[Home] [Site map] [Updates] [Quotes, Unclassified, Classified]
The following are unclassified quotes saved by me in August-September 2005. The date format is dd/mm/yy.
The date format is dd/mm/yy. See copyright conditions at end.
[Jan-Feb; Mar; Apr; May-Jun; Jul (1), (2)] [Aug; Sep; Oct] [Nov; Dec]
August [top]
1/08/2005
"Canon Liddon is authority for the statement that there are in the Old Testament three hundred and thirty-two
distinct predictions which were literally fulfilled in Christ. The mathematical probability that these would all be
fulfilled would be represented by a fraction having one for the numerator and eighty-four followed by ninety-
seven ciphers as the denominator! This fulfillment of prophecy about Christ and the fulfillment of prophecy in
general is one of the strongest lines of proof that the Bible is the Word of God, and will be discussed fully in a
later chapter, but at present we wish to point out the fact that these prophecies are not contradictory! Things
which in the Old Testament dispensation may have seemed to be contradictory, are seen as history unfolds to be
merely references to separate events. For example as the prophets looked forward into time they saw the future
events without any sense of perspective, so that things which were really centuries apart in time are often
mentioned in the same paragraph. The two comings of Christ were inextricably tangled in Old Testament
prophecy. Only the fulfillment of the event enables us to separate the two elements of prophecy. But notice
particularly that when we examine the writings of the different prophets, we do not find contradictions between
them. If it were only one person composing the messages and giving them to different individuals to put into
their own language there could not be greater agreement than there actually is. There is every evidence even in
the wording of the prophecies themselves to say nothing of their fulfillment to indicate that there was one Master
Mind which inspired the words which each prophet expresses in his own language." (Hamilton F.E.*, "The Basis
of Christian Faith: A Modern Defense of the Christian Religion," [1927], Harper & Brothers: New York NY, Third
Edition, 1946, pp.156-157)
2/08/2005
"By creation we mean the bringing into being of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden,
or fiat, creation described in the first two chapters of Genesis. Here we find the creation by God of the plants and
animals, each commanded to reproduce after its own kind using processes which were essentially instantaneous.
We do not know how God created, what processes he used, for God used processes which are not now
operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to divine creation as special creation. We
cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by God. As we have
pointed out earlier, evolutionists have not witnessed any real evolutionary changes take place nor will this be
possible in the future. They, likewise, will never be able to know how their postulated evolutionary changes may
have taken place. " (Gish D.T.*, "Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record," [1985], Creation-Life: El Cajon
CA, 1986, Second Printing, p.35. Emphasis in original)
2/08/2005
"Although Dawkins and fellow Darwinists use this example to illustrate the power of evolutionary algorithms, in
fact it raises more problems than it solves. For one thing, choosing a prespecified target sequence as Dawkins
does here is deeply teleological (the target here is set prior to running the evolutionary algorithm and the
evolutionary algorithm here is explicitly programmed to end up at the target). This is a problem because
evolutionary algorithms are supposed to be capable of solving complex problems without invoking teleology
(indeed, most evolutionary algorithms in the literature are programmed to search a space of possible solutions to
a problem until they find an answer-not, as Dawkins does here, by explicitly programming the answer into them in
advance). ... A more serious problem then remains. We can see it by posing the following question: Given
Dawkins's evolutionary algorithm, what besides the target sequence can this algorithm attain?" (Dembski W.A.*,
"No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence," Rowman & Littlefield:
Lanham MD, 2002, p.183)
2/08/2005
"One of the first critics to deny that Daniel wrote the book bearing his name was Porphyry, a neo-Platonic
philosopher of the third century .A.D. On a visit to Sicily Porphyry, then about forty years of age, wrote a work in
fifteen books entitled Against the Christians. This work is completely lost, but parts of the twelfth book in which
Porphyry attacked Daniel have been preserved in Jerome's commentary on Daniel. Porphyry denied that Daniel in
the sixth century B.C. was the author of his book, and asserted that it was written by someone who lived in
Judaea during the times of Antiochus Epiphanes. The reason which led Porphyry to this conclusion was that the
book of Daniel speaks so accurately about the times of Antiochus. Hence, it must be history, not prophecy,
since, according to Porphyry, predictive prophecy is impossible (si quid autem ultra opinatus sit, quia futura
nescient, esse mentitum) . The author of Daniel lied (mentitum) for the sake of reviving the hope of the Jews
of his time. Porphyry's criticism of Daniel, therefore, was based upon his anti--theistic philosophical
presuppositions. He thought that predictive prophecy was impossible, hence he denied that Daniel could have
uttered such prophecy." (Young E.J.*, "An Introduction to the Old Testament," [1949], Tyndale Press: London,
1958, reprint, pp.382-383)
4/08/2005
"I have no metaphysical necessity driving me to propose the miraculous action of the evident finger of God as a
scientific hypothesis. In my world view, all natural forces and events are fully contingent on the free
choice of the sovereign God. Thus, neither an adequate nor an inadequate `neo-Darwinism' (as mechanism) holds
any terrors. But that is not what the data looks like. And I feel no metaphysical necessity to
exclude the evident finger of God. I conclude that the easy acceptance of neo-Darwinism as a complete
and adequate explanation for all biological reality has indeed been based in the metaphysical needs of a dominant
materialistic consensus. One can be a theistic `Darwinian,' but no one can be an atheistic `Creationist'." (Wilcox
D.L.*, "Tamed Tornadoes," in
Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?" Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson
TX, 1994, p.215. Emphasis in original)
5/08/2005
"Spontaneous generation occurred once and only once; life cannot be reinvented, it is transmitted, it `is'
continuity. Our cells are the daughters (to the nth generation, but daughters nevertheless) of the first animal
which appeared on the surface of the earth some 800 million years ago; this animal was itself partly reproducing
the substance out of which the first living being, floating in the salt waters of the primeval ocean, was made. The
study of the groups of animals or plants for which we have fossil evidence has revealed that, in their case,
evolution is not the continuous unfolding of a simple phenomenon occurring at a regular speed and repeating
itself in a regular sequence. It is a history, that is to say a maze of facts, of phenomena, pertaining to a group of
objects whose nature, arrangement, and order change with time, following certain irreversible rules or laws. ... Yet,
in the course of time celestial bodies undergo irreversible variations: a star cannot return to its original state; the
conditions prevailing in the earth's mass and on its surface shortly after its genesis will never be found again. ...
The historicity of biological evolution is proved by the present complete interruption of all forms of spontaneous
generation of living beings from inert materials. Creation from nitrogenous and other organic compounds
dispersed or aggregated to a varying degree in sea water cannot be repeated. Spontaneous generation, which
satisfies our logic, was a historical phenomenon in the highest sense of the word; although impossible today, it
did, however, occur on earth in its early days or on another planet outside of our solar system, once only, and
that was enough to launch life in the cosmos." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New
Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.88-89)
6/08/2005
"Our logic, with its many hypotheses, attributes the interruption of biogenesis to changes in the
physicochemical conditions prevailing on earth, around the earth, under the earth's surface, and in the seas,
which prevent the synthesis of prebiotic materials. Once the proteins floating in the ocean waters had been
consumed by the first living beings, the recurrence of any new biogenesis became impossible. This situation
required that their immediate successors possess the ability to reproduce on their own, as well as a
capacity for chemosynthesis. Their perenniality could not have been maintained without these two
conditions." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation,"
[1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.89-90. Emphasis in original)
6/08/2005
"Examining the record of past research from the vantage of contemporary historiography, the historian of science
may be tempted to exclaim that when paradigms change, the world itself changes with them. Led by a new
paradigm, scientists adopt new instruments and look in new places. Even more important, during revolutions
scientists see new and different things when looking with familiar instruments in places they have looked before.
It is rather as if the professional community had been suddenly transported to another planet where familiar
objects are seen in a different light and are joined by unfamiliar ones as well. Of course, nothing of quite that sort
does occur: there is no geographical transplantation; outside the laboratory everyday affairs usually continue as
before. Nevertheless, paradigm changes do cause scientists to see the world of their research-engagement
differently. In so far as their only recourse to that world is through what they see and do, we may want to say
that after a revolution scientists are responding to a different world. It is as elementary prototypes for these
transformations of the scientist's world that the familiar demonstrations of a switch in visual gestalt prove so
suggestive. What were ducks in the scientist's world before the revolution are rabbits afterwards. The man who
first saw the exterior of the box from above later sees its interior from below. Transformations like these, though
usually more gradual and almost always irreversible, are common concomitants of scientific training. Looking at a
contour map, the student sees lines on paper, the cartographer a picture of a terrain. Looking at a bubble-
chamber photograph, the student sees confused and broken lines, the physicist a record of familiar subnuclear
events. Only after a number of such transformations of vision does the student become an inhabitant of the
scientist's world, seeing what the scientist sees and responding as the scientist does. The world that the student
then enters is not, however, fixed once and for all by the nature of the environment, on the one hand, and of
science, on the other. Rather, it is determined jointly by the environment and the particular normal-scientific
tradition that the student has been trained to pursue. Therefore, at times of revolution, when the normal-scientific
tradition changes, the scientist's perception of his environment must be re-educated-in some familiar situations
he must learn to see a new gestalt. After he has done so the world of his research will seem, here and there,
incommensurable with the one he had inhabited before." (Kuhn T.S., "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,"
[1962], University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Third edition, 1996, pp.111-112)
6/08/2005
"Were the famous scientists of long ago young earth creationists? William Provine; a prominent Darwinist,
thinks so. In a recent online review, he complained that a National Academy of Sciences publication on how
teach evolution is flawed. He questioned the Academy's decision to cite Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton
as examples of thinkers whose views on physics and astronomy were vindicated because, as be put it: `Why
would the National Academy have chosen this example in a book about evolution when all four were young-
earth creationists? 34 Well, prior to about 1750, everyone was, in one sense, a young earth creationist! For
example, the Venerable Bede (672?-735) wrote a history of the world, and so did Sir Walter Raleigh. (1554?-1618}.
Both men began with `Creation,' the origin of the universe, as described in Genesis 1 and 2. They assumed that
Creation took place about 6000 years ago. But the two men could hardly have been more different! Bede was an
English monk in the Dark Ages, and Raleigh was a skeptical English adventurer who lived nearly a thousand
years later in the Elizabethan Renaissance. Raleigh was rumored to be an atheist, holding forth in taverns, but his
religious views had no impact on where he would begin his account of history. Prior to the development of
geology as a scientific discipline in the 18th century, there was no widely accepted source of information about
cosmic or human origins apart from the Bible. Raleigh would have to either begin with Genesis, or take the risk of
resurrecting an account of origins written by a classical Greek philosopher. But the philosophers' accounts were
not science-based; they were simply accounts that were not based on a Christian understanding of the universe.
So Copernicus and the others were not young earth creationists in the sense that Provine assumes. They
accepted a traditional account of origins as an alternative to no account." (O'Leary D.*, "By Design or by
Chance?: The Growing Controversy on the Origins of Life in the Universe," 2004, p.129)
8/08/2005
"TO SAY that orthodoxy is true does not mean that it has no difficulties. Orthodoxy has difficulties, and
the apologist does not try to conceal them. To affect omniscience is cultic. Plato set an example of right
procedure. First he defended the world of Ideas; then he reviewed the difficulties. He did not fear the difficulties
because he believed that the substance of his philosophy was true. No other system could answer the question,
How is knowledge possible? In a similar way, orthodoxy does not fear the difficulties because it believes that the
substance of Christianity is true. Christianity is consistent with itself and consistent with the things signified. No
other system can answer the question, How can a sinner be just before God? If a person withholds belief until all
difficulties are resolved, he will go to his grave in unbelief, for difficulties are only a sign that we are men and not
God. Plato was confined to a cave, while the Christian sees in a mirror dimly. " For our knowledge is imperfect ... "
(I Cor. 13:9) To confuse a system with its difficulties betrays a want of education." (Carnell E.J.*, "The Case for
Orthodox Theology," Westminster Press: Philadelphia PA, 1959, p.92. Emphasis in original)
8/08/2005
"Diprotodontia is a large taxon of about 120 marsupial mammals including the kangaroos, wallabies, possums,
Koala, wombats, and many others. Extinct members include the giant Diprotodon family, and Thylacoleo,
the so-called `marsupial lion'. Diprotodonts are almost all herbivorous: there are a few insectivores and
omnivores, but these seem to be relatively recent adaptations from the mainstream herbivorous mould.
Diprotodonts are restricted to Australasia. There are two key anatomical features that, in combination, identify
the diprotodonts. The first of these is that they are diprotodont: they have a pair of large, procumbent incisors on
the lower jaw. This is a common feature of many early groups of mammals and mammaliforms. The diprotodont
jaw is short, usually with 3 pairs of upper incisors (wombats, like rodents have only one pair), and no lower
canines. Secondly, diprotodonts exhibit syndactyly: they have the second and third digits of the foot fused
together up to the base of the claws, leaving the claws themselves separate." ("Diprotodontia," Wikipedia, 21 July 2005)
8/08/2005
"The prophecy of the Seventy Weeks in Daniel 9:24-27 is one of the most remarkable long-range predictions in
the entire Bible. It is by all odds one of the most widely discussed by students and scholars of every persuasion
within the spectrum of the Christian church. And yet when it is carefully examined in the light of all the relevant
data of history and the information available from other parts of Scripture, it is quite clearly an accurate prediction
of the time of Christ's coming advent and a preview of the thrilling final act of the drama of human history before
that advent. Daniel 9:24 reads: "Seventy weeks have been determined for your people and your holy city ....
There is no doubt that in this case we are presented with seventy sevens of years rather than of days. This leads
to a total of 490 years. ... Daniel 9:25 reads: "And you are to know and understand, from the going forth of the
command ... to restore and ... build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince ... will be ... seven heptads and sixty-two
heptads." This gives us two instalments, 49 years and 434 years, for a total of 483 years. Significantly, the
seventieth heptad is held in abeyance until v.27. Therefore we are left with a total of 483 between the issuance of
the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the coming of the Messiah. ... As we examine each of the three decrees
issued in regard to Jerusalem by kings subsequent to the time Daniel had this vision (538 B.C., judging from Dan.
9:1), we find that the first was that of Cyrus in 2 Chronicles 36:23: "The LORD, the God of heaven.... has
appointed me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah" (NASB). This decree, issued in 538 or 537,
pertained only to the rebuilding of the temple, not of the city of Jerusalem. The third decree is to be inferred from
the granting of Nehemiah's request by Artaxerxes I in 446 B.C., as recorded in Nehemiah 2:5-8. ... It should be
noted that when Nehemiah first heard from his brother Hanani that the walls of Jerusalem had not already been
rebuilt, he was bitterly disappointed and depressed-as if he had previously supposed that they had been rebuilt
(Neh. 1:1-4). This strongly suggests that there had already been a previous decree authorizing the rebuilding of
those city walls. Such an earlier decree is found in connection with Ezra's group that returned to Jerusalem in 457,
the seventh year of Artaxerxes I. Ezra 7:6 tells us: "This Ezra went up from Babylon,... and the king granted him all
he requested because the hand of the LORD his God was upon him" .... After arriving at Jerusalem, he busied
himself first with the moral and spiritual rebuilding of his people (Ezra 7:10). But he had permission from the king
to employ any unused balance of the offering funds for whatever purpose he saw fit (v. 18); and he was given
authority to appoint magistrates and judges and to enforce the established laws of Israel with confiscation,
banishment, or death (v.26). Thus he would appear to have had the authority to set about rebuilding the city
walls, for the protection of the temple mount and the religious rights of the Jewish community. .... This would
account for Nehemiah's keen disappointment (as mentioned above) when he heard that "the wall of Jerusalem is
broken down and its gates are burned with fire" (Neh. 1:3, NASB). If, then, the decree of 457 granted to Ezra
himself is taken as the terminus a quo for the commencement of the 69 heptads, or 483 years, we come out to the
precise year of the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah (or Christ): 483 minus 457 comes out to A.D. 26.
But since a year is gained in passing from 1 B.C. to A.D. 1 (there being no such year as zero), it actually comes
out to A.D. 27. It is generally agreed that Christ was crucified in A.D. 30, after a ministry of a little more than three
years. This means His baptism and initial ministry must have taken place in A.D. 27. A most remarkable exactitude
in the fulfillment of such an ancient prophecy. Only God could have predicted the coming of His Son with such
amazing precision; it defies all rationalistic explanation." (Archer G.L.*, "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties,"
Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1982, pp.289-291)
9/08/2005
"These categories of stories have been shown to play distinct and important roles throughout the history of
Design-roles that changed hardly at all over the various stages that have been surveyed. For example, the
Darwinian cosmological story is subjected to an equally thorough shredding at each stage-by Denton, Johnson,
Behe, and now Wells. A rare variation in this shredding is Behe's acceptance of common ancestry. The fact that
he provisionally accepts common ancestry and yet remains a star in good standing shows Design's flexibility in
tolerating members' evolutionary beliefs on certain topics." (Woodward T.E.*, "Doubts about Darwin: A History
of Intelligent Design," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 2003, p.199)
10/08/2005
"Some of Darwin's staunchest supporters disagreed with him on key points. For example, the British biologist T
H. Huxley earned the name `Darwin's Bulldog' for his spirited and unrelenting efforts to convince scientists and
members of the lay public alike of the truth of evolution. Huxley wrote one article after another about evolution
and sent them to the leading periodicals of the day. He defended Darwin against criticisms, and replied to
unfavorable reviews of Darwin's book. Yet Huxley's views differed from Darwin's in several different respects. For
example, Darwin attributed evolution to the action of natural selection. Huxley wasn't so sure about this. He
believed that other factors might play a role. He spoke of evolution in `predetermined' directions, an idea that
appeared nowhere in Darwin's writings. And he expressed the opinion that evolution was not always so gradual
a process as Darwin conceived it to be. Huxley was not the only evolutionist who disagreed with Darwin. The
botanist Joseph Hooker, another strong supporter of evolutionary ideas, also took issue with Darwin about the
specifics of the theory. So did the naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, who had discovered the idea of natural
selection independently. All these men argued with Darwin privately in letters and sometimes in print." (Morris,
R.W., "The Evolutionists: The Struggle for Darwin's Soul," W.H. Freeman and Co: New York NY, 2001, pp.viii.-ix)
11/08/2005
"Progressive creation, understood as an alternative to `fiat creation' and theistic evolution that incorporates the
elements of truth in both, is here taken to mean that God's creative action has occurred over long periods of
time through a variety of means. The emphasis on `a variety of means' calls attention to the fact that the
focus of the biblical terminology of creation is on the results of God's action, and the relationship of those results
to the divine purpose, rather than on the details of the processes God used to achieve these results. Fiat
creationism in both its older and more recent forms in American fundamentalism is based on an unnecessary
dichotomy between natural and supernatural processes as possible methods of creation. ... For example, Henry
Morris and Gary Parker, representing the `creation science' point of view (young earth, six-day creation, `flood
geology'), state that `evolution purports to explain the origin of things by natural processes, creation by
preternatural process; and it is semantic confusion to try to equate the two' (Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What
Is Creation Science? [El Cajon, Calif.: Master Books, 7987], p. 300). This would seem to be an example of the
fallacy of the excluded middle: `X must be explained in terms (and only in terms) of either A or B.' Instead it may
be the case that X can be explained by C or D, or by some combination of A, B, C, D and so forth. In the case of
origins, it needs to be recognized that God is free to create through either natural or supernatural means, or
through a combination of both." (Davis J.J., "Is `Progressive Creation' Still a Helpful Concept?," in "The Frontiers of Science & Faith:
Examining Questions from the Big Bang to the End of the Universe," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2002,
pp.126-127.
Emphasis in original)
11/08/2005
"The number of mutations computed by geneticists is extremely high; however, the types of mutants are very
much fewer in number. The source from which arises the evolutionary flow is less important than suggested by
Darwinians. The `infinite creative potential' of DNA is surely not so great as has been claimed. Mutations have a
very limited `constructive capacity'; this is why the formation of hair by mutation of reptilian scales seems to be a
phenomenon of infinitesimal probability; the formation of mammae by mutation of reptilian integumentary glands
is hardly more likely (integuments of reptiles show very few integumentary glands; Gabe and Saint-Girons, 1967),
etc." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973],
Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.97)
12/08/2005
"First, when I say `origin of life,' I refer to the beginnings of cellular life. Cells are, for this purpose, membrane-
bounded self-replicating entities. Other life forms are conceptually possible, as can be vividly seen in the work of
science fiction writers, and the early history of the earth could have involved some self-replicating chemical
reactions outside of cells. But the life we know with certainty is cellular in nature, and that feature also
characterizes the fossil record for as far back as we can take it." (Morowitz H.J., "Cosmic Joy and Local Pain:
Musings of a Mystic Scientist," 1987, p.216)
12/08/2005
"Given the previous series of generalizations as defining contemporary life, we can then go on to ask, What is
the simplest present-day embodiment of these generalizations? What is the simplest living cell, the minimum free-
living organism? ... Since all hereditary information in procaryotes is linearly encoded in DNA genomes, the
modern free-living organism with the smallest genome may be presumed to be the simplest one. Intracellular
parasites like viruses and rickettsiae are excluded because they must use part of the host cell's genetic
information as well as their own. The search for genetic simplicity led to the mycoplasma, a group of procaryotes
lacking a cell wall and of extremely small cell size. Some species have genomes in the neighborhood of 500 million
daltons (molecular weight units). On the average, it requires about 800,000 daltons of DNA to encode a single
functional protein. Therefore, the smallest known mycoplasmas specify about six hundred biochemical
processes. ... Starting from the outside, the mycoplasma cell is surrounded by a plasma membrane made up of a
lipid bilayer, with attached proteins and carbohydrates. Within this membrane is a coiled, closed loop of DNA,
containing the cell's entire genetic information. Also found are a few hundred ribosomes, a few thousand protein
molecules, and a larger number of ATPs and assorted small molecules. Calculating theoretically from the known
generalizations of molecular biology, the smallest, simplest organism that could carry out absolutely necessary
functions of life would require a genome size at least half that of mycoplasma. In other words, the simplest
free-living organisms discovered to date are close to the theoretical limit of simplicity based on the
generalizations of molecular biology. We don't know that mycoplasma are necessarily primitive; they may be
degenerate forms of advanced bacteria. They have, however, achieved great simplicity while retaining the ability
to exist as free-living forms. (Morowitz H.J., "Cosmic Joy and Local Pain: Musings of a Mystic Scientist," 1987,
pp.227-229. Emphasis in original)
12/08/2005
"It is possible to extrapolate from the present structure of molecular biology and move back one step toward
earlier systems. Since there are viruses that encode their genetic information in double-stranded RNA, and since
in principle all known hereditary processes could be carried out using RNA in place of DNA, we can envision an
even simpler cell than the existing ones: a cell that uses no DNA. The apparent limit of simplicity would be a
mycoplasmalike cell containing double-stranded RNA as the coding material. " (Morowitz H.J., "Cosmic Joy and
Local Pain: Musings of a Mystic Scientist," 1987, p.229)
12/08/2005
"Similarly, Oxford University professor of physiology Sir Charles Sherrington, a Nobel Prize winner described as
`a genius who laid the foundations of our knowledge of the functioning of the brain and spinal cord,' [The British
Medical Journal, March 15, 1952] declared five days before his death: `For me now, the only reality is the human
soul.' [Popper K.R. & Eccles J.C., "The Self and Its Brain," Springer-Verlag: New York NY, 1977, p.558] As for his
one-time student John C. Eccles, himself an eminent neurophysiologist and Nobel laureate, his ultimate
conclusion is the same. `I am constrained,' he said, `to believe that there is what we might call a supernatural
origin of my unique self-conscious mind or my unique selfhood or soul.' [Ibid, pp.559-600]" (Strobel L.P., "The
Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Toward God," Zondervan: Grand
Rapids MI, 2004, p.250)
12/08/2005
"The first of the great rationalist philosophers was the Frenchman Rene Descartes (1596-1650). ... Descartes
received his education not at a university but at a Jesuit college. But this proved no detriment, for he was given a
better grounding in mathematics than he could have otherwise got at most universities at the time. Seeking a life
of leisure, Descartes embarked upon a military career. He saw service in several European armies, always careful
to transfer somewhere else when fighting broke out. He went to Sweden at the request of Queen Christina who ...
could only spare the hour of five in the morning for her daily lessons .... Descartes seems to have made a
sustained effort to keep up the appearances of a gentlemanly amateur. He is said to have worked short hours and
read little. He dabbled in various sciences, including medicine. But his main contributions were made in the fields
of geometry and philosophy. In the former he invented co-ordinate geometry. In the latter he pioneered
rationalism and Cartesian doubt. His two chief philosophical works were his Discourse on Method (1637) and his
Meditations (1641). .... As a first principle he resolved `never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly
know to be such' His ideal and method were modelled on mathematics. `The long chains', he went on, `of simple
and easy reasonings by means of which geometers are accustomed to reach the conclusions of their most
difficult demonstrations, had led me to imagine that all things, to the knowledge of which man is competent, are
mutually connected in the same way, and that there is nothing so far removed from us as to be beyond our reach,
or so hidden that we cannot discover it, provided only we abstain from accepting the false for the true, and
always preserve in our thoughts the order necessary for the deduction of one truth from another.' And so were
born Cartesian doubt and rationalism. The former excludes from serious philosophical consideration everything
about which doubt may be entertained. The latter seemed to place within the philosopher's grasp the key that
would not only guarantee modern scientific method, but also unlock the whole of reality. For whereas reliance
upon observation and experience could prove deceptive, rational argument was unshakable. With this in mind he
set about probing the structure of the universe. Giving free rein to his doubts, he granted the possibility that
everything in his mind might be no more than dreams and illusions. How then could he be sure that the world
existed? His answer had three main steps. First of all, he came to the realization that whatever else he could
doubt, there was one thing that it was impossible to doubt - the fact that he was doubting. This, in turn, led him
to his celebrated axiom: Cogito ergo sum (`I think, therefore I am'). The mere fact that he was having
doubts and, therefore, thinking meant that he must exist. The next step in the argument was to show that God
existed. This he attempted to take by a combination of the causal and ontological arguments. On the one hand,
the idea of himself as a finite being implied the existence of an infinite being. On the other hand, the very idea of a
Perfect Being implied its existence. The third and final step was to advance the claim that, since God is perfect, he
would not deceive us. He would not allow us to think that our clear and distinct ideas were true, if they were not.
We can thus rest assured that all our logical deductions about reality are valid.' Descartes has been frequently
taken to task for his philosophical blunders. We have already queried the validity of the ontological argument.
Once this goes, the whole system is bereft of its pivot. The celebrated Cogito ergo sum has also provided
philosophers with ample shooting-practice. Bertrand Russell is among the many who have pointed out its
fallacious character. If Descartes is really wanting to start with doubt, his initial premise should have been `There
are doubts'. He is not entitled to infer from this the existence of a personal self, an `I' with all the qualities we take
for granted in everyday life. The latter is smuggled into the argument unnoticed. On the other hand, the phrase
may well not be a logical deduction of personal existence from the mere fact that there are doubts but simply a
disguised tautology, merely repeating the same thing in different words. In which case the phrase is simply a
reaffirmation of his own existence. But it is also questionable whether even an ultra-sceptic can honestly begin
with nothing but doubt as his primary datum. However difficult it may be to formulate it, we are all profoundly
conscious that we are not alone with our doubts. We live in a milieu, and that milieu is made up of other people,
other things, and God. In short, Cartesian philosophy represents a false start. Descartes is sometimes portrayed
as the first modern philosopher. This is not quite correct. In refurbishing the medieval proofs of the existence of
God he was drawing upon the legacy of the Middle Ages. Like the medieval philosophers he was interested in
metaphysics. To the end of his life Descartes remained a nominal Catholic. But there is a sense in which
Descartes represents a new departure. Descartes was interested in God not for his own sake, but for the world's.
God is invoked as a kind of deus ex machina to guarantee the validity of our thoughts about the world. Apart
from that he remains eternally standing in the wings. It is not surprising that, when later philosophers came along
who shared Descartes's assumptions but not his methods, they could dispose entirely of this unwanted prop. In
one of his more speculative moments Archbishop William Temple was once tempted to ask himself which was
the most disastrous moment in European history. The answer he came up with was the day Descartes shut
himself up in his [room with a] stove. In saying this, Temple was not thinking so much about Descartes's view of
God but about the trend he set in European thought. It epitomized a shift of concern. It symbolized a retreat into
the individual self-consciousness as the one sure starting-point in philosophy. .... The French philosopher
inaugurated a trend followed by many who rejected his actual system. He set up the individual consciousness as
the final criterion of truth. Descartes himself believed that he had firmly grasped objective reality with his
doctrine of clear and distinct ideas which remained unshakable amid the shifting sands of experience. In fact,
neither the Cogito ergo sum, nor the ontological argument, nor his method in general was anything like as
dependable as he led himself to believe. The mere process of thinking thoughts (however logical their sequence)
does not make them true. A thought may be said to be true when it corresponds with its object. This can only be
done by checking it in experience. But this is precisely what Descartes tried to eliminate in philosophy. In effect,
Descartes was driving a wedge between the mind and its thoughts on the one hand and the world and experience
on the other. This approach was strongly (and rightly) opposed by the British empiricists. But on the continent
Descartes set the trend. Rationalism dominated continental, especially German, philosophy almost to the end of
the eighteenth century. And even when rationalism was finally abandoned, there were many down to the present
day who continued to take the individual self-consciousness as their starting-point and even as their sole
reference-point." (Brown C., "Philosophy and the Christian Faith," Tyndale Press: London, 1969, pp.52-53)
13/08/2005
"SINCE THE MANUSCRIPT Wallace mailed from Ternate contained-in complete form-what is today known as
the Darwinian theory of evolution, the date of its arrival at Down House acquires profound historical
significance. A quartet of dates is in the running as the date on which the postrider handed Wallace's
envelope to Parslow. The first of the four - Friday, June 4-is speculative; the second-Tuesday, June 8-is the day
Darwin wrote Hooker that he had suddenly found the missing `keystone' of his theory; the third-Monday, June
14-is suggested by Darwin's `little diary'; and the fourth-Friday, June 18-is the date publicly advanced by Darwin
himself. Wherever the chronological reality may rest, June 1858 clearly marked for Darwin the moment of truth.
The problem is compounded by the disappearance of the Wallace envelope. That envelope, with its postmarks,
which has been searched for in vain at the Linnean Society, the Royal Geographical Society, the British Museum
(Natural History), the University of London, and elsewhere, contained irrefutable evidence of the precise date on
which Darwin broke it open and read its contents. In all probability, it no longer exists. It has either been
misplaced or, more likely, destroyed. The postal history of the period, the survival of a number of other Wallace
letters from Ternate, and a consensus among philatelists is that it would take a letter from Ternate some twelve
weeks to reach Down. According to the evidence found in Wallace's papers, he wrote out his complete theory of
evolution toward the end of February and posted it March 9, when the first available Dutch vessel dropped
anchor at Ternate. This is corroborated by a letter Wallace sent that same day by the same ship to Frederick
Bates, the brother of Henry Walter Bates with whom Wallace had scoured the Amazon for species some years
earlier. H. Lewis McKinney, a member of the University of Kansas faculty, was the first to draw attention to the
Bates letter, which is in the possession of Wallace's grandson, Alfred John Russel Wallace. The letter, mailed
from Ternate, bears the usual series of cancellations, showing its arrival at Singapore and transit to London via
Southampton and then on to Leicester, where Bates lived. It arrived at Leicester June 3 and bears a cancellation
of the Leicester post office for that date. Wallace's letter to Darwin should have arrived the same day as Bates',
June 3, or perhaps a day or two later. `It is only reasonable to assume that Wallace's communication to Darwin
arrived at the same time and was delivered to Darwin at Down House on 3 June 1858, the same day as Bates' letter
arrived in Leicester,' said McKinney. `If this sequence is correct, as it appears to be, we must ask ourselves what
Darwin was doing with Wallace's paper during the two weeks between 4 June and 18 June (when Darwin claimed
he received it).'" (Brackman A.C., "A Delicate Arrangement: The Strange Case of Charles Darwin and Alfred
Russel Wallace," Times Books: New York NY, 1980, pp.16-17)
13/08/2005
"It is often claimed that the answer to the riddle lay on Darwin's shelves, in the uncut pages of the proceedings
of the Brunn Natural History Society where nestled Gregor Mendel's paper on Versuche uber PflanzenHybriden.
Unfortunately this poignant story seems to be an urban myth. The two scholars best placed (at Cambridge and at
Down House) to know what was in Darwin's personal library can find no evidence that he ever subscribed to the
proceedings, nor does it seem likely that he would have done so. They have no idea where the legend of the
'uncut pages' originated. Once originated, however, it is easy to see that its very poignancy might speed its
proliferation. The whole affair would make a nice little project in memetic research, complementing that other
popular urban legend, the agreeable falsehood that Darwin turned down an offer from Marx to dedicate Das
Kapital to him." (Dawkins R., "Introduction," in Darwin C.R., "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to
Sex," [1874], Gibson Square Books: London, Second edition, 2003, reprint, p.xvi)
14/08/2005
"Giard (1905), himself a shrewd scholar but blinded by a foolish anticlericalism, went so far as to abjure
Lamarckism and write, "To account for the wondrous adaptations such as those we observe between orchids
and the insects that fertilize them, we have hardly any choice but the bare alternative hypotheses: the
intervention of a sovereignly intelligent being, and selection." ... Giard's concept, which is that held by many
atheists and freethinkers, gives a singular and belittling idea of God. The Almighty, obliged to remodel and
retouch His own handiwork all the time, is baffled by obstacles His omniscience failed to detect. He is not even a
demigod, but a mere pawn, a vague deity designed for crooked-thinking scientists. Nature has its laws. The
determinism of the things that flow from first causes suffices to explain the phenomena occurring in the material
universe, whether it be made of inert matter or of living things. Let us not invoke God in realities in which He
no longer has to intervene. The single absolute act of creation was enough for Him." (Grasse P.-P.,
"Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New
York NY, 1977, pp.165-166. Emphasis in original)
14/08/2005
"As Theism is the doctrine of an extramundane, personal God, the creator, preserver, and governor of all things,
any doctrine which denies the existence of such a Being is anti-theistic. Not only avowed Atheism, therefore, but
Polytheism, Hylozoism, Materialism, and Pantheism, belong to the class of anti-theistic theories. Atheism does
not call for any separate discussion. It is in itself purely negative. It affirms nothing. It simply denies what Theism
asserts. The proof of Theism is, therefore, the, refutation of Atheism.. Atheist is, however, a term of reproach.
Few men are willing to call themselves, or to allow others to call them by that name. Hume, we know, resented it.
Hence those who are really atheists, according to the etymological and commonly received meaning of the word,
repudiate the term. They claim to be believers in God, although they assign to that word a meaning which is
entirely unauthorized by usage. ... Language, however, has its rights. The meaning of words cannot be changed
at the pleasure of individuals. The word God, and its equivalents in other languages, have a definite meaning,
from which no man is at liberty to depart. If any one says he believes in God, he says he believes in the existence
of a personal, self-conscious being. He does not believe in God, if he only believes in `motion,' in `force,' in
`thought,'' in `moral order,' in `the incomprehensible,' or in any other abstraction. Theists also have their rights.
Theism is a definite form of belief. For the expression of that belief, the word Theism is the established and
universally recognized term. We have the right to retain it; and we have the right to designate as Atheism, all
forms of doctrine which involve the denial of what is universally understood by Theism." (Hodge C., "Systematic Theology," [1892], James Clark & Co:
London, Vol. I, 1960, reprint, pp.241-242)
14/08/2005
"Yes, but you must wager. There is no choice, you are already committed. Which will you choose then? ... Let us
weigh up the gain and the loss involved in calling heads that God exists. Let us assess the two cases: if you win
you win everything, if you lose you lose nothing" (Pascal B., "Pensees," 418, [1670], Krailsheimer A.J., Transl.,
Penguin: London, Revised edition, 1966, p.123)
14/08/2005
"One somewhat curious fact emerges from a survey of biological progress as culminating for the evolutionary
moment in the dominance of Homo sapiens. It could apparently have pursued no other general course
than that which it has historically followed: or, if it be impossible to uphold such a sweeping and universal
negative, we may at least say that among the actual inhabitants of the earth, past and present, no other lines
could have been taken which would have produced speech and conceptual thought, the features that form the
basis for man's biological dominance. Multicellular organization was necessary to achieve the basis for adequate
size: without triploblastic development and a blood-system, elaborate organization and further size would have
been impossible. Among the coelomates, only the vertebrates were eligible as agents for unlimited progress, for
only they were able to achieve the combination of active efficiency, size, and terrestrial existence on which the
later stages of progress were of necessity based. Only in the water have the molluscs achieved any great
advance. The arthropods are not only hampered by their necessity for moulting; but their land representatives,
as was first pointed out by Krogh, are restricted by their tracheal respiration to very small size. They are therefore
also restricted to cold-bloodedness and to a reliance on instinctive behaviour (see discussion in Wells, Huxley
and Wells, 1930, Book 5, chap. 5, § 7). Lungs were one needful precursor of intelligence. Warm blood was
another, since only with a constant internal environment could the brain achieve stability and regularity for its
finer functions. This limits us to birds and mammals as bearers of the torch of progress. But birds were ruled out
by their depriving themselves of potential hands in favour of actual wings, and perhaps also by the restriction of
their size made necessary in the interests of flight. Remain the mammals. During the Tertiary epoch, most
mammalian lines cut themselves off from the possibility of ultimate progress by concentrating on immediate
specialization. A horse or a lion is armoured against progress by the very efficiency of its limbs and teeth and
sense of smell: it is a limited piece of organic machinery. As Elliot Smith has so fully set forth, the penultimate
steps in the development of our human intelligence could never have been taken except in arboreal ancestors, in
whom the forelimb could be converted into a hand, and sight inevitably became the dominant sense in place of
smell. But, for the ultimate step, it was necessary for the anthropoid to descend from the trees before he could
become man. This meant the final liberation of the hand, and also placed the evolving creature in a more varied
environment, in which a higher premium was placed upon intelligence. Further, the foetalization necessary for a
prolonged period of learning could only have occurred in a monotocous species (pp. 525, 555; Haldane, 1932a, p.
124; Spence and Yerkes, 1937). Weidenreich (1941) maintains that the attainment of the erect posture was a
necessary - prerequisite for the final stages in human cerebral evolution. The last step yet taken in evolutionary
progress, and the only one to hold out the promise of unlimited (or indeed of any further) progress in the
evolutionary future, is the degree of intelligence which involves true speech and conceptual thought: and it is
found exclusively in man. This, however, could only arise in a monotocous mammal of terrestrial habit, but
arboreal for most of its mammalian ancestry. All other known groups of animals, except the ancestral line of this
kind of mammal, are ruled out. Conceptual thought is not merely found exclusively in man: it could not have been
evolved on earth except in man." (Huxley J.S., "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis," [1942], George Allen &
Unwin: London, 1945, reprint, p.569-570)
16/08/2005
"J.P. Moreland's `Conceptual Problems and the Scientific Status of Creation Science' argues against the notion
that creationist theories are inherently unscientific. He suggests: (1) there are no good reasons to exclude
postulations of intelligent design or special creative acts of God from science a priori and (2) there is at least one
good reason to allow consideration of such postulations in science - namely, that creationist theories attempt to
solve conceptual problems which, following Laudan, he regards as a primary function of many scientific theories.
Moreland's analysis does not address any of the specific empirical claims that the various creationist theories
(old-earth, young earth, theistic macromutationalist, etc.) make, but instead seeks to counter the claim that such
theories can not (i.e., in principle) be considered scientific because they invoke special divine action as part of
their explanatory framework. Thus, unlike Ruse [Ruse M., "Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution
Controversies," 1982, pp.322-24], Stent [Stent G.S., "Scientific Creationism: Nemesis of Sociobiology," in
Montagu A., ed., "Science and Creationism," 1984, p.137], Gould S.J., "Evolution as Fact and Theory." in
Montagu, 1984, p.118], Grizzle [Grizzle R., "Some Comments on the `Godless' Nature of Darwinian Evolution, and a
Plea to the Philosophers Among Us." PSCF, 44:2, 1993, pp.175-177], Murphy [Murphy N., "Phillip Johnson on
Trial: A Critique of His Critique of Darwin." PSCF, 45:1, 1993, p.33 and others, Moreland does not regard the
possibility of a scientific theory of creation as "self-contradictory nonsense." [Ebert J., et. al., "Science and
Creationism: A View From the National Academy of Science," 1987, pp.8-10; Lewontin R., "Introduction."
Scientists Confront Creationism," in Godfrey L.R., ed., "Scientists Confront Creationism," , 1983, p.xxi] While
Moreland's conclusions no doubt seem quite radical to many practicing scientists and longtime ASA members,
his arguments are, in my opinion, quite sound. Philosophers of science have generally lost patience with
attempts to discredit theories as `unscientific' by using philosophical or methodological litmus tests. Such so-
called `demarcation criteria' `criteria that purport to distinguish true science from pseudo-science, metaphysics
and religion' have inevitably fallen prey to death by a thousand counter examples. Well-established scientific
theories often lack some of the allegedly necessary features of true science (e.g. falsifiability, observability,
repeatability, use of law-like explanation, etc.), while many disreputable or "crank" ideas have often manifested
some of these same features. [Laudan L., "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem," in Ruse M., ed., "But Is It
Science?," 1988, pp.337-350]" (Meyer S.C., "The Use and Abuse of Philosophy of Science: A Response to Moreland," Perspectives in
Science and Christian Faith, Vol. 46, March 1994, pp.19-21)
16/08/2005
"The final authority, the Bible, shows that the earth cannot be billions of years old. Such a belief conflicts with
the biblical data of creation in six ordinary days, recent creation of man on the sixth day, and death of humans
and animals arising from Adam's sin. Science is limited in dealing with the past, so cannot be used to prove or
disprove the Bible. Biblical creationists believe that the only way to conclusively establish the earth's age is the
testimony of the eyewitness account in Genesis. In a court of law, a reliable eyewitness that a suspect was
absent from a crime scene overrules any circumstantial evidence, and there is no eyewitness more reliable than
the all-knowing Creator. Creationists have also pointed out that "scientific" methods are limited in dealing with
the past, because of many assumptions. Therefore, it would be folly to use any of this circumstantial evidence to
overrule the plain meaning of the Bible." (Sarfati J.D.*, "Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientific
Refutation of `Progressive Creationism' (Billions of Years) as Popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross," Master
Books: Green Forest AR, 2004, p.331)
16/08/2005
"In the next few chapters I shall be obliged to oppose the notion that the earth is young. But I shall not
attack it; one does not attack one's own friends. If we must use a military metaphor, I hope my allies will
view me as exhorting them rather than attacking them. I am appealing to them to stop using the strategy and
weapons of a bygone age in our common fight against unbelief.
For recent-creationists are my friends and allies. Let there be no mistake about that. The things we have in
common are much more important than those on which we differ. We share a belief in an inspired Bible. We agree
that Darwin was mistaken, and that God is the Creator of every living thing. Compared with this, the question of
the age of the earth pales into insignificance."
(Hayward A.*, "Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence from Science and the Bible," [1985], Bethany
House: Minneapolis MN, 1995, reprint, p.79. Emphasis in original)
17/08/2005
"The book can be appreciated on many levels. It is by no means only an owner's manual, though it is
indispensably that. For all its sound practical advice, it could only have been written by a professional zoologist,
drawing deeply on theory and scholarship. Many of the facts herein are accurate. The world of dinosaurs has
always been richly provided with wonder and amazement, and Mash's manual only adds to the mixture. As a
theological aside, creationists (now excitingly rebranded as Intelligent Design Theorists) will find it an invaluable
resource in their battle against the preposterous canard that humans and dinosaurs are separated by 65 million
years of geological time." (Dawkins R.; "Foreword," in Mash R., "How to Keep Dinosaurs," Weidenfeld &
Nicolson: London, 2003, p.6)
18/08/2005
"Our study will concentrate on the eye, the genesis of which is a major challenge to evolutionists. ... Charles
Darwin ... recognized the weaknesses of his theory, which are increasingly apparent today. We are not surprised,
then, to read in a letter to his friend the botanist Asa Gray: `To this day the eye makes me shudder, but when I
think of the fine known gradations, my reason tells me I ought to conquer my fear' (Darwin, 1888. p.273, letter to
Asa Gray, February 1860). We fully understand Darwin's fears and wonder what they would have been, had he
been confronted with the anatomical and cytological complexity that is revealed by modern biology; he would
have been even more worried had he known that selection cannot create anything on its own. .... The problem is
to know whether random mutations could have given rise to an organ requiring, because of its complexity, a
considerable number of data for its elaboration. The number of mutations must have been enormous for adequate
ones to occur at a given point, by chance and to enable the organ to function. we need not belabor the diversity
of the transparent parts, on the relationships between the intraocular fluid (aqueous humor) and the venous
system (Schlemm's canal), among others. The complexity of the retina, of the sheaths, etc., need not detain us
either; all this is extremely well known, but we must say that no recent publication inspired by Darwinism even
mentions it. In 1860 Darwin considered only the eye, but today he would have to take into consideration all the
cerebral connections of the organ. The retina is indirectly connected to the striated zone of the occipital lobe of
the cerebral hemispheres: Specialized neurons correspond to each one of its parts-perhaps even to each one of
its photoreceptor cells. The connection between the fibers of the optic nerve and the neurons of the occipital
lobe in the geniculate body is absolutely perfect. The processes of the axons the outgrowths of the dendrites,
and the connections with corresponding elements are so precisely laid out in time and space that as a rule
everything works perfectly. In fact, the picture we have just sketched is even more complex; we did not consider
the molecular structure which shows as many peculiarities of adaptation as the macrostructure (the subtleties of
which were sometimes mistaken for imperfections; see Ivanoff, 1953), and we have neglected entirely the
chemistry of a complex organ capable of multiple adjustments." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms
Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.104-105)
18/08/2005
"Worlds are colliding, people. Your friendly neighborhood message board is not alone in the online community
world any longer. This year we are celebrating the 25th anniversary of the message board. Since that time,
interfaces have improved, email has been integrated, but comparatively little has changed regarding the basic
structure and intent of the message board. However, in the last few years, we've seen the arrival of a new set of
tools and processes that offer additional opportunities for message board-based online communities. The
appearance of weblogs have left many observers, including me, wondering about the differences between the
two technologies and how they will be used inside online communities. Are weblogs really that different from
message boards? How? Note: Below I make assumptions and generalizations about message board and weblog
design. My goal is to discuss what I think are standard practices across the technologies. I realize that the
assumptions below may or may not match with your experiences and I present them as suggestions. .... First, I
believe that weblogs and message boards are different .... Perhaps the most compelling difference in
weblogs and message boards is the locus of control. Weblogs are individual or small group resources- the
control of content and value is driven by a single person or small group. Message Boards are group resources-
the control of content and value is shared equally across all users. ... The locus of control matters most in
defining who can post new topics, which drive the content of the resource. In weblogs, this role is centralized,
with new topics being presented by a defined and focused person or small group. This centralization facilitates
focus and direction on behalf of the webloggers. In many message boards, all members usually have the ability to
create new topics. This decentralization allows for more emergent and unpredictable directions that may reflect
the group's desires as a whole. ... The centralized vs. decentralized nature of the technologies fit nicely into two
distinct intentions. With weblog authorship being centralized inside a community, they can easily become news
sources, where trusted individuals provide accounts of events and information. The decentralized nature of
message boards works well to accumulate group input and facilitate collaboration and group decision making. ...
Weblogs and Message Boards both allow for responses from the community- new topics can be responded-to
by others. Weblog topics have comments and message board topics have replies. This subtle difference in
syntax reveals a difference in the roles. The word comment for weblogs implies that the author does not need
further participation to reach a goal- comment if you want. Reply, on the other hand, implies that participation is
explicitly requested by the poster. A discussion is not a discussion without a reply. ... The order and
presentation of topics across message boards and weblogs relate another difference. Weblogs are consistently
arranged with the most recently posted topics at the top of the page, regardless of new comments. With a
message board, the posting of replies can govern the presentation of the originating topic- topics with new
replies are often presented at the top (but not always, of course). This illustrates the relative importance of replies
in message board discussions. Replies can keep a discussion alive and at the top of the page for months or even
years in some cases. ... Since a weblog depends on a single person or select group, the likelihood of off-topic or
inappropriate topics (or responses) is greatly reduced. Further, as discussed previously, weblogs do not depend
on responses to provide value. So, in situations where spam or flame wars are a problem, weblogs can turn-off
comments and depend on new topics from the webloggers for value. Being group resources, message boards do
not have the luxury to turn off replies, but do prevent problems with moderation of each new topic or response. ...
How topics are archived and organized provides another look at the differences. Often, each new topic in a
weblog is assigned to a category that is used to organize the topics for future reference. A single weblog may
have many categories that archive and organize posts that were originally presented on the weblogs' front page.
Message boards are often presented with multiple starting points for creating a new discussion. The member
chooses the appropriate location to post a new topic, depending on subject matter. In this way, message boards
create multiple "front pages", spreading the presentation of new topics across locations/content buckets in the
community." (LeFever, L., "What are the
Differences Between Message Boards and Weblogs?," Common Craft weblog, August 24, 2004. Emphasis
in original. )
22/08/2005
"We took the eye as an example, but the ear would have been just as instructive. Is not the human brain, the
organ capable of abstraction, an even better example? Even the architecture of the cortex with its 14 billion
neurons is not known with any degree of precision. In mammals, all sense organs evolved almost
simultaneously. If one considers the great number of simultaneous, timely mutations satisfying existing
needs involved in their genesis, one can not fail to be confounded by so much harmony, so many lucky
coincidences, due entirely to omnipotent chance." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms Evidence for a
New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.105)
22/08/2005
"Selection must complete its work on successive generations and must find in them the materials it needs.
Moreover, successive generations reproduce preceding ones, otherwise they have no evolutionary value. We
have already listed the lucky chances required for the slightest evolution to result from mutations (p. 94).
Anyone who endorses the random theory of evolution admits that the eye and the ear, to become what they are,
have required thousands and thousands of lucky chances, synchronized with the needs of their construction.
What probability is there of such wonderfully fortuitous success?" (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms
Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.105-106)
22/08/2005
"Natural selection, if one admits that it is the builder of the living world, can only operate if it possesses the
correct building materials needed for the construction of the organ at the right moment. What is the use of
appropriate mutations if they appear too early or too late in the course of phylogenesis? If the formation of the
crystalline lens and of the retina had not been closely coordinated (the retina is the inducing agent of the anterior
parts of the eye), the eye could not have formed. The necessary mutations could not have occurred
independently. The influence of the organ extends to structures in its immediate vicinity; can one imagine an eye
without eyelids or without lachrymal glands? Moreover, these accessories necessarily formed early in the course
of evolution; the eye is indeed too fragile to be able to do without them. The chronology of phenomena in any
ontogenesis is inflexible. The formation and the subsistence of the living being requires that successive
transformations arise in an orderly manner and that its architecture be equally ordered. Randomness and chance
have no place here." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of
Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.106)
22/08/2005
"Moreover, during phylogenetic organogenesis, natural selection must be capable of foresight. Isn't "choosing"
its prime function? But the choice cannot take place without predicting the future role of the incipient organ.
Without such prescience, the coordination of successive states is incomprehensible. Did Darwin take this into
consideration? Without its predictive powers, selection would not be able to favor an incipient organ which, at
the time, had little or no usefulness. What sort of advantage could result from the starting of an eye, when the
materials forming it were not yet transparent? Of what use was the development of the dentary and the
accompanying regression of the proximal jaw bones in theriodont reptiles, the ancestors of mammals? An answer
can always be invented, but all this merely adds another supposition to the mass of previous suppositions."
(Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic
Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.106-107)
22/08/2005
"We repeatedly hear that chance is all-powerful. Statements are insufficient. Evidence must be produced. I do not
consider the spontaneous appearance of resistance to an antibiotic in a nonresistant population of bacteria as
evidence. Neither structures nor fundamental functions are involved here. This is so true that variations of this
kind, although repeated millions of times, have left bacteria practically unchanged. ... On the border of science,
however, a theoretical system gradually appeared which claimed that chance accounts for the genesis and the
evolution of the biocosm. Its advocates have faith in chance; they are certain that it unfailingly provides the
living being with all that it requires. ... Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence,
which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped. ... To insist, even with
Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition
which I relieve to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms:
Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.107)
23/08/2005
"Additional Note on the long-lived antediluvians. Two problems of interpretation lie on the surface of this
chapter: in simple terms, the period as a whole looks too short, and the individual life-spans too long, to
harmonize with other data. ... a. The total period. Our present knowledge of civilization, e.g. at Jericho, goes back
to at least 7000 BC, and of man himself very much further. When Ussher dated Adam at 4004 BC he assumed that
the generations in this chapter were an unbroken chain: but the chapter neither adds its figures together nor
gives the impression that the men it names overlapped each other's lives to any unusual extent (e.g. that Adam
lived almost to the birth of Noah) . If it has selected ten names (and in 11:10ff. another ten from Noah to
Abraham) as separate landmarks rather than continuous links, it has genealogical custom both within and
without the Bible to support it. Within Scripture, note the stylized scheme of three fourteens in Matthew 1
(involving the omission of three successive kings in Mt. 1:8). Outside it, anthropologists and others have drawn
attention to similar genealogical methods in the Sudan, Arabia, and elsewhere. On this understanding of the
scheme, Seth, for example, produced at 105 either a forbear of Enosh or Enosh himself (cf. Mt. 1:8b, where Joram
'begat' his great-great-grandson); and so on. This leaves the total period undetermined. b. The life-spans.
Reinterpretations of the longevity of these men are less happy. At first sight the fact that a name can mean both
an individual and his tribe (cf. chapter 10) could account for some of the great ages if the first figure in the record
(3,6, etc.) were taken to denote a man's personal life-span, while the second figure (4,7, etc.) gave that of the
family he founded; 2 but Enoch and Noah are fatal exceptions, for they are clearly portrayed as individuals to the
end. The idea that units of time may have changed their meaning is equally unfruitful: apart from creating fresh
difficulties in 12, 15, 21, it breaks down in the detailed chronology between 7:6 and 8:13. As far as we can tell,
then, the life-spans are intended literally. It may be worth pointing out that our familiar rate of growth is not the
only conceivable one; also that various races have traditions of primitive longevity [The Sumerian king-list
names eight or ten antediluvians, reigning on an average some thirty thousand years apiece. Some grain of truth
could lie behind these vast numbers, as truth evidently lies behind the actual names ...] which could stem from
authentic memories. See also on 12:14. But further study of the conventions of ancient genealogy writing may
throw new light on the intention of the chapter." (Kidner D.*, "Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary,"
Tyndale Press: London, 1967, pp.82-83)
23/08/2005
"The proposed longevity of the antediluvians or macrobians presents us with a problem in anthropology. These
men lived up to 900 years, and they did not seem to have children till they were around 100 years old. Three
interpretations have been suggested: A. Some have said that the time element needs reduction. Perhaps Moses
used the Hebrew word year for some Babylonian word. For example we might take the English pound and equate
it with the French franc as both being the unit of money of the two peoples, but to state francs as pounds and
pounds as francs requires some method of reduction of pounds to francs. Babylonian records speak of men
living 30,000 years! We would need a reduction factor of about one to ten to reduce 900 down to about 90. But
such a reduction ratio has not been found which is satisfactory because it ends up with people having children
when they are a year old! Until a feasible system of reduction can be found this method must be rejected. B. We
may assert that these men actually lived 900 years or so, and assert that the flood made a radical difference in
world conditions. A change in climate, a change in sunlight and moonlight, an increase in disease, have been
suggested as cutting down man's life span. In general, expositors have felt that man coming right from the hand
of the Creator was so free from disease that he could live much longer than contemporary man who is the heir of
centuries of disease. There is nothing inherently impossible for man to have lived that long, but certainly
something very unusual was at work if man did live that long. C. A third theory goes back to Bunsen's Bibelwerk
(v. 49) in which Bunsen defends the interpretation that these years are cyclical. They deal with the epochs of the
antediluvians, not their chronological ages. ... John Davis in his Bible dictionary and then in the ISBE
[International Standard Bible Encyclopedia] ("Antediluvian Patriarchs," I, 139-143) defends this theory at length
in the twentieth century. He feels that the names represent the patriarch and his family: The longevity is the
period during which the family had prominence and leadership; the age at the son's birth is the date in the family
history at which a new family originated and ultimately succeeded to the dominant position. This theory would
relieve us of the problem of time reduction, and the problem of such a long span of life for man. One problem is
figuring how Enoch fits into this interpretation for Gen. 5: 21-24 informs us that Enoch walked with God for three
hundred years after the birth of Methuselah. Was a whole tribe taken? Or, are we to make a sharp distinction here
between Enoch the man and Enoch the tribe? Certainly Hebrews 11:5 treats Enoch as a man. Perhaps this
objection is not as formidable as it first appears, but it needs some further treatment to fit into Davis' theory
which we think is perhaps the most satisfactory of the three differed." (Ramm B.L.*, "The Christian View of
Science and Scripture," [1955] Paternoster: Exeter, Devon UK, 1967, reprint, pp.236-237)
23/08/2005
"Antediluvians ... 1. Chronology Uncertain: According to the ordinary interpretation of the genealogical tables in
Gen. 5 the lives of the antediluvians were prolonged to an extreme old age, Methuselah attaining that of 969
years. But before accepting these figures as a basis of interpretation it is important to observe that the Hebrew,
the Samaritan and the Septuagint texts differ so radically in their sums that probably little confidence can be
placed in any of them. The Septuagint adds 100 years to the age of six of the antediluvian patriarchs at the birth
of their eldest sons. This, taken with the great uncertainty connected with the transmission of numbers by the
Hebrew method of notation, makes it unwise to base important conclusions upon the data accessible. The most
probable interpretation of the genealogical table in Gen. 5 is that given by the late Professor William Henry Green,
who maintains that it is not intended to give chronology, and does not give it, but only indicates the line of
descent, as where (1 Chronicles 26:24) we read that `Shebuel the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, was ruler
over the treasures'; whereas, while Gershom was the immediate son of Moses, Shebuel was separated from
Gershom by several generations. According to the interpretation of Professor Green all that we can certainly infer
from the statement in Hebrew that Adam was 130 years old when he begat Seth, is that at that age the line
branched off which culminated in Seth, it being permitted, according to Hebrew usage, to interpolate as many
intermediate generations as other evidence may compel. 2. Meaning of Genealogies: As in the genealogies of
Christ in the Gospels, the object of the tables in Genesis is evidently not to give chronology, but the line of
descent. This conclusion is supported by the fact that no use is made afterward of the chronology, whereas the
line of descent is repeatedly emphasized. This method of interpretation allows all the elasticity to prehistoric
chronology that any archaeologist may require. Some will get further relief from the apparent incredibility of the
figures by the Interpretation of Professor A. Winchell, and T. P. Crawford (Winchell, Pre-adamites, 449 ff.) that
the first number gives the age of actual life of the individual while the second gives that of the ascendancy of his
family, the name being that of dynasties, like Caesar or Pharaoh." (Wright G.F.*, "Antediluvians,"
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)
23/08/2005
"Hebrew genealogical tables are apt to differ in the principles of construction from modern registers of pedigree.
1. Symmetry is often preferred to the exhibition of the unbroken descent from father to son. Hence links were
freely omitted, and the enumeration was otherwise left incomplete. Ten in the genealogy from Adam to Noah, and
ten from Shem to Abraham. Seventy sons of Noah's sons, and seventy souls of the house of Jacob (Gen. xlvi. 27
...). 2. The genealogy may be tribal, rather than personal; and son may denote the inhabitants of a country (Gen.
x. 2-4, 6, 7, 22), a people or tribe (4, 13, 16-18 ...), a town (15), rarely an individual (8-10). Similar phenomena are
found elsewhere (Gen. xxv. 2-4; 1 Chron. ii. 50-55 ...). The words bear and beget and father are used with a
corresponding breadth of meaning; as bear or beget a grandchild (Gen. xlvi. 12 with 15, 18, 25), or great-
grandchild (12, and probably 21, 22), or grandchild's grandchild (Mat. i. 9), or country (Gen. xxv. 2, 3)." (Davis
J.D.*, "A Dictionary of the Bible," [1898], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth edition, 1966, Fifteenth printing, p.253)
23/08/2005
"The long life spans have been a continual curiosity among Bible readers. But if these numbers sound incredible,
the years attributed to the antediluvian Mesopotamian kings make Methuselah seem but an infant. In the
Sumerian king list the shortest reign is 18,600 years, while the longest stretches 43,200. Eight kings compile
241,200 years between them. This text uses the standard Sumerian sexagesimal system. If the notation is read
with decimal values rather than sexagesimal values, the numbers are in the same range as the Biblical numbers,
and the totals of the lists are nearly identical. Have the numbers been misrepresented or misunderstood? Are
they symbolic? Did the antediluvians simply live longer? There have been many attempts to account for the
numbers through mathematical gymnastics, but none of the proposals has been able to provide a solution that
encompasses all of the data. It is impossible to understand the numbers in terms of some thing other than base
ten, both because base ten is the norm for Semitic civilizations (except Sumerian-based Akkadian) as far back as
records are available, and because any other system results in men fathering children at age six or seven years
old. The latter consequence also makes it impossible that a "year" represents a cycle of the moon rather than a
cycle of the sun. If, then, we accept the biblical account at face value, there are reasons one might expect long
lives in the shadow of Eden. Whether one would speculate that the long lives testify to the gradual penetration
of sin (and death) or to the enduring effect of Adam and Eve's temporary (pre-Fall) diet from the tree of life, the
accuracy of these numbers can be defended. Those who are more inclined to take them as symbolic must provide
an explanation of how the numbers are operating on the symbolic level and how genealogies were understood by
the biblical authors that allow us to consider a symbolic view as representing the face value of the text." (Walton
J.H.*, "Genesis," The NIV Application Commentary, Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 2001, pp.281-282)
23/08/2005
"Genesis 5. The problem of the long lives of people before the flood is obvious: Adam lived 930 years (Gen. 5:5);
Methuselah lived 969 years (Gen. 5:27), and the average age of those who lived out their normal lifespan was
over 900 years old. Yet even the Bible recognizes what scientific fact shows, namely, that most people live only
seventy or eighty years before natural death (Ps. 90:10). It is a fact that people do not live that long today. But
this is merely a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one. No scientist has shown that it is impossible for
someone to live that long. In fact, biologically there is no reason humans could not live hundreds of years.
Scientists are more baffled by aging and death than by longevity. Second, the reference in Psalm 90 is to Moses'
time (1400s B.C.) and later, when longevity had decreased to seventy or eighty years for most, though Moses
himself lived 120 years (Deut. 34:7). Third, some have suggested that these `years' are really only months, which
would reduce nine hundred years to the normal life span of eighty years. However, this is implausible. There is
no precedent in the Hebrew Old Testament for taking the word year to mean `month.' And Mahalalel had children
when he was `only' sixty-five (Gen. 5:15), and Cainan had children when he was seventy (Gen. 5:12); this would
mean they were less than six years old-which is not biologically possible. Fourth, others suggest that these
names represent family lines or clans that went on for generations before they died out. However, this does not
make sense. For one thing, some of these names (e.g., Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah) are definitely individuals whose
lives are narrated in the text (Gen. 1-9). For another, family lines do not `beget' family lines by different names.
Neither do family lines `die,' as each of these individuals did (cf. 5:5, 8, 11). Furthermore, the reference to having
`sons and daughters' (5:4) does not fit the clan theory. Fifth, it seems best to take these as years (though they
were lunar years of 12 x 30 = 360 days). The Bible is not alone in speaking of hundreds of years life spans among
ancients. There are also Greek and Egyptian records of humans living hundreds of years. ... Genesis 5, 11. Critics
claim that the Bible makes a scientific error when it dates humankind around 4000 B.C. But the Bible nowhere
gives any such total of years. In fact, there are demonstrable gaps in the biblical genealogies. Hence, it is
impossible to obtain a total of years from Adam to Abraham. The Bible has accurate outline genealogies in which
there are demonstrable gaps (see GENEALOGIES, OPEN OR CLOSED). Genesis 6-9. "(Geisler N.L., "Science and
the Bible," in "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," Baker Books: Grand Rapids MI, 1999, p.695)
23/08/2005
"Genealogies, Open or Closed. From an apologetic standpoint, the problem of "open" or "closed" genealogies is
this: If they are open (have gaps), then why do they appear closed, especially in Genesis 5 and 11 where exact
ages at which the children were born are mentioned? If they are closed, then the creation of mankind is placed
somewhere around 4000 B.C., which flies in the face of all the historical and scientific evidence for a minimum
date for humanity (see GENESIS, DAYS OF). Since they must be either open or closed, there is an apologetic
problem either way with regard to the authenticity of the Genesis record. ... According to the closed chronology
view, there are no gaps in the list in Genesis 5 and 11. They are both complete and provide all the numbers
necessary for determining the age of the human race. Arguments. In favor of the closed chronology view,
different arguments have been offered. The strongest is the prima facie argument. The genealogies appear to be
closed. For not only is the age given at which the son is born, and his son, and so on, but the total age of the
father after he had the son is given. For example, the text says, "When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son ...
and he named him Seth.... Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died. When Seth had lived 105 years, he
became the father of Enos ..." (Gen. 5:3-6). This wording appears to leave no room for gaps. With one exception,
no lists in the Bible supply missing links in this genealogy. There are only two other lists of this early period
covered by Genesis 5 and 11 and both have the same names in them ... 1 Chronicles 1:1-28 ... Luke 3:34-38 ... The
one exception is Cainan (in the Luke 3 list). Otherwise, disregarding the alternate spelling of Salah/Shelah and
Abram's changed name to Abraham, the lists are identical and reveal no gaps. The same names appear in both,
with no missing generations apparent. ... The attempt to explain away Luke 3:36 as no gap seems highly
implausible. There is no real manuscript authority for omitting Cainan from Luke 3:36. That sequence is in all
major, and virtually all minor, manuscripts. There is absolutely no indication in the text that Cainan should be
listed as a brother of Salah. The grammatical construction is the same for all the other names in the list who were
sons. Although the Greek reads "of" or "from" without the word son, the translators rightly supply son since it is
what is implied in every other case in the list. Making this one an exception, when it has the same construction, is
begging the question. There is no precedent in any of the genealogical lists for listing Cainan as anything but the
father of Salah. The only other explanation is that both Genesis 11 and 1 Chronicles are outlines that hit the
significant points in the family tree. They have at least one known gap in their genealogies. Other known gaps.
The genealogy of Christ in Matthew 1 has at least one serious known gap, even though the text reads that
Jehoram was the father of Uzziah (vs. 8), it is known from 1 Chronicles 3 that three missing generations separate
Joram and Uzziah: Matthew 1:8 ... 1 Chronicles 3:11-12 ... Now since there are known gaps in the genealogies,
even from a strictly biblical point of view the genealogies cannot be considered closed. Scientific and historical
evidence. Even if one takes the most conservative interpretation of what constitutes a human remain of "modern
man," the evidence is still strong that there were human beings around well before 4000 B.C. Peoples appear to
have wandered North America since 10,000 B.C. Even if all fossil finds before Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal
peoples were not human, there are numerous complete skeletons of these groups dated before 10,000 B.C. Even if
one discounts all prehistoric precivilization fossils and speaks only of "civilized" humankind, the time extends
several thousand years earlier than 4000 B.C. There was a civilization in Egypt well before this time. Scientific and
historical evidence would seem to rule out a closed genealogy." ... Open genealogies are a better solution to the
problem. ... In another example, a comparison of 1 Chronicles 6:3-14 with Ezra 7:2 reveals that Ezra omits six
generations between Seraiah and Ezra: ..." (Geisler N.L., "Genealogies, Open or Closed," in "Baker Encyclopedia
of Christian Apologetics," Baker Books: Grand Rapids MI, 1999, pp.267-268)
23/08/2005
"There is at least one generation missing even in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogy which appears to be
closed. This demonstrates that whatever the text seems to say, chronology must be interpreted through an open
genealogy. If there are no gaps in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies, implausible examples emerge. For by adding
up the numbers one can determine the following dates of birth and death A.A. (after Adam's creation): ... First,
Adam, the first man (see ADAM, HISTORICITY OF), would have been a contemporary of Noah's father. For
Adam died in the year 930 A.A. (after Adam's creation). Lamech, Noah's father, was born in 874 A.A. This means
they were contemporaries for fifty-six years. Likewise, Abraham only missed being a contemporary of Noah by
two years. But there is no indication that this is the case. It is more implausible to assume that Nahor, the
grandfather of Abraham, died before his great, great, great, great, great, great, grandfather Noah. For Noah died
2006 A.A. and Nahor died in 1997 A.A. Isaac would have been born fifty years before Noah's son Shem died."
(Geisler N.L., "Genealogies, Open or Closed," in "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," Baker Books:
Grand Rapids MI, 1999, pp.268-269. Emphasis in original)
23/08/2005
"Nowhere does the Bible even suggest a summation of the numbers listed in Genesis 5 and 11. No chronological
statement is deduced from these numbers either in Genesis 5 and 11 or anywhere else in Scripture. There is no
total given anywhere in the biblical text of the time that elapsed between creation and Abraham, as there is for the
time in Egypt (Exod. 12:40) and the time from the Exodus to Solomon (1 Kings 6:1). The symmetry of the text
argues against it being complete. Scholars have noted that their symmetrical arrangement of Genesis 5 and 11
into groups of ten argues for their compression. Noah is the tenth name from Adam and Terah the tenth from
Noah. Each ends with a father who had three sons. This is certainly the case in Matthew 1 where there are three
series of fourteen (double-seven, the number of completeness and perfection), for we know three generations are
left out in Matthew 1:8 (cf. 1 Chron. 3:11-12). ... Of objections to the open genealogy view not yet discussed, the
most important one is based on the alleged implausible interpretation of the language of Genesis 5 and 11. It is
objected that not only does it seem stretched to find gaps in Genesis 5 or 11, given the language of the text, but it
seems like isogesis (reading into the text) rather than exegesis (reading out of the text). After all, the name of the
father and son are given as well as their age when they had this son who became the father of the next son at a
certain age. Listing the father's age at the time of the son's birth is without meaning unless he is the immediate
son, and there are no gaps. In response, some important matters must be kept in mind. First, the Bible comes out
of another culture and linguistic setting. Metaphorical imagery can mislead the reader into thinking the Bible is
saying something, when it means something different. In Hebrew, as in English, one can speak of the four
`corners' of the earth (Isa. 41:9; cf. Ezek. 7:2). Is the Bible saying that the world is square? Some critics say so. Yet
the earth is also described as a circle or globe (Isa. 40:22). Is it possible that corners is metaphorical language that
may mean the geography covered by the four `quarters' of the compass, just as it means when we say it? Second,
as noted in the implausible dates above, even within the Bible there is strong evidence of gaps in the
genealogies. Third, there are ways to understand the text of Genesis 11 that do allow for gaps. The formula
phrase `and X lived so many years and begat Y' can mean `and X lived so many years and became the ancestor
of Y' This is not speculation, for in Matthew 1:8 ('Jehoram begat Uzziah') it means precisely this. `Begat' must
mean `became the ancestor of,' since 1 Chronicles 3:11-12 fills in three missing generations between Jehoram and
Uzziah. This would not have been an oversight by Matthew, for the genealogy of the line of David was known
by every Jewish man. ... The evidence supports the view that the Bible does not give us in Genesis 5 and 11 a
closed chronology but an outline genealogy. This is supported by both internal biblical evidence of missing
generation(s), even in Genesis 11, but also by external evidence that humankind dates to long before 4000 B.C.
This being the case, there is no real conflict on this matter between the Bible and science nor between the Bible
and itself. Open genealogy provides an accurate line of descent for lineage purposes, but it does not satisfy our
curiosity about the date of human creation." (Geisler N.L., "Genealogies, Open or Closed," in "Baker
Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," Baker Books: Grand Rapids MI, 1999, p.269-270)
23/08/2005
"James Orr has his own incisive way of putting the matter: `It is not uncommon to hear inspiration spoken of as if
it rendered the subject of it superior to ordinary sources of information, or at least was at hand to supply
supernaturally all gaps or deficiencies in that information. The records of the Bible have only to be studied as
they lie before us to show that this is an entire mistake....In historical matters it is evident that inspiration
is dependent for its knowledge of facts on the ordinary channels of information -on older documents, on oral
tradition, on public registers, on genealogical lists, etc. No sober-minded defender of inspiration would now think
of denying this proposition. One has only to look into the Biblical books to discover the abundant proof of it.
The claim made is that the sources of information are good, trustworthy, not that inspiration lifts the
writer above the need of dependence on them. ... Thus, for the history of David, reference is made to three works
the Book of Samuel the Seer, the Book of Nathan the Prophet, the Book of Gad the Seer. For numerous reigns
extracts are given from `the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel' (or 'of the Kings of Judah' or 'of the
Kings of Israel and Judah'). ... Where sources of information fall, or where, as may sometimes happen, there are
lacunae, or blots, or misreadings of names, or errors of transcription, such as are incidental to the transmission of
all MSS., it is not to be supposed that supernatural information is granted to supply the lack. Where this is
frankly acknowledged, inspiration is cleared from a great many of the difficulties which misapprehension has
attached to it." [Orr J., "Revelation and Inspiration," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, pp. 163-165] ...: Since the
purpose of inspiration is to communicate life in Christ this purpose is reached whether or not the Holy Spirit
corrected the documents from which the Chronicler drew his information. God does all things perfectly, but the
standard of this perfection is the will of God, not the will of man. And one instrument under the will of God is the
inspired Chronicler inspired, that is, to make us wise unto salvation, and not to supply us with an infallible review
of Semitic history." (Carnell E.J.*, "The Case for Orthodox Theology," Westminster Press: Philadelphia PA, 1959,
pp.106-109. Emphasis in original)
23/08/2005
"To us who live in this late day, the second millennium B.C. seems very long ago indeed. We are tempted to think
of it as lying near the dawn of time, when man first struggled upward from savagery into the light of history, and
are prone, therefore, to underestimate its cultural achievements. We are further prone to picture the Hebrew
ancestors, tent-dwelling wanderers that they were, as the most primitive of nomads, cut off by their mode of life
from contact with what culture there was, whose religion was the crudest sort of animism or polydaemonism. So,
in fact, did many of the older handbooks depict them. This, however, is an erroneous notion and a symptom of
want of perspective a carry-over from days when little was known at first hand of the ancient Orient. It is
necessary, therefore, to throw the picture into focus. Horizons have widened amazingly in the past generation.
Whatever one says of Israel's origins must be said with full awareness that these lie nowhere near the dawn of
history. The earliest decipherable inscriptions both in Egypt and in Mesopotamia reach back to the early
centuries of the third millennium B.C.- thus approximately a thousand years before Abraham, fifteen hundred
before Moses. There history, properly speaking, begins. Moreover, in the course of the last few decades
discoveries in all parts of the Bible world, and beyond it, have revealed a succession of yet earlier cultures which
reach back through the fourth millennium, the fifth, and the sixth, to the seventh and, in many instances, farther
still. The Hebrews were in fact late-comers on history's stage. All across the Bible lands, cultures had come to
birth, assumed classical form, and run their course for hundreds and even thousands of years before Abraham
was born, Difficult as it is for us to realize, it is actually farther in time from the beginnings of civilization in the
Near East to the age of Israel's origins than it is from that latter age to our own!" (Bright J., "A History of Israel,"
[1959], SCM Press" London, Third Edition, 1988, pp.23-24)
24/08/2005
"The image of selection sifting through the variants in a given population, sorting out the fit from the unfit, was
expressed long before the nineteenth century by a great many naturalists or philosophers. Aristotle, that
universal precursor, even enunciated the principle of the struggle for life: `The animals are at war with one
another whenever they live in the same places and take the same food. If food is scarce they fight, even when
they belong to the same species.' He even asks, in the `Physics' (Book II, Chapter 8), `whether such fighting may
not have caused the extinction of forms insufficiently adapted to living conditions, and the conservation of those
which are so adapted, whence the apparent finality we observe.' But he at once rejects the idea, seeing
that finality is in nature as the exception and not the rule; moreover, he believes the resources of nature are great
enough to make it impossible for any one of its works to be destroyed. What is more, not all animals fight one
another, some are friends' (Perrier, 1896, p. 16)." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a
New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.108-109. Emphasis in original)
24/08/2005 "Natural selection remains the foundation of Darwinism, which postulates its universality and
makes of it the agent responsible for the evolution of all living organisms. Only viable forms have survived (a
truism), only those systems which perform the function required of them. Instead of the disorder of random
mutations, selection creates order, equilibrium, even harmony. ... If we say selection, we finalize the system. There
can be no selection without a purpose. Whether it is willed by necessity or some other factor matters little; the
causes vary, but are directed nonetheless.." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New
Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.108-109. Emphasis in original)
24/08/2005 "What interests us for the time being is to what extent the losses suffered by any animal or plant
population participate in the evolutionary process. Both animal and plant species suffer enormous losses,
primarily affecting the reproductive systems and the embryo. An exceedingly high fertility rate notwithstanding,
many populations remain numerically stable, every pair replaced in due course by another. This testifies to the
high mortality rate among gametes, embryos, and the young in general. ... The wholesale destruction of eggs,
spermatozoa, seeds, and larvae is not selective. Death does not choose its victims, but strikes blindly. ... During
development of the embryo and in infancy, the elimination of the unfit, and of the pathological, is fully operative;
it safeguards the genotype, but has no guiding influence in evolution. The massive losses caused by natural
cataclysms that destroy huge areas are unselective, whether for animals or for plants. They devastate blindly and
are random as to place and circumstance: tidal waves, floods, forest fires, bush fires respect no one and nothing.
... At any rate it does not call any novel species into being." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living
Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.109-
111. Emphasis in original)
24/08/2005 "Let us not confuse creative evolution with variations in the composition of a population through
circumstances. They are two distinct things, and any attempt to connect them is purely specious." (Grasse P.-P.,
"Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New
York NY, 1977, p.111)
24/08/2005 "Survival of the fittest is the result of action that is essentially suppressive. If it operated fully, natural
single-species populations would tend toward a unified genotype, and multispecies populations would tend
toward monospecificity. But the not-so-good persists, the natural populations remain (genetically speaking) very
highly heterogeneous. ... Although in the vast majority of cases the mutant that is generally "inferior" to the wild
type is eliminated, the mutant persists and finds a niche in the population. ... Demographic studies on
experimental populations of Drosophila have revealed that selective values of genotypes depend upon the
environmental conditions in which they live." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New
Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.111-112)
24/08/2005 "The Hardy-Weinberg law is merely mentioned as demonstrating the gap between theory and reality.
It has been variously stated, and we quote it as follows: `In a large stable population in which matings are
random (panmixia), selection is inoperative, and mutations do not occur, the frequencies of different genes and
genotypes will remain constant in succeeding generations.' This law refers to an ideal state, not to any real
conditions. Hence it is of little interest to the evolutionist, who has to consider concrete reality-what exists, not
what is fictitious." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation,"
[1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.112)
24/08/2005 "Taking now an evolutionist view of the matter, experiments and observations with experimental
populations in a constant environment show the extent to which selection varies in its action, due to many
different causes. Outside the laboratory, in the wild, the complexity of the environment increases considerably in
proportions not easily quantified; both genotypes and selective factors increase in number. It is difficult to tell
what foothold a given characteristic may offer for selection. If the mutation endangers the life of the animal or
plant, its effects on the population concerned are easily known. Of course, no measurement of the advantages or
drawbacks of a given characteristic to its bearer makes sense unless it compares the respective numbers of
offspring in which it is found or not found. In the case of a single characteristic and in homogeneous
populations, we can say that the differences in numbers do relate to the differential characteristic involved. In
heterogeneous populations genic actions and interactions are so complex that it is hard to make such a
statement. Since species differ greatly in respect to the number of genes, any comparison to establish the
selective value of a characteristic is practically meaningless. Demographic inequalities have too many causes for
us to know which one is the more or less important." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for
a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.113-114. Emphasis in original)
24/08/2005 "The advantage or disadvantage resulting from a characteristic whose incidence is small is not easily
assessed. For example, statistical studies on populations of the woodland snail (Cepaea nemoralis), carried out in
France by Lamotte (1951, 1966) and in Britain by Cain and Sheppard (1950, 1952, 1954) and Cain and Currey (1963,
1968a,b) failed to reach the same conclusions. Lamotte considers the presence or absence, and relative size, of
dark bands as nonselective. The English authors disagree with this conclusion and attribute the different
occurrence of individuals with or without bands to selection. Despite the contribution made by Ford (1971), the
debate has reached no definitive, reliable, or satisfactory conclusion. The opposing data are even more
interesting because all the authors are orthodox Darwinians. It must be remembered that Cepaea shells found in
Pleistocene deposits (about 1 million years old) already had dark and pink bands (Diver, 1929). This fact alone
shows how unimportant adornments may be for the survival of the species: Let history be the judge, and its
verdict is unmistakeable-survival or extinction." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a
New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.114)
24/08/2005 "Since evaluation of what is or is not advantageous is impossible in the case of fossil animal
populations, whatever may be said about the selective value of a given characteristic is pure imagination. It is not
because individuals with long spines become more numerous in a population of cidarid sea urchins that the
characteristic `long spine' accounts for their predominance; this might be a very natural effect of growth
continuing with age. Quite another characteristic (resistance to parasites, lower embryonic losses, etc.) may be a
possible cause. Where the imagination is given free rein we must learn to control it." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of
Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977,
p.114)
24/08/2005 "Although the future of an experimental population remains unpredictable, despite all the high quality
of the mathematical tools at the demographer's disposal and his mastery of the environmental parameters, this is
much more the case in a natural population, where the prediction is virtually impossible. The chance of unnoticed
mutations in itself precludes any reliable prediction of the population's outcome. As I say elsewhere in this book,
theory holds true so long as it does not have to face reality, whose complexity is overwhelming." (Grasse P.-P.,
"Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New
York NY, 1977, p.114)
24/08/2005 "Mutability far exceeds, in the light of the latest discoveries of molecular biology, the numbers
regarded as maximal thirty years ago. We could almost say that every gene mutates and does so frequently; but
mutations of very small magnitude (the "neutral mutations" of Goodman and other molecular biologists), and
phenotypically unobservable, are by far the most common, as protein analysis has made us realize (hemoglobin,
etc.). Behind a facade of stability and constancy, the living world is truly, as Montaigne called it, an eternal
seesaw. Stability in variation is the seeming paradox by which all living things are governed. Variability affirms
and emphasizes individuality, endowing every creature with its own particular structure and chemistry. Each
individual has its own proteins, which make up its personality. Fluctuation, because of the tiny errors in
replication found everywhere in the products of the genes, has as a first consequence the `personalization' of
every genotype, every phenotype. The mutations visible by direct observation represent gross copying errors,
and mostly create disturbances of the shape and health of the animal concerned. Such mutations are eliminated at
the boundary where the monstrous and the pathological begin; this should come as no surprise, for life is
incompatible with disorder." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of
Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.114-115)
24/08/2005 "Selection motivated by competition between individuals of the same or different species awards a
survival or reproducibility `bonus' to the best endowed. Take the timeworn examples of wolves hunting deer: the
fastest runners survive because of being the best fed; they are those who capture the most prey. Lucretius used
it first, and Darwin (1859, see 1887, p. 97) took it from him. There is just one snag: it is not true. Like wild dogs,
wolves hunt in packs and run down their prey to exhaustion. The group hunts down the chosen victim, and
all the members of the pack follow the chase and are in at the kill. There are no champions, who alone
appropriate all the food. The solitary hunt is the exception; it is the act of aging males or individuals driven out of
the pack, and it does not interest the reproducers, the dominant males. Social ranking order is much more
important in deciding the fate of the individual, who may be excluded from breeding (psychological castration)."
(Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic
Press: New York NY, 1977, p.115. Emphasis in original)
25/08/2005
"THE GREAT LEAP FORWARD What happened at that magic moment in evolution around 40,000 years ago,
when we suddenly became human? As we saw in Chapter One, our lineage diverged from that of apes millions of
years ago. For most of the time since then, we have remained little more than glorified chimpanzees in the ways
we have made our living. As recently as 40,000 years ago, Western Europe was still occupied by Neanderthals,
primitive beings for whom art and progress scarcely existed. Then there was an abrupt change, as anatomically
modern people appeared in Europe, bringing with them art, musical instruments, lamps, trade, and progress.
Within a short time, the Neanderthals were gone. That Great Leap Forward in Europe was probably the result of a
similar leap that had occurred over the course of the preceding few tens of thousands of years in the Near East
and Africa. Even a few dozen millenia, though, is a trivial fraction (less than one per cent) of our millions of years
of history separate from that of the apes. Insofar as there was any single point in time when we could be said to
have become human, it was at the time of that leap. Only a few more dozen millenia were needed for us to
domesticate animals, develop agriculture and metallurgy, and invent writing. It was then but a short further step
to those monuments of civilization that distinguish humans from animals across what used to seem an
unbridgeable gulf-monuments such as the 'Mona Lisa' and the Eroica Symphony, the Eiffel Tower and
Sputnik, Dachau's ovens and the bombing of Dresden. This chapter will confront the questions posed by our
abrupt rise to humanity. What made it possible, and why was it so sudden?" (Diamond J., "The Rise and Fall of
the Third Chimpanzee," Vintage: London, 1992, p.27)
25/08/2005
"Readers unfamiliar with details of our evolution might be forgiven for assuming that the appearance of Homo
sapiens constituted the Great Leap Forward. Was our meteoric ascent to sapiens status half-a-million years
ago the brilliant climax of Earth's history, when art and sophisticated technology finally burst upon our
previously dull planet? Not at all: the appearance of Homo sapiens was a non-event. Cave paintings,
houses, and bows and arrows still lay hundreds of thousands of years off in the future. Stone tools continued to
be the crude ones that Homo erectus had been making for nearly a million years. The extra brain size of
those early Homo sapiens had no dramatic effect on our way of life. That whole long tenure of Homo
erectus and early Homo sapiens outside Africa was a period of infinitesimally slow cultural change. In
fact, the sole candidate for a major advance was possibly the control of fire, of which caves occupied by Peking
Man provide one of the earliest indications in the form of ash, charcoal, and burnt bones. Even that advance - if
those cave fires really were man-lit rather than natural - would belong to Homo erectus, not Homo
sapiens. Thus, the emergence of Homo sapiens illustrates the paradox discussed in Chapter One: that
our rise to humanity was not directly proportional to the changes in our genes. Early Homo sapiens had
progressed much further in anatomy than in cultural attainments along the road up from chimpanzeehood. Some
crucial ingredients still had to be added before the Third Chimpanzee could conceive of painting the Sistine
Chapel." (Diamond J., "The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee," Vintage: London, 1992, p.31)
25/08/2005
"I mentioned that the Neanderthals of Europe and Western Asia were just one of at least three human
populations occupying different parts of the Old World around 100,000 years ago. A few fossils from Eastern
Asia suffice to show that people there differed from Neanderthals as retell as from us moderns, but too few bones
have been found to describe these Asians in more detail. The best characterized contemporaries of the
Neanderthals are those from Africa, some of whom were virtually modern in their skull anatomy. Does this mean
that, 100,000 years ago it Africa, we have at last arrived at the watershed of human cultural development?
Surprisingly, the answer is still 'no'. The stone tools of these modern looking Africans were very similar to those
of the decidedly unmodern looking Neanderthals, hence we refer to them as 'Middle Stone Age Africans'. They
still lacked standardized bone tools, bows and arrows nets, fishhooks, art, and cultural variation in tools from
place to place. Despite their almost modern bodies, these Africans were still missing that vital something
necessary to endow them with full humanity. Once again, we face the paradox that almost modern bones, and
presumably almost modern genes, are not enough by themselves to produce modern behaviour." (Diamond J.,
"The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee," [1991], Vintage: London, 1992, pp.38-39)
25/08/2005
"Thus, the scene that the human world presented from around 100,000 to somewhat before 50, 000 years ago was
this. Northern Europe, Siberia, Australia, the oceanic islands, and the whole New World were still empty of
people. In Europe and Western Asia lived the Neanderthals; in Africa, people increasingly like us moderns in
their anatomy; and in Eastern Asia, people unlike either the Neanderthals or Africans but known from only a few
bones. All three of these populations were, at least initially, still primitive in their tools, behaviour, and limited
innovativeness. The stage was set for the Great Leap Forward. Which among these three contemporary
populations would take that leap? The evidence for an abrupt rise is clearest in France and Spain, in the Late Ice
Age around 40,000 years ago. Where there had previously been Neanderthals, anatomically fully modern people
(often known as Cro-Magnons, from the French site where their bones were first identified) now appear. Had one
of those gentlemen or ladies strolled down the Champs Elysees in modern attire, he or she would not have stood
out from the Parisian crowds in any way. As dramatic to archaeologists as the Cro-Magnons' skeletons are their
tools, which are far more diverse in form and obvious in function than any in the earlier archaeological record.
The tools suggest that modern anatomy had at last been joined by modern innovative behaviour." (Diamond J.,
"The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee," [1991], Vintage: London, 1992, p.40)
25/08/2005
"It used to be argued that Neanderthals evolved into Cro-Magnons within Europe. That possibility now seems
increasingly unlikely. The last Neanderthal skeletons from around 40,000 years ago were still `full-blown'
Neanderthals, while the first Cro-Magnons appearing in Europe at the same time were already anatomically fully
modern. Since anatomically modern people were already present in Africa and the Near East tens of thousands of
years earlier, it seems much more likely that anatomically modern people invaded Europe from that direction than
that they evolved within Europe. ... Did some invading Cro-Magnon men mate with some Neanderthal women?
No skeletons that could reasonably be considered Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon hybrids are known. If Neanderthal
behaviour was as relatively rudimentary, and Neanderthal anatomy as distinctive, as I suspect, few Cro-Magnons
may have wanted to mate with Neanderthals. Similarly, although humans and chimps continue to coexist today, I
am not aware of any matings. While Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals were not nearly as different, the differences
may still have been a mutual turn-off. And if Neanderthal women were geared for a twelve-month pregnancy, a
hybrid foetus might not have survived. My inclination is to take the negative evidence at face value, to accept
that hybridization occurred rarely if ever, and to doubt that living people of European descent carry any
Neanderthal genes." (Diamond J., "The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee," [1991], Vintage: London, 1992,
pp.42-43)
25/08/2005
"So much for the Great Leap Forward in Western Europe. The replacement of Neanderthals by modern people
occurred somewhat earlier in Eastern Europe, and still earlier in the Near East, where possession of the same area
apparently shifted back and forth between Neanderthals and modern people from 90,000 to 60,000 years ago. The
slowness of the transition in the Near East, compared to its speed in Western Europe, suggests that the
anatomically modern people living around the Near East before 60,000 years ago had not yet developed the
modern behaviour that ultimately let them drive out the Neanderthals." (Diamond J., "The Rise and Fall of the
Third Chimpanzee," [1991], Vintage: London, 1992, pp.45-46)
25/08/2005
"Some groups of humans who lived in Africa and the Near East over 60,000 years ago were quite modern in their
anatomy, as far as can be judged from their skeletons, but they were not modern in their behaviour. They
continued to make Neanderthal-like tools and to lack innovation. The ingredient that produced the Great Leap
Forward does not show up in fossil skeletons. There is another way to restate that puzzle. We share ninety-eight
per cent of our genes with chimpanzees ... The Africans making Neanderthal-like tools just before our sudden rise
to humanity had covered almost all of the remaining genetic distance between us and chimps, to judge from their
skeletons. Perhaps they shared 99.9% of their genes with us. Their brains were as large as ours, and
Neanderthals' brains were even slightly larger. The missing ingredient may have been a change in only 0.1 % of
our genes. What tiny change in genes could have had such enormous consequences? Like some other scientists
who have speculated about this question, I can think of only one plausible answer: the anatomical basis for
spoken complex language." (Diamond J., "The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee," [1991], Vintage: London,
1992, pp.46-47)
25/08/2005
"Given this capability for symbolic communication using sounds, why have apes not gone on to develop much
more complex natural languages of their own? The answer seems to involve the structure of the larynx, tongue,
and associated muscles that give us fine control over spoken sounds. Like a Swiss watch, all of whose many
parts have to be well-designed for the watch to keep time at all, our vocal tract depends on the precise
functioning of many structures and muscles. Chimps are thought to be physically incapable of producing several
of the commonest human vowels. If we too were limited to just a few vowels and consonants, our own
vocabulary would be greatly reduced. For example, take this paragraph, convert all vowels other than `a' or `i' to
either of those two, convert all consonants other than `d' or `m' or `s' to one of those three, and then see how
much of the paragraph you can still understand. Therefore, the missing ingredient may have been some
modifications of the proto-human vocal tract to give us finer control and permit formation of a much greater
variety of sounds. Such fine modifications of muscles need not be detectable in fossil skulls. It is easy to
appreciate how a tiny change in anatomy resulting in capacity for speech would produce a huge change in
behaviour. With language, it takes only a few seconds to communicate the message, `Turn sharp right at the
fourth tree and drive the male antelope towards the reddish boulder, where I'll hide to spear it.' Without language,
that message could be communicated only with difficulty, if at all. Without language, two protohumans could not
brainstorm together about how to devise a better tool, or about what a cave painting might mean. Without
language, even one proto-human would have had difficulty thinking out for himself or herself how to devise a
better tool." (Diamond J., "The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee," [1991], Vintage: London, 1992, pp.47-48)
25/08/2005
"I do not suggest that the Great Leap Forward began as soon as the mutations for altered tongue and larynx
anatomy arose. Given the right anatomy, it must have taken humans thousands of years to perfect the structure
of language as we know it - to arrive at the concepts of word order and case endings and tenses, and to develop
vocabulary. ... But if the missing ingredient did consist of changes in our vocal tract that permitted fine control of
sounds, then the capacity for innovation would follow eventually. It was the spoken word that made us free. ...
Until the Great Leap Forward, human culture had developed at a snail's pace for millions of years. That pace was
dictated by the slow rate of genetic change. After the Leap, cultural development no longer depended on genetic
change. Despite negligible changes in our anatomy, there has been far more cultural evolution in the past 40,000
years than in the millions of years before. Had a visitor from outer space come to the Earth in Neanderthal times,
humans would not have stood out as unique among the world's species. At most, the visitor might have
mentioned humans along with beavers, bowerbirds, and army ants as examples of species with curious
behaviour. Would the visitor have foreseen the change that would soon make us the first species, in the history
of life on Earth, capable of destroying all life?" (Diamond J., "The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee," [1991],
Vintage: London, 1992, p.48)
25/08/2005
"The first indications that our ancestors were in any respect unusual among animals were our extremely crude
stone tools that began to appear in Africa by around two-and-a-half million years ago. The quantities of tools
suggest that they were beginning to play a regular, significant role in our livelihood. Among our closest relatives,
in contrast, the pygmy chimpanzee and gorilla do not use tools, while the common chimpanzee occasionally
makes some rudimentary ones but hardly depends on them for its existence. Nevertheless, those crude tools of
ours did not trigger any quantum Jump in our success as a species. For another million-and-a-half years, we
remained confined to Africa. Around a million years ago we did manage to spread to warm areas of Europe and
Asia, thereby becoming the most widespread of the three chimpanzee species but still much less widespread than
lions. Our tools progressed only at an infinitely slow rate, from extremely crude to very crude. By a hundred
thousand years ago, at least the human populations of Europe and western Asia, the Neanderthals were regularly
using fire, but in other respects we continued to rate as just another species of big mammal. We had developed
not a trace of art agriculture, or high technology. It is unknown whether we had developed language, drug
addiction, or our strange modern sexual habits and life-cycle, but Neanderthals rarely lived beyond the age of
forty and hence may not yet have evolved female menopause. Clear evidence of a Great Leap Forward in our
behaviour appear suddenly in Europe around 40,000 years ago, coincident with the arrival of anatomically
modern Homo sapiens from Africa via the Near East. At that point, we began displaying art, technology
based on specialized tools, cultural differences from place to place, and cultural innovation with time. This leap in
behavior undoubtedly been developing outside Europe, but the development must have been rapid, since the
anatomically modern Homo sapiens populations living in southern Africa 100,000 years ago were still just
glorified chimpanzees, judging by the debris in their cave sites. Whatever caused the leap it must have involved
only a tiny fraction of our genes, because we still differ from chimps in only 1.6% of our genes, and most of that
difference had already developed long before our leap in behaviour. The best guess I can make is that the leap
was triggered by the perfection of our modern capacity for language." (Diamond J., "The Rise and Fall of the
Third Chimpanzee," Vintage: London, 1992, pp.328-329
29/08/2005
"Yet the trained body of physiologists under the influence of the ideas germane to their successful methodology
entirely ignore the whole mass of adverse evidence. We have here a colossal example of anti-empirical dogmatism
arising from a successful methodology. Evidence which lies outside the method simply does not count. We are,
of course, reminded that the neglect of this evidence arises from the fact that it lies outside the scope of the
methodology of the science. That method consists in tracing the persistence of the physical and chemical
principles throughout physiological operations. The brilliant success of this method is admitted. But you cannot
limit a problem by reason of a method of attack. The problem is to understand the operations of an animal body.
There is clear evidence that certain operations of certain animal bodies depend upon the foresight of an end and
the purpose to attain it. It is no solution of the problem to ignore this evidence because other operations have
been explained in terms of physical and chemical laws. The existence of a problem is not even acknowledged. It is
vehemently denied. Many a scientist has patiently designed experiments for the purpose of substantiating his
belief that animal operations are motivated by no purposes. He has perhaps spent his spare time in writing
articles to prove that human beings are as other animals so that `purpose' is a category irrelevant for the
explanation of their bodily activities, his own activities included. Scientists animated by the purpose of proving
that they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." (Whitehead A.N., "The Function of Reason," Louis Clark
Vanuxem Foundation Lectures, Princeton University, March 1929, p.16)
29/08/2005
"Design theory-also called design or the design argument-is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having
been designed by a preexisting intelligence. It has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient
Greece. The most famous version of the design argument can be found in the work of theologian Willi