic, Mitchell SD, October 14, 1999)
15/10/2004
"Among chimpanzees we see more elaborate examples of cultural behavior in the form of tool use. ...
Chimpanzees insert twigs and grass blades into termite mounds in a practice called "termite fishing". When
termites seize the twig, the chimpanzee withdraws it and eats the attached insects. Chimpanzees modify
some of their stems and twigs by stripping the leaves-in effect, manufacturing a tool from the natural
material. To some extent, chimpanzees even alter objects to a "regular and set pattern" and have been
observed preparing objects for later use at another location (Goodall, 1986, p. 535). For example, a
chimpanzee will very carefully select a piece of vine, bark, twig, or palm frond and modify it by removing
leaves or other extraneous material, then break off portions until it is the proper length. Chimpanzees have
also been seen making these tools even before the termite mound is in sight. All this preparation has several
implications. First, the chimpanzees are engaged in an activity that prepares them for a future (not
immediate) task at a somewhat distant location, and this action implies planning and forethought. Second,
attention to the shape and size of the raw material indicates that chimpanzee toolmakers have a
preconceived idea of what the finished product needs to be in order to be useful. To produce a tool, even a
simple tool, based on a concept is an extremely complex behavior. ... Chimpanzees in numerous West
African study groups use hammerstones with platform stones to crack nuts and hard- shelled fruits (Boesch
et al., 1994). However, it is important to note that neither the hammerstone nor the platform stone was
deliberately manufactured.* ... Quite clearly, the use of sticks in termite fishing and hammerstones to crack
nuts is hardly comparable to modern human technology. However, modern human technology had its
beginnings in these very types of behaviors we observe in other primates." (Jurmain R., Kilgore L,
Trevathan W.R. & Nelson H., "Essentials of Physical Anthropology," Fifth Edition, Wadsworth/Thomson:
Belmont CA, 2004, pp.143-146)
15/10/2004
"One of the most important fossil gaps is that between the questionable, one-celled microorganisms found
in Precambrian strata and the abundant complex marine invertebrate life of the Cambrian, as well as the
strange `Ediacaran' fossils of the Precambrian. `The introduction of a variety of organisms in the early
Cambrian, including such complex forms of the arthropods as the trilobites, is surprising.... The introduction
of abundant organisms in the record would not be so surprising if they were simple. Why should such
complex organic forms be in rocks about six hundred million years old and be absent or unrecognized in the
records of the preceding two billion years? ... If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite
fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling." [Kay M. & Colbert E.H., "Stratigraphy and Life
History," John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1965, p.102.] `One of the major unsolved problems of geology and
evolution is the occurrence of diversified multicellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks and
their absence in rocks of greater age. These early Cambrian fossils included porifera, coelenterates,
brachiopods, mollusca, echinoids, and arthropods. Their high degree of organization clearly indicates that a
long period of evolution preceded their appearance in the record. However, when we turn to examine the
pre-Cambrian rocks for the forerunners of these Early Cambrian fossils, they are nowhere to be found.'
[Axelrod D.L, "Early Cambrian Marine Fauna," Science, Vol. 128, 1958, p.7] `Granted an evolutionary origin
of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a
single member of any of the phyla in the Precambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as
it was to Darwin.' [George T.N., "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, Vol. 48, January
1960, p.5]. There is obviously a tremendous gap between one-celled microorganisms and the high
complexity and variety of the many invertebrate phyla of the Cambrian. If the former evolved into the latter,
it seems impossible that no transitional forms between any of them would ever be preserved or found. "
(Morris H.M.*, ed., "Scientific Creationism (General Edition)," [1974], Master Books: El Cajon CA, Second
Edition, 1985, pp.80-81)
15/10/2004
"Metazoans, that is, highly complex multi-cellular creatures with specialized organs, abruptly appear fully
formed in the fossil record. Them are no intermediates available from the fossil record that link single-celled
organisms to the complex invertebrates that supposedly arose from them. The first abundant fossil record of
complex invertebrates appears in rocks of the so-called Cambrian Period. It is assumed by evolutionists that
the sediments which formed the rocks of the Cambrian began to be deposited about 530 million years ago
and that the time involved in their deposition stretched over about five to ten million years. In Cambrian
rocks are found fossils of clams, snails, trilobites, sponges, brachiopods, worms, jellyfish sea urchins, sea
cucumbers, swimming crustaceans, sea lilies, and other complex invertebrates. The appearance of this great
variety of complex creatures is so startlingly sudden that it is commonly referred to as the `Cambrian
explosion' in geological literature. Sedimentary rocks that are believed to have formed prior to the Cambrian
Period are assigned to a rather nebulous period called the Precambrian. Rocks of the Precambrian generally
underlie (although not always) Cambrian rocks and are believed to have been laid down during several
hundreds of millions of years preceding the Cambrian. There are now many reports in the scientific literature
of the discovery in Precambrian rocks of fossils of microscopic, single-celled, soft-bodied creatures, such as
bacteria and algae. On the basis of these claim , evolutionists are asserting that life arose on earth more than
three billion years ago, perhaps as much as 3.5 billion years ago. ... In any case, if single-celled creatures
gave rise to the vast army of complex invertebrates which abruptly burst upon the scene, and nearly three
billion years intervened between the origin of life and this `Cambrian explosion' of complicated invertebrates,
we must find the record of that evolution somewhere in the rocks of the Precambrian. Ever since Darwin the
rocks have been intensely searched for this record, but to evolutionists the results have been agonizingly
disappointing. Nowhere on this earth-neither on my continent nor on the bottom of my ocean-have we been
able to find the intermediates between single-celled organisms and the complex invertebrates. Wherever or
whenever we find them, right from the start jellyfish are jellyfish, trilobites are trilobites, and sea urchins are
sea urchins. Concerning this, Axelrod has `One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is
the occurrence of diversified, multi-cellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all the
continents and their absence in rocks of greater age' ... However, when we turn to examine the Precambrian
rocks for the forerunners of these early Cambrian fossils, they are nowhere to be found. Many thick (over
5,000 feet) sections of sedimentary rock are now known to lie in unbroken succession below strata
containing the earliest Cambrian fossils. These sediments apparently were suitable for the preservation of
fossils because they are often identical with overlying rocks which are fossiliferous, yet no fossils are found
in them.' [Axelrod D.L, "Early Cambrian Marine Fauna," Science, Vol. 128, 1958, p.7]." (Gish D.T.*,
"Evolution: The Fossils Still Say NO!," [1985], Institute for Creation Research: El Cajon CA, 1995, pp.54-55)
15/10/2004
"The single greatest problem which the fossil record poses for Darwinism is the 'Cambrian explosion' of
around 600 million years ago. Nearly all the animal phyla appear in the rocks of this period without a trace of
the evolutionary ancestors that Darwinists require. As Richard Dawkins puts it, `It is as though they were
just planted there, without any evolutionary history.' [Dawkins R., `The Blind Watchmaker,' [1986], Penguin:
London, 1991, reprint, p.229] In Darwin's time there was no evidence for the existence of pre-Cambrian life,
and he conceded in The Origin of Species that `The case at present must remain inexplicable, and
may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.' [Darwin C.R., `The Origin of
Species,' 1872, 6th Edition, p.316] If his theory was true, Darwin wrote, the pre-Cambrian world must have
`swarmed with living creatures.' [Darwin C.R., `The Origin of Species,' 1872, 6th Edition, p.315] In recent
years evidence of bacteria and algae has been found some of the earth's oldest rocks, and it is generally
accepted today that these single-celled forms of life may have first appeared as long ago as four billion
years. Bacteria and algae are `prokaryotes' which means each creature consists of a single cell without a
nucleus and related organelles. More complex `eukaryote' cells (with nucleus) appeared later, and then
dozens of independent groups multicellular animals appeared without any visible process of evolutionary
development. Darwinist theory requires that there have been very lengthy sets of intermediate forms
between unicellular organisms and animals like insects, worms, and clams. The evidence that these existed is
missing, however, and with no good excuse." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press:
Downers Grove IL, 1993, Second edition, pp.54-55)
15/10/2004
"On the sudden Appearance of Groups of allied Species in the lowest known fossiliferous Strata There is
another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging
to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous
rocks. Most of the arguments which have convinced me that all the existing species of the same group are
descended from a single progenitor, apply with equal force to the earliest known species. For instance, it
cannot be doubted that all the Cambrian and Silurian trilobites are descended from some one crustaceans
which must have lived long before the Cambrian age, and which probably differed greatly from any known
animal. Some of the most ancient animals, as the Nautilus, Lingula, etc., do not differ much from living
species; and it cannot on our theory be supposed, that these old species were the progenitors of all the
species belonging to the same groups which have subsequently appeared, for they are not in any degree
intermediate in character. Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest
Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole
interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed
with living creatures. ... To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these
assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer." (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.314-315)
17/10/2004
"This is not to say that the whole mystery has been plumbed to its core or even that it ever will be. The
ultimate mystery is beyond the reach of scientific investigation, and probably of the human mind. There is
neither need nor excuse for postulation of nonmaterial intervention in the origin of life, the rise of man, or
any other part of the long history of the material cosmos. Yet the origin of that cosmos and the causal
principles of its history remain unexplained and inaccessible to science. Here is hidden the First Cause
sought by theology and philosophy. The First Cause is not known and I suspect that it never will be known
to living man. We may, if we are so inclined, worship it in our own ways, but we certainly do not
comprehend it." (Simpson G.G., "The Meaning of Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of its
Significance for Man," [1949], Yale University Press: New Haven CT, 1960, reprint, p.278)
17/10/2004
"More importantly, paleontologists have documented a fairly rich record of benthic tracks and trails (but no
body fossils) that could not have been made by the sessile or planktonic Ediacaran organisms and have, by
consensus of all experts, been regarded as bilaterian in origin. But-and here's the rub these trackways are
very small, measuring 5 mm in diameter at a maximum, with most only 1 mm. or so in width (see Valentine and
Collins, 2000). More over, these tracks and trails do not extend deeply into Precambrian time. Hughes (2000,
p. 64) states: "Traces made by bilaterians extend back to about 550 million years at least, but earlier
sediments are famous for their undisturbed sedimentary lamination. The rise of animals able to mine organic
resources in sediments in complex ways officially defines the base of the Cambrian. Thus, positive evidence
indicates only a late Precambrian origin for bilaterians of any kind. The same data imply that all Precambrian
bilaterians ranged in size from the microscopic to the barely visible, and that the Cambrian boundary marks a
real and geologically sudden appearance of both large complex bilaterian body fossils, and a major change
in the size and complexity of their tracks and trails (Knoll and Carroll, 1999)." (Gould S.J., "The Structure of
Evolutionary Theory," Belknap: Cambridge MA, 2002, Fifth printing, p.1158)
18/10/2004
"Peking H. erectus, like that from Java, possesses typical H. erectus features, including the supraorbital.
torus in front and the nuchal torus behind; also, the skull is keeled by a sagittal ridge, the face protrudes, the
incisors are shoveled, and, like the Javanese forms, the skull shows the greatest breadth near the bottom.
CULTURAL REMAINS More than 100,000 artifacts have been recovered from this vast site that was
occupied intermittently for almost 250,000 years. According to the Chinese (Wu and Lin, 1983, p.86),
Zhoukoudian "is one of the sites with the longest history of habitation by man or his ancestors." The
occupation of the site has been divided into three cultural stages. Earliest Stage (460,000-420,000 y.a.)* The
tools are large, close to a pound in weight, and made of soft stone such as sandstone. Middle Stage
(370,000-350,000 y.a.) Tools become smaller and lighter (under a pound), and these smaller tools comprise
approximately two-thirds of the sample. Final Stage (300,000-230,000 y.a.) Tools are still small, and the tool
materials are of better quality. The coarse quartz of the earlier periods is replaced by a finer quartz,
sandstone tools have almost disappeared. and flint tools increase in frequency by as much as 30 percent.
As you can see, the early tools are crude and shapeless but become more refined over time. ... Did H. erectus
at Zhoukoudian use language? If by language we mean articulate speech, it is unlikely." * These dates
should be considered tentative until more precise chronometric techniques are available." (Jurmain R.,
Kilgore L., Trevathan W.R. & Nelson H., "Essentials of Physical Anthropology," Wadsworth/Thomson:
Belmont CA, Fifth edition, 2004, pp.228-229)
18/10/2004
"From his notebooks and his correspondence, and less distinctly in his publications, it appears that
Darwin's primary goal was to oppose Creationism. According to this creed, current at the time, the living
world is the work of God who frequently, perhaps incessantly supervises and interferes with this creation of
his. The antithesis of Creationism is Evolutionism, that is, a theory which asserts that life had arisen on this
planet as the result of a series of natural processes, without the involvement of any metaphysical agents.
Thus, Creationism, is opposed by a theory asserting that evolution has taken place, or in my terminology,
the theory on the reality of evolution or Lamarck's first theory on evolution. Darwin did not have to concern
himself with the conception and statement of this theory, since it had been advanced by Lamarck almost 40
years before he began to consider the problem, and half-a-century before he published On the Origin of
Species." (Lovtrup S., "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth," Croom Helm: London, 1987, pP.402-403)
18/10/2004
"Charles Darwin's hostile preoccupation with the belief that God had separately and individually created
each of the animal and plant species in the world is one of the most intriguing but neglected features of the
Origin of Species. Historians have disagreed about what to make of it. ... Some have accused Darwin
of setting up a straw man in order to improve the appearance of his own case. Lastly, there are those who
believe, correctly I think, that Darwin's rejection of special creation was part of the transformation of biology
into a positive science, one committed to thoroughly naturalistic explanations based on material causes and
the uniformity of the laws of nature, a change to which the Origin was a signally important
contribution. ... Consequently, it was not a harmless straw man, but a traditional bias found among scientists
and laymen alike and one that stood in the path of any novel way of viewing the problem of species. Darwin,
then, was not engaged in anachronistic shadowboxing, but had selected his target well and knew exactly
what he was doing. His attack on special creation was a response to the crisis and an attempt to resolve it
by helping to promote the restructuring of biology along positivist lines. The critique of special creation in
the Origin was systematically organized to that end. ... There were then, in 1859, a minority of
naturalists, some of them influential, who believed in miraculous creation; others, of shifting number, who
believed in direct divine intervention in some mysterious but lawful manner to create each new species; a
third group, a small minority, who had accepted the descent theory; a fourth, larger group who were moving
away from a belief in direct divine intervention in favor of a natural cause, but who were either skeptical of
its being found or who were engaged in a quest for laws rather than true causes; and, lastly, a group that
busied itself with practical work and renounced theory altogether. All of these save the third combined
willy-nilly to create a genuine obstacle in the path of the project Charles Darwin had undertaken." (Gillespie
N.C., "Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, 1979, pp.19-
20,39)
19/10/2004
"`In other words,' I said, `if you want to create life, on top of the challenge of somehow generating the
cellular components out of non-living chemicals, you would have an even bigger problem in trying to it the
ingredients together in the right way.' `Exactly! In my illustration, the cell is dead, and you can't put
HumptyDumpty back together again. So even if you could accomplish the thousands of steps between the
amino acids in the Miller tar-which probably didn't exist in the real world anyway-and the components you
need for a living cell-all the enzymes, the DNA, and so forth-you're still immeasurably far from life.' `But,' I
protested, `the first cell was probably a lot more primitive than even the simplest single-cell organism today.'
`Granted,' he said. `But my point remains the same-the problem of assembling the right parts in the right way
at the right time and at the right place, while keeping out the wrong material, is simply insurmountable.'"
(Wells J.* & Strobel L.P.*, "Doubts about Darwinism," in Strobel L.P., "The Case for a Creator: A Journalist
Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Toward God." Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 2004, p.39)
19/10/2004
"Glancing up at the stars and full moon, I felt anew that ancient sense of wonder at the improbability of life.
This was not exactly news to me. As a science journalist, I knew that scientists don't have a clue how our
universe came into being, or why it took this particular form out of an infinitude of possibilities, including
nonexistence. Nor does anyone know how inanimate matter on our little planet coalesced into living
creatures, let alone creatures that could invent reality TV. Science, you might say, has discovered that our
existence is infinitely improbable, and hence a miracle." (Horgan J., "A Holiday Made for Believing," The
New York Times, December 25, 2002, p.A23)
21/10/2004
"Allan Rex Sandage, the greatest observational cosmologist in the world- who has deciphered the secrets of
the stars, plumbed the mysteries of quasars, revealed the age of globular clusters, pinpointed the distances
of remote galaxies, and quantified the universe's expansion through his work at the Mount Wilson and
Palomar observatories - prepared to step onto the platform at a conference in Dallas. Few scientists are as
widely respected as this one-time protege to legendary astronomer Edwin Hubble. Sandage has been
showered with prestigious honors from the American Astronomical Society, the Swiss Physical Society, the
Royal Astronomical Society, and the Swedish Academy of Sciences, receiving astronomy's equivalent of
the Nobel Prize. The New York Times dubbed him the `Grand Old Man of Cosmology.' As he approached the
stage at this 1985 conference on science and religion, there seemed to be little doubt where he would sit.
The discussion would be about the origin of the universe, and the panel would be divided among those
scientists who believed in God and those who didn't, with each viewpoint having its own side of the stage.
Many of the attendees probably knew that the ethnically Jewish Sandage had been a virtual atheist even as
a child. Many others undoubtedly believed that a scientist of his stature must surely be skeptical about
God. As Newsweek put it, `The more deeply scientists see into the secrets of the universe, you'd expect, the
more God would fade away from their hearts and minds.' [Begley S., "Science Finds God," Newsweek, July 20,
1998. http://www.ssq.net/Media/newsweek.html] So Sandage's seat among the doubters was a given. Then
the unexpected happened. Sandage set the room abuzz by turning and taking a chair among the theists.
Even more dazzling, in the context of a talk about the Big Bang and its philosophical implications, he
disclosed publicly that he had decided to become a Christian at age fifty. The Big Bang, he told the rapt
audience, was a supernatural event that cannot be explained within the realm of physics as we know it.
Science had taken us to the First Event, but it can't take us further to the First Cause. The sudden emergence
of matter, space, time, and energy pointed to the need for some kind of transcendence. `It was my science
that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science,'
he would later tell a reporter. `It was only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of
existence .' [Ibid.]" (Strobel L.P.*, "The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that
Points Toward God." Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 2004, pp.69-70)
22/10/2004
"The evolution of photoreceptors like those involved in the human visual system is only one step in the
development of a true visual sense. Less advanced animals, whose photoreceptors are clustered together in
an eyespot, can perceive light but cannot `see.' The eyespot, however, can be used to perceive the direction
from which light is arriving. True image- forming eyes probably evolved from such comparatively simple
structures. Eyes may have evolved independently numerous times among different groups of animals. The
members of four phyla-annelids, mollusks, arthropods, and vertebrates-have each evolved well-developed
image-forming eyes. Interestingly, all of them use the same visual pigment, suggesting that not many
alternative pigments are able to play this role." (Raven P.H. & Johnson G.B., "Biology," [1986], Wm. C.
Brown: Dubuque IA, Third Edition, 1995, p.955)
22/10/2004
"Interestingly, eyes have evolved independently in three [four] different lines of animals-[annelids,]
mollusks, insects, and vertebrates. These animals have no common evolutionary ancestor equipped with
eyes, yet the eyes of each of them have the same compound, retinal, involved in the process of light
reception. That retinal is present in each of these types of eyes is the result of some unique fitness of this
kind of molecule for the process of light reception." (Solomon E.P., Berg L.R., Martin D.W. & Villee C.A.,
"Biology," [1985], Harcourt Brace: Orlando FL, Third Edition, 1993, p.59)
23/10/2004
"Regardless of one's point of view, it's actually quite easy to see that Darwinism is not in the same league as
the hard sciences. For instance, Darwinists will often compare their theory favorably to Einsteinian physics,
claiming that Darwinism is just as well established as general relativity. Yet how many physicists, while
arguing for the truth of Einsteinian physics, will claim that general relativity is as well established as
Darwin's theory? Zero." (Dembski W.A.*, "Introduction: The Myths of Darwinism," in Dembski W.A., ed.,
"Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing," ISI Books: Wilmington DE, 2004,
p.xxi)
23/10/2004
"The theory of evolution in biology was already an old, even a discredited one. Darwin, in later editions of
The Origin, listed over thirty predecessors and was still accused of lack of generosity. Greek thinkers had
held the view that life had developed gradually out of a primeval slime. Diderot, Buffon and Maupertuis in
the eighteenth century had held evolutionary views, as had Darwin's own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin,
whose evolutionary ideas were expressed partly in verse: `First, forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass. These, as successive generations bloom New powers acquire
and larger limbs assume. ["The Temple of Nature" (1802)] ... All the same, Darwin's predecessors had made
some telling points. There were the improvements made in some domesticated animal and plant species by
artificial selection - of which Darwin himself was to see the full significance. There were embryonic changes -
the development of tadpole into frog and larva into butterfly - and the way in which the embryonic forms of
widely diverse species resembled each other in their earlier stages. There were vestigial organs - noted by
Erasmus Darwin - which seemed once to have served a purpose but now served none, suggesting that the
modern species might be radically different from the ancestral one to which such an organ, or in the case of
rudimentary organs, a more developed form of it, had been useful. Erasmus had also mentioned the struggle
for existence and the competition for females which his grandson was to christen 'sexual selection' as among
the factors promoting evolution. And of course there was the fossil record, indisputable evidence of the
extinction of species." (Burrow J.W., "Editor's Introduction," in Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by
Means of Natural Selection," [1859], First Edition, Penguin: London, 1985, reprint, pp.27-28)
23/10/2004
"Nelson and Reynolds state that the `curse of Genesis 3:14-19 profoundly affected every aspect of the
natural economy.' According to their understanding, there was no animal death in the world before the sin of
Adam. This point of view is based on a certain interpretation of texts such as Romans 5:12, `sin entered the
world through one man [Adam], and death through sin.' It is not necessary to understand the text in this
way, however. The rest of this verse makes it clear that the apostle Paul is concerned with human
death as a punishment for sin, not biological death in general: `In this way death came to all men,
because all sinned [in Adam]' (Rom. 5:12b). A proper understanding of this verse does not require us
to deny the massive evidence of animal death attested by the fossil remains in the lower sedimentary strata
long before the appearance of man." (Davis J.J.*, "Response to Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds," in
Moreland J.P. & Reynolds J.M., eds., "Three Views on Creation and Evolution," Zondervan: Grand Rapids
MI, 1999, pp.83-84. Emphasis original)
24/10/2004
"Furthermore, there is scientific evidence that many creatures, from before the time of men, ate other animals.
The evidence says there was animal death before Adam. Although this disagrees with a popular
scriptural theory, it is not in disagreement with Scripture itself. Scripture gives no reason why
animals couldn't have died before Adam's sin. Adam was told that he would die as a result of his own sin.
Paul points out that men who lived between Adam and Moses also died as a result of Adam's sin; but
nowhere does the Bible say that animals die as a consequence of human sin. (Of course those
particular animals which were sacrificed as a sin offering are excepted.) In support of Argument #6, young-
earth creationists often cite Romans 5:12: ...just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-... - EMPHASIS ADDED
When young-earth creationists read that `death' entered through sin, they interpret this as `all death' even
though this verse specifically names all men as its target. Human death certainly entered
through Adam's sin but this verse doesn't specifically address animal or plant death. Even where the Bible
actually uses the word `all' we must be careful; as we saw back in Argument #1, the statement that Eve
would become the mother of `all the living' does not mean she would become the mother of animals.
We certainly should not insist on adding an `all' to God's Word. Because Paul specifically said death came
to `all men,' it is unreasonable to insist that he intended more than that." (Stoner D.W.*, "A New Look at an
Old Earth," [1985], Harvest House Publishers: Eugene OR, 1997, reprint, pp.50-51. Emphasis original)
24/10/2004
"But other proteins serve basic mechanical functions. Some push pull, some act as cords or struts, and parts
of some molecules make excellent bearings. The machinery of muscle, for instance, has gangs of proteins
that reach, grab a `rope' (also made of protein), pull it, then reach out again for a fresh grip; whenever you
move, you use these machines. Amoebas and human cells move and change shape by using fibers and rods
that act as molecular muscles and bones. A reversible, variable-speed motor drives bacteria through water
by turning a corkscrew-shaped propeller. If a hobbyist could build tiny cars around such motors, several
billions of billions would fit in a pocket, and 150lane freeways could be built through your finest capillaries.
Simple molecular devices combine to form systems resembling industrial machines. In the 1950s engineers
developed machine tools that cut metal under the control of a punched paper tape. A century and a half
earlier, Joseph-Marie Jacquard had built a loom that wove complex patterns under the control of a chain of
punched cards. Yet over three billion years before Jacquard, cells had developed the machinery of the
ribosome. Ribosomes are proof that nanomachines built of protein and RNA can be programmed to build
complex molecules." (Drexler K.E., "Engines of Creation," [1990], Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1992, p.8)
26/10/2004
"The conflict requires careful explanation, because the terms are confusing. The concept of creation in itself
does not imply opposition to evolution, if evolution means only a gradual process by which one kind of
living creature changes into something different. A Creator might well have employed such a gradual
process as a means of creation. `Evolution' contradicts `creation' only when it explicitly or tacitly defined as
fully naturalistic evolution-meaning evolution that is not directed by any purposeful intelligence. Similarly,
`creation' contradicts evolution only when it means sudden creation, rather than creation by progressive
development. ... Clearing up confusion requires a careful and consistent use of terms. In this book `creation-
science' refers to young-earth, six- day special creation. `Creationism' means belief in creation in a more
general sense. Persons who believe that the earth is billions of years old and that simple forms of life
evolved gradually to become more complex forms including humans, are `creationists' if they believe that a
supernatural Creator not only initiated the process but in some meaningful sense controls it in furtherance
of a purpose. As we shall see evolution' (in contemporary scientific usage) excludes not just creation-
science but creationism in the broad sense. By `Darwinism I mean fully naturalistic evolution, involving
chance mechanisms guided by natural selection." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity
Press: Downers Grove IL., Second Edition, 1993, pp.3-4)
26/10/2004
"Was the Creator in a jocular mood when he made Psilopa petrolei for California oil fields and
species of Drosophila to live exclusively on some body-parts of certain land crabs on only certain
islands in the Caribbean? The organic diversity becomes, however, reasonable and understandable if the
Creator has created the living world not by caprice but by evolution propelled by natural selection. It is
wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist and an
evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in
4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way" (Dobzhansky, T.G.,
"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," The American Biology Teacher, March
1973, Vol. 35, pp.125-129)
26/10/2004
"Of course theists can think of evolution as God-guided whether naturalistic Darwinists like it or not. The
trouble with having a private definition for theists, however, is that the scientific naturalists have the power
to decide what evolution means in public discourse, including science classes in the public schools. If
theistic evolutionists broadcast the message that evolution as the understand it is harmless to theistic
religion, they are misleading their constituents-unless they add a clear warning that the version of evolution
advocated by the entire body of mainstream science is something else altogether. That warning is never
clearly delivered, because the main point of theistic evolution is to preserve peace with the mainstream
scientific community. Theistic evolutionists therefore unwittingly serve the purposes of scientific
naturalists, by helping persuade the religious community to lower its guard against the incursion of
naturalism." (Johnson, P.E.*, "What is Darwinism?," in "Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on
Evolution, Law & Culture," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1998, p.31)
26/10/2004
"Nerve cells have a long tail, which carries an electronic impulse. The tail can be several feet long, and its
signal might stimulate a muscle to action to control a gland, or report a sensation to the brain. Like a cable
containing thousands of different telephone wires, nerve cells are often bundled together to form a nerve.
Early researchers considered that perhaps the electronic impulse traveled along the nerve cell tail like
electricity in a wire. But they soon realized that the signal in nerve cells is too weak to travel very far. The
nerve cell would need to boost the signal along the way for it to travel along the tail. After years of research
it was discovered that the signal is boosted by membrane proteins. First, there is a membrane protein that
simultaneously pumps potassium ions into the cell and sodium ions out of the cell. This sets up a chemical
gradient across the membrane. There is more potassium inside the cell than outside, and there is more
sodium outside than inside. Also, there are more negatively charged ions inside the cell, so there is a
voltage drop (50-100 millivolts) across the membrane. In addition to the sodium -potassium pump, there are
sodium channels and potassium channels. These membrane proteins allow sodium and potassium,
respectively, to pass through the membrane. They are normally closed, but when the electronic impulse
travels along the nerve cell tail, it causes the sodium channels to quickly open. Sodium ions outside the cell
then come streaming into the cell down the electrochemical gradient. As a result, the voltage drop is
reversed and the decaying electronic impulse, which caused the sodium channels to open, is boosted as it
continues on its way along the nerve cell tail. When the voltage goes from negative to positive inside the
cell, the sodium channels slowly close and the potassium channels open. Hence, the sodium channels are
open only momentarily, and now with the potassium channels open, the potassium ions concentrated inside
the cell come streaming out down their electrochemical gradient. As a result, the original voltage drop is
reestablished. This process repeats itself along the length of the nerve cell until the impulse finally reaches
the end of the cell. ... the process depends on the intricate workings of the three membrane proteins. The
sodium -potassium pump helps set up the electrochemical gradient, the electronic impulse is strong enough
to activate the sodium channel, and then the sodium and potassium channels open and close with precise
timing. How, for example, are the channels designed to be ion-selective? Sodium is about 40 percent smaller
than potassium, so the sodium channel can exclude potassium if it is just big enough for sodium. Random
mutations must have struck on an amino acid sequence that would fold up just right to provide the right
channel size. The potassium channel, on the other hand, is large enough for both potassium and sodium, yet
it is highly efficient. It somehow excludes sodium almost perfectly (the potassium -to -sodium ratio is about
10,000), yet allows potassium to pass through almost as if there were nothing in the way. The solution
seems to be in the particular amino acids that line the channel and their precise orientation. For potassium,
moving through the channel is as easy as moving through water, but sodium rattles around-it fits in the
channel, but it makes less favorable interactions with the amino acids. ... Nerve cells are constantly firing off
in your body. They control your eyes as you read these words, and they send back the images you see on
this page to your brain. They, along with chemical signals, control a multitude of processes in our bodies.
For example, our cardiovascular system runs twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week without our giving
it a conscious thought. Our nerves control muscle motion that expands our lungs to draw in outside air and
pump blood through the heart.... Biology is full of incredibly elaborate, complex machines. If you are
beginning to suspect that Darwinism has no compelling explanation for them, you're right. Aside from vague
hypotheses that have more speculation than hard fact, evolutionists have no idea how such machines could
have come about by the unguided forces of nature." (Hunter G.C.*, "Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of
Religion Over Science," Brazos Press: Grand Rapids MI, 2003, pp.30-34)
26/10/2004
"Unfortunately, this much-too-easy solution [evolution is the science that studies how God created] to the
problem rests on a misunderstanding of what contemporary scientists mean by that word evolution.
If they meant only a gradual process of God-guided creation, then Emilio might be on the right track. A God-
guided process is not what modern science educators mean by `evolution,' however. They are
absolutely insistent that evolution is an unguided and mindless process, and that our existence is
therefore a fluke rather than a planned outcome. For example, the 1995 official Position Statement of the
American National Association of Biology Teachers (hereafter NABT) accurately states the general
understanding of major science organizations and educators: `The diversity of life on earth is the outcome
of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with
genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing
environments.' Or, in the words of the famous evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson, `Man is the result of a
purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.' ... the biologists insist that evolution must
be unsupervised and why God's purposes are not listed among the things that might have affected
evolution. [And] ... this claim is not one they can afford to abandon, because their whole approach is
founded on naturalism , which is the doctrine that `nature is all there is.' If nature is all there is, then
nature had to have the ability to do its own creating. Darwinian evolution is a theory about how nature
might have done this, without assistance from a supernatural Creator. That is why `evolution' in the
Darwinian sense is by definition mindless and godless. Pretending otherwise is an evasion of the conflict,
not a resolution of it. Yet many Christian theologians and educators take this evasive approach because
they are hoping to find an easy way to avoid coming to grips with a very difficult problem." (Johnson, P.E.*,
"Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1997, pp.15-16. Emphasis
in original)
26/10/2004
"Darwin's independence of other people's ideas led him (and his admirers) to think of himself as a man of
ideas. It led him to copy out the observations from his predecessor's writings while ignoring their theories.
His own methods nourished his own illusions. He began more and more to grudge praise to those who had
in fact paved the way for him. ... Darwin damned Lamarck and also his grandfather for being very ill-dressed
fellows at the same moment that he was engaged on stealing their clothes. ... In his attitude to his
grandfather, it has been said, there is perhaps a personal problem. It would not greatly concern us if it had
not led to the strangest episode in his personal story. As we have seen he learnt about evolution from his
grandfather's writings. As a youth he may have had some misgivings about his grandfather's irreligious
views and un-Victorian conduct. ... It led him, however, to give an opinion about his grandfather which has
now deceived three generations. And it was not made good by his mild account of the private life of his
grandfather which he used as an 'introduction' to the mild account of his scientific life by a German admirer.
For the one point that we are all interested in about the two men is what the grandson owed to the
grandfather and that is the one point that the grandson does not choose to enlarge upon. Whatever the
cause of Darwin's ambiguity on the subject of his grandfather, historically and strategically it was of great
effect. For the suppression of Erasmus Darwin by his family ran parallel to the suppression of Lawrence by
the government and the suppression of Chambers by the academic world. They ran parallel and their actions
were supplementary. The total effect so far as Charles Darwin was concerned seems to have been as
complete and thorough as the suppression of ideas by any professedly absolute government" (Darlington
C.D., "Darwin's Place in History," Basil Blackwell: Oxford, 1959, pp.62-63)
27/10/2004
"It was a news dispatch from the front lines of the scientific investigation of human consciousness.
Published by the journal Resuscitation and presented to scientists at the California Institute of Technology
in 2001, the year-long British study provided evidence that consciousness continues after a person's brain
has stopped functioning and he or she has been declared clinically dead. It was dramatic new evidence that
the brain and mind are not the same, but they're distinct entities. `The research,' said Reuters journalist Sarah
Tippit, `resurrects the debate over whether there is life after death and whether there is such a thing as the
human soul.' In their journal article, physician Sam Parnia and Peter Fenwick, a neuropsychiatrist at the
Institute of Psychiatry in London, describe their study of sixty-three heart attack victims who were declared
clinically dead but were later revived and interviewed. About ten percent reported having well-structured,
lucid thought processes, with memory formation and reasoning, during the time that their brains were not
functioning. The effects of oxygen starvation or drugs-objections commonly offered by skeptics-were ruled
out as factors. Later, the researchers found numerous cases that were similar. While large- scale studies are
still needed, the once-skeptical Parma said the scientific findings so far `would support the view that mind,
'consciousness,' or the 'soul' is a separate entity from the brain.' He speculated that the brain might serve as
a mechanism to manifest the mind, much in the same way a television set manifests pictures and sounds
from waves in the air. If an injury to the brain causes a person to lose some aspects of his mind or
personality, this doesn't necessarily prove that the brain was the source of the mind. `All it shows is that the
apparatus is damaged,' he said." (Strobel L.P.*, "The Evidence of Consciousness: The Enigma of the Mind
," in "The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Toward God,"
Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 2004, pp.250-251)
28/10/2004
"NASA today released the best `baby picture' of the Universe ever taken, which contains such stunning
detail that it may be one of the most important scientific results of recent years. The new cosmic portrait -
capturing the afterglow of the Big Bang, called the cosmic microwave background - was captured by
scientists using NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) during a sweeping 12-month
observation of the entire sky. `We've captured the infant Universe in sharp focus, and from this portrait we
can now describe the Universe with unprecedented accuracy,' said Dr. Charles L. Bennett of the Goddard
Space Flight Center, Greenbelt Md., and the WMAP Principal Investigator. `The data are solid, a real gold
mine.' One of the biggest surprises revealed in the data is that the first generation of stars to shine in the
Universe first ignited only 200 million years after the Big Bang, much earlier than many scientists had
expected. In addition, the new portrait precisely pegs the age of the Universe at 13.7 billion years old, with a
remarkably small one percent margin of error." (Steigerwald, B., "New Image of Infant Universe Reveals Era
of First Stars, Age of Cosmos, and More," NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, February 11, 2003)
28/10/2004
"What relationship does the man establish with the animals? He names them. Thus he indicates the right
that he has over them, as the pharaoh will show his suzerainty over his vassal by changing his name from
Eliakim to Jehoiakim (2 Ki. 23:34) and Nebuchadnezzar will show his over Mattaniah whose name was
changed to Zedekiah (2 Ki. 24:17). But the bestowal of names undoubtedly reveals at the same time the
insight of knowledge. The man must in fact study the character of the animals which pass before him, in
order to see whether any one of the birds or animals can bring him the company he desires. The name he
gives summarizes his conclusion, and if the text adds, 'and whatever the man called every living creature,
that was its name' (Gn. 2:19), can that be only to confirm his authority? Does it not wish to praise his
precision and his judgment? The picturesque, almost humorous, scene suggests a rudimentary kind of
science, the means of man's domination over nature. ... By naming, the man demonstrates his power of
distinguishing things immediately, and makes thought about the real world possible by the mental
combination of symbols instead of the impossible manipulation of objects. We may therefore see in Genesis
2:19f. the first exercise of human intelligence ... " (Blocher H.*, "In The Beginning: The Opening Chapters of
Genesis," InterVarsity Press: Leicester UK, 1984, p.91. Emphasis original)
28/10/2004
"Romans 5:12 says, `Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death
came to all men, because all sinned.' Some have interpreted this verse as implying no death of any kind for
any creature existed before Adam's sin and, therefore, only a brief time could have transpired between the
creation of the first life-forms and Adam's sin. The proponents of such a view fail to realize that the absence
of physical death would pose just as great a problem for three twenty-four-hour days as it would for three
billion years. Many species of life cannot survive for even three hours without food, and the mere ingestion
of food by animals requires death of at least plants or plant parts. ... Are birds and mammals condemned to
`death through sin'? Of all life on the earth, only humans have earned the title sinner.' Only humans can
experience `death through sin.' Note that the death Adam experienced is carefully qualified the text as being
visited on `all men'-not on plants and animals, just on human beings (Romans 5:12,18-19). ... 1 Corinthians
15:21 ('since death came through a man') ... As the following two verses in 1 Corinthians explain, `For as in
Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. .. My point is that only human beings, spiritual beings, are
`made alive in Christ.' First Corinthians 15 refers only to those creatures who experience sin and desire to be
delivered from sin. This excludes all species of life on the earth except humans. Therefore, just as in Romans
5, no reason is found to deny physical death for nonhuman life previous to Adam's sin." (Ross H.N.,
"Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation- Date Controversy," NavPress:
Colorado Springs CO, 1994, pp.60-62)
29/10/2004
"But what is consciousness, and what function does it serve? Why should not an unconscious machine do
everything that we can do? Is consciousness just froth sitting on top of the brain's electronics? Is it a
powerless epiphenomenon, to use the language of the philosophers? Almost certainly not. ...
Consciousness gives us a power and flexibility not possessed by those who do not have it. None of this of
course explains consciousness as such, the reason for and nature of "sentience," as we might call it. Why
should a bunch of atoms have thinking ability? Why should I, even as I write now, be able to reflect on what
I am doing, and why should you, even as you read now, be able to ponder my points, agreeing or
disagreeing, With pleasure or with pain, deciding to refute me or deciding that I am just not worth the effort?
No one, certainly not the Darwinian as such, seems to have any answer to this. ... The point is that there is
no scientific answer." (Ruse M., "Can a Darwinian Be a Christian?: The Relationship Between Science and
Religion," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 2001, pp.72-73)
31/10/2004
"By the end of the Lower Cambrian, all the major phyla had appeared, as had most classes among the marine
groups. No new phyla have appeared in the succeeding 500 million years. (Groups as distinct as flying
insects and terrestrial vertebrates evolved later, but these are not designated as new phyla since they
retained the basic body plans of phyla that had diverged in the Cambrian.) Never again did life radiate into
as many different adaptive patterns, even after the most catastrophic extinctions. The Cambrian radiation
was clearly a unique event in the history of life. it can be attributed to the combination of at least three major
phenomena that were themselves unique: a substantial increase in the amount of atmospheric oxygen, the
elaboration of Hox and other genes that enabled the development of complex organisms, and an Earth nearly
devoid of other organisms with a comparable level of complexity. Knoll (1996b, p. 6) summarized the
Ediacaran-Cambrian diversification of animals as reflecting `the interaction of genetic possibility with
environmental opportunity.'" (Carroll R.L., "Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution," Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge UK, 1997, p.348)
November [top] 1/11/2004
"The precise relationship between dinosaurs and birds is a highly controversial issue. Signs of early
feathers on a newly discovered Chinese dinosaur have been rejected by many, who prefer the interpretation
that the downy outlines of the fossils are simply fibres from the skin that can fray when reptile skin surface
is damaged. Ironically the specimen in question, a 120-million-year-old Sinosauropteryx, a theropod, has
been brought to virtual life only to deliver a blow to its excavators, who sit within the 'dinosaurs-are-birds'
camp. The fine silt from an ancient lake had preserved the soft structures of Sinosauropteryx, including a
clear silhouette of the lungs. John Ruben, a respiratory expert from Oregon State University, took one look
at the 'lungs' and knew what he was dealing with. He had seen this lung arrangement before - in crocodiles.
Immediately he constructed his virtual, living dinosaur, with the same compartmentalisation of lungs, liver
and intestines that one would find in a crocodile, and not in a bird. This virtual dinosaur was incapable of
the high rates of gas exchange needed for warm- bloodedness. So it contained cold blood, like the crocodile.
Also, its bellows-like lungs could not have conceivably evolved into the high- performance lungs of modern
birds. But still this evidence, that birds were not descendants of dinosaurs, is far from conclusive. As new
fossils are unearthed and analysed with the lives of modern animals in mind, the building of a virtual
dinosaur continues. (Parker A.R., "In the Blink of an Eye," Perseus: Cambridge MA, 2003, pp.73-74)
1/11/2004
"When John Ruben first laid eyes on a high-quality photo of the socalled `feathered' dinosaur from China
last year, he was stunned. It wasn't the featherlike structures that riveted his attention-he dismissed them as
collagen fibers (see sidebar)-but the theropod dinosaur's innards, which were outlined in the slab of stone.
`My eyes popped out,' recalls Ruben, a respiratory physiology expert at Oregon State University in
Corvallis. `I realized that here was the first evidence in the soft tissue that theropods had the same kind of
compartmentalization of lungs, liver, and intestines that you could find in a crocodile'-and not in a bird. To
prove that notion, Ruben and his graduate students sectioned crocodiles and other reptiles and found that
their lung structures resembled the images of several flattened fossil dinosaurs from China. On page 1267,
Ruben uses this lung evidence to argue not only that dinosaurs were incapable of the high rates of gas
exchange needed for warmbloodedness, but also that their bellowslike lungs could not have evolved into
the high-performance lungs of modern birds. Thus, he challenges two of the reigning hypotheses
concerning dinosaurs: that they were warmblooded and that they gave rise to birds. ... To test whether
dinosaurs were really endotherms-warm-blooded animals able to generate their own heat-Ruben and
graduate students Terry Jones and Nick Geist have sought to identify the signatures of endothermy, such
as a scroll-like structure in the nose, in the bones of living animals. They have argued that dinosaurs lack
such structures (Science, 30 August 1996, p. 1204). But what they really needed was improbable-a look at a
dinosaur's lungs to see if they were efficient enough to power a warm-blooded animal. The improbable
happened last year, photos of several specimens of Sinosauropteryx, a small, meat-eating dinosaur from the
120-million-year- old Yixian formation in northeastern China. The fine silt from an ancient lake preserved the
animals' soft structures, including a clear `silhouette of the lungs' of one dinosaur, says paleontologist Larry
Martin of the University of Kansas. Lawrence, who has seen the fossils. When Ruben looked at the photos
it was `immediately apparent' to him that the dinosaur's lungs were arranged in a way that closely matched
that of crocodiles. The theropods had two major cavities-the thoracic cavity containing the lungs, liver, and
heart; and the abdominal cavity containing intestines and other organs. These were completely separated
from each other by the diaphragm as is the case in crocodiles. Birds have no such separation." (Gibbons, A.,
"Lung Fossils Suggest Dinos Breathed in Cold Blood," Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, pp.1229-1230)
10/11/2004
"Dr. Michael Ruse, professor of Philosophy at the University of Guelph, in Ontario, Canada, testified
concerning the nature of science, particularly biology. Ruse defined science as consisting of four essentials.
First, science must explain events by means of natural law, or `unguided natural regularities.' Also, science
must be `explanatory,' `testable,' and `tentative.' Ruse said `explanatory' means that science must predict and
confirm events, so that science is self-generating, it is constantly moving into new areas. To say that
science must be `testable,' or `falsifiable,' means there must be at least potential for evidence against a
scientific belief. As an example, Ruse cited the theory of evolution. Evolution is thought to be unidirectional,
that is evolution is thought to continually lead to more and more complex forms of life. If scientists were to
find evidence that evolution sometimes proceeded in the direction of less complexity, this aspect of the
theory would be falsified. The fourth essential of science is that it be `tentative.' This means that a scientist
must always be willing to modify his understanding of the data. ... On recross examination, Williams asked,
`is evolution a fact?' Ruse replied in the affirmative. Williams asked, `How then is it tentative?'" (Geisler N.L.,
"The Creator in the Courtroom `Scopes II': The 1981 Arkansas Creation-Evolution Trial," Mott Media:
Milford MI, 1982, pp.68,72
16/11/2004
"Although the factors that govern the rate of evolution can be discussed in a general way, they cannot be
analyzed precisely enough to explain why some groups change more quickly than others. Even closely
related vertebrates show wide variation in the pace at which they evolve. Among the bony fishes, the
actinopterygians have progressed rapidly from paleoniscoid to holostean to teleostean grade, proliferating
numerous genera at each level. None of the lobe-finned forms produced such a rapid succession of forms.
The rhipidistian lobe-fins gave rise to the first amphibians late in the Devonian but then faded away without
undergoing great diversification. The coelacanths and lungfishes have been conservative in their evolution
for most of their history. Neither has produced many more than two dozen known genera or has changed
much in the 350 million years that have elapsed since the end of the Devonian period. Among the
vertebrates they are the best examples of forms whose evolution has been extremely slow or bradytelic. ... It
is possible to demonstrate without going beyond the higher fishes that the rate of evolution within a line is
not directly related to its survival. The coelacanths and lungfishes have outlived many forms that during
their existence differentiated more rapidly. It is true that lungfishes escaped vigorous competition with
marine ray-fins by retreating to fresh water early in their history, but the coelacanths endured the contest for
eons before leaving open waters for the protection of the deeper sea. The progress of these forms hardly
augured their future: had paleontologists been set down in the Carboniferous period to survey the extant
fishes, they would not have marked for longevity two retrograde types that were even then showing
evidence of skeletal degeneration and specialization." (Stahl B.J., "Vertebrate History: Problems in
Evolution," [1974], Dover: New York NY, Revised Edition, 1985, pp.132-133)
24/11/2004
"Our mode of locomotion is indeed extraordinary, involving, as it does, a unique kind of activity in which
"the body, step by step, teeters on the edge of catastrophe" (Napier, 1967, p. 56). The problem is to maintain
balance on the "stance" leg while the "swing" leg is off the ground. In fact, during normal walking, both feet
are simultaneously on the ground only about 25 percent of the time, and as speed of locomotion increases,
this figure becomes even smaller. Maintaining a stable center of balance in this complex form of locomotion
necessitates many drastic structural and functional changes in the basic primate quadrupedal pattern.
Functionally, the foot must be altered to act as a stable sup port instead of a grasping limb. When we walk,
our foot is used like a prop, landing on the heel and pushing off on the toes, particularly the big toe. In
addition, the leg must be elongated to increase the length of the stride. The lower limb must also be
remodeled to allow full extension of the knee and to allow the legs to be kept close together during walking,
thereby maintaining the center of support directly under the body. Finally, significant changes must occur in
the pelvis to permit stable weight transmission from the upper body to the legs and to maintain balance
through pelvic rotation and altered proportions and orientations of several key muscles. The major
structural changes that are required for bipedalism are all seen in the earliest hominids from East and South
Africa. ... In the pelvis, the blade (ilium-upper bone of the pelvis) is shortened top to bottom, which permits
more stable weight support in the erect position by lowering the center of gravity .... In addition, the ilium is
bent backward and downward, thus altering the position of the muscles that attach along the bone. Most
important, these muscles increase in size and act to stabilize the hip. One of these muscles (the gluteus
maximus) also becomes important as an extensor, to pull the thigh back during running, jumping, and
climbing. Other structural changes shown by even the earliest definitively hominid postcranial evidence
further confirm the morphological pattern seen in the pelvis. For example, the vertebral column, known from
beautifully preserved specimens from South and East Africa, shows the same forward curvature as in
modern hominids, bringing the center of support forward. In addition, the lower limb is elongated and is
apparently proportionately about as long as in modern humans. Fossil evidence of a knee fragment from
South Africa and pieces from East Africa also shows that full extension of this joint was possible, thus
allowing the leg to be completely straightened, as when a field goal kicker follows through. Fossil evidence
of early hominid foot structure has come from two sites in South Africa, and especially important are some
recently announced new fossils coming from the same individual as the mostly complete skeleton currently
being excavated ... (Clarke and Tobias, 1995). These foot specimens, consisting of four articulating elements
from the ankle and big toe, indicate that the heel and longitudinal arch were both well adapted for a bipedal
gait." (Jurmain R., Kilgore L., Trevathan W.R. & Nelson H., "Essentials of Physical Anthropology,"
Wadsworth/Thomson: Belmont CA, Fifth edition, 2004, pp.182-183)
25/11/2004
"... Stern and Sussman fall into the trap of describing Lucy's adaptations as transitional as being on the way
to the next stage in the story. The fact is that Lucy's mode of locomotion-a mixture of arboreality and
terrestriality-was a perfectly good adaptation which might well have persisted for millions of years longer
than it apparently did. It just didn't, as things turned out; that's all. There was nothing inevitable about the
emergence of fully committed bipedalism in the evolution of large primates. Stern and Sussman are by no
means alone in the teleological trap, by the way: they have the company of virtually every
paleoanthropologist who has put pen to paper on the subject of human origins." (Lewin R., Bones of
Contention: Controversies in the Search for Human Origins", Simon & Shuster: New York, 1987, p.40)
25/11/2004
"It was difficult to represent Lucy's rather clumsy bipedalism as the consequence of anything, since it
preceded all the other datable changes, both physiological and ecological. It was a great temptation to see it
instead as a harbinger of something-as a preparation, as a preadaptation, a halfway stage to something
wonderful: to the free-striding, weapon-toting Homo who roamed the grassy plains a couple of million years
later. Roger Lewin in 1987 described this kind of thinking as 'the teleological trap', the idea that features
could begin to evolve because they would-when perfected-be adaptive at some future time in conditions
that had not yet arisen. The first apes to practise habitual bipedal walking were envisaged, however
subconsciously, as having an end in view, a goal that would not be achieved in their lifetime. Lewin
included in the list of those who fell into this teleological trap 'virtually every paleoanthropologist who has
put pen to paper on the subject of human origins'." [Lewin R., "Bones of Contention: Controversies in the
Search for Human Origins," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1987, p.40] (Morgan E., "The Aquatic Ape
Hypothesis," [1997], Souvenir Press: London, 2001, Reprint, p.47)
25/11/2004
"Since Earth formed more than 5 billion years ago, sunlight has been an extremely potent selective force in
the evolution of living organisms. Most organisms respond to light in some way. Photoreceptors transduce
photons of light into electrical signals that can be interpreted by the nervous system. Photoreceptive
organs-typically called eyes-have evolved in many shapes and sizes and with many distinct designs.
Interestingly, although the physical structure of eyes varies greatly among species, visual transduction is
based on highly conserved protein molecules that capture photons reaching the photoreceptors. This
conservation of visual molecules suggests that once suitable biochemical means had evolved to solve the
problem of capturing light energy, the sequences were conserved, even though they became packaged into
organs with highly diverse structures. The opsins, discussed earlier in this chapter, are a component of
visual pigment molecules. Each opsin molecule includes seven transmembrane helices ... placing this protein
in the same family as many neurotransmitter and hormonal receptors. Opsin molecules are coupled to a
particular lightabsorbing organic molecule, retinal, producing visual pigments called rhodopsins. " (Randall
D.J., Burggren W.W. & French K., "Eckert Animal Physiology: Mechanisms and Adaptations," [1978], W.
H. Freeman and Company: New York NY, 2001, Fifth edition, 2002, Second printing, pp.252-253)
25/11/2004
"The evolution of eyes has proceeded in two stages. Virtually all major animal groups have evolved simple
eyespots consisting of a few receptors in an open cup of screening pigment cells. Biologists estimate that
such photon detectors have evolved independently between 40 and 65 times. Eyespots provide information
about the surrounding distribution of light and dark, but they do not provide enough information to allow
an animal to distinguish either predators or prey. For pattern recognition or for controlling locomotion,
animals need eyes with an optical system that can restrict the light acceptance angle of individual receptors
and form some kind of image. This stage of optical evolution has happened less frequently. Image-forming
eyes are found in only 6 of the 33 metazoan phyla (Cnidaria, Mollusca, Annelida, Onychophora,
Arthropoda, and Chordata). However, these phyla account for about 96% of all extant species, so it is
tempting to speculate that the possession of image-forming eyes confers significant selective benefits."
(Randall D.J., Burggren W.W. & French K., "Eckert Animal Physiology: Mechanisms and Adaptations,"
[1978], W. H. Freeman and Company: New York NY, 2001, Fifth edition, 2002, Second printing, p.253)
25/11/2004
"The biotic message is the sum of the unifying and non-naturalistic messages. The Unifying Message: `This
system of living objects was constructed by a single source (e.g., a common designer).'" The unifying
message can be sent by making all the objects very similar, such that they look like they were made by the
same source." (ReMine W.J., "The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message Theory," St. Paul Science:
Saint Paul MN, 1993, p.22)
26/11/2004
"Even in the first edition Darwin had a chapter dealing with the difficulties of his theory. It begins like this:
`Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him.
Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree
staggered; but, to the best of my judgement, the greater number are only apparent, and those
that are real are not, I think, fatal to the theory.' (My italics) Darwin's admirer's, then and now,
have praised him for the honesty and candour he thus displayed. I am not so sure that this attitude is
justified. If a theory has too many `difficulties' it should not be published, but rejected; indeed, I believe this
is the procedure adopted by most scientists." (Lovtrup S., "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth," Croom
Helm: London, 1987, p.126)
26/11/2004
"Darwin goes on: `These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads: - First, why,
if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable
transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well
defined? Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could
have been formed by the modification of some other animal with widely-different habits and structure? Can
we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, an organ of trifling importance, such as
the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly flapper, and, on the other hand, an organ as wonderful as the eye?
... The two first heads will here be discussed ... Darwin begins the discussion in this way: `As natural
selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-
stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent-form and other
less- favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection go hand
in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some unknown form, both the parent and
all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of the formation and
perfection of the new form.' (My italics) Apart from the wording, this statement is a perfectly correct account
of progressive evolution. I like in particular the emphasised sentence, for in fact elimination is all that natural
selection can accomplish." (Lovtrup S., "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth," Croom Helm: London, 1987,
pp.126-127)
26/11/2004
"In the following section Darwin discusses 'Special Difficulties of the Theory of Natural Selection' and
concludes: ... `Why, on the theory of Creation, should there be so much variety and so little real novelty?
Why should all the parts and organs of many independent beings, each supposed to have been separately
created for its proper place in nature, be so commonly linked together by graduated steps? Why should not
Nature take a sudden leap from structure to structure? On the theory of natural selection, we can clearly
understand why she should not; for natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive
variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow
steps. ... As to Darwin's three questions, I propose the following answers: Why not? Any observation can
be made compatible with a theory of Creation. Why not? Even the Creator may use a good device more than
once. Yes, why not, indeed? Darwin's arguments against this possibility are postulates, unfounded by any
evidence." (Lovtrup S., "Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth," Croom Helm: London, 1987, pp.131-132)
27/11/2004
"Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible
observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus `outside of empirical science' but
not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a
few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond
their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our
training." (Birch L.C. & Ehrlich P.R., "Evolutionary History and Population Biology," Nature, Vol. 214, 22
April 1967, p.352)
27/11/2004
"Turning to science, or, more precisely, to claims that are made in the name of science, Popper and his
sympathizers make short shrift of many areas of the social sciences. Freudian psychoanalytic theory is
dismissed as incontrovertibly and irreparably unfalsifiable. But then moving on to biology, coming up
against Darwinism, they feel compelled to make the same judgment: Darwinian evolutionary theory is
unfalsifiable. Hence, the critical evaluation given at the beginning of this section: "I have come to the
conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme-a
possible framework for testable scientific theories" (Popper, 1974, p. 134, his italics). Since making this claim,
Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does
not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable." (Ruse, M.E., "Darwinism
Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies," [1982], Addison-Wesley: Reading MA, 1983, Third
Printing, p.133)
27/11/2004
"One of the major obstacles within the biological community in the way of any widespread acceptance of
the idea of directed mutation is the very deeply held belief in the so-called spontaneity of mutation.
According to the authorities Dobzhansky, Ayala, Stebbins, and Valentine, writing in a standard text on
evolution, `Mutations are accidental, undirected, random or chance events in still another sense very
important for evolution; namely if that they are unorientated with respect to adaptation.' [Dobzhansky T.G.,
et al., `Evolution,' W.H. Freeman: San Francisco CA, 1977, p.65]. The idea of the spontaneity of mutation is
taken as a proven fact by a great many biologists today. And this is the fundamental assumption upon
which the whole Darwinian model of nature is based. If it could be shown that some mutations, even a small
proportion, are occurring by direction or are adaptive in some sense, then quite literally the whole
contingent biology collapses at once. What is very remarkable about this whole issue is that, as is typical of
any `unquestioned article of faith,' evidence for the doctrine of the spontaneity of mutation is hardly ever
presented. Its truth is nearly always assumed. In nearly all the texts on genetics and evolution published
over the past four decades, whenever the author attempts to justify the doctrine of the spontaneity of
mutation, he refers back to a series of crucial experiments carried out in the late forties and early fifties on the
bacterium E. coli that were associated with the names of Salvador Luria, Max Delbruck, and Joshua
Lederberg. [Dobzhansky, et al., 1977, p.65]. These experiments were based on the very simple observation
that when bacterial cells are suddenly subjected to a particular selection pressure (for example, the addition
to a culture of cells of an antibiotic which is lethal to wild-type cells) invariably a small proportion of cells
survive because they contain a mutation that confers resistance to the antibiotic. Ingenious tests were
carried out which proved conclusively that the mutations were present in the surviving cells before the
antibiotic was added to the culture. It was concluded that the mutations were spontaneous events. But the
fact that some mutations in bacteria are spontaneous does not necessarily mean that all mutations in all
organisms throughout the entire course of 4 billion years of evolution have all been entirely spontaneous.
... During the course of the past 4 billion years of evolution, countless trillions of changes have occurred in
the DNA sequences of living organisms. There is simply no experimental means of demonstrating that they
were all spontaneous." (Denton, M.J., "Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the
Universe," Free Press: New York NY, 1998, pp.285-286. Emphasis original)
29/11/2004
"Why, in a body of such exquisite design, are there a thousand flaws and frailties that make us vulnerable to
disease? If evolution by natural selection can shape sophisticated mechanisms such as the eye, heart, and
brain, why hasn't it shaped ways to prevent nearsightedness, heart attacks, and Alzheimer's disease? If our
immune system can recognize and attack a million foreign proteins, why do we still get pneumonia? If a coil
of DNA can reliably encode plans for an adult organism with ten trillion specialized cells, each in its proper
place, why can't we grow a replacement for a damaged finger? If we can live a hundred years, why not two
hundred? We know more and more about why individuals get specific diseases but still understand little
about why diseases exist at all. We know that a highfat diet causes heart disease and sun exposure causes
skin cancer, but why do we crave fat and sunshine despite their dangers? Why can't our bodies repair
clogged arteries and sun-damaged skin? Why does sunburn hurt? Why does anything hurt? And why are
we, after millions of years, still prone to streptococcal infection? The great mystery of medicine is the
presence, in a machine of exquisite design, of what seem to be flaws, frailties, and makeshift mechanisms
that give rise to most disease. An evolutionary approach transforms this mystery into a series of answerable
questions: Why hasn't the Darwinian process of natural selection steadily eliminated the genes that make us
susceptible to disease? Why hasn't it selected for genes that would perfect our ability to resist damage and
enhance repairs so as to eliminate aging? The common answer-that natural selection just isn't powerful
enough-is usually wrong. Instead, as we will see, the body is a bundle of careful compromises." The body's
simplest structures reveal exquisite designs unmatched by any human creations. Take bones. Their tubular
form maximizes strength and flexibility while minimizing weight. Pound for pound, they are stronger than
solid steel bars. Specific bones are masterfully shaped to serve their functions--thick at the vulnerable ends,
studded with surface protrusions where they increase muscle leverage, and grooved to provide safe
pathways for delicate nerves and arteries. The thickness of individual bones increases wherever strength is
needed. Wherever they bend, more bone is deposited. Even the hollow space inside the bones is useful: it
provides a safe nursery for new blood cells. Physiology is still more impressive. Consider the artificial
kidney machine, bulky as a refrigerator yet still a poor substitute that performs only a few of the functions of
its natural counterpart. Or take the best man-made heart valves. They last only a few years and crush some
red blood cells with each closure, while natural valves gently open and close two and a half billion times
over a lifetime. Or consider our brains, with their capacity to encode the smallest details of life that, decades
later, can be recalled in a fraction of a second. No computer can come close. The body's regulatory systems
are equally admirable. Take, for instance, the scores of hormones that coordinate every aspect of life, from
appetite to childbirth. Controlled by level upon level of feedback loops, they are far more complex than any
man-made chemical factory. Or consider the intricate wiring of the sensorimotor system. An image falls onto
the retina; each cell transmits its signal via the optic nerve to a brain center that decodes shape, color, and
movement, then to other brain centers that link with memory banks to determine that the image is that of a
snake, then to fear centers and decision centers that motivate and initiate action, then to motor nerves that
contract exactly the right muscles to jerk the hand awayall this in a fraction of a second. Bones, physiology,
the nervous system-the body has thousands of consummate designs that elicit our wonder and admiration.
By contrast, however, many aspects of the body seem amazingly crude. For instance, the tube that carries
food to the stomach crosses the tube that carries air to the lungs, so that every time we swallow, the airway
must be closed off lest we choke: Or consider nearsightedness. If you are one of the unlucky 25 percent who
have the genes for it, you are almost certain to become nearsighted and thus unlikely to recognize a tiger
until you are nearly its dinner. Why haven't these genes been eliminated? Or take atherosclerosis. An
intricate network of arteries carries just the right amount of blood to every part of the body. Yet many of us
develop cholesterol deposits on the walls of our arteries, and the resulting blockage in blood flow causes
heart attacks and strokes. It is as if a Mercedes-Benz designer specified a plastic soda straw for the fuel line!
Dozens of other bodily designs seem equally inept. Each may be considered a medical mystery. Why do so
many of us have allergies? The immune system is useful, of course, but why can't it leave pollen alone? For
that matter, why does the immune system sometimes attack our own tissues to cause multiple sclerosis,
rheumatic fever, arthritis, diabetes, and lupus erythematosus? And then there is nausea in pregnancy. How
incomprehensible that nausea and vomiting should so often plague future mothers at the very time when
they are assuming the burden of nourishing their developing babies! And how are we to understand aging,
the ultimate example of a universal occurrence that seems functionally incomprehensible? Even our behavior
and emotions seem to have been shaped by a prankster. Why do we crave the very foods that are bad for us
but have less desire for pure grains and vegetables? Why do we keep eating when we know we are too fat?
And why is our willpower so weak in its attempts to restrain our desires? Why are male and female sexual
responses so uncoordinated, instead of being shaped for maximum mutual satisfaction? Why are so many of
us constantly anxious, spending our lives, as Mark Twain said, "suffering from tragedies that never occur"?
Finally, why do we find happiness so elusive, with the achievement of each long-pursued goal yielding not
contentment, but only a new desire for something still less attainable? The design of our bodies is
simultaneously extraordinarily precise and unbelievably slipshod. It is as if the best engineers in the
universe took every seventh day off and turned the work over to bumbling amateurs." (Nesse R.M. &
Williams G.C., "Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine," [1995], Vintage: New York NY,
1996, Reprint, pp.3-5)
29/11/2004
"Near-optimum form is often thought to be equally predictable from the always-perfecting process of natural
selection and the optimum design of an intelligent Creator. Stephen Jay Gould, on the other hand, has
suggested that the theories are distinguishable by imperfections. [Gould S.J., "The Panda's Thumb," Norton:
New York, 1980, pp.19-26). As he reasons, the evolutionary process, being blind to purpose, limited in
resources and constrained by history, might be expected to produce less-than-optimal designs. These
"suboptimal improvisations" of evolution would be expected in an evolutionary process, but not in the
design of an intelligent Creator. Gould's showcase example is the panda, which, because of the constraints
of being descended from five-fingered bears, lacks an opposable thumb. Yet the inefficient, blind process of
evolution provided the panda with a "second-best" solution: an extension of the radial sesamoid bone in the
wrist which can function as an immovable "thumb." This thumb is used by the panda to strip leaves off
bamboo shoots for food. Such a less- thanoptimal design is evidence, Gould claims, for evolution and not
intelligent design. There are ... reasons to doubt that suboptimal improvisations are truly suboptimal. First of
all, we are far from understanding the complexity of individual organisms, let alone the entire ecosystem in
which that organism lives. What appears to be less than optimal design to us with our limited knowledge
may actually be an optimal design when the entire system is considered. Consider the thickness of armor
plating on the side of a warship. Since the purpose of such plating is to protect the ship from the puncture
of an incoming warhead, it is advantageous to make the plating as thick as possible. Yet the plating on
actual warships is much thinner than it could be made. The reason is, of course, that an increase in plating
thickness makes the ship heavier, and thus slower. A less mobile ship is more likely to get hit more often and
less likely to get to where it is needed when it is needed. The actual thickness of the armor on a warship is a
tradeoff-not so thin as to make the ship too easily sinkable, and not so thick as to make the ship too slow.
We know too little about the complexity of organisms and the environment in which they live to conclude
that any one particular feature is actually less than optimal." (Wise K.P., "The Origin of Life's Major
Groups," in Moreland J.P., ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer,"
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1994, pp.221-222)
29/11/2004
"Yet for philosopher Alvin Plantinga, whom Time magazine called one of the world's `leading philosophers
of God,' the origin of human intelligence in natural history is the paramount puzzle. It might also be a
profound proof of God. A dualist and evolutionist, Plantinga has argued that only if there is a God can the
mind be trustworthy under Darwinian tenets. Purely naturalistic evolution (not backed up by God) would
produce an unreliable brain in terms of intellectual beliefs, because survival value is the Darwinian
explanation for everything, and brains ignorant of mathematics or philosophy could just as well have
permitted human survival. If natural selection cared less about beliefs, and only about physical survival, `it
would be unlikely that most of our beliefs are true, and unlikely that our cognitive faculties are for the most
part reliable.' Since we find them mostly true and reliable, it is more logical to think that God designed them
to be so than to believe that natural selection produced that reliability. ... The idea that the physical three-
pound brain emerged by evolution is not being contested by Plantinga ... How it did so, and from what it
derives its powers, is the mind-boggling question that divides brain theorists and philosophers alike. ...
Plantinga, the philosopher of God, is not the first to ask the embarrassing question he has brought to the
forefront. In a letter written soon before he died, Darwin himself expressed angst over how a mind produced
by natural selection could be trusted: `With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of
man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in
such a mind?' [Darwin C.R., letter to W. Graham, July 3rd, 1881, in Darwin F., ed., `The Life of Charles
Darwin,' [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64] Similarly, the British evolutionist, J. B. S. Haldane
phrased the conundrum in terms of physics: `If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions
of the atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason
for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.' [Haldane J.B.S., `When I Am Dead,' in `Possible Worlds:
And Other Essays,' [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209] Strict naturalists have
proposed a solution, and the answer proposed by neurophilosopher Patricia Churchland-who rejects
`spooky stuff'-is illustrative. Abstract knowledge of the universe was not required for Darwinian survival,
but luckily it evolved nevertheless. `The brain did not evolve to know the nature of the sun as it is known
by a physicist, nor to know itself as it is known by a neurophysiologist,' Churchland explains. `But, in the
right circumstances, it can come to know them anyhow.' She says that science, though generated by this
kind of trial and error, has become the highest form of reliable knowledge. For Plantinga this is materialism's
vicious circle, an explanation no better than a `God of the gaps' explanation. With philosophy's favorite
method of thought experiments, he has attempted to show that all manner of false beliefs and outlandish
fantasies could help in biological survival: `Natural selection doesn't care what you believe. . .. Darwinian
evolution doesn't select for belief except when belief is appropriately related to behavior.' Therefore the
human ability to discover reliable knowledge can be reconciled more logically with belief in a Creator who
gave human minds the ability to apprehend it. Evolution and God can explain the reliable human mind,
Plantinga argues, `but the conjunction of naturalism with evolution is self- defeating. Things don't look
hopeful for Darwinian naturalists." (Witham L., "By Design: Science and the Search for God," Encounter
Books: San Francisco CA, 2003, pp.211-212)
29/11/2004
"TOWARD the end of 1961 America's well-known painter of primitives, Grandma Moses, died. She had
begun her career of painting rather late in life, when she was almost 80. Nevertheless, she enjoyed many
years in this profession, for she died at the matriarchal age of 101. I mention this because in this book on the
intricacies of the human body I have laid some emphasis on the numerous ailments and disorders that can
afflict it. Perhaps I ought to emphasize the reverse for a moment. The automobile, despite its being one of
mankind's most polished machines, is ancient if it lasts ten years. The human body, far more fragile, far less
amenable to repair (a car's engine can be replaced; a human heart cannot), in capable of being shut down for
an overhaul, and subject to far greater and more continuous difficulties, can last a hundred. Nor need we
compare the human body to inanimate objects only. How many living things that greeted the day and
responded to the changing environment at the moment of Grandma Moses' birth in 1860, were still doing so
on the day of her death in 1961? The list is tiny. Some trees can live centuries, and even millennia. Some
giant tortoises can live up to 200 years or so. No other creatures aside from man, however, are known to top
the century mark. (To be sure, there are popular stories concerning the long life span of such creatures as
swam and parrots, but none of them have actu