[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [Quotes, Unclassified, Classified]
The following are quotes added to my Unclassified Quotes database in April 2007. The date format is dd/mm/yy. See copyright conditions at end.
[Jan, Feb, Mar, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec]
1/04/2007 "One of the early classics in the story of carnivorous or insectivorous plants was published by Charles Darwin. He noted that sundew plants, which have sticky tentacles on their tiny leaves, caught tiny insects, much as flypaper catches flies, holding them while neighbouring tentacles bent over to pin the victims against the leaf, where their bodies were decomposed by enzymes. Darwin found that any tiny piece of meat or egg white was handled by the sundew leaf in the same way as it digested insects." (Went, F.W., "The Plants," [1963], Time/Life Books: Netherlands, Reprinted, 1965, p.146) 1/04/2007 "THERE are many other plants which have developed insectivorous habits. Most of them, like the sundew, are found in nutrient-poor bogs. Pinguicula is very similar to sundew but less complex: it too traps insects with its sticky leaf glands and then rolls the edge of a leaf over its victims. The strange, urn shaped leaves of pitcher plants standing with some watery liquid in their base are a common sight from North Carolina to Florida and Mississippi. Inside are usually found a few insects such as ants and moths, caught because of a lining of downward-pointing hairs which prevent them from crawling out of the pitcher. Bacteria and enzymes in the water decompose and digest them." (Went, F.W., "The Plants," [1963], Time/Life Books: Netherlands, Reprinted, 1965, p.146) 1/04/2007 "An even more elaborate trapping mechanism is found in a group of tropical Asiatic lianas, the Nepenthes, whose beautifully sculptured pitchers hang on long leaf stalks which are twisted around tree branches for support. Insects are f first attracted by a distinctive odour; then, near the entrance of the trap, they find nectar-secreting glands. To reach these, they have to scale the leaf rim, which usually results in their falling into the pitcher and a pool of mildly digestive fluid at the bottom. If they try to crawl out, they first have to pass a region with digestive glands, then a highly polished slippery zone. Most of them never get beyond this; if they do, they face an overhang at the rim with a spiked edge." (Went, F.W., "The Plants," [1963], Time/Life Books: Netherlands, Reprinted, 1965, p.146) 1/04/2007 "One of the best known of insectivorous plants is the Venus's flytrap (Dionaea) of North Carolina, a relative of the sundew but with an entirely different way of catching prey. The leaves lie in a rosette flat on the ground and each ends in a leaf blade which looks and acts like a steel trap. The two halves of the leaf, about the size of a sixpence, are hinged in the middle. When an insect walks on its surface, the leaf will suddenly snap closed, the toothed edges meshing. The Venus's flytrap can distinguish between a living and a dead object small sticks or pebbles will leave it undisturbed-by means of three sensitive hairs on each leaf half. The leaf will not close unless two hairs are touched in succession or; the same hair twice. Once shut, the trap gradually pinches tighter and tighter, squeezing its prey against the digestive glands on the leaf surface." (Went, F.W., "The Plants," [1963], Time/Life Books: Netherlands, Reprinted, 1965, p.146) 1/04/2007 "The prize for complexity in trapping devices unquestionably goes to the bladderwort, Utricularia, a water plant with beautiful blue or yellow flowers, found in ponds and ditches. On its submerged threadlike stems it has innumerable bladders in which tiny water creatures get caught. At one end of the bladder is a trap door which suddenly snaps open when sensory hairs just outside the trap are touched. The tiny victim is sucked in so fast that it cannot be followed by the eye or the vine camera. The door then closes, part of the water is pumped out from the inside, and the trap is set for another catch." (Went, F.W., "The Plants," [1963], Time/Life Books: Netherlands, Reprinted, 1965, p.146) 2/04/2007 "Let us begin with a crucial point. The laws of science are not inviolable. They represent a constantly changing logical complex, changing from decade to decade, and even from year to year. Lest this may surprise you let me remark that the world of science is not identical with the physical world itself, with the real world if you like. Science is a model of the real world that we construct inside our own heads. The model is arranged by us to work according to a set of prescribed rules. These are the laws of science. And when we speak of comparing our scientific theories with observation we mean that a comparison is being made between our model and the events that comprise the real world." (Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the University Church, Cambridge," Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: London, 1959, p.55) 2/04/2007 "You remember I spoke just now of science as a model that we ourselves construct according to a set of prescribed rules. How are the rules prescribed? By the requirement that we accept those rules that up to the present moment give the best possible correspondence with the events of the external world. Notice the importance of the present moment. If tomorrow we discover a set of rules that give a better correspondence than those we are employing today, then we must abandon the rules of today in favour of those of tomorrow." (Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the University Church, Cambridge," Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: London, 1959, p.57. Emphasis original) 2/04/2007 "It may surprise you when I say that I have yet to meet a person who was not imbued by a religious sense. The great differences between us lie in our varying attitudes to formal religion. Religion in a non-formal sense I take to mean that a man will look up at the stars at night with a sense of awe, that he will feel that the majestic play of the universe has some deep laid purpose, and that his own small role in the play must make sense, if only he has the wit to find it." (Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the University Church, Cambridge," Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: London, 1959, p.60) 2/04/2007 "Are there any preliminary indications of the sort of coherent view of the universe and of our place in it that science might eventually arrive at? Or does the whole matter present us with an implacable unbroken wall of difficulty through which no breakthrough seems possible? I must confess to a certain measure of excitement in trying to answer these questions, for in my view work of the last few years, particularly of the last year, suggests that a breakthrough may at last have been made. In spite of the details being somewhat technical, I would like to tell you how this surprising development has come about. But please do not expect too much- remember that I said a breakthrough may have been made, not that the whole citadel has been captured." (Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the University Church, Cambridge," Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: London, 1959, pp.61-62) 2/04/2007 "Science operates in accordance with a set of laws, as I have said already. The laws describe the behaviour of matter, so that, in addition to the laws, matter must exist for the laws to operate on. According to the science of the last century matter consists of indestructible atoms of which there are 90 odd different varieties. According to the science of the present century the atoms possess an internal structure made up from a weighty central nucleus of very small size surrounded by a comparatively extensive cloud of light weight particles known as electrons. According to the science of the last twenty-five years the weighty central nucleus itself possesses a structure. It is built out of two kinds of heavy particle, protons and neutrons. The precise number of protons and neutrons contained by the nucleus determines the nature of the atom. When the nucleus contains 6 protons and 6 neutrons we have an atom of common carbon. When the nucleus contains 26 protons and 30 neutrons we have an atom of common iron. When the nucleus contains 82 protons and 126 neutrons we have an atom of common lead. And so on for the other 90 odd cases. We know today that the science of the nineteenth century was mistaken in supposing that atoms are indestructible. The compositions of the nuclei of atoms can be altered, and one atom can be changed to another. This leads to an important question. Have the atoms we find in the world always existed in their present forms, or have some atoms been made. from others? The second of these possibilities has turned out to be correct. Already in 1920, Eddington had been led to suspect that all atoms have been built from one atom, the simplest of all, the atom of hydrogen. He was led, moreover, to suspect that it is in the interiors of the stars that this building from hydrogen takes place. The work of the last few years has provided almost overwhelming evidence in favour of this guess of Eddington's. It has turned out that the stars serve as gigantic factories in which a whole array of atoms are produced from the simplest atom of all, hydrogen." (Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the University Church, Cambridge," Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: London, 1959, p.62) 2/04/2007 "The really interesting point is that although the laws of science admit of complex atoms, their existence would never have been realised but for the stars. There is a delicate inflexion here. Let us assume that the universe possesses logical coherence. Would it really be sensible then for the laws of science to admit of complex atoms if their existence were never realised ? If we consider it would not be sensible, and this seems to me the evident answer we should give, a most unusual connexion between the existence of stars and the laws that govern the atomic nuclei is implied. Notice that I say the existence of stars, not the properties of stars. Everyone expects the properties of stars and atomic nuclei to be related. It is the connexion with the existence of stars that is so surprising. Let us push a little further into this deep water. Are there any stable complex atoms permitted by the laws of science whose existence is not realised in the stars? The answer is that there are none. They are all produced in the stars, not in equal abundance it is true, but the existence of every single one is established. Either we are here confronted by a monstrous situation in which the existence of a multitude of complex atoms is only established as a consequence of scores of separate accidents, or a connexion between the existence of stars and the laws of nuclear physics is clearly implied." (Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the University Church, Cambridge," Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: London, 1959, p.63. Emphasis original) 2/04/2007 "What do I mean ... by `scores of accidents'? Granted stars to exist, surely there can be no accidents. Surely all the properties of stars, including the genesis of the complex atoms, then follow implacably from the broad principles of nuclear physics? I disagree. It is true that the genesis of about half the complex nuclei does follow from the broad principles of nuclear physics, but the other half does not. Their genesis depends on the oddest array of apparently random quirks you could possibly imagine. I will try to explain what I mean in terms of an analogy, which I hope you will not think too flippant. We would all agree that the actions of the Government depend on the persons who comprise it-on their education, intelligence, social and cultural background, and on their state of health. These qualities correspond to my broad principles. But we would scarcely expect to find Government policy depending in a really crucial way on the fact that the Prime Minister possesses a moustache while the Foreign Secretary does not. These are my random quirks. And if we should find that Government policy depended in a really vital respect on the Minister of Works possessing a mole beneath his left ear, then manifestly we should be justified in supposing that new and hitherto unsuspected connexions existed within the field of political affairs. Yet this is just the case for the building of many complex atoms inside stars. The building of carbon depends on a moustache, the building of oxygen on a mole, and if you prefer a less well known case, the building of the atom dysprosium depends on a slight scar over the right eye. If this were a purely scientific question and not one that touched on the religious problem, I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside the stars. If this is so, then my apparently random quirks become part of a deep laid scheme. If not, then we are back again to a monstrous sequence of accidents." (Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the University Church, Cambridge," Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: London, 1959, pp.63-64) 2/04/2007 "There is an interesting similarity between this whole inorganic problem of the origin of the complex atoms and the problem of the origin of life. In my last few moments I would like to give a little consideration to this similarity. In both cases we have matter evolving from simpler to more complex forms in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry. ... The similarity between the origin of life and of complex atoms has other extensions. Just as it is now emerging that the laws of nuclear physics are designed to promote the origin of the complex atoms, so it may well emerge, as more becomes known, that the laws seem as if they have also been deliberately designed to promote the origin of life." (Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the University Church, Cambridge," Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: London, 1959, pp.64-65) 2/04/2007 "Incidentally, I have never understood why religious thought is so reluctant to admit that life is a natural product of the laws of science. Surely the notion that some special ad hoc intervention is necessary to promote its origin would imply a serious defect of design. Just suppose for a moment that you were designing the laws. How much more subtle to make the origin of life implicit in your design-how crude to be obliged to make a gross rectification of your own mistakes!" (Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the University Church, Cambridge," Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: London, 1959, pp.64-65) 2/04/2007 "Let us see if we can put these ideas on a more scientific and less emotional basis. You will remember that any hypothesis whatsoever can be made in science so long as it possesses consequences that are subject to observational test. Let us advance the hypothesis that the laws of science have been designed to promote the origin of life, and let us see if any predictions can be made. Firstly, the random quirks. We would expect that as biochemists and biophysicists discover more and more of the detailed properties of living matter more and more random quirks will be found-apparent accidents without which life would not be possible, apparent accidents that only make sense on the basis of deliberate design: Other predictions in very different directions can be made. Life demands highly special physical conditions if it is to flourish. Hence if life is part of a deliberate plan so must the origin of the physical conditions be. This conclusion contradicts older astronomical ideas, which held to the view that the origin of the earth and planets arose from a sheer fluke. The question therefore arises as to which astronomical theory fits the observed situation. At the present moment the balance of evidence has swung against the older views." (Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the University Church, Cambridge," Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: London, 1959, p.65) 2/04/2007 "But my object is not to arrive at any complete conclusion. It is to give you a very brief outline of the way that scientific inquiry can be brought into relation with religion. It will be sufficient if a breakthrough, however small, has been made." (Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the University Church, Cambridge," Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: London, 1959, p.65) 2/04/2007 "By way of a concluding paragraph I would remind you of Laplace's supermathematician, who, you may remember, was capable of working out in full detail all the consequences of the laws of science. Now imagine an intellect to whom this would be a comparatively trivial exercise, an intellect who is interested in the consequences, not of just one specified system of laws, but in examining all systems of law with a view to devising the one most pregnant with possibilities, an intellect who is able to relate the design of the laws of nuclear physics to the conditions that operate inside the stars, and who can relate the origin of stars and planets to the intricate chemical details of the origin of life. Imagine that this is done ... by a complete mastery of all details of the situation. Imagine the intellectual magnitude and interest of such a problem. Then I think you will come as near as we can come, in our present inadequate state of knowledge, towards understanding the meaning and purpose of the universe." (Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the University Church, Cambridge," Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: London, 1959, pp.65-66) 3/04/2007 "On evolution as a geological fact all agreed, but on the mechanism of evolution the disagreement has been fundamental." (Velikovsky, I., "Earth in Upheaval," [1950], Abacus: London, Reprinted, 1978, p.211) 3/04/2007 "The neo-Darwinists deny that physical surroundings can give rise to new species; they may bring about changes in an organism, but the acquired characteristics are not inheritable. Can, then, natural selection or competition with other animals create new species? The classic example of a giraffe with the longest neck surviving when leaves are left only high on the trees does not prove that giraffes with longer necks would become a separate species. And, in any event, under the described conditions no new race would ever evolve: the female giraffe, which are smaller in stature, would die out before the male competitors, and there would be no progeny; but should there be progeny, the young giraffes would probably die because they would be unable to reach the leaves." (Velikovsky, I., "Earth in Upheaval," [1950], Abacus: London, Reprinted, 1978, p.211) 3/04/2007 "The position of Darwinists would be much stronger if a new animal species would appear, even if only in controlled breeding. Darwin claimed that the process of the appearance of new species is very slow, but he also maintained that the process of extinction of a species is even slower. [Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species," [1859], John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, 1872, p.294] Nevertheless, some species of animals have expired before the eyes of the naturalists, but no new one has appeared. The theory of natural selection, even the very fact of the evolvement of one species from another, needed proof. Some scientists went so far as to say that possibly the entire development plan has already reached its permanent stage, and the geological records tell only of the road to that stage, evolution no longer taking place." (Velikovsky, I., "Earth in Upheaval," [1950], Abacus: London, Reprinted, 1978, p.211) 3/04/2007 "But the theory of natural selection would not yield its position unless a better explanation of the evolutionary mechanism could be given. Mutations and New Species The first ray of light came at the turn of the century, when Hugo De Vries, a Dutch botanist, observed spontaneous mutations in the evening primrose. The plant, without a recognizable cause, would show new characteristics unobserved in its ancestors. Although De Vries claimed that these mutations amount to what may be called 'little species,' they have not caused the primrose to pass beyond the frontier of its species. However, it was demonstrated that variations within a Species do appear in a spontaneous manner, and rather suddenly, and not, as Darwin thought, by minute progressions from generation to generation. Huxley was correct in urging Darwin not to adhere so dogmatically to his belief that nature does not make jumps - natura non facit saltum. [Huxley, T.H., Letter to Charles Darwin, November 23, 1859, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II, Reprinted, 1959, pp.26-27] De Vries showed that variations are in the nature of jumps, and from this he developed the mutation theory of evolution." (Velikovsky, I., "Earth in Upheaval," [1950], Abacus: London, Reprinted, 1978, p.212. Emphasis original) 3/04/2007 "De Vries, while working on his theory, was as yet unaware of Gregor Mendel's investigations in genetics, already published as a paper in 1865, only six years after The Origin of Species. Mendel's work, unknown to Darwin and his followers in the nineteenth century, was rediscovered by De Vries and independently by E. Tschermak and K. Correns in 1900, the same year that De Vries wrote down his theory of mutations. By carefully observing crossings between varieties of the garden pea and counting the strains through consecutive generations and the transmission of single traits, Mendel established the fundamental laws of genetics or inheritance of somatic characteristics. The entire work on evolution since the beginning of this century is based on genetics and Mendel's laws. Ironically, Mendel was an Augustine monk and made his basic contribution at a time when the war between science and the Church was raging, following the publication of Darwin's main work. The spontaneous variations in mutants can be followed through as hereditary factors in successive generations of offspring. The genes in the germ plasma are the carriers of the traits, and a variation (mutation) in a gene would cause a variation (mutation) in the offspring. But, generally, only single variations appear at a time; they may lead to new races, not to new species. Spontaneous mutations are far too few and insufficient in magnitude to bring about the appearance of new species and to explain how the world of animals came into existence. Despite all spontaneous variations no new species of mammals are known to have been created since the close of the Ice Age." (Velikovsky, I., "Earth in Upheaval," [1950], Abacus: London, Reprinted, 1978, p.213) 3/04/2007 "In 1907, V. L. Kellogg of Stanford University came to the following conclusion: `The fair truth is that the Darwinian selection theories, considered with regard to their claimed capacity to be an independently sufficient mechanical explanation of descent, stand today seriously discredited in the biological world. On the other hand, it is also fair truth to say that no replacing hypothesis or theory of species forming has been offered by the opponents of selection which has met with any general or even considerable acceptance by naturalists. Mutations seem to be too few and far between; for orthogenesis we can discover no satisfactory mechanism; and the same is true for the Lamarckian theories of modification by the cumulation, through inheritance, of acquired or ontogenic characters.' [Kellogg, V.L., "Darwinism Today," Henry Holt & Co: New York NY, 1907, p.5] Kellogg also observed that one group of scientists 'denies in toto any effectiveness or capacity for series forming on the part of natural selection, while the other group, a larger...sees in natural selection an evolutionary factor capable of initiating nothing, dependent wholly for any effectiveness on some primary factor or factors controlling the origin and direction of variation, but capable of extinguishing all unadapted, unfit lines of development...For my part,' Kellogg concluded, 'it seems better to go back to the old and safe Ignoramus standpoint.' Thus the entire problem was shunted back to the place it occupied before The Origin of Species." (Velikovsky, I., "Earth in Upheaval," [1950], Abacus: London, Reprinted, 1978, pp.213-214) 3/04/2007 "Evolution is the principle. Darwin's contribution to the principle is natural selection as the mechanism of evolution. If natural selection, sharing the fate of sexual selection, is not the mechanism of the origin of species, Darwin's contribution is reduced to very little - only to the role of natural selection in weeding out the unfit." (Velikovsky, I., "Earth in Upheaval," [1950], Abacus: London, Reprinted, 1978, p.214) 3/04/2007 "H. Fairfield Osborn, a leading American evolutionist, wrote 'In contrast to the unity of opinion on the law of evolution is the wide diversity of opinion on the causes of evolution. In fact, the causes of the evolution of life are as mysterious as the law of evolution is certain,' [Osborn, H.F., "The Origin and Evolution of Life," Scribner's: New York 1917, p.ix]. And again: 'It may be said that Darwin's law of selection as a natural explanation of the origin of all fitness in form and function has also lost its prestige at the present time, and all of Darwinism which now meets with universal acceptance is the law of the survival of the fittest, a limited application of Darwin's great ideas as expressed by Herbert Spencer.' [Ibid., p.xv] These were not the opinions of single evolutionists, but generally held views." (Velikovsky, I., "Earth in Upheaval," [1950], Abacus: London, Reprinted, 1978, p.214. Emphasis original) 3/04/2007 "William Bateson, a leading English evolutionist, in his address before the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1921, said: '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...Variation of many kinds, often considerable, we daily witness, but no origin of species...I have put before you very frankly the considerations which have made us agnostic as to the actual mode and processes of evolution.' [Bateson, W., "Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts," Science, Vol. 55, January 20, 1922, pp.55-61, pp.57, 61] " (Velikovsky, I., "Earth in Upheaval," [1950], Abacus: London, Reprinted, 1978, p.214. Ellipses Velikovsky's) 3/04/2007 "L. T. More, in a series of guest lectures delivered at Princeton University, asked 'If natural selection is a force which can destroy but cannot create species and if the reasons for this destruction are unknown, of what value is the theory to mankind?...The collapse of the theory of natural selection leaves the philosophy of mechanistic materialism in a sorry plight.' [More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, p.240] On De Vries's theory of evolution by mutations More said: 'The idea is destructive to scientific theory, as it really does Away with the whole idea of continuity which should be the basis of an evolution...The thought at once occurs that each of the surprising breaks in the paleontological record, such a one as separates the reptile from the feathered bird, may have been taken at a single leap during an overstimulated period of nature.' [Ibid., p.214]" (Velikovsky, I., "Earth in Upheaval," [1950], Abacus: London, Reprinted, 1978, pp.214-215. Ellipses Velikovsky's) 3/04/2007 "Both single species and whole groups of species last for very unequal periods; some groups, as we have seen, have endured from the earliest known dawn of life to the present day; some have disappeared before the close of the palaeozoic period. No fixed law seems to determine the length of time during which any single species or any single genus endures. There is reason to believe that the extinction of a whole group of species is generally a slower process than their production: if their appearance and disappearance be represented, as before, by a vertical line of varying thickness the line is found to taper more gradually at its upper end, which marks the progress of extermination, than at its lower end, which marks the first appearance and the early increase in number of the species. In some cases, however, the extermination of whole groups, as of ammonites, towards the close of the secondary period, has been wonderfully sudden." (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection," [1859], John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, 1872, Reprinted, 1882, p.294) 3/04/2007 "I finished your book yesterday ... Nothing, I think, can be better than the tone of the book, it impresses those who know nothing about the subject. As for your doctrine, I am prepared to go to the stake, if requisite, in support of Chapter IX., and most parts of Chapters X., XI., XII, and Chapter XIII. contains much that is most admirable, but on one or two points I enter a caveat until I can see further into all sides of the question. As to the first four chapters, I agree thoroughly and fully with all the principles laid down in them. I think you have demonstrated a true cause for the production of species, and have thrown the onus probandi that species did not arise in the way you suppose, on your adversaries. But I feel that I have not yet by any means fully realized the bearings of those most remarkable and original Chapters III., IV. and V., and I will write no more about them just now. The only objections that have occurred to me are, 1st that you have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum so unreservedly... . And 2nd, it is not clear to me why, if continual physical conditions are of so little moment as you suppose, variation should occur at all." (Huxley, T.H., Letter to Charles Darwin, November 23, 1859, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II, Reprinted, 1959, pp.26-27) 3/04/2007 "I trust you will not allow yourself to be in any way disgusted or annoyed by the considerable abuse and misrepresentation which, unless I greatly mistake, is in store for you. Depend upon it you have earned the lasting gratitude of all thoughtful men. And as to the curs which will bark and yelp, you must recollect that some of your friends, at any rate, are endowed with an amount of combativeness which (though you have often and justly rebuked it) may stand you in good stead. I am sharpening up my claws and beak in readiness. Looking back over my letter, it really expresses so feebly all I think about you and your noble book that I am half ashamed of it; but you will understand that, like the parrot in the story, `I think the more.'" (Huxley, T.H., Letter to Charles Darwin, November 23, 1859, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II, Reprinted, 1959, p.27) 3/04/2007 "Of late years the doctrine of selection has been somewhat modified by de Vries under the name of the Theory of Mutations. Darwin insisted that evolution required that variation must proceed by minute changes, and he maintained this view in spite of the warning of Huxley who wrote: `First, you have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum so unreservedly... And, second, it is not clear to me why, if continual physical conditions are of so little moment as you suppose, variation should occur at all.' [Huxley, T.H., Letter to Charles Darwin, November 23, 1859, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II, Reprinted, 1959, pp.26- 27] Evidence has accumulated that offspring frequently differ from their parents by well-marked characteristics. DeVries, on this evidence, assumes that variation of species may thus progress by jumps, or mutations, rather than by the gradual variation which proceeds in the same direction through many generations. The idea is destructive to scientific theory, as it really does away with the whole idea of continuity which should be the basis of an evolution theory; and it certainly, if true, forbids any foretelling of future events since no one knows how great such mutations may be. The thought at once occurs that each of the surprising breaks in the palaeontological record, such an one as separates the reptile from the feathered bird, may have been taken at a single leap during an overstimulated period of Nature. If the theory of jumps is ever accepted, evolution parts company with physics and chemistry and would not differ essentially from the belief in special creation. All other sciences are based on the law, that nature does not proceed by jumps." (More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, pp.213-214) 3/04/2007 "We have so far considered the theory of natural selection from the standpoint of its general philosophical adequacy, and have found it to be based on principles which are now discredited and that its weakness is largely due to Darwin's temperamental inability to follow abstract thinking. When we turn to the scientific aspects of the theory we should find a different condition of affairs. He was undoubtedly a marvellously keen observer and his powers of scientific generalization were of the best; yet, even from the scientific aspect, Darwin's work to establish natural selection is rapidly crumbling on its biological side. This result is again to be traced indirectly to the same deficiency of his mind; he could generalize correctly so long as he confined himself to a narrow field which lay immediately under his own observation, but he could not sustain himself, because of his lack of imagination, when it was necessary to include so vast a field as the evolution of all organisms." (More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, pp.214-215) 3/04/2007 "Darwin based his theory of natural selection on the analogy of the results which man has obtained by selective breeding of domesticated animals; he did an enormous amount of work in this field and collected much curious and valuable information about selective breeding. But he never seems to have once realized that the analogy is purely specious because the variations of domesticated animals and plants have, in man, a directing force which can arrange and alter the animals' habits, instincts, and environment, so as to foster certain variations and eliminate others. The one essential thing for a rational theory of evolution is to discover what directs the, to us, chance variations of undomesticated organisms so that minute changes will accumulate in a continuous increase until a new species is formed. Given a Divine Intelligence to guide organisms, as man directs those in a domesticated state, and the problem is solved, but that is the last admission the scientific evolutionist is prepared to make; he will admit only nature and natural law, whatever those words may mean." (More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, pp.215-216) 3/04/2007 "Let us now discuss the arguments for and against the doctrine of natural selection from the biological point of view. Man has by selective breeding produced great diversities in structure and habits of domesticated animals and plants. He has, for example, produced dogs as different as the mastiff and the toy spaniel which have sufficient structural differences to be classed almost as different species. He has even been able to produce characteristics which are detrimental to the comfort of the animal, or dangerous to its life, such as the fan-tail of the pigeon. And, in every case, he has not considered the advantage of the organism but his own desires or whims. These diversities, he has obtained by breeding together individuals which possess some pronounced trait in common. Those individuals of their progeny which show this same trait are again selected and bred together, and so on until the desired result is reached. This method is further helped by continued change of diet, climate, or other factors of the environment. Whatever means are adopted, one practice must never be departed from; breeding outside the strain must be rigidly prevented or the organism reverts back to the original stock. To make our ideas more precise let us follow Darwin and consider a particular case in some detail. After deliberation, he selected the pigeon as the best example of directed breeding. He kept every breed he could purchase or obtain; he corresponded with pigeon fanciers; he found that records of breeding extended back into antiquity, and that the diversity of breeds is something astonishing. In addition to all these reasons for his choice, there is the remarkable advantage that: `Great as are the differences between the breeds of the pigeon, I am fully convinced that the common opinion of naturalists is correct, namely, that all are descended from the rock pigeon (Columba Livia), including under this term several geographical races or sub-species, which differ from each other in the most trifling respects.' [Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species," John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, 1872, p.17] He then tells us with the utmost care how man was able to produce such astonishing variations from a single parent stock: "Man can hardly select, or only with much difficulty, any deviation of structure, excepting such as is externally visible; and indeed he rarely cares for what is internal. He can never act by selection, excepting on variations which are first given to him in some slight degree by nature. No man would ever try to make a fantail till he saw a pigeon with a tail developed in some slight degree in an unusual manner, or a pouter till he saw a pigeon with a crop of some unusual size; and the more abnormal or unusual any character was when it first appeared, the more likely it would be to catch his attention. But to use such an expression as trying to make a fantail is, I have no doubt, in most cases, utterly incorrect. The man who first selected a pigeon with a slightly larger tail never dreamed what the descendants of that pigeon would become through long-continued, partly unconscious and partly methodical, selection." [Ibid., p.28] Thus Darwin shows what remarkable results can be obtained when slight, accidental variations are directed by man so as to exclude the crossing of a given strain with other individuals of the same species which do not show the same variation. With his mind fixed on the problem of increasing and fixing variations, he did not see a fatal objection to the theory of evolution when it was applied to organisms not subjected to the control of man's will. The objection is this: in spite of all our breeding of pigeons, which has extended through more than three thousand years, two of the most differentiated varieties can interbreed; this fact obviously shows that they are still the same species since their young are not sterile, and, what is even more significant, the pigeons from such crossbreeding, in a few generations, still revert back to the original ancestral type." (More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, pp.217-218) 3/04/2007 "This tendency to revert to the original stock is so strong that even in pure strains we find `the occasional appearance in all the breeds of slaty-blue birds with two black bars on the wings, white loins, a bar at the end of the tail, with the outer feathers externally edged near their bases with white'; [Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species," John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, 1872, p.124] these are the characteristics of the rock pigeon (Columba Livia). Darwin explains this reversion as follows: `After twelve generations, the proportion of blood, to use a common expression, from one ancestor, is only one in 2048; and yet, as we see, it is generally believed that a tendency to reversion is retained by this remnant of foreign blood. In a breed which has not been crossed, but in which both parents have lost some character which their progenitor possessed, the tendency, whether strong or weak, to produce the lost character might, as was formerly remarked, for all that we can see to the contrary, be transmitted for almost any number of generations. When a character which has been lost in a breed, reappears after a great number of generations, the most probable hypothesis is, not that one individual suddenly takes after an ancestor removed by some hundred generations, but that in each successive generation the character in question has been lying latent, and at last, under unknown favourable conditions, is developed.' [Ibid., p126] This latent tendency to reversion must be very strong. After only one hundred generations, the proportion of blood from one ancestor is only one in 2 with thirty zeroes after it. It is no wonder that the breeder must preserve the purity of a strain with scrupulous care, if so inconceivably small a proportion of foreign blood can still produce an effect. If this latent tendency to revert is as strong in animals and plants in a wild state as it is with them when domesticated, and it would be difficult to deny it, what chance would a variation have to be preserved, when we consider that cross-breeding with others of the species which did not possess the same variation is absolutely certain to occur at all times, unless the variation was so advantageous, and the struggle for existence was so intense, that all the individuals which did not have the variation were killed, and all those which afterwards reverted also died without progeny? In other words, the tendency to revert must be considered as universal a law of nature as the tendency to vary. For example, even in men whose choice in mating has progressed further than in any other species, this reversion to a median line must be very persistent for if it were not, then the race would be, by this time, divided into sharply distinguished characteristics, those growing taller and those shorter; of mentally strong and weak, etc." (More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, pp.219-221) 3/04/2007 "While, at first sight, it seems possible, though hardly probable, that such directed breeding might occur in the natural state, two facts destroy the force of the analogy even with this granted. New varieties and races created by artificial selection revert to the original type as soon as they are left to their own devices; and, in no case, has mutual sterility been produced between different varieties; the most different kinds of dogs, pigeons, and other domesticated animals breed freely together and their offspring is a mongrel; while successive general intercourse soon obliterates all the special traits. It is evident that fixity of traits and sterility are essential to establish a species, and that in some way these must occur in a state of nature. The importance of artificial selection was first criticised by Huxley, and its value as a proof has steadily declined until now many biologists admit that there are fewer features in common between natural and artificial selection than the Darwinians supposed.." (More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, p.221) 3/04/2007 "Let us now turn to natural selection and let us assume that a useful variation has occurred in some individuals of a certain species; under these favourable conditions we can discuss what the chances are that this variation will continue to increase until the original variants have produced an abundant offspring so different from the original stock that a new species has been formed. Again, to make our argument precise, let us consider the case of the long neck of the giraffe and assume that some offspring of short- necked giraffes have a slightly longer neck, say an additional inch, and that this additional length is of great use in obtaining food. We shall first admit that the struggle for existence is, at that time, so intense that the short-necked giraffes die of starvation and those with this extra inch of length alone survive; then their offspring will have, presumably, the one extra inch and not two extra inches of length. Thus to arrive at the result of the very great length of neck which existing giraffes possess, Darwinians must assume, not a transmission of a real character but the tendency of the offspring of giraffes to have a successive increase in the length of the neck. ... Thus, even if we accept the postulates, that a favourable variation is transmitted, that the struggle for existence is so intense that all those without a slightly longer neck die, we must assume either that a continuous tendency to vary in the same direction exists, or that these unusual conditions are repeated many times by chance, before the giraffe's neck becomes so conspicuously elongated. The Darwinians can permit neither of these assumptions." (More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, pp.221-222, 224. Emphasis original) 3/04/2007 "We have, however, gone much too far in our admissions; it is impossible to assume them. Even Darwin, with his attention riveted on the struggle for existence, does not ask us to suppose that an inch difference in length of neck means death or life to a giraffe. Let us follow his own words: `Giraffes which were the highest browsers, and were able during dearths to reach even an inch or two above the others, will often have been preserved; for they will have roamed over the whole country in search of food. That the individuals of the same species often differ slightly in the relative lengths of all their parts may be seen in many works of natural history, in which careful measurements are given. These slight proportional differences, due to the laws of growth and variation, are not of the slightest use or importance to most species. But it will have been otherwise with the nascent giraffe, considering its probable habits of life; for those individuals which had some one part or several parts of their bodies rather more elongated than usual, would generally have survived. These will have intercrossed and left offspring, either inheriting the same bodily peculiarities, or with a tendency to vary again in the same manner; whilst the individuals, less favoured in the same respects, will have been the most liable to perish." [Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species, John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, 1872, pp.177-178] It is almost inconceivable that a great man should have rested his case on an argument so easy to tear to pieces. In the first place, he says the giraffe may have a tendency to vary and yet he writes to Hooker: `Heaven forfend me from the Lamarck nonsense of a tendency to progression," [Darwin, C.R., Letter to J.D. Hooker, January 11, 1844, in Darwin, F. & Seward, A.C., eds., "More Letters of Charles Darwin," John Murray: London, 1903, Vol. I. , pp.40-41] and he again and again writes to his friends that a `tendency to vary' is fatal to his theory, as it is equivalent to assuming unknown forces which act according to Design." (More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, pp.221-222, 224. Emphasis original) 3/04/2007 "It is not difficult to make a picture of Darwin's idea. During a period of great scarcity of food all the easily accessible leaves have been used; the margin is so close that individual giraffes which happen to have an extra inch of length in the neck have a great advantage and will more probably survive and produce QQ" (More, L.T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, pp.224-225. More's emphasis) 3/04/2007 "Besides a general interest about the southern lands, I have been now ever since my return engaged in a very presumptuous work, and I know no one individual who would not say a very foolish one. I was so struck with the distribution of the Galapagos organisms, etc., and with the character of the American fossil mammifers, etc., that I determined to collect blindly every sort of fact which could bear any way on what are species. I have read heaps of agricultural and horticultural books, and have never ceased collecting facts. At last gleams of light have come, and I am almost convinced (quite contrary to the opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable. Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense of a `tendency to progression,' `adaptations from the slow willing of animals,' etc.! But the conclusions I am led to are not widely different from his; though the means of change are wholly so. I think I have found out (here's presumption!) the simple way by which species become exquisitely adapted to various ends. You will now groan, and think to yourself, `on what a man have I been wasting my time and writing to.' I should, five years ago, have thought so..." (Darwin, C.R., Letter to J.D. Hooker, January 11, 1844, in Darwin, F. & Seward, A.C., eds., "More Letters of Charles Darwin," John Murray: London, 1903, Vol. I. , pp.40-41) 4/04/2007 "Researchers such as [Steven] Pinker and I get along well because I never claim that Alex has full-blown language; I never would. I'm not going to be able to put Alex on a `T' stand and have you interview him the way you interview me. But Alex has basic building blocks that are language-like behaviors - and also elements of phenomena like consciousness and awareness. Is Alex conscious? Personally, I believe so. Can I prove it? No." (Pepperberg, I., "That Damn Bird: A Talk with Irene Pepperberg," Edge, September 23, 2003) 4/04/2007 "Oxygen and carbon atoms are about equally common in living material, just as they are in the Universe at large. While it is possible to imagine life in a Universe with a moderate imbalance between oxygen and carbon, a really large imbalance would seem to forbid its existence. A great excess of carbon would prevent the formation of many materials on which life is vitally dependent, rock and soil for example, while a great oxygen excess would simply burn up any carbon bearing biochemicals that happened to be around. The necessary balance between oxygen and carbon depends on the details of the origin of the chemical elements by nuclear reactions inside stars, a subject which has been intensively studied over the past three decades, and one which we have already touched on in this book. The details are concerned with how neutrons and protons group together to form the nuclei of atoms. Oxygen and carbon are like two radio receivers, each tuned to a particular wavelength. Unless the tunings are right, with the two dials set at the appropriate wavelengths far more oxygen is produced than carbon. But, as it happens, the tunings are indeed correct, so that oxygen and carbon atoms are produced in the Universe in appropriately balanced amounts. The problem is to decide whether these apparently coincidental tunings are really accidents or not, and therefore whether or not life is accidental. No scientist likes to ask such a question, but it has to be asked for all that. Could it be that the tunings are intelligently deliberate?" (Hoyle, F., "The Intelligent Universe," Michael Joseph: London, 1983, pp.218-219) 4/04/2007 "Accident or design? I came across this remarkable property of carbon and oxygen in the early 1950s with my friend Willy Fowler. It is by no means an isolated example. The list of anthropic properties, apparent accidents of a nonbiological nature without which carbon based and hence human life could not exist, is large and impressive. Take protons, electrons and neutrons, for example. If the combined masses of the proton and electron were suddenly to become a little more rather than a little less than the mass of the neutron, the effect would be devastating. The hydrogen atom would become unstable. Throughout the Universe all the hydrogen atoms would immediately break down to form neutrons and neutrinos. Robbed of its nuclear fuel, the Sun would fade and collapse. Across the whole of space, stars like the Sun would contract in their billions, releasing a deadly flood of X-rays as they burned out. By that time life on Earth, needless to say, would already have been extinguished." (Hoyle, F., "The Intelligent Universe," Michael Joseph: London, 1983, pp.219-220. Emphasis original) 4/04/2007 "Such properties seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a thread of happy accidents. But there are so many of these odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to account for them. To the theologist, anthropic properties seem like a confirmation of his belief that a creator designed the world to suit out requirements exactly and that for the theologian is the end of the matter. No further thoughts suggest themselves, and for scientists with a belief in the anthropic principle there is a similar inability to develop ideas and thoughts. Don't worry about such apparent coincidences as the tunings in carbon and oxygen, the anthropic principle enjoins us, because if it were not for those specific tunings we would not be here to remark on them. Indeed, our very existence guarantees that they are so, the principle argues. As with the creator or God of the theologian, this is a thought-stopping argument. so matter how rich the world is in remarkable physical and chemical coincidences, we are told that because we could not be here without them they are only to be expected, with the implication that there is no point in probing them any further. In my opinion this negative point of view is a direct and deliberate extension of an attitude of mind that in the nineteenth century threw itself so wholeheartedly behind the cause of Darwinism. The same nihilistic belief that no aspect of the Universe can be thought of as a consequence of purpose underlies both Darwinism and the anthropic principle. Every remarkable state of affairs is supposedly due to chance, and so one dismisses all further thought on the problem from one's mind, just as mention of the magical word `God' causes the theologian to desist from further enquiry." (Hoyle, F., "The Intelligent Universe," Michael Joseph: London, 1983, p.220) 5/04/2007 "But interesting events take place inside red giants. As the core contracts, the central furnace grows denser and hotter. Then nuclear reactions that were previously impossible become the principal source of energy. For example, the helium that accumulates during hydrogen burning can now become a fuel. As the star ages and the core temperature rises, brief encounters between helium nuclei produce fusion events. The collision of two helium nuclei leads initially to an evanescent form of beryllium having four neutrons and four protons. Amazingly enough, another helium nucleus collides with this short-lived target, leading to the formation of carbon. The process would seem about as likely as crossing a stream by stepping fleetingly on a log. A delicate match between the energies of helium, the unstable beryllium and the resulting carbon allows the last to be created. Without this process, we would not be here." (Kirshner, R.P., "The Earth's Elements," Scientific American, Vol. 271, No. 4, October 1994, Special Issue, pp.37-43, pp.38-39) 5/04/2007 "Biologists now believe that life must inevitably evolve whenever the proper conditions exist. All that is needed is an atmosphere like the one that existed on the primeval earth. Provided that there is some source of energy, such as ultraviolet radiation from a star, complex organic chemicals will form spontaneously. Among these are the nucleic acids and amino acids that are found in every living cell. No one has as yet duplicated the steps by which these chemicals presumably came together to make the first living organism. But scientists are convinced that with billions of years available, this process must inevitably happen wherever favorable conditions exist." (Morris, R.W., "The Fate of the Universe," Playboy Press: New York NY, 1982, p.150) 5/04/2007 "It is interesting to speculate about life elsewhere in the universe, especially about the possibility that there might be numerous intelligent species and possibly technological civilizations. However, the really intriguing question may very well be not, `Is there other intelligent life in the universe?' but rather, `Why is the universe so hospitable to life in the first place?' Even if it turns out that there is something terribly wrong with our ideas about the formation of planets, even if the universe turns out not to be teeming with life, this question still has to be answered. Because, after all, we exist. And, as we shall see, this is a fact that has to be explained." (Morris, R.W., "The Fate of the Universe," Playboy Press: New York NY, 1982, pp.150-151) 5/04/2007 "Offhand, one would not think that the existence of terrestrial life and of human intelligence are facts that need to be accounted for at all. `Can't one simply accept the fact that we do exist, and leave it at that?' one is tempted to ask. And, in any case, hasn't it already been pointed out that scientists believe that life is inevitable, given the right conditions? Given the fact that we do have reasonably good conditions on earth, wasn't it inevitable that evolution should have eventually created intelligence? The answer is, of course, that life and intelligence probably were inevitable. But we must still explain why it is that such ideal conditions existed. It is possible to imagine an infinite number of different kinds of universes. In the vast majority of these universes, life could not possibly arise. In order to be hospitable to life, the universe must be very special. The question that we are really asking is, `Why is the universe so special?'" (Morris, R.W., "The Fate of the Universe," Playboy Press: New York NY, 1982, p.151. Emphasis original) 5/04/2007 "One of the most astonishing things about the universe is its size. The nearest star is a little more than 4 light years away, or about 25 trillion miles. And yet, by astronomical standards, this is a very short distance. Astronomers have observed galaxies that are billions of light years away. At the very least, the universe extends for tens of billions of light years in every direction. And of course if it is open, it goes on forever. There is another way of looking at this state of affairs: The universe is very spread out. Although stars and planets are relatively dense, there are very great spaces between them. As a result, the universe contains, on the average, less than one atom of ordinary matter for every cubic meter of space. Air is 1027 times more dense. And yet we speak of `thin air.' Why should matter be so thinly dispersed? Surprisingly, this question can be answered fairly easily. A universe must be spread out like this if it is ever to give rise to life. In a denser universe, the expansion would halt much too quickly, and there would not be enough time for life to be created. At the very least, billions of years must pass before life can exist. Galaxies and stars must form. Planets must be created and be given a chance to cool. Nature must have the opportunity to try one chemical experiment after another until the first living organism is formed. A universe that was very much denser than ours would collapse before any of these things happened." (Morris, R.W., "The Fate of the Universe," Playboy Press: New York NY, 1982, pp.151-152) 5/04/2007 "If life is to have the opportunity to exist, a universe must expand out of the primordial fireball at just the right rate. If our universe had been expanding at a rate that was slower by a factor of one part in a million, then the expansion would have stopped when it was only 30,000 years old, when the temperature was still 10,000 degrees. And if the expansion had been faster by a factor of one part in a million, then galaxies could not have formed. Matter would have been flying outward with just enough velocity to prevent it from condensing into clumps. In other words, the universe must be very close to the borderline between open and closed if life is to have a chance to exist at all. At last we have answered the question, `Why is it so difficult to tell whether the universe is infinite or finite?' If it were possible to tell without much trouble, then there would be no one around to wonder whether the universe was open or closed." (Morris, R.W., "The Fate of the Universe," Playboy Press: New York NY, 1982, pp.152-153) 5/04/2007 "There are yet other ways in which our universe is of a special character. If nuclear forces were just a few percent stronger than they are, there would be no life. Stronger forces would cause all of the primordial hydrogen-not just 25 percent of it-to be synthesized into helium early in the history of the universe. And without hydrogen, the stars could never begin to shine. As far as we know, there are four fundamental forces in nature: gravity, electromagnetism, and the so-called `strong' and `weak' nuclear forces. Every one of these forces must have just the right strength if there is to be any possibility of life. For example, if electrical forces were much stronger than they are, then no element heavier than hydrogen could form. The positively charged protons would repel one another so strongly that their mutual repulsion could not be overcome by the strong nuclear force. But electrical repulsion cannot be too weak. If it were, protons would combine too easily, and the sun would not burn as slowly and steadily as it does. The protons would combine explosively, and the sun (assuming that it had somehow managed to exist up to now) would explode like a thermonuclear bomb. If the ratio between the strong and weak nuclear forces were different, the same kinds of things would happen. Either hydrogen nuclei would combine into helium much too readily, or the reaction would simply not take place. We must conclude that small changes in any of the forces of nature would lead to universes in which life would not be possible. Either there would be no atoms, or there would be atoms but no stars or planets. In some conceivable universes, matter would collapse very rapidly into black holes. In others, rapid nuclear reactions would produce cosmic rays of such intensity that biological evolution could never take place." (Morris, R.W., "The Fate of the Universe," Playboy Press: New York NY, 1982, pp.153-154) 5/04/2007 "The theories of modern physics do not tell us why the forces of nature should have exactly the strength that they do, any more than they tell us why the universe should have expanded out of the primeval fireball at just the right rate. For example, the strength of the electromagnetic force (which embraces both electricity and magnetism) is related to a number called the fine structure constant. The name comes from the fact that the value of the constant can be determined by studying fine structure in the spectra of light emitted by atoms. The constant has the value 1/137. No one knows why it should be equal to this particular fraction rather than, say, 1/36 or 1/458. However, if it were not very close to 1/137, then life would not exist. In recent years it has become fashionable to view the creation of life as a stage in cosmic evolution. Galaxies evolved first, and then stars and planets. These produced the conditions necessary for the formation of complex organic molecules and, finally, life. The sequence seems so inevitable that it is difficult to imagine how life could not have evolved. As astronomer Carl Sagan states `the origin of life on suitable planets seems written into the chemistry of the universe.' But how did life get written into the chemistry? How is it that common elements such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen happened to have just the kind of atomic structure that they needed to combine to make the molecules upon which life depends? It is almost as though the universe had been consciously designed in such a way that life would be inevitable." (Morris, R.W., "The Fate of the Universe," Playboy Press: New York NY, 1982, pp.154-155) 5/04/2007 "Scientists of an earlier age would not have hesitated to conclude that such considerations indicated the existence of a Creator. The German astronomer Johannes Kepler, who discovered the laws of planetary motion upon which Newton's law of gravitation was based, believed that the heavens were an expression of the beauty and harmony of divine creation. Newton concurred, saying that the solar system was "not explicable by mere natural causes," that its structure had to be ascribed to "the counsel or contrivance of a voluntary agent." The argument from design, as this idea is called, is not much in favor nowadays. More than two centuries have passed since Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason pointed out flaws in the argument. Although it seems not to have disappeared completely (I recall having heard it in Sunday school as a child), modern theologians no longer depend upon it. Unlike Newton and Kepler, today's scientists do not believe that there is some region where physics and theology merge with one another. If science uncovers a question, then science should attempt to answer it. But exactly what conclusions should be drawn from the fact that the universe has such a special character? Are we to say that it is all some kind of cosmic accident? That certainly does not sound very satisfactory." (Morris, R.W., "The Fate of the Universe," Playboy Press: New York NY, 1982, p.155. Emphasis original) 5/04/2007 "One very obvious way out of the difficulty is to assume that there are an infinite number of universes. The universes that do not have our special character exist but are lifeless. The reason that our universe has certain special properties is that, otherwise, there would be no one here to see it. It must be emphasized that the hypothesis that universes exist in infinite numbers is anything but accepted scientific theory. However, I do not see how such a conclusion can be avoided. There are simply not any reasonable alternatives." (Morris, R.W., "The Fate of the Universe," Playboy Press: New York NY, 1982, pp.155-156) 5/04/2007 "The idea of an infinite number of universes is not a new one. It is really no more than a modern version of the many-worlds theory of Giordano Bruno and of the Greek philosophers Democritus and Anaximander. The only difference between the modern version and the older ones is that our horizons have expanded somewhat. We speak of `universes' where the Greeks and Bruno talked of `worlds.'" (Morris, R.W., "The Fate of the Universe," Playboy Press: New York NY, 1982, p.156) 5/04/2007 "The idea that astronomical data implied the existence of an infinite number of universes was first suggested by Robert Dicke in 1961. But Dicke's suggestion did not lead to a great deal of scientific discussion. It may be that it was a little ahead of its time. And when British mathematician Brandon Carter made similar observations around 1968, he did not even publish them at first. But in 1973 the question was revived by Stephen Hawking and his Cambridge University colleague Barry Collins. Collins and Hawking suggested, in a paper published in The Astrophysical Journal, that galaxies-and therefore life-could be created only in a universe that expanded out of the big bang just fast enough to avoid recollapse. The existence of galaxies and of life, they claimed, meant that the universe was exactly on the borderline between open and closed (not approximately on the borderline, as we have previously observed, but exactly). To Collins and Hawking, this hypothesis seemed to have a certain amount of appeal. The only trouble with it was that the probability that the universe was exactly on the borderline was zero. When a quantity (in this case the expansion velocity) can have an infinite number of different possible values, the chance that it has any one particular value is zero. So Collins and Hawking took the step that had previously been made by Dicke and by Carter. `One possible way out of this difficulty,' they said, `is to assume that there is an infinite number of universes with all possible different initial conditions.' The conclusion that there are infinite universes is not the only one that can be drawn. For example, John Archibald Wheeler and American mathematician C. M. Patton have suggested that a universe will only come into existence if it will be able to support intelligent life: There is some unknown factor eliminating all the possible universes that will not harbor intelligent species that can observe them. But the idea that there can be an interaction of this type between observer and universe is a little too mystical for most scientists." (Morris, R.W., "The Fate of the Universe," Playboy Press: New York NY, 1982, pp.156-157. Emphasis original) 5/04/2007 "At the present state of our knowledge, the origin of life remains a deep mystery. That is not to say, of course, that it will always be so. Undoubtedly the physical and chemical processes that led to the emergence of life from non-life were immensely complicated, and it is no surprise that we find such processes hard to model mathematically or to duplicate in the laboratory. In the face of this basic obstacle, one can distinguish between three philosophical positions concerning the origin of life: (i) it was a miracle; (ii) it was a stupendously improbable accident; and (iii) it was an inevitable consequence of the outworking of the laws of physics and chemistry, given the right conditions. I wish to state at the outset that I shall argue strongly for (iii), which seems to be the position adopted by most of the SETI scientists. ... Carl Sagan has written: 'The available evidence strongly suggests that the origin of life should occur given the initial conditions and a billion years of evolutionary time. The origin of life on suitable planets seems built into the chemistry of the universe.' this is a common view among scientists concerned with SETI. The assumption is that, given suitable conditions (e.g. a soup of the right chemicals, an energy source and a stable temperature in an appropriate range), living organisms will form spontaneously in a geologically reasonable span of time (millions or billions of years). Often cited is the fact that there is fossil evidence for microbial life on Earth as long ago as 3.6 billion years. The Earth can be dated at 4.5 billion years, and for many tens or even hundreds of millions of years the surface conditions would have been very hostile to life. Hazards included massive meteoric bombardment, huge volcanic eruptions, thick and deadly gases from the interior, solar instability (the Sun formed at about the same time as the Earth and probably had teething troubles), very hot conditions, the absence of liquid water, and deadly solar radiation. Thus it seems as if life got started on Earth at just about the earliest time it could. If life originated on Earth, these facts suggest that the process was rather rapid. Of course, if the panspermia hypothesis is correct, and the universe is replete with hopeful microbes looking for a home, then we would also expect a rapid colonization of the newly formed Earth. One must be wary, however, in drawing statistical conclusions from a single sample. That is why the discovery of even a single example of extraterrestrial life would be of immense significance to theory (iii)." (Davies, P.C.W., "Are We Alone?: Philosophical Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life," Penguin: London, 1995, pp.15,23-24) 5/04/2007 "The central role of the element carbon in terrestrial life prompted Fred Hoyle to draw attention to a further curious accident of nature. Carbon nuclei are synthesized in stars as a result of the almost simultaneous encounter of three helium nuclei. Such a triple collision is, of course, rather rare, and would be utterly insignificant if it were not for a fortuitous property of the carbon nucleus. The union of two helium nuclei forms an unstable nucleus of beryllium, Be8. The probability of the further incorporation of a third helium nucleus, to form carbon (C12), before the decay of Be8, depends sensitively on the energy with which the helium nucleus strikes the temporarily existing Be8. The reason for this concerns the existence of so-called nuclear resonances. Roughly speaking, when the frequency of the quantum wave associated with the incoming helium nucleus matches an internal vibration frequency of the composite system, the nuclear cross-section for capture of the third helium nucleus rises very sharply. By chance, the thermal energy of the nuclear constituents in a typical star lies almost exactly at the location of a resonance in C12. This happy accident ensures the efficient production of carbon inside stars. Without it, the rate of carbon formation would be very much reduced. This is, however, only half the story, for it is necessary that the newly synthesized carbon survive the subsequent nuclear activity inside the star. Carbon will be depleted as it burns to form still heavier elements. Specifically, the further collision of a helium nucleus with C12 produces oxygen, O16. Once more, though, nature has made a fortunate choice. A resonance in the O16 nucleus lies safely below the thermal energy of the constituents, so the C12 is spared the fate of being burned out of existence to form oxygen. The details of nuclear structure are immensely complicated, but ultimately the location of the nuclear resonances depends upon the fundamental forces of nature, especially the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. Had the strengths of these forces not been rather precisely chosen, the fortuitous arrangement of resonances in C12 and O16 would not have occurred and life, at least of the terrestrial variety, would have been exceedingly less likely. Returning to this topic in a recent publication, Hoyle considers the carbon-oxygen synthesis coincidence so remarkable that it seems like a `put-up job'. Regarding the delicate positioning of the nuclear resonances, he comments: 'If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just about where these levels are actually found to be .... A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature'. [Hoyle, F., "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections," Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 20, 1982, pp.1-35, p.16]" (Davies, P.C.W., "The Accidental Universe," [1982], Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, Reprinted, 1983, pp.117-118) 5/04/2007 "Two alpha particles [helium nuclei] that collide with each other with the right energy (enough to overcome the electrical repulsion produced by the positively charged protons they each carry) will stick together to form a nucleus of beryllium-8. Unfortunately, however, beryllium-8 is the exception to the rule that nuclei containing whole numbers of alpha particles are stable. It is spectacularly unstable, and breaks apart into lighter particles within a lifetime of only 10-17 seconds. So how can carbon, which requires the addition of another alpha particle to a beryllium-8 nucleus, ever be built up? Maybe, some theorists speculated, carbon-12 could be made directly inside stars, when three helium-4 nuclei just happened to collide with one another simultaneously. But a simple calculation soon showed that this is indeed about as unlikely a prospect as it sounds. It might happen occasionally, but not often enough to produce all the carbon we see around us, the key element in the chemistry of living things. .... Then, Fred Hoyle, who had, back in 1946 written a classic paper expounding the idea that the ... Hoyle puzzled over the problem of how hearty nuclei might be built up in stars (stellar nucleosynthesis), and became intrigued by the possibility that the energy levels of beryllium, helium, and carbon might be - just right to encourage the two-step reaction Salpeter had proposed. It all hinged on a property known as resonance. Resonance works like this. When two nuclei collide and stick together, the new nucleus that is formed carries the combined mass-energy of the two nuclei, plus the combined energy of their motion, their kinetic energy (and minus a small amount of energy from the strong force, the binding energy that holds the new nucleus together). The new nucleus `wants' to occupy one of the steps on its own energy ladder, and if this combined energy from the incoming particles is not just right then the excess has to be eliminated, in the form of leftover kinetic energy, or as a particle ejected from the nucleus. This reduces the likelihood that the two colliding nuclei will stick together; in many eases, they simply bounce off each other and continue to lead their separate lives. If everything meshes perfectly, however, the new nucleus will be created with exactly the energy that corresponds to one of its natural levels (it can then, of course, emit packets of energy and hop down the steps to the lowest; level). In that ease, the interaction will proceed very effectively, and the conversion of lighter nuclei into a heavier form will be complete. This matching of energies to one of the levels appropriate for the new nuclei is the effect known as resonance, and it depends crucially on the structure of the nuclei involved in the collisions. In 1954, Hoyle realised that the only way to make enough carbon inside stars is if there is a resonance involving helium-4, beryllium-8, and carbon-12. The mass-energy of each nucleus is fixed and cannot change; the kinetic energy that each nucleus has depends on the temperature inside a star, which Hoyle could calculate. Using that temperature calculation, Hoyle predicted that there must be a previously undetected energy level in the carbon-12 nucleus, at an energy that would resonate with the combined energies, including kinetic energy, of its constituent parts, under the conditions prevailing inside stars. He made a precise calculation of what that energy level must be, and he cajoled Willy Fowler's somewhat sceptical nuclear physics colleagues until they carried out experiments to test his prediction. To the astonishment of everyone except Hoyle, the measurements showed that carbon-12 has an energy level just 4 percent above the calculated energy. This is so close that the kinetic energies of the colliding nuclei can readily supply the excess. This resonance greatly increases the chances of a helium-4 and a beryllium-8 nucleus sticking together, and ensures that enough alpha particles can be fused into carbon nuclei inside stars to account for our existence." (Gribbin, J.R. & Rees, M.J., "Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and Anthropic Cosmology," Bantam Books: New York NY, 1989, pp.243-245. Emphasis original) 5/04/2007 "The remarkable nature of Hoyle's successful prediction cannot be overemphasised. Suppose, for example, that the energy level in carbon had turned out to be just 4 percent lower than the combined energy of helium-4 and beryllium-8. There is no way that kinetic energy could subtract rather than add the difference, so the trick simply would not have worked. This is made clear when we look at the next putative step in stellar nucleosynthesis, the production of oxygen-16 from a combination of carbon-12 and helium-4. When a carbon-12 nucleus and a helium-4 nucleus meet, they would fuse into oxygen if there were an appropriate resonance. But the nearest oxygen-16 resonance has one percent less energy than helium-4 plus carbon-12. But that 1 percent is all it takes to ensure that this time resonance does not occur. Sure, oxygen- 16 is manufactured in stars, but only in small quantities (at least, at this early stage of a star's life) compared with carbon. If that oxygen energy level were 1 percent lower, then virtually all the carbon made inside stars would be processed into oxygen, and then (much of it) into heavier elements still. Carbon-based life forms like ourselves would not exist. Most anthropic arguments are made with the benefit of hindsight. We look at the Universe, notice that it is close to flat, and say, `Oh yes, of course, it must be that way, or we wouldn't be here to notice it.' But Hoyle's prediction is different, in a class of its own. It is a genuine scientific prediction, tested and confirmed by subsequent experiments. Hoyle said, in effect, "since we exist, then carbon must have an energy level at 7.6 MeV." Then the experiments were carried out and the energy level was measured. As far as we know, this is the only genuine anthropic principle prediction; all the rest are "predictions" that might have been made in advance of the observations, if anyone had had the genius to make them, but that were never in fact made in that way. Hoyle's remarkable insight led directly to a detailed understanding of the way in which all of the other elements are built up from hydrogen and helium inside stars. He worked closely with Willy Fowler on this, and with the husband-and-wife team Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge. Fowler (without Hoyle) later received a Nobel Prize for his part in the study of stellar nucleosynthesis. This combination of coincidences, just right for resonance in carbon-12, just wrong in oxygen-16, is indeed remarkable. There is no better evidence to support the argument that the Universe has been designed for our benefit-tailor-made for man. But there are alternative ways of viewing this coincidence, and others. So before we present the alternative view we should perhaps mention at least two other striking coincidences that help to make the Universe a fit place for life." (Gribbin, J.R. & Rees, M.J., "Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and Anthropic Cosmology," Bantam Books: New York NY, 1989, pp.246-247. Emphasis original) 5/04/2007 "In 1952-1953 Fred Hoyle discovered one of the most celebrated examples of fine-tuning in physics. [Hoyle, F., "On Nuclear Reactions occurring in very hot stars: Synthesis of elements from carbon to nickel," Astrophysics Journal Supplement, Vol. 1, 1954, pp.121-146] In contemplating the required pathway for the production of carbon and oxygen in nuclear reactions in the hot interiors of red giant stars, Hoyle correctly predicted that carbon-12 must have a very specific nuclear energy resonance not known at the time. A nuclear resonance is a range of energies that greatly increases the chances of interaction between a nucleus and another particle-for example, the capture of a proton or a neutron. An energy resonance in a nucleus will accelerate reactions if the colliding particles have just the right kinetic energy. Resonances tend to be very narrow, so even very slight changes in their location would lead to enormous changes in the reaction rates. This may seem obscure, but think of a wineglass shattering when just the right acoustic note is played. That's a resonance. The relevant nuclear reactions occur in the stage of a star's life following the hydrogen- burning main sequence, during so-called helium-shell burning. Recall that our Sun will not enter this latter stage for another four to five billion years. Fortunately for us, many moderate- to high-mass stars have already reached this stage and have seeded our galaxy with a healthy dose of carbon and oxygen. During this advanced, helium-shell burning stage, alpha particles (helium nuclei) abound in a star's deep interior, creating frequent high-energy collisions. When two helium nuclei collide, they form an unstable beryllium-8 nucleus; even this is only possible because the mass of two helium nuclei is very close to that of the beryllium-8 nucleus. It remains bound long enough (just 10-16 seconds) to collide with another alpha particle to form carbon-12. But this result is not quite sufficient. Because it is effectively a three-body reaction, carbon-12 won't be produced without a resonance. It was the lack of a known resonance at the energy level required to produce carbon that led Hoyle to make his famous prediction. Since the universe contains plenty of carbon, Hoyle deduced that such a resonance must exist. Had the resonance been slightly lower, the universe would have far less carbon. In fact, the observed abundance of carbon and oxygen depends on a few other coincidences. It turns out that the lack of a resonance in oxygen at the typical alpha particle energy in a star prevents all the carbon from being used up to make oxygen (thankfully, the closest resonance is just a little bit too low). But if the fine-tuning stopped there, the universe would have squandered most of its oxygen well before any star system had time even to think about hosting life. You see, certain conservation laws prevent easy capture of alpha particles by oxygen-16 to form neon-20, even though a resonance exists in neon-20 at just the right place. Otherwise, little oxygen would remain. As a result of these four astounding `coincidences,' stars produce carbon and oxygen in comparable amounts. Astrophysicists have recently confirmed the sensitivity of carbon and oxygen production to the carbon- energy resonance; a change in the (strong) nuclear force strength (the force that binds particles in an atomic nucleus) by more than about half a percent, or by 4 percent in the electromagnetic force (the force between charged particles), would yield a universe with either too much carbon compared with oxygen or vice versa, and thus little if any chance for life. Including the other three required fine-tunings further narrows this range." (Gonzalez, G.* & Richards, J.W.*, "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed For Discovery," Regnery: Washington DC, 2004, pp.198-199) 5/04/2007 "The synthesis of carbon-the vital core of all organic molecules-on a significant scale involves what scientists view as an `astonishing' coincidence in the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism. This ratio makes it possible for carbon-12 to reach an excited state of exactly 7.65 MeV at the temperature typical of the center of stars, which creates a resonance involving helium-4, beryllium-8, and carbon-12 - allowing the necessary binding to take place during a tiny window of opportunity 1017 seconds long." (Glynn, P.*, "God: The Evidence: The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World," Forum: Rocklin CA, 1997, p.30) 6/04/2007 "The nuclear strong force, too, must be neither over-strong nor over-weak, for stars to operate life- encouragingly. `As small an increase as 2 per cent' in its strength `would block the formation of protons out of quarks', preventing the existence even of hydrogen atoms, [Barrow, J.D. & Silk, J., Scientific American, April 1980, pp. 127-128] let alone others. If this argument fails then the same small increase could still spell disaster by binding protons into diprotons: all hydrogen would now become helium early in the Bang, [Davies, P.C.W., "The Anthropic Principle," in Wilkinson, D., ed., Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 10," Pergamon Press: Oxford, 1983, p. 8] and stars would burn by the strong interaction [Dyson, F., "Energy in the Universe," Scientific American, Vol. 225, No. 3, September 1971, pp.50-59, p.56] which, as noted above, proceeds 1018 times faster than the weak interaction which controls our sun. A yet tinier increase, perhaps of 1 per cent, would so change nuclear resonance levels that almost all carbon would be burned to oxygen. [Hoyle, F., Astrophysical Journal, supplementary, Vol. 1, 1954, p.121; Salpeter, E. E., Physical Review, Vol. 107, 1957, p.516] A somewhat greater increase, of about 10 per cent, would again ruin stellar carbon synthesis, this time changing resonance levels so that there would be little burning beyond carbon's predecessor, helium. [Rozental, I.L., "Structure of the Universe and Fundamental Constants," Moscow, 1981, p.8] One a trifle greater than this would lead to `nuclei of almost unlimited size', [Carr, B.J. & Rees, M. J., "The anthropic principle and the structure of the physical world," Nature, Vol, 278, 12 April 1979, pp.605- 612, p.611] even small bodies becoming `mini neutron stars'. [Carter, B. in Sanders, J.H. & Wapstra, A.H., eds., "Atomic Masses and Fundamental Constants: 5," New York, 1976, p.652] All which is true despite the very short range of the strong force. Were it long-range then the universe would be `wound down into a single blob'. [Atkins, P.W., "The Creation," W.H. Freeman & Co: Oxford, 1981, p.13.]" (Leslie, J., "Universes," [1989], Routledge: London, Reprint, 1996, p.35. Emphasis original) 6/04/2007 "Slight decreases could be equally ruinous. The deuteron, a combination of a neutron and a proton which is essential to stellar nucleosynthesis, is only just bound: weakening the strong force by `about five per cent' would unbind it, [Davies, P.C.W., "The Anthropic Principle," in Wilkinson, D., ed., Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 10," Pergamon Press: Oxford, 1983, p. 7] leading to a universe of hydrogen only. And even a weakening of 1 per cent could destroy [Rees, M.J., "Our Universe and Others," Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 22, 1981, p. 122] `a particular resonance in the carbon nucleus which allows carbon to form from 4He plus 8Be despite the instability of 8Be' (which is however stable enough to have a lifetime `anomalously long' in a way itself suggesting fine tuning).[Barrow, J.D. & Tipler, F.J., "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle," Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1986, pp.252-253] `A 50% decrease would adversely affect the stability of all the elements essential to living organisms': [Barrow & Tipler, Ibid., p.327] any carbon, for example, which somehow managed to form would soon disintegrate. (Leslie, J., "Universes," [1989], Routledge: London, Reprint, 1996, pp.35-36. Emphasis original) 6/04/2007 "The basic features of galaxies, stars, planets and the everyday world are essentially determined by a few microphysical constants and by the effects of gravitation. Many interrelations between different scales that at first sight seem surprising are straightforward consequences of simple physical arguments. But several aspects of our Universe-some of which seem to be prerequisites for the evolution of any form of life-depend rather delicately on apparent 'coincidences' among the physical constants." (Carr, B.J. & Rees, M. J., "The anthropic principle and the structure of the physical world," Nature, Vol, 278, 12 April 1979, pp.605-612) 6/04/2007 "The Best of All Possible Worlds? Leibniz developed the above argument in detail as an attempt to prove, on the basis of the rationality of the cosmos, that such a God exists. He concluded from this cosmological argument that a rational, omnipotent, perfect, omniscient being must inevitably choose the best of all possible worlds. The reason? If a perfect God knowingly selected a world that was less than perfect, that would be irrational. We would demand an explanation for the peculiar choice. But what possible explanation could there be? The notion that ours is the best of all possible worlds has not commended itself to many people. Leibniz (in the guise of Dr. Pangloss) was savagely lampooned by Voltaire on this point: `O Dr. Pangloss! If this is the best of all possible worlds, what must the others be like?' The objection usually centers on the problem of evil. We can imagine a world in which, for example, there is no pain and suffering. Would that not be a better world? Leaving ethical issues aside, there could still be some physical sense in which ours is the best of all possible worlds. One is certainly struck by the immense richness and complexity of the physical world. Sometimes it seems as if nature were `going out of its way' to produce an interesting and fruitful universe. Freeman Dyson has attempted to capture this property in his principle of maximum diversity: the laws of nature and the initial conditions are such as to make the universe as interesting as possible. [Dyson F.J., "Infinite In All Directions," Harper & Row: New York NY, 1988, p.298] Here `best' is interpreted as `richest,' in the sense of greatest variety and complexity of physical systems." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Mind of God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning," [1992]. Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1993, pp.172-173. Emphasis original) 6/04/2007 "I have tried to make a case that the existence of an orderly, coherent universe containing stable, organized, complex structures requires laws and conditions of a very special kind. All the evidence suggests that this is not just any old universe, but one which is remarkably well adjusted to the existence of certain interesting and significant entities (e.g., stable stars). ... I explained how this feeling had been formalized by Freeman Dyson and others into something like a principle of maximum diversity [Dyson F.J., "Infinite In All Directions," Harper & Row: New York NY, 1988, p.298] . The situation becomes even more intriguing when we take into account the existence of living organisms. The fact that biological systems have very special requirements, and that these requirements are, happily, met by nature, has been commented upon at least since the seventeenth century. It is only in the twentieth century, however, with the development of biochemistry, genetics, and molecular biology, that the full picture has emerged. Already in 1913 the distinguished Harvard biochemist Lawrence Henderson wrote: `The properties of matter and the course of cosmic evolution are now seen to be intimately related to the structure of the living being and to its activities; ... the biologist may now rightly regard the Universe in its very essence as biocentric. ` [Henderson, L.J., "The Fitness of the Environment," [1913], Peter Smith: Gloucester MA, Reprinted, 1970, p.312.] Henderson was led to this surprising view from his work on the regulation of acidity and alkalinity in living organisms, and the way that such regulation depends crucially upon the rather special properties of certain chemical substances. He was also greatly impressed at how water, which has a number of anomalous properties, is incorporated into life at a basic level. Had these various substances not existed, or had the laws of physics been somewhat different so that the substances did not enjoy these special properties, then life (at least as we know it) would be impossible. Henderson regarded the `fitness of the environment' for life as too great to be accidental, and asked what manner of law is capable of explaining such a match." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Mind of God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning," [1992]. Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1993, pp.198-199) 6/04/2007 "In the 1960s the astronomer Fred Hoyle noted that the element carbon, whose peculiar chemical properties make it crucial to terrestrial life, is manufactured from helium inside large stars. It is released therefrom by supernovae explosions, as discussed in the previous section. While investigating the nuclear reactions that lead to the formation of carbon in the stellar cores, Hoyle was struck by the fact that the key reaction proceeds only because of a lucky fluke. Carbon nuclei are made by a rather tricky process involving the simultaneous encounter of three high-speed helium nuclei, which then stick together. Because of the rarity of triple-nucleus encounters, the reaction can proceed at a significant rate only at certain well-defined energies (termed `resonances'), where the reaction rate is substantially amplified by quantum effects. By good fortune, one of these resonances is positioned just about right to correspond to the sort of energies that helium nuclei have inside large stars. Curiously, Hoyle did not know this at the time, but he predicted that it must be so on the basis that carbon is an abundant element in nature. Experiment subsequently proved him right. A detailed study also revealed other `coincidences' without which carbon would not be both produced and preserved inside stars. Hoyle was so impressed by this `monstrous series of accidents,' he was prompted to comment that it was as if `the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside the stars.' [Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and the Scientists," SCM: London, 1959, p.82] Later he was to expound the view that the universe looks like a `put-up job,' as though somebody had been `monkeying' with the laws of physics. [Hoyle, F., "The Intelligent Universe," Michael Joseph: London, 1983, p.218]" (Davies, P.C.W., "The Mind of God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning," [1992]. Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1993, p.199) 6/04/2007 "These examples are intended merely as a sample. A long list of additional `lucky accidents' and `coincidences' has been compiled since, most notably by the astrophysicists Brandon Carter, Bernard Carr, and Martin Rees. Taken together, they provide impressive evidence that life as we know it depends very sensitively on the form of the laws of physics, and on some seemingly fortuitous accidents in the actual values that nature has chosen for various particle masses, force strengths, and so on. As these examples have been thoroughly discussed elsewhere, I will not list them here. Suffice it to say that, if we could play God, and select values for these quantities at whim by twiddling a set of knobs, we would find that almost all knob settings would render the universe uninhabitable. In some cases it seems as if the different knobs have to be fine-tuned to enormous precision if the universe is to be such that life will flourish. In their book Cosmic Coincidences John Gribbin and Martin Rees conclude: `The conditions in our Universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves. [Gribbin, J. & Rees, M.J., "Cosmic Coincidences," Bantam Books: New York NY, 1989), p.269]." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Mind of God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning," [1992]. Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1993, pp.199-200) 6/04/2007 "It is a truism that we can only observe a universe that is consistent with our own existence. As I have mentioned, this linkage between human observership and the laws and conditions of the universe has become known, somewhat unfortunately, as the Anthropic Principle. In the trivial form just stated, the Anthropic Principle does not assert that our existence somehow compels the laws of physics to have the form they do, nor need one conclude that the laws have been deliberately designed with people in mind. On the other hand, the fact that even slight changes to the way things are might render the universe unobservable is surely a fact of deep significance." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Mind of God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning," [1992]. Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1993, p.200. Emphasis original) 6/04/2007 "Boyle introduced the famous comparison between the universe and a clockwork mechanism, which was most eloquently elaborated by the theologian William Paley in the eighteenth century. Suppose, argued Paley, that you were `crossing a heath' and came upon a watch lying on the ground. On inspecting the watch, you observed the intricate organization of its parts and how they were arranged together in a cooperative way to achieve a collective end. Even if you had never seen a watch and had no idea of its function, you would still be led to conclude from your inspection that this was a contrivance designed for a purpose. Paley then went on to argue that, when we consider the much more elaborate contrivances of nature, we should reach the same conclusion even more forcefully. The weakness of this argument, exposed by Hume, is that it proceeds by analogy. The mechanistic universe is analogous to the watch; the watch had a designer, so therefore the universe must have had a designer. One might as well say that the universe is like an organism, so therefore it must have grown from a fetus in a cosmic womb! Clearly no analogical argument can amount to a proof. The best it can do is to offer support for a hypothesis. The degree of support will depend on how persuasive you find the analogy to be." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Mind of God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning," [1992]. Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1993, p.201. Emphasis original) 6/04/2007 "As John Leslie points out, if the world were littered with pieces of granite stamped MADE BY GOD, after the fashion of the watchmaker's mark, surely even the Humes of this world should be convinced? `It can be asked whether every conceivable piece of seeming evidence of divine creative activity, including, say, messages written in the structures of naturally occurring chain molecules ... would be shrugged off with the comment, `Nothing improbable in that!' [Leslie, J., `Universes,' Routledge, London 1989), p.160]" (Davies, P.C.W., "The Mind of God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning," [1992]. Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1993, pp.201-202. Emphasis original) 6/04/2007 "Finally, crushingly, it can be asked whether every conceivable piece of seeming evidence of divine creative activity, including, say, messages written in the structures of naturally occurring chain molecules ... would be shrugged off with the comment, `Nothing improbable in that!' ... In point of fact, those who run the above argument against calling our universe `probably God-designed' are often also heard to declare that a universe with as many evils as ours would be `a highly improbable' product of divine power." (Leslie, J., "Universes," [1989], Routledge: London, Reprint, 1996, p.160. Emphasis original) 6/04/2007 "The design argument can't be categorized as right or wrong, but merely suggestive to a greater or lesser degree. So how suggestive is it? No scientist would today concur with Newton and claim that the solar system is too propitiously arranged to arise naturally. Although the origin of the solar system is not well understood, mechanisms are known to exist that could arrange the planets in the orderly manner that we find them. Nevertheless, the overall organization of the universe has suggested to many a modern astronomer an element of design. Thus James Jeans, who proclaimed that `the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician' and it `begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine,' also wrote: `We discover that the universe shows evidence of a designing or controlling power that has something in common with our own individual minds-not, so far as we have discovered, emotion, morality, or aesthetic appreciation, but the tendency to think in the way which, for want of a better word, we describe as mathematical.' [Jeans, J., "The Mysterious Universe," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1931, p.137]" (Davies, P.C.W., "The Mind of God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning," [1992]. Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1993, pp.202-203) 6/04/2007 "The most striking examples of `the contrivances of nature' are to be found in the biological domain, and it is to these that Paley devoted much of his attention. In biology the adaptation of means to ends is legendary. Consider the eye, for example. It is hard to imagine that this organ is not meant to provide the faculty of sight. Or that the wings of a bird aren't there for the purpose of flight. To Paley and many others, such intricate and successful adaptation bespoke providential arrangement by an intelligent designer. Alas, we all know about the speedy demise of this argument. Darwin's theory of evolution demonstrated decisively that complex organization efficiently adapted to the environment could arise as a result of random mutations and natural selection. No designer is needed to produce an eye or a wing. Such organs appear as a result of perfectly ordinary natural processes. A triumphalist celebration of this put-down is brilliantly presented in The Blind Watchmaker by the Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins. The severe mauling meted out to the design argument by Hume, Darwin, and others resulted in its being more or less completely abandoned by theologians. It is all the more curious, therefore, that it has been resurrected in recent years by a number of scientists. In its new form the argument is directed not to the material objects of the universe as such, but to the underlying laws, where it is immune from Darwinian attack." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Mind of God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning," [1992], Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1993, pp.202-203) 6/04/2007 "First, it is sometimes argued that, if nature did not oblige by producing the right conditions for life to form, we would not ourselves be here to argue about the matter. That is of course true, but it hardly amounts to a counterargument. The fact is, we are here, and here by grace of some pretty felicitous arrangements. Our existence cannot of itself explain these arrangements. One could shrug the matter aside with the comment that we are certainly very lucky that the universe just happened to possess the necessary conditions for life to flourish, but that this is a meaningless quirk of fate. Again, it is a question of personal judgment. Suppose it could be demonstrated that life would be impossible unless the ratio of the mass of the electron to that of the proton was within 0.00000000001 percent of some completely independent number-say, one hundred times the ratio of the densities of water and mercury at 18 degrees centigrade (64.4 degrees Fahrenheit). Even the most hard-nosed skeptic must surely be tempted to conclude that there was `something going on.'" (Davies, P.C.W., "The Mind of God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning," [1992], Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1993, pp.202-203. Emphasis original) 6/04/2007 "My first visit to the Creation took place in 1981 [Atkins, P.W., "The Creation," W.H. Freeman & Co: Oxford, 1981]. Then I took the view that there is nothing that cannot be understood, and that the path to understanding is to peel away appearances in order to expose the core, which is always of unsurpassed simplicity. I explained that we would travel along a path where we would encounter very simple questions and, more importantly, discover that they have very simple answers. I aimed to show then, as I am to show on this return visit, that it is possible to think rationally about what many regard as lying beyond explanation, such as the processes involved in the creation of the universe and the emergence in it of consciousness. My aim on the first visit was to argue that the universe can come into existence without intervention, and that there is no need to invoke the idea of a Supreme Being in one of its numerous manifestations. I accepted then, as I accept now, that anyone who is in some sense religious is not likely to be swayed by arguments like mine. In this respect I did not intend offence and nor do I intend it now. There were some who took it, though, and I suppose there will be a new generation who will take it again with this revision." (Atkins, P.W., "Creation Revisited", [1992], Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1994, p.vii) 6/04/2007 "A great deal of the universe does not need any explanation. Elephants, for instance. Once molecules have learnt to compete and to create other molecules in their own image, elephants, and things resembling elephants, will in due course be found roaming through the countryside. The details of the processes involved in evolution are fascinating, but they are unimportant: competing, replicating molecules with time on their hands will inevitably evolve." (Atkins, P.W., "Creation Revisited", [1992], Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1994, p.3) 6/04/2007 "Some of the things resembling elephants will be men. They are equally unimportant. It is undeniable (but not necessarily predictable) that molecules, once they have stumbled upon reproduction, will, somewhere or other (here, as it happens), band together into corporations shaped into the form and having the functions of men, and that these men will also one day be found roaming through some countryside. Their special but not significant function is that they are able to act as commentators on the nature, content, structure, and source of the universe and that, as a sideline, they can devise and take pleasure from communicable fantasies." (Atkins, P.W., "Creation Revisited", [1992], Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1994, p.3) 6/04/2007 "Just as the electrons of an atom can be considered to reside in a variety of states according to their energy levels so it is with nucleons. Neutrons and protons possess an analogous spectrum of nuclear levels. If nucleons undergo a transition from a high to a low energy state then energy is emitted and conversely, the addition of radiant energy can effect an upward transition between nuclear levels. This nuclear chemistry is a crucial factor in the chain of nuclear reactions that power the stars. When two nuclei undergo fusion into a third nuclear state, energy may be emitted. One of the most striking aspects of low-energy nuclear reactions of this type is the discontinuous response of the interaction rate, or cross-section, as the energy of the participant nuclei changes ... A sequence of sharp peaks, or resonances, arises in the production efficiency of some nuclei as the interaction energy changes. They will occur below some characteristic energy (typically ~ few x 10 MeV) which depends on the particular nuclei involved in the reaction. ... The primary mechanism whereby stars generate gas or radiation pressures to support themselves against gravitational collapse is exothermic fusion of hydrogen into helium-4. But, eventually a star will exhaust the supply of hydrogen in its core and its immediate source of pressure support disappears. The star possesses a built-in safety valve to resolve this temporary energy crisis: as soon as gravitational contraction begins to increase the average density at the stellar core the temperature rises sufficiently for the initiation of helium burning (at T~ 108 K, p ~ 104.5 gm cm-3), via 3He4 --> C + 2y (4.58) This sequence of events (fuel exhaustion --> contraction --> higher central temperature --> new nuclear energy source) can be repeated several times but it is known that the nucleosynthesis of all the heavier elements essential to biology rests upon the step (4.58)." (Barrow, J.D. & Tipler, F.J., "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle," [1986], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, Reprinted, 1996, pp.251-252. Emphasis original) 6/04/2007 "Prior to 1952 it was believed that the interaction (4.58) proceeded too slowly to be useful in stellar interiors. Then Salpeter pointed out that it might be an `autocatalytic' reaction, proceeding via an intermediate beryllium step, 2He +(99±6) keV --> Be8 Be8+He4 --> C12 + 2y (4.59) Since the Be8 lifetime (~10-17s) is anomalously long compared to the He4 + He4 collision time (~10-22 s), the beryllium will co-exist with the He4 for a significant time and allow reaction (4.59) to occur. However, in 1952 so little was known about the nuclear levels of C that it was hard to evaluate the influence of the channel (4.59) on the efficiency of (4.58). Two years later Hoyle made a remarkable prediction: in the course of an extensive study of stellar nucleosynthesis he realized that unless reaction (4.58) proceeded resonantly the yield of carbon would be negligible. There would be neither carbon, nor carbon-based life in the Universe. The evident presence of carbon and the products of carbon chemistry led Hoyle to predict that (4.58) and (4.59) must be resonant, with the vital resonance level of the C nucleus lying near ~7.7 MeV. This prediction was soon verified by experiment. Dunbar et al. discovered a state with the expected properties lying at 7.656+0.008 MeV. If we examine the level structure of C12 in detail we find a remarkable `coincidence' exists there. The 7.6549 MeV level in C12 lies just above the energy of Be8 plus He4 (=7.3667 MeV) and the acquisition of thermal energy by the two nuclei within a stellar interior allows a resonance to occur. Dunbar et al.'s discovery confirmed an Anthropic Principle prediction." (Barrow, J.D. & Tipler, F.J., "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle," [1986], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, Reprinted, 1996, p.252. Emphasis original) 6/04/2007 "However, this is not the end of the story. The addition of another helium-4 nucleus to C12 could fuse it to oxygen. If this reaction were also resonant all the carbon would be rapidly burnt to O16. However, by a further `coincidence' the O16 nucleus has an energy level at 7.1187 MeV that lies just below the total energy of C12 + He4 at 7.1616 MeV. Since kinetic energies are always positive, resonance cannot occur in the 7.1187 MeV state. Had the O16 level lain just above that of C12 + He4, carbon would have been rapidly removed via the alpha capture C12 + He4 --> O16 (4.60) Hoyle realized that this remarkable chain of coincidences-the unusual longevity of beryllium, the existence of an advantageous resonance level in C12 and the non-existence of a disadvantageous level in O16-were necessary, and remarkably fine-tuned, conditions for our own existence and indeed the existence of any carbon-based life in the Universe. These coincidences could, in principle, be traced back to their roots where they would reveal a meticulous fine- tuning between the strengths of the nuclear and electromagnetic interactions along with the relative masses of electrons and nucleons. Unfortunately no such back-track is practical because of the overwhelming complexity of the large quantum systems involved; such resonance levels can only by located by experiment in practice." (Barrow, J.D. & Tipler, F.J., "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle," [1986], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, Reprinted, 1996, p.252. Emphasis original) 6/04/2007 "Hoyle's anthropic prediction is a natural successor to the examples of Henderson. It exhibits further relationships between invariants of Nature which are necessary for our own existence. Writing and lecturing in 1965 Hoyle added some speculation as to the conditions in `other worlds' where the properties of beryllium, carbon and oxygen might not be so favourably arranged. First `suppose that Be8 ... had turned out to be moderately stable, say bound by a million electron volts. What would be the effect on astrophysics?' There would be many more explosive stars and supernovae and stellar evolution might well come to an end at the helium burning stage because helium would be a rather unstable nuclear fuel, `Had Be8 been stable the helium burning reaction would have been so violent that stellar evolution with its consequent nucleosynthesis would have been very limited in scope, less interesting in its effects ... if there was little carbon in the world compared to oxygen, it is likely that living creatures could never have developed.' [Hoyle, F., Dunbar, D., Wensel, W. & Whaling, W., "The 7.68-Mev State in C12," Physical Review, Vol. 92 , 1953, p.649] (Barrow, J.D. & Tipler, F.J., "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle," [1986], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, Reprinted, 1996, p.252. Emphasis original) 7/04/2007 "About 75 per cent of a star is hydrogen, roughly 25 per cent is helium, and a mere 1 per cent or so consists of heavier elements: this proportion is a strong clue that the materials that are essential for life on Earth, such as the carbon in the organic molecules in our bodies and the oxygen in the air that we breathe, have been manufactured inside stars. This process, stellar nucleosynthesis, is now well understood; but the comforting familiarity of that understanding sometimes obscures the fact that the whole process of manufacturing heavy elements inside stars rests upon an astonishing coincidence involving the quantum properties of carbon nuclei. This coincidence makes our existence possible only because of other coincidences that were important earlier in the life of the Universe. All of these coincidences are extremely interesting to many astronomers, reviving the age-old debate about whether or not the Universe is `tailor- made' for human beings .... Investigating these puzzles is usually known as `anthropic cosmology'. The first puzzle is why stars should be made of 75 per cent hydrogen and 25 per cent helium to begin with. That is the result of another coincidence that operated during the event known as the big bang in which the Universe was born, some 15 billion years ago. This coincidence hinges upon the strength of the weak interaction, one of the four fundamental forces of nature. This is the force that determines the process of radioactive decay, and the conversion of protons into neutrons, or vice versa. Assuming that the big-bang fireball would just produce the simplest nuclei, single protons, it is the strength of the weak force that determines just how much hydrogen is processed into helium in the later stages of the big bang. It requires a precise fine tuning to avoid a runaway in one direction or the other-make the weak force slightly stronger and no helium would have been produced; make it slightly weaker and nearly all the hydrogen would have been converted into helium. A universe in which stars were initially composed entirely of hydrogen might not be so very different from our own; but if all the stars were originally composed of helium they would have burned out quickly. There would probably not have been enough time for planets to form and life to evolve, even if life could develop without hydrogen available to make water." (Gribbin, J.R. & Rees, M.J., "Cosmic coincidences," New Scientist, Vol. 125, 13 January 1990, pp.29-32, pp.29-30. Emphasis original) 7/04/2007 "Astrophysicists knew that the trick, nucleosynthesis, must have something to do with sticking helium nuclei together. The helium-4 nucleus is extremely stable. Atoms made up of what are, in effect, whole numbers of helium-4 nuclei are also stable, and therefore common, compared with other nuclei. Carbon, which contains six protons and six neutrons (12 nucleons), and oxygen, which contains 16, are the two most obvious examples that are important for life forms like us. Once carbon and oxygen exist in the Universe (that is, inside stars) in the right quantities, it is relatively easy (according to the laws of physics derived from studies of the way helium nuclei interact with other nuclei in particle accelerators) to build up heavier elements. This happens by adding helium nuclei to existing nuclei, which then, sometimes, spit out the odd proton or neutron to produce a nucleus of a slightly lighter element. But when physicists first looked in detail at this process, there seemed to be a bottleneck at the very first step. Two helium nuclei that collide with one another with the right kinetic energy (enough to overcome the electrical repulsion produced between the two units of positive charge that they each carry) will stick together to form a nucleus of beryllium-8. All stable nuclei are held together by the strong force, another of the four fundamental forces. The strong force overpowers the electrostatic repulsion, but has only a very short range. Unfortunately, however, beryllium-8 is the exception to the rule that nuclei containing whole numbers of helium nuclei are stable. It is spectacularly unstable, breaking apart into lighter particles within a lifetime of only 10-17 seconds. So how can carbon, which requires the addition of another helium nucleus to beryllium-8, ever be built up? Maybe, some theorists speculated, carbon-12 could be made directly inside stars, when three helium-4 nuclei just happen to collide with one another simultaneously. But a simple calculation soon showed that this is about as unlikely a prospect as it sounds. It might happen occasionally, but not often enough to produce all the carbon we see around us. In 1952, Ed Salpeter, an American astrophysicist, suggested, more or less in desperation, that carbon-12 might be produced in a very rapid two-step process, with two helium nuclei colliding to form a nucleus of beryllium-8, which was then in turn hit by a third helium nucleus in the split second before it disintegrated. But because the arrival of a third particle might smash the unstable beryllium-8 nucleus to bits, it was not much of an improvement on the triple-collision idea." (Gribbin, J.R. & Rees, M.J., "Cosmic coincidences," New Scientist, Vol. 125, 13 January 1990, pp.29-32, p.30) 7/04/2007 "Then, Fred Hoyle, who had, back in 1946, written a classic paper expounding the idea that the chemical elements were made inside stars, entered the story. ... Hoyle puzzled over the problem of how heavy nuclei might be built up in stars, and became intrigued by the possibility that the energy levels of beryllium, helium and carbon might be just right to encourage the two-step reaction that Salpeter had proposed. It all hinged on a property known as resonance. These energy levels are purely quantum properties of nuclei. Quantum physics-the relevant physics for such small objects-tells us that energy is not continuous. If energy is added to a nucleus, it can be absorbed only in distinct packets, or quanta. The electrons in the outer parts of atoms jump from one energy level to another but they cannot exist in an intermediate state, part way between one energy level and the next one up or down. Just as the electrons in an atom can occupy different energy levels, like steps on a staircase, so can the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus of an atom. These particles may change from a low to a high energy state, provided they are given the right push (the right quantum of energy) from outside. Once they are in a high energy state, they may fall back to a lower level, most probably the bottom step on the energy ladder, and radiate the appropriate amount of energy in the process. The coincidence that allows carbon and heavier elements to exist depends on fine tuning in the energy levels of the three crucial nuclei." (Gribbin, J.R. & Rees, M.J., "Cosmic coincidences," New Scientist, Vol. 125, 13 January 1990, pp.29-32, pp.30-31) 7/04/2007 "This where the resonance comes in. When two nuclei collide and stick together, the new nucleus that is formed carries the combined mass-energy of the two nuclei (minus a small amount of energy from the strong force, the binding energy holding, the new nucleus together) plus the combined energy of their motion, their kinetic energy. The new nucleus `wants' to occupy one of the steps on its own energy ladder, and if the combined energy from incoming particles is not exactly right, and excess energy has to be disposed of in the form of leftover kinetic energy, or as a particle ejected from the new nucleus-or, if there is a large excess, in blowing the nucleus to bits (this is the principle of the `atomic' bomb). This reduces the likelihood that any two nuclei will simply stick together when they collide. In many cases, they just bounce off one another and continue to lead their separate lives. If everything meshes perfectly, however, the new nucleus will be created with exactly the amount of energy that corresponds to one of its own natural energy levels. It can then, of course, emit packets of energy in the usual way, and hop down the steps to the lowest level. In that case, the interaction will proceed very effectively, and the conversion of lighter nuclei into a Wavier form will be nearly complete. This matching of energies with one of the levels appropriate for the new nucleus is known as resonance, and depends, crucially, on the internal structure of the nuclei involved in the collisions." (Gribbin, J.R. & Rees, M.J., "Cosmic coincidences," New Scientist, Vol. 125, 13 January 1990, pp.29-32, p.31) 7/04/2007 "In 1954, Hoyle realised that the only way to make enough carbon inside stars is if there is a resonance involving helium-4, beryllium-4 and carbon-12. The mass-energy of each nucleus is fixed and cannot change: the kinetic energy of each nucleus depends on the temperature inside a star, which any astrophysicist could calculate. Using that standard temperature calculation, Hoyle predicted that there must be a previously undetected energy level in the carbon-12 nucleus, at an energy which would resonate with the combined energies, including kinetic energy, of its constituent parts, under the conditions that prevail inside stars. Hoyle made precise calculations of what that energy level must be. He then bullied Fowler's somewhat sceptical nuclear physics team into carryin