[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [Quotes, Unclassified, Classified]
The following are quotes added to my Unclassified Quotes database in October 2006. The date format is dd/mm/yy. See copyright conditions at end.
[Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Nov, Dec]
1/10/2006
"But what about Van Till's claim that creation is somehow more gifted if all events are done with creation on
`autopilot,' all developments somehow being incorporated into the initial design scheme? I believe such a
design would substantially compromise the universe that we have in one of several ways. First if the
provision of information is to come through the assignment of properties to matter, then the outcomes that
are possible will be significantly limited by the initial property assignments given. If, for example, the
sequencing of amino acids in proteins were due to the chemical bonding preferences, then only one or a few
sequences would be permissible, severely limiting the varieties of proteins that could be produced. On the
other hand, when this information is provided by other means the number of ways that biopolymers (such
as proteins) or systems (such as living cells) can be organized is indeed unlimited. Second, the constraint of
trying to put all of the information into the initial properties may have some very significant performance
penalties that are not apparent at first glance. Suppose that I wanted to design an automobile that could
self-assemble. It would certainly be possible in principle to make such an automobile. However, the degree
of complexity associated with these additional requirements would greatly increase the cost and would
almost certainly compromise the performance, since these additional capabilities come at a high cost of
additional complexity that is useful only in the assembly but not thereafter. In the same way, there may be
some significant design compromises in a universe that is able to unfold with all the necessary information
incorporated into the properties of matter. In summary, there is no rational basis for Van Till's claim that a
universe that unfolds entirely on autopilot represents a better design or a more fully gifted creation by God
than one in which not all of the necessary information is imparted in the properties of matter alone but is
incorporated at certain critical points in the developmental history of the universe." (Bradley, W.L.*,
"Response to Robert C. Newman," in Moreland, J.P. & Reynolds, J.M., eds., "Three Views on Creation and
Evolution," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1999, pp.135-136)
2/10/2006
"The probability of Darwinist evolution depends upon the quantity of favorable micromutations required to
create complex organs and organisms, the frequency with which such favorable micromutations occur just
where and when they are needed, the efficacy of natural selection in preserving the slight improvements
with sufficient consistency to permit the benefits to accumulate, and the time allowed by the fossil record for
all this to have happened. ... Some mathematicians did try to make the calculations, and the result was a
rather acrimonious confrontation between themselves and some of the leading Darwinists at the Wistar
Institute in Philadelphia in 1967. The report of the exchange is fascinating, not just because of the substance
of the mathematical challenge but even more because of the logic of the Darwinist response. For example,
the mathematician D.S. Ulam argued that it was highly improbable that the eye could have evolved by the
accumulation of small mutations, because the number of mutations would have to be so large and the time
available was not nearly long enough for them to appear. Sir Peter Medawar and C. H. Waddington
responded that Ulam was doing his science backwards; the fact was that the eye had evolved and therefore
the mathematical difficulties must be only apparent. ["Discussion: Paper by Dr. Ulam," in Moorhead, P.S. &
Kaplan, M.M., ed., "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution," The Wistar
Institute Press: Philadelphia PA, 1967, pp.28-29] Ernst Mayr observed that Ulam's calculations were based
on assumptions that might be unfounded, and concluded that `Somehow or other by adjusting these figures
we will come out all right. We are comforted by the fact that evolution has occurred.' [Ibid., p.30] The
Darwinists were trying to be reasonable, but it was as if Ulam had presented equations proving that gravity
is too weak a force to prevent us all from floating off into space. Darwinism to them was not a theory open to
refutation but a fact to be accounted for, at least until the mathematicians could produce an acceptable
alternative." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], Second Edition, InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL,
1993, pp.38-39)
2/10/2006
"On the other hand, the kappa is a difficult thing because, as Waddington and Medawar just said a gene
produces, let's say, an enzyme. All right, suppose we have 1,000 different kinds of cells in a higher organism-
brain cells, nerve cells, skin cells, gland cells, and whatnot. All of them carry the same gene locus;
potentially, the enzyme could be produced in each one of them. It depends on the postulated (and surely
they must be there) regulator genes, when each is turned on and in what amount. Kappa somehow or other-
has to incorporate this. If a given gene is selected for because it does something good in the eye, what does
this same gene do in all the other cells of the organism? That is a thing we have never taken into
consideration and the evolutionist is very simple-minded about this. He takes the total average and says,
`Well, as long as the phenotype as a whole, in terms of selection, is improved we have got something there.'
So all I am saying is we have so much variation in all of these things that somehow or other by adjusting
these figures we will come out all right. We are comforted by knowing that evolution has occurred." (Mayr,
E.W., "Discussion: Paper by Dr. Ulam," in Moorhead P.S. & Kaplan M.M., ed., "Mathematical Challenges to
the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution: A Symposium Held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and
Biology, April 25 and 26, 1966," The Wistar Institute Symposium Monograph Number 5, The Wistar
Institute Press: Philadelphia PA, 1967, p.30)
2/10/2006
"Punctuated equilibria began showing up in creationist tracts as evidence that some scientists openly doubt
evolution. The line of reasoning seems to have been: (1) Darwin founded evolutionary theory, (2) Some
scientists doubt that Darwin got it entirely right, (3) Ergo, some scientists oppose evolution. Nor was this
line of thinking restricted to obscure religious tracts. I am reliably informed (by the man who claimed to have
pulled it off) that Steve Gould and I, thanks to our punctuated equilibria, were the scientists Ronald Reagan
had in mind [sic] when he said, `Well, it is a theory, a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been
challenged in the world of science and is not yet believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it
once was believed,' just after he addressed a group of fundamentalists during his first presidential election
campaign [Holden, C., "Republican Candidate Picks Fight with Darwin," Science, Vol. 209, 12 September
1980, p.1214]. Naturally we jumped into the fray, as did many of our opposite numbers at the High Table.
Closing ranks to face a common enemy is a natural reaction. In a way, creationism was good for evolutionary
biology. It made us articulate our basic precepts more clearly. And it reminded us that we have, after all is
said and done, more in common as evolutionists than we have issues that drive us apart." (Eldredge, N.,
"Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," [1995], Phoenix: London, 1996, reprint, p.104)
2/10/2006
"SCIENTISTS believe they have discovered a `God module' in the brain which could be responsible for
man's evolutionary instinct to believe in religion. A study of epileptics who are known to have profoundly
spiritual experiences has located a circuit of nerves in the front of the brain which appears to become
electrically active when they think about God. The scientists said that although the research and its
conclusions are preliminary, initial results suggest that the phenomenon of religious belief is `hard-wired'
into the brain. Epileptic patients who suffer from seizures of the brain's frontal lobe said they frequently
experience intense mystical episodes and often become obsessed with religious spirituality. A team of
neuroscientists from the University of California at San Diego said the most intriguing explanation is that the
seizure causes an overstimulation of the nerves in a part of the brain dubbed the `God module'. `There may
be dedicated neural machinery in the temporal lobes concerned with religion. This may have evolved to
impose order and stability on society,' the team reported at a conference last week. The results indicate that
whether a person believes in a religion or even in God may depend on how enhanced is this part of the
brain's electrical circuitry, the scientists said. ... Evolutionary scientists have suggested that belief in God,
which is a common trait found in human societies around the world and throughout history, may be built
into the brain's complex electrical circuitry as a Darwinian adaptation to encourage co-operation between
individuals. If the research is correct and a `God module' exists, then it might suggest that individuals who
are atheists could have a differently configured neural circuit." (Connor, S., "'God spot' is found in brain,"
Los Angeles Times, 29 October 1997. Emphasis original)
3/10/2006
"Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and their friend the psychologist and militant atheist Nicholas Humphrey talk
about the `memes' they disapprove of in exactly the same way that fundamentalists talk about `demons'. In
both cases, their opponents' ideas are dismissed as the result, quite literally, of possession. If this is your
point of entry into their ideas it makes it hard to take seriously anything else they have to say, which is
unfortunate. ... One culmination of the process was reached in 1997, when Nick Humphrey argued that
parents should be forbidden by the state to transmit beliefs he finds obnoxious. `Children have a right not to
have their minds addled by nonsense. And we as a society have a duty to protect them from it. So we
should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe in the literal truth of the Bible, or that the
planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a
dungeon.' [Humphrey, N., "What shall we Tell the Children?," Amnesty Lecture, Oxford, 21 February 1997]
What makes this suggestion truly extraordinary is that it was delivered as a contribution to human rights, as
part of an amnesty lecture, and the programme of censorship he was advocating was justified on the
grounds that teaching children falsehoods is a wrong as great as mutilating them physically. Something has
gone very badly wrong when the pieties of atheism are so stifling that no one notices anything odd in the
proposal to take into care children who are allowed to read an astrology column (or perhaps merely to jail or
fine their parents) simply because this modest proposal is justified by appeals to scientific knowledge and
human rights. If nothing else, this shows that the attitudes which made the Inquisition obnoxious are able to
survive and flourish in an atmosphere untainted by Christian orthodoxy and that the problematic
consequences of religion cannot be abolished merely by abolishing religious belief. Humphrey is able, in the
course of one and the same lecture, to argue that religious belief or superstition must necessarily crumble
into dust at the touch of science, and that it is such a cruel and irreversible mutilation of a child's mind to
teach that the Bible is literally true that it must be banned by law." (Brown, A., "The Darwin Wars: How
Stupid Genes Became Selfish Gods," Simon & Schuster: London, 1999, pp.171-173)
4/10/2006
"For over a quarter-century after the Scopes trial in 1925, American textbook publishers tried to avoid
antagonizing conservative Christians by saying as little as possible about evolution. This policy of
`neutrality based on silence' began to crumble in the late 1950S, after the Soviet Union in 1957 successfully
launched Sputnik, the first artificial satellite to circle the earth. An embarrassed United States sought to
regain world leadership in science and technology by pouring millions of dollars into improving science
education. Backed by generous funding from the National Science Foundation, a group of biologists in the
American Institute of Biological Sciences established a center at the University of Colorado, the Biological
Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), to produce state-of-the-art biology texts. Responding in part to
complaints from leading biologists that `one hundred years without Darwinism are enough,' [Muller, H.J.,
"One hundred years without Darwinism are enough," The Humanist, Vol. 19, 1959; p.139] the BSCS
authors wove evolution into their material as `the warp and woof of modern biology.' After extensive testing
in over a thousand schools, the BSCS in 1963 issued three versions of its tenth-grade text, each identified by
the dominant color of its cover: blue, yellow, or green. Before long nearly half of the high schools in America
were using these books or other curriculum materials developed by the BSCS-and introducing hundreds of
thousands of high-school students to their apelike ancestors. Like Bernard Ramm's attack on flood geology,
which had provoked Whitcomb and Morris into defending Pricean catastrophism, these controversial texts
created a furious backlash against the very theory they were designed to promote. Not surprisingly,
concerned creationists viewed this latest offensive as an `attempt to ram evolution down the throats of our
children.' `It seems clear,' wrote Rita Rhodes Ward (b. 1910), a creationist biology teacher in El Paso, that all
three of these books are dedicated to the promulgation of total organic evolution to the exclusion of
objectivity in biology, if need be, in order to eliminate any belief in fiat creation.' In making God unnecessary,
she argued, the texts stopped just short of espousing atheism." (Numbers, R.L., "The Creationists: the
Evolution of Scientific Creationism," [1992], University of California Press: Berkeley CA, 1993, pp.238-239)
4/10/2006
"The present struggle over evolution is often seen by defenders of Darwinism as a culture war in which
creationism is a part of a general right-wing ideology that justifies an authoritarian, traditionalist society,
protecting `traditional values' against assaults from social revolutionaries intent on overturning long-held
moral values. It is certainly true that creationism is far more popular in the rural South, the Midwest, and the
Southwest among supporters of the present Republican administration than among urban Northern
Democrats. But the evolution/creation struggle has a complex history. Before World War II the science of
evolution was virtually absent from school curricula everywhere in America, although explicit creationism
was characteristic largely of the rural South and West. Then the atomic bomb and, later, an immense
increase in the public funding of science as a response to the alarm raised by Sputnik resulted in a
revolution in teaching science. With support from the National Science Foundation, evolution became a
regular part of biology textbooks and science instruction in the public schools and remains so in most
places." (Lewontin, R.C., "The Wars Over Evolution." Review of "The Evolution-Creation Struggle," by
Michael Ruse, Harvard University Press, 2005 and Richerson, P.J. & Boyd, R., "Not By Genes Alone: How
Culture Transformed Human Evolution," University of Chicago Press, 2004. The New York Review of
Books, Vol. 52, No. 16, October 20, 2005)
4/10/2006
"In response, among those who had never lost their traditional fundamentalism, an active creationist
reaction began, slowly accelerating to its present prominence. According to a series of polls taken over the
last twenty-five years, about 50 percent of Americans believe that `God created man pretty much in his
present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.' There have been repeated recent attempts in
Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, and Kansas to make the study of challenges to
evolutionary biology part of the mandated public school science curriculum. These have so far not
succeeded, but Kansas seems on the verge of passing a statewide requirement that a new variant of the
Creation myth, `intelligent design,' be part of the discussion of evolution in public secondary schools.
Intelligent design (ID) has itself been intelligently designed to circumvent legal challenges to the teaching of
biblical creationism, challenges based on the constitutional requirement of a separation of church and state.
God, the Bible, and religion in general are not mentioned in the doctrine of ID. Rather, it is claimed that an
objective examination of the facts of life makes it clear that organisms are too complex to have arisen by a
process of the accumulation of naturally selected chance mutations and so must have been purposefully
created by an unspecified intelligent designer. An alien from outer space? But the theory of ID is a
transparent subterfuge. The problem is that if the living world is too complex to have arisen without an
intelligent designer, then where did the intelligent designer come from? After all, she must have been as
complex as the things she designed. If not, then we have evolution! Otherwise we must postulate an
intelligent designer who designed the intelligent designer who..., back to the original one who must have
been around forever. And who might that be? Like the ancient Hebrews the ID designers fear to pronounce
Her name lest they be destroyed, but Her initials are clearly YWH." (Lewontin, R.C., "The Wars Over
Evolution." Review of "The Evolution-Creation Struggle," by Michael Ruse, Harvard University Press, 2005
and Richerson, P.J. & Boyd, R., "Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution,"
University of Chicago Press, 2004. The New York Review of Books, Vol. 52, No. 16, October 20, 2005)
4/10/2006
"In 1957, the situation changed. With the launch of Sputnik, Americans awoke to find that a scientifically
advanced Soviet Union had beaten the United States into space. This spurred rapid revisions of science
textbooks, some emphasizing biological evolution. But the anti-evolution statutes were still in force, and so
some teachers using newer books were violating the law. One of these teachers, Susan Epperson, brought
suit against the state of Arkansas for violating the Establishment Clause. She won the right to teach
evolution, and Epperson v. Arkansas was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in 1968, only a year
after Tennessee finally rescinded the Butler Act. Finally it was legal to teach evolution everywhere in
America. The opponents of evolution proceeded to re-think their strategy, deciding that if they could not
beat scientists, they would join them. They thus recast themselves as `scientific creationists,' proposing an
ostensibly non-religious alternative to the theory of evolution that might be acceptable in the classroom.
But the empirical claims of scientific creationism--that the Earth is young (6,000 to 10,000 years old), that all
species were created suddenly and simultaneously, that mass extinctions were caused by a great worldwide
flood--bore a suspicious resemblance to creation stories in the Bible. ... Scientific creationism proved a bust
for two reasons. First, the "science" was ludicrously wrong. ... Scientific creationism also came to grief
because its advocates did not adequately hide its religious underpinnings." (Coyne, J., "The Case Against
Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name." The New Republic, August 11, 2005)
4/10/2006
"Sputnik captured the attention of the American people, creating widespread support for improving science
education. In response, President Eisenhower requested a `billion dollar, four year program to strengthen
and improve science education and research,' leading to the enactment of the massive National Defense
Education Act in 1958. That year, a Gallup survey found that a majority of interviewed high-school
principals were changing their science programs in response to Sputnik. Fear of Soviet science drove the
American public to heed scientific opinion in reforming domestic science education. These reforms included
the biological sciences, especially after the National Science Foundation began funding the Biological
Science Curriculum Study (BSCS) in 1959. Like its counterpart for physics, the BSCS set about rewriting
high-school textbooks, and the leading biologists serving on the Study (which included Hermann Muller)
boldly embraced evolution. The appearance of the BSCS texts in the early sixties shattered the thirty-year
truce in legal activities enveloping the anti-evolution issue." (Larson, E.J., "Trial and Error: The American
Controversy over Creation and Evolution," Oxford University Press: New York NY, 2003, p.91)
4/10/2006
"With somewhat less certainty, most scientists think that people who look like us - anatomically modern
Homo sapiens - evolved by at least 130,000 years ago from ancestors who had remained in Africa. Their
brain had reached today's size. They, too, moved out of Africa and eventually replaced nonmodern human
species, notably the Neanderthals in Europe and parts of Asia, and Homo erectus, typified by Java Man
and Peking Man fossils in the Far East. But agreement breaks down completely on the question of when,
where and how these anatomically modern humans began to manifest creative and symbolic thinking. That
is, when did they become fully human in behavior as well as body? When, and where, was human culture
born? `It's the hot issue, and we all have different positions,' said Dr. John E. Yellen, an archaeologist with
the National Science Foundation. For much of the last century, archaeologists thought that modern
behavior flowered relatively recently, 40,000 years ago, and only after Homo sapiens had pushed into
Europe. They based their theory of a `creative explosion' on evidence like the magnificent cave paintings in
Lascaux and Chauvet. But some rebellious researchers suspected that this theory was a relic of a time when
their discipline was ruled by Eurocentrism. Archaeologists, the rebels contended, were simply not looking
for earlier creativity in the right places. Several recent discoveries in Africa and the Middle East are
providing the first physical evidence to support an older, more gradual evolution of modern behavior, one
not centered in Europe. But other scientists, beyond acknowledging a few early sparks in Africa, remain
unswayed. One prominent researcher is putting forward a new hypothesis of genetic change to explain a
more recent and abrupt appearance of creativity. The debate has never been so intense over what
archaeologists see as the dawn of human culture. `Europe is a little peninsula that happens to have a large
amount of spectacular archaeology,' said Dr. Clive Gamble, director of the Center for the Archaeology of
Human Origins at the University of Southampton in England. `But the European grip of having all the
evidence is beginning to slip. We're finding wonderful new evidence in Africa and other places. And in the
last two or three years, this has changed and widened the debate over modern human behavior.' The
uncertainty and confusion over the origin of modern cultural behavior stem from what appears to be a great
time lag between the point when the species first looked modern and when it acted modern. Perhaps the first
modern Homo sapiens emerged with a capacity for modern creativity, but it remained latent until needed
for survival. `The earliest Homo sapiens probably had the cognitive capability to invent Sputnik,' said Dr.
Sally McBrearty, an anthropologist at the University of Connecticut. `But they didn't yet have the history of
invention or a need for those things.'" (Wilford, J.N., "Debate Is Fueled on When Humans Became Human,"
The New York Times, February 26, 2002)
4/10/2006
"Evolution, for example, was barely mentioned in school textbooks; as late as 1954, my children, in Raleigh,
North Carolina, read that `God made the flowers out of sunshine.' Then came Sputnik and the demand that
the science curriculums be radically revised to make our children scientifically competent. one consequence
was the complete rewriting of the biology curriculums by the Biological Science Curriculum Study, an
enterprise run by professors from the most prestigious establishment universities and funded by the
National Science Foundation. Suddenly the study of evolution was in all the schools. The culture of the
dominant class had triumphed, and traditional religious values, the only vestige of control that rural people
had over their own lives and the lives of their families, had been taken from them. Not only in Oklahoma and
Arkansas, but in California and Texas among the descendants of the Okies and Arkies of the 1930s, the new
emphasis on evolution has been met by a renewed defense of the old tradition. Some of the tactics are new,
`scientific creationism' for example, but the struggle is the old one. It is the struggle between the culture of a
dominant class and the traditional ideology of those who feel themselves dominated." (Lewontin, R.C.,
"Introduction", in Godfrey, L.R., ed., "Scientists Confront Creationism", W.W. Norton: New York NY, 1983,
pp.xxv-xxvi)
4/10/2006
"Prof John Rust may be wearing a black shirt, and talking a lot about eugenics, but don't get the wrong idea
about the UK's only professor of psychometrics, now resident in Cambridge. After an already distinguished
career in psychometrics, the professor came to Cambridge in November to set up The Psychometric Centre,
part of Cambridge University's assessment department and likely to become a nice little earner. As well as
being a centre for academic research, it will also serve the needs of those who want to use the science of
psychometrics in education and in the business world for staff selection. More widely, the science is about
understanding the statistics gathered from tests, knowing how to design the tests, and making sure what
comes out the other end is going to be reliable and relevant. ... Eugenics is a hard one to talk about, and the
PR people in the room fidget uncomfortably as the subject gathers pace. `Psychometrics has been linked
with eugenics, and Darwin was involved in it, the idea that people were getting less intelligent because the
races having big families were less intelligent than the civilised races who were having fewer children,' says
Prof Rust. `In the 1920s, tests started to be used in the US to restrict immigration, and in some countries
they were used to decide whether or not people could be allowed to reproduce, which, of course, led on to
Nazism.'" (J.C., "Professor is putting centre to the test," Cambridge Evening News 3 October 2006)
5/10/2006
"Though at first glance seemingly plausible, metabolism-first models have only superficial merit because
they appeal to unrealistic chemistry. Orgel has specifically identified a number of problems. He points out
that cycles and networks operating on early Earth would have been highly susceptible to disruption by
chemical interferents and competing side reactions. Without enzymes, protometabolic reactions cannot
proceed rapidly enough to sustain a protocell unless aided by some sort of chemical accelerant." Mineral
surfaces are the only reasonable candidates for service as prebiotic catalysts. While mineral surfaces can
catalyze specific reactions, to propose that a mineral will catalyze the range of chemical reactions required
for cycles or chemical networks to operate is simply unrealistic. An attempt to increase the catalytic range
by invoking the availability of many different types of mineral surfaces only creates an additional
problemthe need to efficiently transport "metabolites" from mineral site to mineral site. These parameters
question how a chemical cycle could be maintained and evolve into a protocell's metabolic system. In
Orgel's words, metabolism-first scenarios require an "appeal to magic," a "series of remarkable
coincidences," or a "near miracle." [Orgel, L.E., "Self-organizing biochemical cycles," Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 97, No. 23, November 7, 2000, pp.12503-12507] Investigators
Antonio Lazcano and Stanley L. Miller identify another problem with the metabolism-first scenarios,
particularly for those models asserting that protometabolic systems resemble the contemporary metabolism
found in cells. [Lazcano, A. & Miller, S.L., "On the origin of metabolic pathways," Journal of Molecular
Evolution, Vol. 49, No. 4, October 1999; pp.424-431] They point out that postulated prebiotic routes for
key biomolecules dramatically differ from the metabolic pathways that produce the same compounds.
Though some experimental support exists, a thorough chemical analysis of these models exposes
fundamental flaws. Metabolism-first scenarios seem unlikely to explain the first life forms. [Shapiro, R.,
"Monomer World," 13th International Conference on the Origin. of Life, Oaxaca, Mexico, June 30 - July 5,
2002, p. 60]" (Rana, F.R. & Ross, H.N., "Origins of Life: Biblical And Evolutionary Models Face Off,"
Navpress: Colorado Springs CO, 2004, pp.116-117)
5/10/2006
RNA Assembly on Mineral Surfaces In the mid-1990s, researchers Leslie Orgel and James Ferris stirred
excitement within the scientific community by assembling lengthy RNA molecules from chemically activated
RNA subunits (nucleotides). This assembly was accomplished by washing solutions of the reactants over
mineral surfaces, then allowing the solutions to evaporate. [Ertem,. G. & Ferris, J.P., "Synthesis of RNA
Oligomers on Heterogeneous Templates," Nature Vol. 379, 1996, pp.238-240; Ferris, J.P., et al.,
"Synthesis of Long Prebiotic Oligomers on Mineral Surfaces," Nature, Vol. 381, 1996, pp.59-61]
Commentators heralded this work as a key demonstration that prebiotic conditions could have produced
self-replicators. [Lipkin, R. "Early Life: In the Soup or on the Rocks?" Science News 149, 1996, p.278]
Closer evaluation of this effort, however, prompts a different conclusion. As Shapiro points out, Orgel's and
Ferris's teams conducted these experiments under selective conditions that excluded potential chemical
interferents. The homopolymer problem was ignored. [Shapiro, R., "A Replicator Was Not Involved in the
Origin of Life," IUBMB Life Vol. 49, 2000, pp.173-176].To prove the point, Orgel's team demonstrated that
even the incorporation of opposite-handed nucleotides ... disrupts RNA chain formation. [Joyce, G.E., et
al., "The Case for An Ancestral Genetic System Involving Simple Analogues of the Nucleotides,"
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 84, 1987, pp.4398-4402] Orgel's team also showed
that though mineral surfaces may promote RNA formation, they also catalyze its decomposition. [Orgel, L.E.,
"NSCORT 2000 Progress Report," http://exobio.ucsd.edu/00Orgel.htm; Internet] RNA breakdown occurs on
surfaces of both lead-containing and calcium-containing minerals. In addition, these workers discovered
that the amino acids glutamate and histidine stimulate the breakdown of RNA in a solution. A Japanese team
demonstrated that rare Earth elements (like cerium) present in the primordial oceans would have catalyzed
the breakdown of the RNA backbone linkage. [Akaboshi, M., et al., "Inhibition of Rare Earth Catalytic
Activity by Proteins," Origin of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, Vol. 30, 2000, pp.25-32] Inhibition of
this cleavage would require an unrealistically high level of proteins in the early oceans. Other problems for
mineral-assisted RNA formation include (1) the irreversible attachment of RNA to mineral surfaces once the
molecular chain grows to a certain length and (2) researchers' use of `activated' monomers unlikely to occur
under prebiotic conditions. Also, the clay catalysts must be carefully treated to remove all metal ions except
sodium. If not, no catalytic reactions occur.[Ferris, J.P., "Prebiotic Chemistry Catalysis and RNA Synthesis,"
ISSOL 2002; Ertem, G., "Montmorillonite, Oligonucleotides, RNA and Origin of Life," ISSOL 2002] The
bottom line is: Laboratory simulation experiments that synthesize RNA on mineral surfaces differ
substantially from early Earth's conditions. [Wills, C.J. & Bada, J.I., "The Spark of Life: Darwin and the
Primeval Soup," Perseus: Cambridge, 2000, pp.101-103] When scientists consider more realistic scenarios,
they quickly discover that homopolymer assembly could not have occured in the prebiotic realm." (Rana,
F.R. & Ross, H.N., "Origins of Life: Biblical And Evolutionary Models Face Off," Navpress: Colorado
Springs CO, 2004, pp.116-118. Emphasis original)
5/10/2006
"THE MOLECULAR BIOLOGISTS' DREAM The RNA-first scenario for the origin of the RNA World that
we have described as the `Molecular Biologists' Dream (Joyce & Orgel, 1999) can be strung together from
optimistic extrapolations of the various achievements of prebiotic chemistry and directed RNA evolution
described above. First we suppose that [1] nucleoside bases and [2] sugars were formed by prebiotic
reactions on the primitive Earth and/or brought to the Earth in meteorites, comets, etc. Next, [3] nucleotides
were formed from prebiotic bases, sugars, and inorganic phosphates or polyphosphates, and [4] they
accumulated in an adequately pure state [5] in some special little `pool.' [6] A mineral catalyst at the bottom
of the pool-for example, montmorillonite-then catalyzed the formation of long single-stranded
polynucleotides, some of which were then converted to complementary double strands by template-directed
synthesis. In this way [7] a library of double-stranded RNAs accumulated on the primitive Earth. We
suppose that among the double-stranded RNAs there was [8] at least one that on melting yielded a (single-
stranded) ribozyme capable of copying itself and its complement. Copying the complement would then have
produced a second ribozyme molecule, and then repeated copying of the ribozyme and its complement
would have lead to an exponentially growing population. In this scenario this is where [9] natural selection
takes over. Darwin suggested that all life is descended from one or a few simple organisms that evolved on
the Earth long ago. According to the more radical scenario of the Molecular Biologists' Dream, the whole
biosphere descends from one or a few replicating polynucleotides that formed on the primitive Earth about
four billion years ago. Of course, there are still a few problems in prebiotic chemistry that must be solved
before the Dream can be turned into a convincing theory! In addition, [10] a plausible prebiotic mechanism
for keeping together ribozymes and the products of their activity, for example, enclosure within a membrane,
must be demonstrated ..." (Orgel, L.E., "Prebiotic Chemistry and the Origin of the RNA World," Critical
Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp.99-123. Emphasis original. Parentheses
mine)
5/10/2006
"DNA's simple and elegant structure - the `twisted ladder,' with sugar-phosphate chains making up the `rails'
and oxygen- and nitrogen-containing chemical `rungs' tenuously uniting the two halves - seems to be the
work of an accomplished sculptor. Yet the graceful, sinuous profile of the DNA double helix is the result of
random chemical reactions in a simmering, primordial stew. Just how nature arrived at this molecule and its
sister molecule, RNA, remains one of the greatest - and potentially unsolvable - scientific mysteries. But
Vanderbilt biochemist Martin Egli, Ph.D., isn't content to simply study these molecules as they are. He wants
to know why they are the way they are. `These molecules are the result of evolution,' said Egli, professor of
Biochemistry. `Somehow they have been shaped and optimized for a particular purpose.' `For a chemist, it
makes sense to analyze the origin of these molecules.' One particular curiosity: how did DNA and RNA
come to incorporate five-carbon sugars into their `backbone' when six-carbon sugars, like glucose, may have
been more common? Egli has been searching for the answer to that question for the past 13 years."
(""Uncovering DNA's 'Sweet' Secret," ScienceDaily, October 3, 2006)
6/10/2006
"Between negating the argument for God from design in nature and magnifying the problem that worldly evil
poses to his omnipotence, Dawkins argues that Darwinism effectively denies the existence of God: `The
universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no
purpose, no evil and no good.' [Dawkins, R., "River out of Eden," Phoenix: London, 1996, p.155] Drawing
such theological lessons from Darwinism is nothing new, but Dawkins's vigorous style has made them
popular once again. Dennett and Provine pick up where Dawkins leaves off: pushing the Darwinist assault
on theism in popular books and public lectures. 'The creationists who oppose [Darwinism] so bitterly are
right about one thing,' Dennett gloats in one of the best-selling science books of 1995. `Darwin's dangerous
idea cuts much deeper into the fabric of our fundamental beliefs than many of its sophisticated apologists
have yet admitted.' [Dennett, D.C., "Darwin's Dangerous Idea," [1995], Penguin: London, 1996, p.18] Indeed,
he asserts, it denies the existence of an intelligent designer or caring creator and effectively proves `that
God is, like Santa Claus, a myth of childhood, not anything a sane, undeluded adult could literally believe in.'
Teaching school children otherwise, Dennett decrees, `is a terrible offense.' [Dennett, Ibid, p.18] Provine adds, "The
destructive implications of evolutionary biology extend far beyond the assumptions of organized religion to
a much deeper and more pervasive belief, held by the vast majority of people, that nonmechanistic
organizing designs or forces are somehow responsible for the visible order of the physical universe,
biological organisms and human moral order." Darwinism is utterly incompatible with such beliefs, he
maintains. "There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing
forces that are rationally detectable." [Provine, W.B., "Evolution and the Foundation of Ethics," Marine
Biological Laboratory Science, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1988, pp.26,27] For theists of any type, the message from these
Darwinists could not have been more stark: Our science disproves your religion." (Larson E.J., "Trial and
Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution," Oxford University Press: New York NY,
2003, p.192)
6/10/2006
"Darwin, Dennett, Provine, and others like them sweep with a broad brush. Respecting the implication of
Darwinism, they make no distinction between belief in theistic evolution (broadly defined to include any
notion of God guiding or acting through evolution) and strict creationism. [Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker," W.W Norton & Co: New York NY, 1986, pp.316-317; Dennett, D.C., "Darwin's Dangerous
Idea," Simon & Schuster, 1995, pp.520-521; Provine, W.B., "Evolution and the Foundation of Ethics,"
Marine Biological Laboratory Science, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1988, p.26] The same polls reporting that nearly hall
of all Americans believe in the special creation of humankind also find that most of the other half accept
theistic evolution. According to surveys conducted by the Gallup organization, only about one in ten
Americans profess to believe in a Godless form of evolution, and even that number may overstate
acceptance of the utterly blind, purposeless evolution espoused by Dawkins and company. [Gallup, G. &
Lindsay, D.M., "Surveying the Religious Landscape - Trends in U.S. Beliefs," Morehouse Publishing Co:
Harrisburg PA, 1999, p.38] `I think that if Gallup had asked [about that],' Provine offers, `most of those who
believed that God did not guide evolution would have agreed that some other purposive force did.'
Evolutionary biologists stand apart, he maintains. `Most are atheists, and many have been driven there by
their understanding of the evolutionary process.' [Provine, Ibid, pp.26,28 By highlighting the alleged conflict
between Darwinism and theism, Dawkins, Dennett, and Provine helped to shape the evolution-teaching
controversy of the 1990s by pushing it beyond the familiar battle between biblical literalists and mainstream
evolutionists." (Larson, E.J., "Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution,"
Oxford University Press: New York NY, 2003, p.193)
7/10/2006
"Note also these comments by Arthur Keith: `Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only
because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.' [Keith, A., in "Why I Believe In
Creation," Evolution Protest Movement Pamphlet: Great Britain, 1968]" (Wysong, R.L.*, "The Creation-
Evolution Controversy: Toward a Rational Solution," [1976], Inquiry Press: Midland MI, 1993, Ninth
Printing, p.31)
9/10/2006
"Although the scientists have won all the legal battles, there are still a lot of creationists around who are
very much unconvinced by what the Darwinists are telling them. How many there are depends upon how
`creationism' is defined. The most visible creationists are the biblical fundamentalists who believe in a young
earth and a creation in six, twenty-four hour days; Darwinists like to give the impression that opposition to
what they call `evolution' is confined to this group. In a broader sense, however, a creationist is any person
who believes that there is a Creator who brought about the existence of humans for a purpose. In this broad
sense, the vast majority of Americans are creationists. According to a 1991 Gallup poll, 47 percent of a
national sample agreed with the following statement: `God created mankind in pretty much our present form
sometime within the last 10,000 years.' Another 40 percent think that `Man has developed over millions of
years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.' Only 9
percent of the sample said that they believed in biological evolution as a purposeless process not guided by
God. The evolutionary theory endorsed by the American scientific and educational establishment is of
course the creed of the 9 percent, not the God-guided gradual creation of the 40 percent. Persons who
endorse a God-guided process of evolution may think that they have reconciled religion and science, but
this is an illusion produced by vague terminology." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning," in
Buell, J. & Hearn, V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?" Foundation for Thought and Ethics:
Richardson TX, 1994, pp.10-11)
9/10/2006
"Gallup polls consistently indicate that only about ten percent of the U.S. population accepts the sort of
evolution advocated by Dawkins, Ruse, and Shermer, that is, evolution in which the driving force is the
Darwinian selection mechanism. The rest of the population is committed to some form of intelligent design.
Now it goes without saying that science is not decided in an opinion poll. Nevertheless, the overwhelming
rejection of Darwinian evolution in the population at large is worth pondering. Although Michael Shermer
exaggerates when he claims that no research biologist doubts the power of natural selection, he is certainly
right in claiming that this is the majority position among biologists. Why has the biological community failed
to convince the public that natural selection is the driving force behind evolution and that evolution so
conceived (i.e., Darwinian evolution) can successfully account for the full diversity of life? This question is
worth pondering since in most other areas of science the public readily signs off on the considered
judgments of the scientific community. Why not here? Steeped as our culture is in the fundamentalist-
modernist controversy, the usual answer is that religious fundamentalists, blinded by their dogmatic
prejudices, willfully refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming case for Darwinian evolution. Although there
may be something to this charge, fundamentalist intransigence cannot be solely responsible for the
overwhelming rejection of Darwinian evolution by the public. Fundamentalism in the sense of strict biblical
literalism is a minority position among religious believers. Most religious traditions do not make a virtue out
of alienating the culture. Despite postmodernity's inroads, science retains tremendous cultural prestige. The
religious world by and large would rather live in harmony with the scientific world. Most religious believers
accept that species have undergone significant changes over the course of natural history and therefore
that evolution in some sense has occurred (consider, for instance, Pope John Paul II's recent endorsement of
evolution). The question for religious believers and the public more generally is not the fact of evolution but
the mechanism of evolutionary change -- that chance and necessity alone are enough to explain life. I submit
that the real reason the public continues to resist Darwinian evolution is because the Darwinian mechanism
of chance variation and natural selection seems inadequate to account for the full diversity of life. One
frequently gets the sense from reading publications by the National Academy of Science, the National
Center for Science Education, and the National Association of Biology Teachers that the failure of the
public to accept Darwinian evolution is a failure in education. If only people could be made to understand
Darwin's theory properly, so we are told, they would readily sign off on it. This presumption -- that the
failure of Darwinism to be accepted is a failure of education -- leads easily to the charge of fundamentalism
once education has been tried and found wanting. For what else could be preventing Darwinism's immediate
and cheerful acceptance except religious prejudice? It seems ridiculous to convinced Darwinists that the
fault might lie with their theory and that the public might be picking up on faults inherent in their theory.
And yet that is exactly what is happening." (Dembski, W.A.*, "Disbelieving Darwin and Feeling No Shame,"
Metanexus Institute, March 16, 2000)
9/10/2006
"The appearance of that story coincided with the release of a new Gallup Poll, reporting on the state of
American opinion regarding evolution and creation [Sheler, J.L & Schrof, J.M., "The Creation: Religion's
search for a common ground with science," U.S. News and World Report, December 23, 1991]. According
to this survey, approximately 47 per cent of Americans can be described as creationists, in that they say
they believe that God created mankind in pretty much our present form sometime within the last 10,000
years. Another 40 per cent agreed with the following statement: `Man has developed over millions of years
from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.' Only 9 per cent of
the sample said that they accepted the naturalistic view of evolution, which in Gallup's wording was that
man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, with God having no part in this
process. As is usual with public opinion polls, the figures probably would have been different if the
questions had been worded differently. For example, the figure of 47 percent is much larger than the actual
number of genuine six- day, young-universe Genesis literalists, because the question asked only about the
creation of man. Even if God intervened in nature to create man sometime within the last 10,000 years, this
event could have been preceded by billions of years of biological and cosmic evolution. Reservations of
this sort do not alter the basic picture, however. Most Americans believe that God created human beings in
furtherance of a divine purpose, whether suddenly and recently or gradually through ages of evolution.
Only a small minority believes in a purely naturalistic and materialistic evolutionary process, which was not
guided by God." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Evolution and Theistic Naturalism", Founder's Lectures, Part 1, Trinity
Evangelical Divinity School, 1992)
9/10/2006
"According to a 1982 Gallup poll aimed at measuring nationwide opinion, 44 percent of respondents agreed
with the statement that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000
years." That would seem to mark those respondents as creationists in a relatively narrow sense. Another 38
percent accepted evolution as a process guided by God. Only 9 percent identified themselves as believers in
a naturalistic evolutionary process not guided by God. The philosophy of the 9 percent is now to be taught
in the schools as unchallengeable truth." (Johnson, P.E.* "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of
Naturalism," [First Things, October 1990], Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, 1990, reprint,
p.10)
9/10/2006
"The Gallup polls done over a period of time indicate that if you ask the public, `Do you agree with this
statement: God created man sometime within the last ten thousand years pretty much as he is now?' about
44 per cent say they agree. They're classified as biblical creationists. (Note that the statement does not say
anything about a possible long period of animal evolution beforehand; this is the kind of ambiguity you
often find in polling statements.) Then another 40 per cent or so will say that they believe in a process of
evolution that was guided by God throughout. That adds up to around 85 per cent. There are a few
undecideds, and then about 9 per cent agree with the official scientific position that man was a product of a
purely natural process of evolution over millions or billions of years, a process in which God played no part,
which is what they mean when they teach in schools that evolution is a fact. The scientific elites are worried
that they have such low public support. There is a confusion here about the middle group. If you believe in
God-guided evolution, are you an evolutionist or a creationist? Sometimes those people are said to be
evolutionists. But they aren't, really, because what evolution aims to do is to provide a purely naturalistic
explanation of life and its history and origin, allowing no role for anything supernatural. An intelligence that
guided evolution would itself be unevolved and therefore supernatural. It could not be recognized. God-
guided evolution is not evolution at all; it is slow creation. For strategic purposes, sometimes, the scientific
community and their journalistic allies like to claim these people, and so they blur that distinction."
(Johnson, P.E.*, "Evolution and the Curriculum: A Conversation with Phillip Johnson and Gregg
Easterbrook," Ethics and Public Policy Center, February 2000, No. 4)
9/10/2006
"Americans are notoriously ill-informed about evolution. A recent Gallup poll (June 1993) discovered that 47
percent of adult Americans believe that Homo sapiens is a species created by God less than ten thousand
years ago" (Dennett, D.C., "Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life," [1995], Penguin:
London, 1996, reprint, p.263)
9/10/2006
"According to Gallup polls, about 44 percent of Americans believe in a biblical creationist view, that `God created
man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.' About 40 percent believe in `theistic
evolution,' the idea that God oversaw and guided the millions of years of evolution that culminated with
humankind. Only one in 10 of those surveyed held a strict, secular evolutionist perspective." Rosin, H., "Kansas
Board Targets Darwin," Washington Post, August 8, 1999; p.A1)
9/10/2006
"At the nationwide political level, creationists had induced several state legislatures or School boards to
enact measures that required evolution to be taught as theory rather than fact or that attempted in some way
to open the curriculum to criticism of evolution. Rosin explained that this partial success rested on a
substantial degree of public support among Americans for either creationism or God-guided evolution: `The
movement's recent success may in part be a reflection of the fairly widespread sympathy for some of its
basic principles. According to Gallup polls, about 44 percent of Americans believe in a biblical creationist
view, that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years:" About
40 percent believe in "theistic evolution," the idea that God oversaw and guided the millions of years of
evolution that culminated with humankind. Only one in 10 of those surveyed held a strict, secular
evolutionist perspective.' [Rosin, H., "Kansas Board Targets Darwin," Washington Post,
August 8, 1999; p.A1] The creed of the 10 percent is what the science educators have in mind when they
teach that 'evolution is a fact.' In the language of the Gallup poll question, it affirms that `man has developed
over millions of years from less advanced forms of life; God had no part in this process.' It is not surprising
that in a country where the vast majority of citizens believe in God, it is controversial to require that the
public schools teach as fact (or as implicit in the very definition of `science') that God played no discernible
part in the creation of plants, animals and human beings. It is also not surprising that many citizens,
unpersuaded by official reassurances that `science and religion are separate realms,' [Press, F., "Science and
Creationism: A View From the National Academy of Sciences," National Academy Press: Washington DC,
1984] suspect that a religious or antireligious ideology lies behind the enormous importance science
educators attach to persuading young people that evolution is their creator." (Johnson, P.E.*, "The Wedge
of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism," Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2000, pp.64-66.
Emphasis original)
9/10/2006
"THE PREFACE TO the 1984 pamphlet Science and Creationism: A View From the National Academy of
Sciences, signed by the Academy's president, Frank Press, assured the nation that it is "false...to think that
the theory of evolution represents an irreconcilable conflict between religion and science." Dr. Press
explained: `A great many religious leaders accept evolution on scientific grounds without relinquishing their
belief in religious principles. As stated in a resolution by the Council of the National Academy of Sciences
in 1981, however, "Religion and science are separate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought whose
presentation in the same context leads to misunderstanding of both scientific theory and religious belief."'
The Academy's concern was only to justify its opposition to creationscience, and it did not feel obliged to
explain what `religion' might be, or under what circumstances the religious realm might be entitled to
protection from incursions by science." (Johnson, P.E.*, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press:
Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, pp.125-126. Emphasis original).
9/10/2006
"The percentage of the hard core of evolutionary sentiment in the United States-those who believe in
macroevolution with no intelligent guidance at all-has been measured by Gallup polls as relatively small.
Over the past fifteen years Gallup has repeatedly listed the percentage of those who hold to a `recent
creation' view (vaguely described by Gallup) to be about 40 to 45 percent, while the `God-guided evolution'
view garnered another 40 to 45 percent. The third category, holding to a strictly naturalistic evolution, in
which there was no participation by a preexisting intelligence, has consistently hovered at or slightly under
10 percent. Note that in the Gallup analysis, American adults have been split into a three-segment cross
section, tilted decisively (eight to one or better) toward potential interest in Design's story and its scientific
case. Phillip Johnson frequently quotes the Gallup figures, arguing that the `view of the nine percent' is
enshrined as textbook orthodoxy.' However, the most significant figure for the rhetorical landscape of
Design is not the nine percent but the larger figures combined. Already, nearly half of the American people
hold a recent-creation position (they are implicitly friendly to Design), and nearly another half-holding a
God-guided view of evolution-are potentially open to the story. ... I described the Gallup `recent creation'
view as vague because this option only says that humankind was brought into its present form by a divine
act of creation in the last ten thousand years. It does not mention previous evolution or creation of other
species. Conceivably, a progressive creationist, who holds that the earth is four billion years old and that
God created the Cambrian marine species in a direct creative act 540 million years ago, could answer yes to
the `recent creation' option if that is where he or she places the time of God's creation of humankind on the
timeline." (Woodward, T.E., "Doubts about Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design," Baker: Grand Rapids
MI, 2003, pp.197-198, 281n25)
9/10/2006
"In views that diverge widely from those in other developed nations, about 45 percent of American adults
take the Bible's story of creation literally. Only about one in 10 subscribe to a purely scientific explanation of
evolution. ... `This is a fertile soil for such controversies to continue to thrive,' says George Bishop, a
University of Cincinnati political science professor who has compared different nations' views on evolution.
`It just doesn't go away.' ... In a November 1997 poll by the Gallup Organization that quizzed people about
their views on the origin of humans, 44 percent agreed with the statement, `God created human beings pretty
much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.' `That's a lot of people,' Bishop
says. `That's not like it's some small minority position.' Another 39 percent subscribed to a `theistic
evolution' view, that humans did develop over millions of years from lower life forms, but God guided the
process. Only 10 percent said they believe in evolution with no participation from God. Seven percent had
no opinion. The views have not changed much in recent years. A 1982 Gallup poll, asking the same
question, found a virtually identical distribution of opinion. Among scientists, only 5 percent hold the literal
Bible view, 40 percent believe in theistic evolution and a majority, 55 percent, believe in evolution without
help from God." (Chang, K., "Evolutionary Beliefs: Views in U.S. Much Different than Elsewhere," ABC
News, August 16, 1999)
10/10/2006
"I have criticized Galileo freely, but I do not feel at liberty to criticize the change in his behaviour before the
Inquisition. He was seventy, and he was afraid. That his fears were exaggerated, and that his self-immolatory
offer (which the Inquisitors discreetly allowed to drop as if it had never been made) was quite unnecessary,
is beside the point. His panic was due to psychological causes: it was the unavoidable reaction of one who
thought himself capable of outwitting all and making a fool of the Pope himself, on suddenly discovering
that he has been 'found out'. His belief in himself as a superman was shattered, his self-esteem punctured
and deflated. He returned to the Tuscan Embassy, in Niccolini's words 'more dead than alive'. From then on
he was a broken man. ... The remainder of the trial was now expected to be a mere formality. Throughout the
proceedings Galileo had been treated with great consideration and courtesy. Against all precedent he was
not confined to the dungeons of the Inquisition, but was allowed to stay as the Tuscan Ambassador's guest
at the Villa Medici, until after his first examination. Then he had to surrender formally to the Inquisition, but
instead of being put into a cell, he was assigned a five-roomed flat in the Holy Office itself, overlooking St
Peter's and the Vatican gardens, with his own personal valet .and Niccolini's major domo to look after his
food and wine. Here he stayed from 12 April to the third examination on 10 May. Then, before his trial was
concluded, he was allowed to return to the Tuscan Embassy - a procedure quite unheard of, not only in the
annals of the Inquisition but of any other judiciary. Contrary to legend, Galileo never spent a day of his life
in a prison cell." (Koestler A., "The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universe,"
[1959], Penguin: Harmondsworth UK, 1972, reprint, pp.497-498)
10/10/2006
"[Genesis 1:] 6. Let there be a firmament ... Moses describes the special use of this expanse, `to divide the
waters from the waters,' from which words arises a great difficulty. For it appears opposed to common sense,
and quite incredible, that there should be waters above the heaven. Hence some resort to allegory, and
philosophize concerning angels; but quite beside the purpose. For, to my mind, this is a certain principle,
that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other
recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. ... 16. The greater light. ... Moses wrote in a popular style things
which, without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand ; but
astronomers investigate with great labour whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend.
Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic
persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also
very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God." (Calvin, J.,
"A Commentary on Genesis," [1554], King, J., transl., 1847, Banner of Truth: London, 1965, reprint, pp.78-79,
86. Emphasis original)
10/10/2006
"Mistakes peculiar to scientists. Just as there are certain mistakes that a theologian is susceptible to there
are ones that the scientist is just as susceptible to in the relationship of theology to science. The first of
these mistakes is to have an anti-religious attitude. No system of knowledge can be learned without some
sympathy or kindly feeling toward the system-something pointed out long ago by Augustine but never fully
appreciated by educators or epistemologists. Dogmatists study science as well as theology. The evangelical
indicates that man is a spiritual rebel and his spirit of rebellion is reflected in all his activities. Unregenerate
man opposes the doctrines of creation, sin, redemption, and eschatology. A man may be religious and yet
anti-Christian. Opposition to Christianity at the level of science is in many instances simply localized or
vocalized opposition to Christianity in general. Therefore anti-Christian man takes pleasure in making the
gap between science and Christianity as wide as he can make it, and will heartlessly ridicule any efforts at
reconciliation. In this instance, the gap between science and Christianity is in reality the gap between faith
and unbelief." (Ramm, B.L., "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1955] Paternoster: Exeter UK,
1967, reprint, p.38. Emphasis original)
10/10/2006
"But to understand the reactions of the small, academic world in his own country, we must also take into account
the subjective effect of Galileo's personality. ... Galileo had a rare gift of provoking enmity ... the cold, unrelenting
hostility which genius plus arrogance minus humility creates among mediocrities. Without this personal
background, the controversy which followed the publication of the Sidereus Nuncius [ Star Messenger]
would remain incomprehensible. For the subject of the quarrel was not the significance of the Jupiter satellites,
but their existence - which some of Italy's most illustrious scholars flatly denied. Galileo's main academic rival
was Magini in Bologna. In the month following the publication of the Star Messenger, on the evenings of 24
and 25 April 1610, a memorable party was held in a house in Bologna, where Galileo was invited to demonstrate
the Jupiter moons in his spy-glass. Not one among the numerous and illustrious guests declared himself
convinced of their existence. Father Clavius, the leading mathematician in Rome, equally failed to see them;
Cremonini, teacher of philosophy at Padua, refused even to look into the telescope; so did his colleague Libri. ...
These men may have been partially blinded by passion and prejudice, but they were not quite as stupid as it may
seem. Galileo's telescope was the best available, but it was still a clumsy instrument without fixed mountings, and
with a visual field so small that, as somebody has said, `the marvel is not so much that he found Jupiter's moons,
but that he was able to find Jupiter itself'. The tube needed skill and experience in handling, which none of the
others possessed. Sometimes, a fixed star appeared in duplicate. Moreover, Galileo himself was unable to explain
why and how the thing worked; and the Sidereus Nuncius was conspicuously silent on this essential point.
Thus it was not entirely unreasonable to suspect that the blurred dots which appeared to the strained and
watering eye pressed to the spectacle-sized lens, might be optical illusions in the atmosphere, or somehow
produced by the mysterious gadget itself. ... The whole controversy about optical illusions, haloes, reflections
from luminous clouds, and about the unreliability of testimonies, inevitably reminds one of a similar controversy
three hundred years later: the flying saucers. Here, too, emotion and, prejudice combined with technical
difficulties against clear-cut conclusions. And here, too, it was not unreasonable for self-respecting scholars to
refuse to look at the photographic `evidence' for fear of making fools of themselves. ... The Jupiter moons were
no less threatening to the outlook on the world of sober scholars in 1610, than, say, extra-sensory perception was
in 1950. Thus, while the poets were celebrating Galileo's discoveries which had become the talk of the world, the
scholars in his own country were, with very few exceptions, hostile or sceptical." ( (Koestler, A., "The
Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universe," [1959], Penguin: Harmondsworth UK, 1972,
reprint, pp.373-375)
10/10/2006
"Before embarking upon the subject it seems necessary to say something about the writer's personal
standpoint, and the vexed problem of historical objectivity. I shall try to the utmost of my powers to deal
with this subject objectively; but I fully realize that this is a matter of the utmost difficulty for anyone who
professes to be a Christian. However scrupulously he may try to isolate his study from all extraneous
considerations, the Christian knows perfectly well that his conclusions are likely to carry with them far-
reaching implications. If, for instance, he finds that the traditional Christian view is right, and that our Lord
taught that the Scriptures were of divine authorship, he will then be faced with the grave choice either of
accepting the Old Testament in toto as true and authoritative, or else of rejecting His authority as a
wholly dependable teacher. The clarification of the one issue will lead to the sharper definition of another.
He will be forced to ask himself in what sense he attributes authority to the One in whom he believes. If,
on the other hand, he should find that Christ taught some view other than that traditionally ascribed to Him,
it will still have the profoundest bearing upon his thought and life. For there lies a whole world of
theological difference between a view of Scripture that requires divine authorship and all views that require
something less. There lies a whole world of devotional difference between the attitude of entire submission
to the teaching of Scripture and an attitude of critical judgment." (Wenham, J.W., "Our Lord's View of the
Old Testament," [1953], Inter-Varsity Fellowship: London, Second Edition, 1964, pp.5-6. Emphasis original)
11/10/2006
"In 1995, the NABT Board of Directors approved its specific statement on teaching evolution because of the
many changes in antievolutionism that have occurred since 1980. It is a concise statement for teachers,
intended to give them some accurate, necessary ammunition when confronted by parents and administrators
who don't want them to teach evolution, or who press them to teach `alternatives' such as creation `science',
`intelligent design theory', or `evidence against evolution. ... After a preamble emphasizing the centrality of
evolution in biology, the first bulleted tenet of science in the original statement said: `The diversity of life on
earth is the result of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal
descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, historical contingencies and
changing environments.' ... The statement was not intended to be a discussion of philosophy of science.
But this is how many members of the public interpreted it. There was a completely unexpected public
reaction to the words, `impersonal' and `unsupervised'. NCSE began receiving reports of letters to the editor
and op-ed pieces chastising NABT for putting `antireligious' wording into its statement. I believe many of
these sprang from the popularity of works by antievolutionist lawyer Phillip Johnson, which are read by
large numbers of people. But I think it is important to realize that the negative reaction to the NABT's
statement was not limited to members of the `religious right', or `fundamentalists.' The percentage of
Americans who are evangelical, `born again' or conservative Christians is approximately 25% - 30%,
according to a number of polls considered reliable. The percentage of Americans rejecting evolution has
hovered consistently in the high 40's (47% in Gallup's 1996 poll.) Clearly, it's not just conservative
Christians who reject evolution: Johnson and other antievolutionists can find much support from `mainline'
or `moderate' Christians as well. In my experience, it is not whether the earth is old or not that turns moderate
Christians off from evolution: the Institute for Creation Research `Young Earth' view doesn't go very far
with people with even a moderate understanding of modern theology. What gets people's backs up is the
issue of whether life has purpose or meaning, and whether scientists are claiming to be able to refute
religious views. Telling people that science/evolution means that `God had nothing to do with it, and your
life has no meaning' is not going to sit well with most Americans, whether conservative Christian or not. By
referring to evolution as `impersonal' and `unsupervised' NABT generated an unanticipated public relations
problem: it was accused of making antireligious statements, and it is obvious that such accusations would
make it more difficult for teachers to teach evolution." (Scott. E.C., "Response to the `Open Letter' from
Massimo Pigliucci et al.," Darwin Day, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, February 1998)
11/10/2006
"Why don't they get it? For decades now, that question has vexed many leading scientists, who can't
understand Americans' refusal to embrace Darwin's theory of evolution. Despite ongoing efforts to
convince us that evolution is a fact, polls consistently show that Americans just don't buy it. Indeed, a
Gallup survey last February found that fully 45 percent of respondents believed that God created humans in
their present form within the last 10,000 years. Another 37 percent believed that humans developed over
millions of years from lower life forms, but that God guided the process. Only 12 percent believed that
humans developed from lower life forms through undirected natural processes. It's not as if Darwinism is
beyond our understanding. As Harvard paleontologist and science writer Stephen Jay Gould recently
pointed out, `Public difficulty in grasping the Darwinian theory of natural selection cannot be attributed to
any great conceptual complexity - for no great theory ever boasted such a simple structure....' [Gould, S.J.,
"Introduction," in Zimmer C., "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea," HarperCollins: New York, 2001, pp.xii-xiii]
So, why do so many Americans continue to doubt Darwin's theory? Gould and other proponents of
Darwinism believe that the main difficulty lies `in the far-reaching and radical philosophical consequences -
as Darwin himself well understood - of postulating a causal theory stripped of such conventional comforts
as a guarantee of progress, a principle of natural harmony, or any notion of an inherent goal or purpose.'
[Gould, Ibid.] In short, people simply don't want to believe that their lives are essentially a journey from
nowhere to nowhere. No doubt, that is a formidable obstacle to believing in Darwinism. Who wouldn't think
twice before acquiescing to such a viewpoint? Yet, Darwinists have overlooked an even more important
obstacle: their own actions. Instead of putting themselves in the shoes of skeptics and trying to imagine
what would convince them, Darwinists seem content to uncritically recycle the same ineffective arguments -
some of which are demonstrably false. Then they compound the problem by depicting doubters - the ones
they ostensibly want to convince - as religiously motivated yahoos." (Hartwig, M., "PBS's 'Evolution' More
of the Same," Focus on the Family/Access Research Network, December 31, 2002)
11/10/2006
"Gallup has asked Americans several times over the last 20 years to choose between three statements that
describe the origin and development of the human race. Generally speaking, the plurality of Americans have
come down on the side of a creationist approach to human origins, while slightly fewer have agreed with a
statement that reflects an evolutionary process guided by God, and only a small number have agreed with
an evolutionary process in which God had no part. Most recently, in Gallup's February 19-21 poll, 45% of
respondents chose `God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last
10,000 years or so,' the statement that most closely describes biblical creationism. A slightly larger
percentage, almost half, chose one of the two evolution-oriented statements: 37% selected `Human beings
have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process' and
12% chose `Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God
had no part in this process.' The public has not notably changed its opinion on this question since Gallup
started asking it in 1982." (Brooks, D.J., "Substantial Numbers of Americans Continue to Doubt Evolution as
Explanation for Origin of Human," The Gallup Organization, March 5, 2001)
11/10/2006
"The degree of public acceptance of evolution in the United States differs sharply from that within the
scientific community. In a 1996 survey of a sample selected from American Men and Women of Science,
Witham and Larson asked scientists the same Gallup poll questions regularly asked of the general public.
[Witham, L., "Many Scientists See God's Hand in Evolution," Washington Times, April 11, 1997, p.A8]
Whereas in 1997, 47% of Americans answered `agree' to Gallup's question about whether humans were
created in their present form 10,000 years ago, only 5% of scientists did. (I for one was surprised it was that
high!) To Gallup's question on agreement whether evolution occurred without God's involvement, 45% of
scientists answered affirmatively, but only 9% of nonscientists. Disproving the idea that all evolutionists are
atheists, scientists and nonscientists had the same response to the `theistic evolution' question (evolution
occurred, but was guided by God): 40% agreed. So while fewer than half of Americans accept evolution, an
overwhelming majority of scientists do." (Scott, E.C., "Not (Just) in Kansas Anymore," Science, Vol. 288,
5 May 2000, pp. 813-815).
11/10/2006
"While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator `guided'
evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness, a new survey shows. Scientists
almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But
40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process. ... Despite such
affirmations, however, 55% of scientists hold a naturalistic and atheistic position on the origins of man,
according to the random survey of 1,000 persons listed in the 1995 American Men and Women of Science. ...
The survey, which had a 60% response rate, asked scientists the same Gallup Poll question posed to the
public in 1982 and 1991. In the 1991 round, 40 percent of Americans said God `guided' evolution to create
humans. While this 40% is a middle ground of agreement between scientists and the public, there is a sharp
polarization between the groups taking purely naturalistic or biblical views. While most scientists are
atheistic about human origins, nearly half of Americans adhere to the biblical view that God created humans
`pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.' Forty-six percent of Americans
agreed with this view of human origins in the 1991 Gallup poll. Only 5 percent of the scientists agreed.
Because only a quarter to a third of Americans are Protestant evangelicals or fundamentalists, the 1991
Gallup Poll showed that many mainline Protestants, Catholics and Jews believe in a `last 10,000 years human
creation.' ... The survey was a separate but parallel study to one reported in Nature (1997 Apr 3; 386:435-6)
in which 40 percent of the same scientists reported a belief in a God who answers prayers and in immortality.
Both surveys were conducted by a reporter for the Washington Times and Edward J Larson, a historian of
science at the University of Georgia. The report in Nature was based on a replication of a 1916 survey that
scandalized Americans by finding that 45 percent of scientists were atheists and 15 percent were agnostics."
(Witham, L.A., "Many Scientists See God's Hand in Evolution," Washington Times, April 11, 1997, p.A8)
11/10/2006
"Other people too, not just scriptural literalists, remain unpersuaded about evolution. According to a Gallup
poll drawn from more than a thousand telephone interviews conducted in February 2001, no less than 45
percent of responding U.S. adults agreed that `God created human beings pretty much in their present form
at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.' Evolution, by their lights, played no role in shaping us. Only
37 percent of the polled Americans were satisfied with allowing room for both God and Darwin-that is, divine
initiative to get things started, evolution as the creative means. (This view, according to more than one
papal pronouncement, is compatible with Roman Catholic dogma.) Still fewer Americans, only 12 percent,
believed that humans evolved from other life-forms without any involvement of a god. The most startling
thing about these poll numbers is not that so many Americans reject evolution, but that the statistical
breakdown hasn't changed much in two decades. Gallup interviewers posed exactly the same choices in
1982, 1993, 1997, and 1999. The creationist conviction-that God alone, and not evolution, produced humans-
has never drawn less than 44 percent. In other words, nearly half the American populace prefers to believe
that Charles Darwin was wrong where it mattered most." (Quammen, D.E., "Was Darwin Wrong?: NO. The
evidence for Evolution is overwhelming," National Geographic, Vol. 206, No. 5, November
2004, p.6)
11/10/2006
"The National Academy of Sciences has a plan to end the conflict over the teaching of evolution. ... The
idea is to get anyone who still wants to believe in something to subscribe to `theistic evolution'-which to the
academy means that whatever some god may or may not have done, it had to have happened before the Big
Bang, left no physical traces, and be indistinguishable from the random working of natural law. As the
academy encouragingly points out in Science and Creationism, `Many religious persons, including many
scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological
evolution.' Happily, theistic evolution `reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical
universe revealed by (science).' Best of all, though, is that `this belief...is not in disagreement with scientific
explanations of evolution.' The least worrisome aspect of the academy's remarkable statement is the tenuous
grasp on logic that the nation's leading scientists are shown to possess. If there is indeed a God who
`created the universe,' how is one to guarantee that he wouldn't interact with it in ways the academy would
disapprove? And if he might have done something besides set the ball rolling, shouldn't that be a matter for
evidence to decide, rather than premises? The most worrisome aspect is that a quasi-governmental agency
with substantial influence on public policy has gotten heavily into the religion business. Not content to
advise the public on mundane matters of how the physical world works, the academy is acting to promote a
theology that causes the least trouble to Darwinism. While adults may be able to tell the academy that they
will make up their own minds about their religious beliefs, thank you very much, the academy will help make
up the minds of schoolchildren." (Behe, M.J., "Darwin's Hostages," The American Spectator, December 1,
1999)
12/10/2006
"When two groups of experts disagree about a controversial subject that intersects the public school
curriculum students should learn about both perspectives. ... teachers should describe competing views to
students and explain the arguments for and against these views as made by their chief proponents.
Educators call this `teaching the controversy.' Recently, while speaking to the Ohio State Board of
Education, I suggested this approach as a way forward for Ohio in its increasingly contentious dispute
about how to teach theories of biological origin, and about whether or not to introduce the theory of
intelligent design alongside Darwinism in the Ohio biology curriculum. I also proposed a compromise
involving three main provisions: (1) First, I suggested--speaking as an advocate of the theory of intelligent
design--that Ohio not require students to know the scientific evidence and arguments for the theory of
intelligent design, at least not yet. (2) Instead, I proposed that Ohio teachers teach the scientific controversy
about Darwinian evolution. Teachers should teach students about the main scientific arguments for and
against Darwinian theory. And Ohio should test students for their understanding of those arguments, not
for their assent to a point of view. (3) Finally, I argued that the state board should permit, but not require,
teachers to tell students about the arguments of scientists, like Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe,
who advocate the competing theory of intelligent design." (Meyer, S.C., "Teach the Controversy,"
Cincinnati Enquirer, March 30, 2002. Discovery Institute-Center for Science and Culture: Seattle WA)
12/10/2006
"A majority of adults support the biblical account of creation according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup
poll -- the latest in a series of polls reflecting Americans' tendency to reject secular evolution. In the poll, 53
percent of adults say `God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it.'
Another 31 percent believe humans `evolved over millions of years from other forms of life and God guided'
the process. Twelve percent say humans `have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life, but
God has no part.' The poll of 1,005 adults, conducted Sept. 8-11 and posted on Gallup's website Oct. 13, is
but the latest survey showing Americans tend to reject a strictly secular explanation for the existence of life
..." (Foust, M., "Gallup poll latest to show Americans reject secular evolution," Baptist Press," October 19,
2005)
12/10/2006
"To assess public opinion on creationism, Gallup asked: Which of the following statements comes closest
to your views on the origin and development of human beings? 1) Human beings have developed over
millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have
developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3)
God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?
Polled in November 2004, 38% of respondents chose (1), 13% chose (2), 45% chose (3), and 4% offered a
different or no opinion. These results are also similar to those from previous Gallup polls, which extend back
to 1982. The article explains that the 10,000 year date was included in the 1982 poll question because `it
roughly approximates the timeline used by biblical literalists who study the genealogy as laid out in the first
books of the Old Testament.' It is perhaps worth remarking that not all biblical literalists agree on
interpreting the Bible as insisting on a young earth: there are old-earth creationists, for example, who accept
the scientifically determined age of the earth and of the universe, but still accept a literal reading of the Bible
and reject evolution." ("Public view of creationism and evolution unchanged, says Gallup," National Center
for Science Education, November 19, 2004.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/US/724_public_view_of_creationism_and_11_19_2004.asp)
12/10/2006
"Opinion polls consistently show that a majority of Americans don't believe that the theory of evolution is the
best explanation for our own origins. A November 2004 Gallup poll, for example, found that only 13% of
respondents said they believed that God had no part in the evolution or creation of human beings, and 38% said
they thought humans evolved from less-advanced forms but that God guided the process. About 45% said they
believed that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 or so years. These results echoed
similar Gallup polls dating to 1982. This suggests that scientists have won few converts during at least the last
two decades - despite a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision banning the teaching of creationism in the classroom.
In large part, Americans' skepticism toward evolutionary theory reflects the continuing influence of religion. Yet
it also implies that scientists have not been persuasive enough, even when buttressed by strong scientific
evidence that natural selection alone can account for life's complexity. Could it be that the theory of evolution's
judicially sanctioned monopoly in the classroom has backfired?" (Balter, M., "Let 'intelligent design' and science
rumble," Los Angeles Times, October 2, 2005)
12/10/2006
"Some 145 years after the publication of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, controversy about the
validity and implications of his theory still rages. ... Gallup has asked Americans twice in the last three years
to respond to the following question about Darwin's theory: `Just your opinion, do you think that Charles
Darwin's theory of evolution is ... : a scientific theory that has been well-supported by evidence, (or) just
one of many theories and one that has not been well- supported by evidence], or don't you know enough
about it to say? ... Just a little more than a third of the American public is willing to agree with the `scientific
theory well supported by evidence' alternative, while the same percentage chooses the `not well supported
by evidence' alternative. Another 30% indicate that they don't know enough about it to say or have no
opinion. There has been essentially no significant change in the responses to this question since 2001."
(Newport, F., "Third of Americans Say Evidence Has Supported Darwin's Evolution Theory: Almost half of
Americans believe God created humans 10,000 years ago," Gallup Poll News Service: Washington, DC,
November 19, 2004).
12/10/2006
"Why pick on Darwin? It is surely because, as soon as you consider the implications, you must cease to
believe that either Life or life are affected by purpose. As G Thomas Sharp, chairman of the Creation Truth
Foundation, admitted to the Chicago Tribune, `if we lose Genesis as a legitimate scientific and historical
explanation for man, then we lose the validity of Christianity. Period'. We lose far more than that. Darwinian
evolution tells us that we are incipient compost: assemblages of complex molecules that - for no greater
purpose than to secure sources of energy against competing claims - have developed the ability to
speculate. After a few score years, the molecules disaggregate and return whence they came. Period. As a
gardener and ecologist, I find this oddly comforting. I like the idea of literal reincarnation: that the molecules
of which I am composed will, once I have rotted, be incorporated into other organisms. Bits of me will be
pushing through the growing tips of trees, will creep over them as caterpillars, will hunt those caterpillars as
birds. When I die, I'd like to be buried in a fashion which ensures that no part of me is wasted. Then I can
claim to have been of some use after all. Is this not better than the awful lottery of judgment? Is a future we
can predict not more comforting than one committed to the whims of inscrutable authority? Is eternal death
not a happier prospect than eternal life? The atoms of which we are composed, which we have borrowed
momentarily from the ecosphere, will be recycled until the universe collapses. This is our continuity, our
eternity. Why should anyone want more?" (Monbiot, G., "A life with no purpose: Darwinism implies that the
only eternal life we have is in the recycling of our atoms. I find that comforting," The Guardian, August 16,
2005).
13/10/2006
"We also found the universe is expanding with remarkably uniform speed in all directions. There was no hint
of asymmetry. `The big bang, the most cataclysmic event we can imagine, on closer inspection appears
finely orchestrated,' I wrote at the time of our observations. `Either conditions before the beginning were
very regular, or processes we don't yet know about worked to make the universe extremely uniform.' This
conclusion was innocuous enough, and would upset no one, as the uniformity of the universe could be
seen as being consistent with classical big bang theory. It was only later-together with other discoveries-
that it would be perceived as a problem." (Smoot, G. & Davidson, K., "Wrinkles in Time: The Imprint of
Creation," Little, Brown & Co: London, 1993, p.135)
13/10/2006
"Until the late 1910's, humans were as ignorant of cosmic origins as they had ever been. Those who didn't
take Genesis literally had no reason to believe there had been a beginning. The origin of the Solar System
was a contentious topic, but the origin of the entire cosmos was an altogether different matter: It was rarely,
if ever, discussed in scientific circles. In the astronomical journals of the day there was much discussion
about the nature of the nebulae, the 1910 return of Halley's Comet, the evolution of stars, the Martian
`canals,' the Balmer series in stellar spectra, the search for a ninth planet-but hardly a word about cosmic
origins." (Smoot, G. & Davidson, K., "Wrinkles in Time: The Imprint of Creation," Little, Brown & Co:
London, 1993, p.30)
13/10/2006
"Morphology was studied because it was the material believed to be most favorable for the elucidation of
the problems of evolution, and we all thought that in embryology the quintessence of morphological truth
was most palpably presented. Therefore every aspiring zoologist was an embryologist, and the one topic of
professional conversation was evolution. It had been so in our Cambridge school, and it was so at Hampton.
I wonder if there is now a single place where the academic problems of morphology which we discussed
with such avidity can now arouse a moment's concern" (Bateson, W., "Evolutionary Faith and Modern
Doubts," Address delivered before the American Association for the Advancement of Science, December
28, 1921, at the University of Toronto, Science, Vol. 55, January 20, 1922, pp.55-61, p.56)
13/10/2006
"So we went on talking about evolution. That is barely 40 years ago; to-day we feel silence to be the safer
course. Systematists still discuss the limits of specific distinction in a spirit, which I fear is often rather
scholastic than progressive, but in the other centers of biological research a score of concrete and
immediate problems have replaced evolution." (Bateson, W., "Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts,"
Address delivered before the American Association for the Advancement of Science, December 28, 1921, at
the University of Toronto, Science, Vol. 55, January 20, 1922, pp.55-61, p.56)
13/10/2006
"Discussions of evolution came to an end primarily because it was obvious that no progress was being
made. Morphology having been explored in its minutest corners, we turned elsewhere." (Bateson, W.,
"Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts," Address delivered before the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, December 28, 1921, at the University of Toronto, Science, Vol. 55, January 20,
1922, pp.55-61, p.56)
13/10/2006
"Variation and heredity, the two components of the evolutionary path, were next tried. The geneticist is the
successor of the morphologist. We became geneticists in the conviction that there at least must
evolutionary wisdom be found. We got on fast. So soon as a critical study of variation was undertaken,
evidence came in as to the way in which varieties do actually arise in descent. The unacceptable doctrine of
the secular transformation of masses by the accumulation of impalpable changes became not only unlikely
but gratuitous." (Bateson, W., "Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts," Address delivered before the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, December 28, 1921, at the University of Toronto,
Science, Vol. 55, January 20, 1922, pp.55-61, p.56)
13/10/2006
"An examination in the field of the interrelations of pairs of well characterized but closely allied `species' next
proved, almost wherever such an inquiry could be instituted, that neither could both have been gradually
evolved by, natural selection from a common intermediate progenitor, nor either from the other by such a
process. Scarcely ever where such pairs co-exist in nature, or occupy conterminous areas do we find an
intermediate normal population as the theory demands. The ignorance of common facts bearing on this part
of the inquiry which prevailed among evolutionists, was, as one looks back, astonishing and inexplicable. It
had been decreed that when varieties of a species co-exist in nature, they must be connected by all
intergradations, and it was an article of faith of almost equal validity that the intermediate form must be
statistically the majority, and the extremes comparatively rare. The plant breeder might declare that he had
varieties of Primula or some other plant, lately constituted, uniform in every varietal character breeding
strictly true in those respects, or the entomologist might state that a polymorphic species of a beetle or of a
moth fell obviously into definite types, but the evolutionary philosopher knew better. To him such
statements merely showed that the reporter was a bad observer, and not improbably a destroyer of
inconvenient material. Systematists had sound information but no one consulted them on such matters or
cared to hear what they might have to say. The evolutionist of the eighties was perfectly certain that species
were a figment of the systematist's mind, not worthy of enlightened attention." (Bateson, W., "Evolutionary
Faith and Modern Doubts," Address delivered before the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, December 28, 1921, at the University of Toronto, Science, Vol. 55, January 20, 1922, pp.55-61,
p.56)
13/10/2006
"But soon, though knowledge advanced at a great rate, and though whole ranges of phenomena which had
seemed capricious and disorderly fell rapidly into a co-ordinated system, less and less was heard about
evolution in genetical circles, and now the topic is dropped. When students of other sciences ask us what is
now currently believed about the origin of species we have no clear answer to give. Faith has given place to
agnosticism for reasons which on such an occasion as this we may profitably consider. Where precisely has
the difficulty arisen? Though the reasons for our reticence are many and present themselves in various
forms, they are in essence one; that as we have come to know more of living things and their properties, we
have become more and more impressed with the inapplicability of the evidence to these questions of origin.
There is no apparatus which can be brought to bear on them which promises any immediate solution."
(Bateson, W., "Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts," Address delivered before the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, December 28, 1921, at the University of Toronto, Science,
Vol. 55, January 20, 1922, pp.55-61, pp.56-57)
13/10/2006
"Genetical research has revealed the world of gametes from which the zygotes-the products of fertilization
are constructed. What has been there witnessed is of such extraordinary novelty and so entirely unexpected
that in presence of the new discoveries we would fain desist from speculation for a while. We see long
courses of analysis to be traveled through and for some time to come that will be a sufficient occupation.
The evolutionary systems of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were attempts to elucidate the order
seen prevailing in this world of zygotes and to explain it in simpler terms of cause and effect: we now
perceive that that order rests on and is determined by another equally significant and equally in need of
`explanation.'" (Bateson, W., "Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts," Address delivered before the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, December 28, 1921, at the University of Toronto,
Science, Vol. 55, January 20, 1922, pp.55-61, p.57)
13/10/2006
"We have turned still another bend in the track and behind the' gametes we see the chromosomes. ... When
we knew nothing of all this the words came freely. How easy it all used to look! What glorious assumptions
went without rebuke. Regardless of the obvious consideration that `modification by descent' must be a
chemical process, and that of the principles governing that chemistry science had neither hint, nor surmise,
nor even an empirical observation of its working, professed men of science offered very confidently positive
opinions on these nebulous topics which would now scarcely pass muster in a newspaper or a sermon. It is
a wholesome sign of return to sense that these debates have been suspended." (Bateson, W., "Evolutionary
Faith and Modern Doubts," Address delivered before the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, December 28, 1921, at the University of Toronto, Science, Vol. 55, January 20, 1922, pp.55-61,
p.57)
13/10/2006
"Biological science has returned to its rightful place, investigation of the structure and properties of the
concrete and visible world. We cannot see how the differentiation into species came about. Variation of
many kinds, often considerable, we daily witness, but no origin of species. Distinguishing what is known
from what may be believed we have absolute certainty that new forms of life, new orders and new species
have arisen on the earth. That is proved by the paleontological record. In a spirit of paradox even this has
been questioned. It has been asked how do you know for instance that there were no mammals in
palaeozoic times? May there not have been mammals somewhere on the earth though no vestige of them
has come down to us? We may feel confident there were no mammals then, but are we sure? In very ancient
rocks most of the great orders of animals are represented. The absence of the others might by no great
stress of imagination be ascribed to accidental circumstances." (Bateson, W., "Evolutionary Faith and
Modern Doubts," Address delivered before the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
December 28, 1921, at the University of Toronto, Science, Vol. 55, January 20, 1922, pp.55-61, pp.57-58.
Emphasis original)
13/10/2006
"We are not certain, using certain in the strict sense, that the Angiosperms are the lineal descendants of the
carboniferous plants, but it is very much easier to believe that they are than that they are not. Where is the
difficulty? If the Angiosperms came from the carboniferous flora why may we not believe the old
comfortable theory in the old way? Well so we may if by belief we mean faith, the substance, the foundation
of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. In dim outline evolution is evident enough. From the
facts it is a conclusion which inevitably follows. But that particular and essential bit of the theory of
evolution which is concerned with the origin and nature of species remains utterly mysterious. We no
longer feel as we used to do, that the process of variation, now contemporaneously occurring, is the
beginning of a work which needs merely the element of time for its completion; for even time can not
complete that which has not yet begun." (Bateson, W., "Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts," Address
delivered before the American Association for the Advancement of Science, December 28, 1921, at the
University of Toronto, Science, Vol. 55, January 20, 1922, pp.55-61, p.58. Emphasis original)
13/10/2006
"The conclusion in which we were brought up, that species are a product of a summation of variations
ignored the chief attribute of species first pointed out by John Ray that the product of their crosses is
frequently sterile in greater or less degree. Huxley, very early in the debate pointed out this grave defect in
the evidence, but before breeding researches had been made on a large scale no one felt the objection to be
serious. Extended work might be trusted to supply the deficiency. It has not done so, and the significance of
the negative evidence can no longer be denied. When Darwin discussed the problem of inter-specific
sterility in the `Origin of Species' this aspect of the matter seems to have escaped him. He is at great pains to
prove that inter-specific crosses are not always sterile, and he shows that crosses between forms which
pass for distinct species may produce hybrids which range from complete fertility to complete sterility. The
fertile hybrids he claims in support of his argument. If species arose from a common origin, clearly they
should not always give sterile hybrids. So Darwin is concerned to prove that such hybrids are by no means
always sterile, which to us is a commonplace of everyday experience." (Bateson, W., "Evolutionary Faith
and Modern Doubts," Address delivered before the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
December 28, 1921, at the University of Toronto, Science, Vol. 55, January 20, 1922, pp.55-61, p.58)
13/10/2006
"If species have a common origin, where did they pick up the ingredients which produce this sexual
incompatibility? Almost certainly it is a variation in which something has been added. We have come to see
that variations can very commonly-I do not say always-be distinguished as positive and negative. ... Now
we have no difficulty in finding evidence of variation by loss. Examples abound, but variation by addition
are rarities, even if there are any which must be so accounted. The variations to which interspecific sterility
is due are obviously variations in which something is apparently added to the stock of ingredients. It is one
of the common experiences of the breeder that when a hybrid is partially sterile, and from it any fertile
offspring can be obtained, the sterility, once lost, disappears. This has been the history of many, perhaps
most of our cultivated plants of hybrid origin. The production of an indubitably sterile hybrid from
completely fertile parents which have arisen under critical observation from a single common origin is the
event for which we wait. Until this event is witnessed, our knowledge of evolution is incomplete in a vital
respect. From time to time a record of such an observation is published, but none has yet survived criticism.
Meanwhile, though our faith in evolution stands unshaken, we have no acceptable account of the origin of
`species.'" (Bateson, W., "Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts," Address delivered before the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, December 28, 1921, at the University of Toronto, Science,
Vol. 55, January 20, 1922, pp.55-61, pp.58-59)
13/10/2006
"Curiously enough, it is at the same point that the validity of the claim of natural selection as the main
directing force was most questionable. The survival of the fittest was a plausible account of evolution in
broad outline, but failed in application to specific difference. The Darwinian philosophy convinced us that
every species must `make good' in nature if it is to survive, but no one could tell how the differences-often
very sharply fixed-which we recognize as specific, do in fact enable the species to make good. The claims of
natural selection as the chief factor in the determination of species have consequently been discredited."
(Bateson, W., "Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts," Address delivered before the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, December 28, 1921, at the University of Toronto, Science,
Vol. 55, January 20, 1922, pp.55-61, p.59)
13/10/2006
"I pass to another part of the problem, where again, though extraordinary progress in knowledge has been
made, a new and formidable difficulty has been encountered. Of variations we know a great deal more than
we did. Almost all that we have seen are variations in which we recognize that elements have been lost. In
addressing the British Association in 1914 I dwelt on evidence of this class. The developments of the last
seven years, which are memorable as having provided in regard to one animal, the fly Drosophila, the most
comprehensive mass of genetic observation yet collected, serve rather to emphasize than to weaken the
considerations which I then referred. Even in Drosophila, where hundreds of genetically distinct factors
have been identified, very few new dominants, that is to say positive additions, have been seen, and I am
assured that none of them are of a class which could be expected to be viable under natural conditions. I
understand even that none are certainly viable in the homozygous state." (Bateson, W., "Evolutionary Faith
and Modern Doubts," Address delivered before the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
December 28, 1921, at the University of Toronto, Science, Vol. 55, January 20, 1922, pp.55-61, p.59)
13/10/2006
"If we try to trace back the origin of our domesticated animals and plants, we can scarcely ever point to a
single wild species as the probable progenitor. Almost every naturalist who has dealt with these questions
in recent years has had recourse to theories of multiple origin, because our modern races have positive
characteristics which we cannot find in any existing species, and which combination of the existing species
seem unable to provide. To produce our domesticated races it seems that ingredients must have been
added. To invoke the hypothetical existence of lost species provides a poor escape from this difficulty, and
we are left with the conviction that some part of the chain of reasoning is missing. The weight of this
objection will be most felt by those who have most experience in practical breeding. I can not, for instance,
imagine a round seed being found on a wrinkled variety of pea except by crossing. Such seeds, which look
round, sometimes appear, but this is a superficial appearance, and either these seeds are seen to have the
starch of wrinkled seeds or can be proved to be the produce of stray pollen. Nor can I imagine a fern-leaved
Primula producing a palm-leaf, or a star-shaped flower producing the old type of sinensis flower. And so on
through long series of forms which we have watched for twenty years." (Bateson, W., "Evolutionary Faith
and Modern Doubts," Address delivered before the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
December 28, 1921, at the University of Toronto, Science, Vol. 55, January 20, 1922, pp.55-61, p.59)
13/10/2006
"Analysis has revealed hosts of transferable characters. Their combinations suffice to supply in abundance
series of types which might pass for new species, and certainly would be so classed if they were met with in
nature. Yet critically tested, we find that they are not distinct species and we have no reason to suppose
that any accumulations of characters of the same order would culminate in the production of distinct
species. Specific difference therefore must be regarded as probably attaching to the base upon which these
transferables are implanted, of which we know absolutely nothing at all. Nothing that we have witnessed in
the contemporary world can colorably be interpreted as providing the sort of evidence required." (Bateson,
W., "Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts," Address delivered before the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, December 28, 1921, at the University of Toronto, Science, Vol. 55, January 20,
1922, pp.55-61, pp.59-60)
13/10/2006
"Twenty years ago, de Vries made what looked like a promising attempt to supply this so far as
Oenothera was concerned. In the light of modern experiments, especially those of Renner, the interest
attaching to the polymorphism of Oenothera has greatly developed, but in application to that
phenomenon the theory of mutation falls. We see novel forms appearing, but they are no new species of
Oenothera, nor are the parents which produce them pure or homozygous forms. Renner's identification of
the several complexes allocated to the male and female sides of the several types is a wonderful and
significant pierce of analysis introducing us to new genetical conceptions. The Oenotheras illustrate in the
most striking fashion how crude and inadequate are the suppositions which we entertained before the world
of gametes was revealed. The appearance of the plant tells us little or nothing of these things. In Mendelism,
we learnt to appreciate the implication of the fact that the organism is a double structure, containing
ingredients derived from the mother and from the father respectively. We have now to admit the further
conception that between the male and female sides of the same plant these ingredients may be quite
differently apportioned, and that the genetical composition of each may be so distinct that the systematist
might without extravagance recognize them as distinct specifically. If then our plant may by appropriate
treatment be made to give off two distinct forms, why is not that phenomenon a true instance of Darwin's
origin of species? In Darwin's time it must have been acclaimed as exactly supplying all and more than he
ever hoped to see. We know that that is not the true interpretation. For that which comes out is no new
creation." (Bateson, W., "Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts," Address delivered before the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, December 28, 1921, at the University of Toronto, Science,
Vol. 55, January 20, 1922, pp.55-61, p.60)
13/10/2006
"I have put before you very frankly the considerations which have made us agnostic as to the actual mode
and processes of evolution. When such confessions are made the enemies of science see their chance. If we
cannot declare here and now how species arose, they will obligingly offer us the solutions with which
obscurantism is satisfied. Let us then proclaim in precise and unmistakable language that our faith in
evolution is unshaken. Every available line of argument converges on this inevitable conclusion. The
obscurantist has nothing to suggest which is worth a moment's attention. The difficulties which weigh upon
the professional biologist need not trouble the layman. Our doubts are not as to the reality or truth of
evolution, but as to the origin of species, a technical, almost domestic, problem. Any day that mystery may
be solved. The discoveries of the last twenty-five years enable us for the first time to discuss these
questions intelligently and on a basis of fact. That synthesis will follow on an analysis, we do not and
cannot doubt." (Bateson, W., "Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts," Address delivered before the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, December 28, 1921, at the University of Toronto,
Science, Vol. 55, January 20, 1922, pp.55-61, p.61)
13/10/2006
"A Gallup report released today reveals that more than half of all Americans, rejecting evolution theory and
scientific evidence, agree with the statement, `God created man exactly how Bible describes it.' Another 31% says
that man did evolve, but `God guided.' Only 12% back evolution and say `God had no part.' Gallup summarized it
this way: `Surveys repeatedly show that a substantial portion of Americans do not believe that the theory of
evolution best explains where life came from.' ... The report was written by the director of the The Gallup Poll,
Frank Newport. ... Gallup has asked this question, in different forms, going back to 1982, but has consistently
shown support at 45% or higher for the notion that `God created man in present form.' The most recent poll, last
September, posed the question this way: `Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the
origin and development of human beings.' This produced the 53% who chose `God created man exactly how
Bible describes it,' the 31% who said man did evolve but `God guided,' and the 12% who backed evolution with
God playing `no part.'" ("Gallup: More Than Half of Americans Reject Evolution, Back Bible," Editor &
Publisher, March 08, 2006)
13/10/2006
"Eight out of 10 Americans believe God guided creation in some capacity. A Gallup Poll reveals that 46
percent think God created man in his present form sometime in the past 10,000 years, while 36 percent say
man developed over millions of years from lesser life forms, but God guided the process. Only 13 percent of
Americans think mankind evolved with no divine intervention. `There has been surprisingly little change
over the last 24 years in how Americans respond,' pollster Frank Newport said. The survey marks the
seventh time that Gallup has queried Americans about creation beliefs. Since 1982, between 44 percent and
47 percent have consistently agreed that God created man `as is,' while between 35 percent and 40 percent
said man evolved with God's guidance. The idea of strict evolution without God has proved the least
popular, cited by 9 percent to 13 percent of the respondents over the years." (Harper, J., "Americans still
hold faith in divine creation," Washington Times, June 9, 2006)
13/10/2006
"In a May 8-11 survey of American beliefs on evolution, 46 percent of respondents agreed with the
statement: God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000
years or so. In comparison, only 13 percent chose the answer: `Human beings have developed over millions
of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.' According to the poll results,
which were released Monday, the biggest factor in determining the answer was religion. Almost two-thirds
of Americans who attend church at least once a week believe that humans were created in their present form,
compared to 29 percent of those who say they never attend church. Analysts also found a strong
correlation between the level of education and the response. About three-quarters of those with a post-
graduate degree said humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, compared to
just 22 percent choosing the `created in present form' option. According to Gallup, the poll shows that
Americans’ view on the origin of life has remained constant for decades. Since 1982, when the poll first
began, between 44 and 47 percent of Americans have consistently agreed with the option that God created
humans in their present form, and between 9 and 13 percent believed man evolved without guidance from
God. This was the seventh time the poll was conducted. Meanwhile, 36 percent of Americans agreed with a
third option, that man evolved with the guidance of God through millions of years. Results are based on
telephone interviews with 2,002 national adults from Nov. 7-10, 2004, and May 8-11, 2006. The margin of
sampling error is 2 percentage points with 95 percent confidence." (Spencer, E., "Nearly Half of Americans
Believe in Creationism," The Christian Post, August 31, 2006)
13/10/2006
"Adults in the United States are divided over the origin of life, according to a poll by Gallup released by
USA Today. 46 per cent of respondents think God created human beings in their present form, and 36 per
cent say man developed from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process. A further 13 per cent
think God played no part in the evolution of human beings. ... Polling Data Which of the following
statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings? 1) Human beings
have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process; 2)
Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part
in this process; 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last
10,000 years or so. ... The September 2005 poll question was: `Which of the following statements comes
closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings? 1) Human beings have evolved over
millions of years from other forms of life and God guided this process; 2) Human beings have evolved over
millions of years from other forms of life, but God had no part in this process; 3) God created human beings
in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it.' Source: Gallup / CNN / USA Today.
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,001 American adults, conducted from May 8 to May 11, 2006.
Margin of error is 3 per cent." ("Americans Split Over Evolution, Creationism," Angus Reid Consultants,
June 6, 2006. Emphasis original)
13/10/2006
"What Americans think about their origins is often shocking to those of us who teach about evolution.
Gallup polls report that almost 50% of Americans responded that "God created human beings pretty much in
their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so" and that almost 70% support teaching
creationism in schools. .... Misunderstanding evolution is not a new phenomenon; it has been the case
despite decades of science curricula attempting to teach the subject. " (Alters, B.J. & Alters, S.M.,
"Defending Evolution in the Classroom: A Guide to the Creation/Evolution Controversy," Jones & Bartlett
Publishers: Sudbury MA, 2001, p.6)
13/10/2006
"Then, of course, there's the political side to the evolution/ creation issue. In 1999, the Kansas State Board
of Education voted to remove almost all mention of evolution from the state's education standards and
assessments for public schools. Over 12 other states have fought similar versions of an anti-evolution
battle, including some that have succumbed to placing disclaimers about evolution in their biology
textbooks. In the 2000 preliminary presidential campaigns, most of the candidates favored the position that
both evolution and creationism be taught in schools and added that such decisions should be made at the
local level." (Alters, B.J. & Alters, S.M., "Defending Evolution in the Classroom: A Guide to the
Creation/Evolution Controversy," Jones & Bartlett Publishers: Sudbury MA, 2001, pp.6-7)
13/10/2006
"We will use evolution to mean "the descent, with modification, of different lineages from common
ancestors.... All forms of life, from viruses to redwoods to humans, are related by unbroken chains of
descent. ...This citation is from a document endorsed by the following scientific societies: American Society
of Naturalists, American Behavior Society, American Institute of Biological Sciences, Ecological Society of
America, Genetics Society of America, Paleontological Society, Society for Molecular Biology and
Evolution, Society for the Study of Evolution, and the Society of Systematic Biologists. ..." (Alters, B.J. &
Alters, S.M., "Defending Evolution in the Classroom: A Guide to the Creation/Evolution Controversy,"
Jones & Bartlett Publishers: Sudbury MA, 2001, p.10. Emphasis original)
13/10/2006
"Problems with Polls Realizing that all `creationisms' are not alike, it is easy to see how we educators can
easily place students into categories (sometimes subconsciously) that do not reflect their beliefs about the
subject we are attempting to teach. Likewise, it may be easy to recognize why some public opinion polls on
the subject of evolution are difficult to design to take into account all types of creationist views. Polls that
are ill-designed produce results that may mislead instructors in some ways. The discussion that follows is of
a Gallup poll and is meant to illustrate how misunderstandings concerning students' creationist beliefs can
lead to false assumptions about what students find offensive or believe to be false about evolution. One
Gallup poll asked respondents to note which statement of three came closest to their views about the origin
and development of man. The statements were `(1) God created human beings pretty much in their present
form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so. (2) Human beings have developed over millions of years
from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process. (3) Human beings have developed
over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process .5120 Such limited
choices present somewhat of a dilemma for some progressive creationists. They can't choose #2 because it
states that God did not have a part in the process; progressives believe God certainly did. They have
problems with #3 because they believe that God supernaturally created all living things or that God at least
intervened to supernaturally create when needed-He did not just guide the process. Therefore, some of
these progressives choose #1 because it advocates that `God created human beings pretty much in their
present form' while not believing the latter half of #1, that the creation happened `one time within the last
10,000 years or so.' Therefore, if progressives who accept standard geological ages choose #1 fo