One Traditional Roman Catholic Layman's Research

Permission: www.kolbecenter.org

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: E-mail copies of the letters to the editor, the basis for this essay, were provided by Ed Razz. His dedication to the creationist cause is most admirable. He is a true son of the Church. Technical difficulties prevented publication of this document on another website. This is an updated and somewhat expanded version of the original.

EVOLUTIONISM: A NEWSPAPER TIGER

Bill Crofut

“WE GET LETTERS”

The pages of the Schenectady (NY) Gazette recently contained a series of letters to the editor in which a debate ensued between those who support the Creation model of origins and those who support evolutionism. The anti-creationists, whose contributions will be addressed in this essay, are (in alphabetical order):

Charles A. Cummins, Ed.D., a retired school administrator [1]

Steven D. Hanes, professor in biomedical sciences, SUNY Albany [2]

George R. Robinson, associate professor of biological sciences, SUNY Albany [3] Harry Roy, professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. [4]

As noted, my source for the Gazette letters was e-mail. It was also through that medium that an attempt was made to engage each of two of the participants in a personal exchange on the issues addressed in his letter. Each refused my request. [5] [6]

Dr. Cummins noted my forthrightness, but added his position had been made clear in his letter. He had insisted that the Creation model is unscientific and should be excluded from any science curriculum. He also made it known that he did not equate science with evolutionism. That was not what had been expected when my question was posed. Perhaps it’s a general misconception on my part. Yet, the Cummins letter read substantially as though it had been composed by an evolutionist (i.e., Prof. Kenneth Miller, [7] Dr. Eugenie Scott, [8] et. al.).

Prof. Hanes refused primarily because of my stated intention to make use of the material outside the structure of our personal correspondence. He did, however, suggest reading, “Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition:” http://www.nap.edu/catalog/6024.html.

Hanes’ reason for recommending the NAS booklet was, “It is published by the National Academy of Sciences, a group of the most renowned scientists in the United States. They describe the evidence much better than I can.”

He was wrong. The NAS booklet explains nothing any better than he did. The reason is, those who composed the booklet attempted an evolutionary “explanation,” starting with the alleged “big-bang” through the origin of life, within the constraint of less than 50 pages. The result, as could only be expected, is the publication of broad generalities without verification.

NOTES

[1] 2005. "Don’t teach creationism as science." SUNDAY GAZETTE January 16, p. F5.

[2] 2004. "Evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming." SUNDAY GAZETTE, December 19, p. F1.

[3] 2004. "Creationist theory is pseudo-science." SUNDAY GAZETTE, July 4, p. F2.

[4] 2004. "No real science behind creationism." DAILY GAZETTE, December 23, p. A7.

[5] 2005. Dr. Cummins, 27th January.

[6] 2005. Prof. Hanes, 18th February.

[7] Brown University - http://bms.brown.edu/faculty/m/kmiller/.

[8] National Center for Science Education - http://www.ncseweb.org/.

EVOLUTIONISM: WHERE’S THE OBJECTIVITY?

My research experience has included a number of evolutionist claims that science is an objective discipline. Dr. Cummins expressed that viewpoint with an anthropomorphic bent by giving credit for scrupulosity and objectivity to the scientific method. He also claimed that the scientific method is practiced without preconceptions which would encourage falsification of the data to fit an agenda. As memory serves, Prof. Douglas J. Futuyma provided my first encounter with a claim of objectivity:

...[A]lthough individual scientists often make errors, the body of scientists in a field eventually uncovers these errors and attempts to correct them. Every scientists' research depends on the research of others in the field; so out of pure self-interest, every scientist scrutinizes the work of others carefully, to be sure that it is reliable. Science is a self-correcting process. [1]

David Berlinski, Ph.D., adamantly disagreed:

The idea that science is a uniquely self-critical institution is, of course, preposterous. Scientists are no more self-critical than anyone else. They hate to be criticized and they never criticize themselves….[T] he popular myth of science as a uniquely self-critical institution and scientists who would rather be consumed at the stake rather than fudge their data; I mean, that's ok for a PBS special, but that's not the real world. That's not what's taking place. People fudge the data whenever they can get away with it. [2]

Berlinski is not a creationist but, he is a militant anti-Darwinist. Yet, there could be a tendency on the part of evolutionists to slough off his commentary as biased. The charge may not be so easily applied in the case of someone published in an evolutionist journal:

...[D]espite the common lore regarding the self-correcting nature of science, most major incidents of scientific fraud have been uncovered not because another laboratory has failed to replicate some published work, but because suspicion has been aroused in a colleague or an assistant working in the same laboratory, and these doubts have been followed up with an inquiry. [3]

The National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists (AAAS-ABA) viewed the problem as important enough to warrant three workshops, [4] and a follow-up conference. [5] Nor was that an isolated series of events. Dr. Ian St. James-Roberts responded to a survey on fraud. [6] Matt Cartmill of Duke University detailed scientific fraud in a book review. [7] Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., also published an expose’ on the topic of scientific fraud. [8] Bergman is obviously a creationist. Prof. W. R. Thompson was not: "The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity."

One of the more interesting facts concerning that quote is the source. It was originally published in the Introduction to one of the 1956 editions of Darwin's Origin of Species. It was reprinted with permission in booklet form in 1967 by the Evolution Protest Movement. Prof. Thompson's critique of Darwinism is devastating. Interestingly, that edition of Origin seems to be unavailable for purchase. Thompson's "Introduction" has been included as part of this essay (bold underlining, my emphases). [9] Fraud seems to have been a serious problem in the scientific world in the past, but certainly by now...

NOTES

[1] 1983. Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution. New York: Pantheon Books, p. 164.

[2] The Incorrigible Dr. Berlinski: A Rebellious Intellectual Defies Darwin. A video Interview. Palmer Lake, CO: ColdWater Media, LLC.

[3] 1987. J. Price. Fraud will out - or will it? NEW SCIENTIST, 6 August , p. 63.

[4] "Project on Scientific Fraud and Misconduct," September 18-20, 1987, September 23-25, 1988 and February 17-18, 1989.

[5] 1991. "Misconduct In Science - recurring Issues, Fresh Perspectives, November 15-16.

[6] 1976. "Cheating in science," NEW SCIENTIST, vol. 72, pp. 466-469.

[7] 1989. "Misdeeds in Anthropology," SCIENCE, v. 244, pp. 858-9.

[8] 1984. "Book Reviews," CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY, Sept. 1, pp. 89-91.

[9] See APPENDIX 1.

EVOLUTIONISM: THE HELIOCENTRIC MYTH

Dr. Cummins assured his readers that Copernicus was responsible for overthrowing the long-held geocentric view of cosmology because he employed the scientific method. It would seem Copernicus did no such thing. Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis, Ph.D., a fellow geocentrist, exposed the fallacy, but not on his own authority:

Canon Koppernigk was not particularly fond of star-gazing. He preferred to rely on the observations of Chaldeans, Greeks, and Arabs -- a preference that led to some embarrassing results. 'The Book of the Revolutions' contains, altogether, only twenty-seven observations made by the Canon himself; and these were spread over thirty-two years!...Alexandrian astronomers can hardly be accused of ignorance. They had more precise instruments for observing the universe than Copernicus had; Copernicus himself hardly bothered with star-gazing; he relied on the observations of Hipparchus and Ptolemy. He knew no more about the actual motions of the stars than they did....Thus, insofar as factual knowledge is concerned, Copernicus was no better off, and in some respect worse off, than the Greek astronomers of Alexandria who lived at the time of Jesus Christ. [1]

Cummins chided 16th and 17th century Church leaders, and Cardinal St. Robert Francis Romulus Bellermine (Also, "Bellarmino") [2] in particular, for instructing Galileo to reject the heliocentric view of cosmology. Jesuit Cardinal St. Robert Bellermine has been adopted as my patron saint specifically because he defended geocentricity. A copy of his letter to Carmelite friar, Paolo Antonio Foscarini, a supporter of Galileo, was the epitome of pastoral restraint. Catholic writer, Paula P. Haigh has provided a reformatted copy of the letter with her commentary. [3]

One of the more interesting aspects of the geocentric/heliocentrism debate is the opportunity provided by Dr. Sungenis. He will award $1000.00 to anyone who can prove the heliocentric model. Why is he willing to make such an offer? Can he afford to throw away $1000? Is he simply denying reality? Does he refuse to pay in spite of the evidence? Anyone entertaining such thought is encouraged to visit his website and read the rebuttals to those who unsuccessfully challenge him. [4]

Another interesting aspect of the debate for me happened by chance(?!). During the course of recent web surfing, the following chastisement was encountered:

As if the Catholic Church didn't currently have enough problems, some Catholic Apologists have chosen to discuss Science Matters. Not only do they attack evolution and relativity, they support geocentrism. In fact, the main author of this website is offering $1,000 to anyone who can prove that the earth goes around the sun. Yes. He is. Excuse me while I check the date and attempt an excommunication (either mine or his; at this point I no longer care). Prize quote: "Let's find out just how "wacko" geocentrism is." It's like he's just asking for it. (Thanks to Harcourt Reis for sending this along!) Fixed the link! [5]

My response to Rebecca Stanek (e-mail sent 1/15/05) reads as follows -- As a Traditional Roman Catholic, militant young Earth Biblical creationist, geocentrist and supporter of Robert Sungenis, let me ask a question: How did you spend the $1000.00? It's fortunate my naivete is not so severe it caused me to hold my breath awaiting an answer.

NOTES

[1] 1979. Arthur Koestler, 'The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universe, Pelican Books Ltd., p. 73.

[2] SYDNEY F. SMITH. Transcribed by Paul T. Crowley. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II. Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York www.newadvent.org/cathen.

[3] See APPENDIX 2.

[4] http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/geochallenge.htm.

[5] http://www.astro.lsa.umich.edu/users/rstanek/wotw.html.

EVOLUTIONISM: PHILOSOPHY BY ANY OTHER NAME…

Dr. Cummins made a point of separating the scientific “how” from the philosophical “why “ which entails faith and belief. Prof. Maciej Giertych, geneticist/dendrologist, seemed less than convinced that evolutionists, in fact, separate the two:

A good scientist is one who bases his conclusions on experimental data and observations. Scientists who study genetics, cytology, anatomy, or any other field of experimental science [may obtain data that]…is good and reliable regardless of what [any researcher]…thinks about evolution....Where things do go wrong is when someone claims to be an expert in evolution. Because evolution is not a science; it is a philosophy. Since scientists trust each other, they often accept the claim of evolutionists that evolution is a science, but it is not. It is the opinion of theoretical biologists and philosophers that evolution is a science. [1]

Giertych’s allegation would seem to have been anticipated by Rev. Owen Bennett, OFM Conv.:

So-called "Evolution Science," as it is commonly taught in public schools and universities in the English-speaking world, is, in fact, Darwinism, the attempt to remove design and purpose from the world of living organisms, and to account for the observed activities of life as the consequence of chance working through a blind mechanism of "natural selection."

When the body of theistic philosophical views is excluded by public educational policy in favor of Darwinian evolutionary theory, such exclusion is not simply the exclusion of a particular religious teaching: it is the imposition of an opposing body of philosophical views--mechanistic, deterministic, materialistic, causualistic, inhumanly reductionist--upon a great number of free American citizens to whom such a philosophy is intellectually insulting and completely unacceptable; it is also a kind of "scientific" imprimatur granted to an official establishment of a negative religion of atheistic materialism. [2]

Prof. Giertych is a creationist. Fr. Bennett, if not a creationist is, at least, an anti-evolutionist. Could these men be biased? It’s a possibility. G. F. Seddon cannot legitimately be labeled a creationist. Yet his book review seems to wax philosophical:

It must have been at a very early age that I decided that Mr. Darwin had a better explanation of my existence than God. I forget whether his idea, once implanted, spread like a cancerous growth to oust the other belief, or whether it filled a vacuum left by loss of belief. However it happened it seemed satisfyingly right, and it still does.

Dr. Gertrude Himmelfarb in "Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution" (Chatto and Windus, 42s) knocks holes in his (Darwin's) data and logic, but even if she took the bottom out of him altogether (which she does not, nor set out to do) I should still find him satisfying even if not right. [3]

Seddon's use of the terms, "cancerous growth" and "vacuum" is most interesting. One possible explanation may be that his "vacuum" was filled with a "cancerous growth." Still, the objection might be raised that he is not a scientist. That claim cannot be made for anthropologist Sheila A. Womack:

We are forgetting that the war between creationists and evolutionists is a clash of world views and we have seen similar clashes synchronically and diachronically throughout our studies. In our cross-cultural work we have become sensitized to a wide, and often conflicting, diversity of world views and we find ourselves being respectful toward each of them. But when it comes to our own society we often do not even recognize a world-view when we see one. But if we are to approximate any reconciliation, and preserve our professional integrity, we must deal with creationist arguments from the level of world view--and not simply as expressions of pathology or ignorance....In short, we must determine if there is any common ground between the creationist and scientific world view. [4]

Anthropologist Loren C. Eisley also cannot be legitimately accused of being a creationist. However, every indication is, he leveled an accusation at his fellow evolutionists that substantiates the claims made by the creationists:

With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption of what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past. [5]

The evolutionists in my experience ignore Eisley’s “confession.” Pushing a problem back into non-observable time and assuming the conditions needed for solution does not seem to constitute rigorous employment of the scientific method.

Even those who operate in the hallowed halls of physics are not immune from the philosophical conundrum. Prof. Brian Greene narrated a 3-part NOVA series (available on video) based on his book, The Elegant Universe. It’s an attempted explanation of “string theory,” one of the current projects in theoretical physics. Physicist Sheldon Lee Glashow was not as impressed with strings as were some of his colleagues:

Let me put it bluntly. There are physicists and there are string theorists. It is a new discipline, a new--you may call it tumor; you can call it what you will. They have focused on questions which experiment cannot address. They will deny that, these string theorists, but it's a kind of physics which is not yet testable. It does not make predictions that have anything to do with experiments that can be done in the laboratory or with observations that can be made in space, or from telescopes.

I was brought up to believe, and I still believe, that physics is an experimental science. It deals with the results to experiments or, in the case of astronomy, with observations.

No experiment can ever check up what's going on at the distances that are being studied. No observation can relate to these tiny distances or high energies. That is to say, there ain't no experiment that could be done, nor is there any observation that could be made that would say, You guys are wrong. The theory is safe; permanently safe. Is that a theory of physics, or a philosophy? I ask you. [6]

NOTES

[1] Evolution...Fact or Belief? CLP Video Interview produced in association with CESHE. El Cajon, CA: Master Books.

[2] 1982. A scientific scrutiny of "Evolution Science," HOMILETIC & PASTORAL REVIEW, August-September, pp. 70, 75.

[3] 1959. THE MANCHESTER GUARDIAN WEEKLY/MANCHESTER GUARDIAN AND EVENING NEWS, Manchester, England, Thursday, July 23, p. 10.

[4] 1982. Creationism vs. Evolutionism: The Problem for Cultural Relativity. In: Stephen Pastner and William Haviland, editors. Confronting the Creationists. NORTHEASTERN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION OCCASIONAL PROCEEDINGS, pp. 27-28.

[5] 1957. The Immense Journey. New York: Random House, p. 199.

[6] 2003. NOVA: The Elegant Universe. Boston: NOVA/WGBH.

EVOLUTIONISM: SCIENCE BY ANY OTHER NAME…

Dr. Cummins denied the status of science to theology but, granted it to biology, chemistry and mathematics. He also made it known that he did not equate evolutionism with science. Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, as captain of an evolutionist debate team, disagreed:

We've made it clear that evolution is…the best, indeed, it's the only scientific explanation for the fact that there is change in the natural order. [1]

Mr. Lynn could have been more cautious. A sweeping statement such as that would seem to border on the dogmatic. Road kill will change with time as part of the natural order. Change, in that case, would not seem to have an evolutionary application. Edwin Tenney Brewster made known one perspective that seems to have “evolved”:

Natural science, in the late seventeen hundreds, was still the handmaid of theology; and it still employed the tools of its mistress. [2]

We Traditional Roman Catholics insist Theology still is the queen of the sciences. Biology, chemistry and mathematics are subordinate sciences. However, when a biologist, chemist or mathematician promotes evolutionism, where’s the science?

Dr. Robin Bernhoft answered the question regarding biology:

I have ceased to believe in evolution on the grounds of scientific impossibility...And once you stop believing in evolution, you notice that arguments in favor of evolution inevitably start with St. Augustine's motto: 'Credo ut intelligam'--I believe in order that I may understand. It is usually not explicitly stated, but 'credo ut intelligam' is how evolutionists approach biological data. They always seem to squeeze whatever biological data they find into a shape that fits their preconceptions. [3]

Bernhoft is a creationist and an Intelligent Design advocate but, note his admission that he was an evolutionist. If some would be tempted to discredit his position based on his acceptance of the Creation model, also take note of his admission that his adherence to evolutionism was based on belief.

It's my understanding belief is religious, not scientific. Where’s the science? Prof. Richard E. Dickerson answered the question as it applies to the field of chemistry:

The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts. [4]

It's unclear to me when facts became inconvenient in science. It's quite clear why facts are inconvenient in evolutionism. Incidentally, if my count is correct, Dickerson used the terms "imagine", "assume", and "perhaps" (in addition to 43 other "scientific" terms) nearly 200 times in an essay 17 pages in length, approximately 8 pages of which consisted of graphics. Where’s the science?

Mathematics, on the other hand, is the one absolute science, isn't it? Perhaps not. Physicist James Trefil provided an example which would seem to indicate otherwise:

The multidimensional scenarios are somewhat more difficult to visualize, if for no other reason than that, instead of the familiar 3-dimensional world of everyday life or the more esoteric

4-dimensional world of relativity, they deal with a world of 10 or 11 dimensions. (Don't bother trying to picture such a world - it can't be done. You have to rely on the mathematics.) [5]

When a “scenario” cannot be tested by the scientific method because it’s a strictly mathematical construct, where’s the science? Yet, that’s an example of mathematics in the more distant realm of cosmology. Surely, the application of common everyday mathematical principles must be an exact science. Well, not according to one world-class physicist. Prof. Herbert Dingle cited an instance of unreality in mathematics which is not particularly dramatic but, grounded in practical experience:

...[M]athematics has been transformed from the servant of experience into its master, and instead of enabling the full implications and potentialities of the facts of experience to be realised and amplified, it has been held necessarily to symbolise truths which are in fact sheer impossibilities but are presented to the layman as discoveries which, though they appear to him absurd, are nevertheless true because mathematical inventions, which he cannot understand, require them. [6]

In order to complete his accusation equation, he provided an example in which mathematics can sometimes be deceptive:

The equations, 8 – 6 = 2 and 6 – 8 = -2, are mathematically valid...But they are not both applicable to physical objects: you can get 6 apples from 8 by leaving 2 behind, but you cannot get 8 apples from 6 by leaving -2 behind. [7]

NOTES

[1] 1997. "Resolved: The Evolutionists Should Acknowledge Creation" THE FIRING LINE -- http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p45.htm. (A video filmed December 4th and a printed transcript of the debate is also available: Producers Incorporated for Television, 2700 Cypress Street, Columbia, SC 29205.)

[2] 1943. This Puzzling Planet: An Introduction to Geology. New York: The New Home Library, p. 55.

[3] 2002. The Uniqueness of Man. International Catholic Symposium on Creation (October 24-25). Woodstock, VA: The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation, transcript., pp. 382-383.

[4] 1978. Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, Sept., p. 85.

[5] 1984. The accidental universe. SCIENCE DIGEST, June, p. 100.

[6] 1972. Science at the Crossroads. London: Martin Brian & O'Keeffe, p. 169.

[7] Ibid., p. 231.

EVOLUTIONISM: RELIGION BY ANY OTHER NAME…

Dr. Cummins, Prof. Hanes and Prof. Robinson each gave the impression of leveling the accusation that creationists have adopted a clandestine cover by renaming or cloaking the Creation model under the veneer of “Intelligent Design.” Prof. Roy simply sloughed off ID as one more crackpot notion.

Prof. Michael Behe, one of the major supporters of ID, insisted that he is not a creationist. [1] My exposure to the ID approach to origins tends to bear out Behe’s claim. Those who promote ID are doing so on purely empirical grounds. [2] As a creationist, the scientific verification of Intelligent Design [3] poses no problem for me. However, the exclusion of Holy Scripture from the operating tools of ID research poses a serious problem.

The real issue, however, does not seem to be one of labels. The admitted concern is that the Creation model, regardless of the title under which it’s promoted, is not science and should not be presented in a science curriculum. Dr. Berlinski disagreed:

…[C]ertainly in a democratic society, the idea that the high school has to be a kind of enlarged locker room where only the coach's pep talk is considered reasonable; that should be repugnant. That's not really how we want our educational establishment to be run, is it? Let's give high school students the benefit of the doubt….What's the loss? What do we risk? Just what do we risk if some of the profound, exciting, deeply perplexing, vexing issues of biology are presented honestly? [4]

Evolutionary biologist, Prof. William B. Provine, supported Berlinski:

Why, indeed, is it that most of our public school systems excludes creationism? It is because evolutionists, by and large, have a lot of influence in the educational process. I personally favor the teaching of creationism in every public school because this opens up the debate. If you shut children up in school, if you tell a kid: Sorry, you can't even talk in this class because you're a creationist. That is just awful, that's terrible. Much better that that kid be able to argue in class...Then we have it all out in the open. And that, it seems to me, is the way pedagogically, and every way else, to go about education. [5]

As earlier noted, Dr. Cummins insisted he did not equate science with evolutionism. However, he rejects the Creation model. Prof. Futuyma would seem to have put him in a position with no wiggle room: “Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations of the origin of living things.” [6]

The question must then be asked, How scientific is evolutionism? While legitimate scientists promote evolutionism as if it were scientific, it would seem they do so for other than scientific reasons. Dr. Berlinski again provided an example:

…[T]here is the utter absence of laboratory evidence. Random variation, natural selection--we should be able to start manipulating organisms. When we look at dogs, no matter how far back we go, it's dogs. When we look at bacteria, no matter what we do, they stay bugs. They don't change in their fundamental nature. There seems to some sort of an inherent species limitation and we have no good explanation for this in terms of the Darwinian theory.

We should have far more flexibility, far more plasticity under laboratory conditions than we actually do if Darwinian theory, or anything like that, were correct. What we see in nature, what we see in the laboratory is very highly bounded variation, cyclic variation…small variations…as for example finch beaks in the Galapagos Islands. Why is that if Darwinian theory is correct? These are evidentiary points that I think need to be stressed, need to examined openly, honestly, and they never are, of course, never are. [7]

Biologists L. C. Birch and Paul Ehrlich published an admission that has apparently been lost on their peers:

Our theory of evolution has become, as [philosopher of science, Karl R.] Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus 'outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas either without basis or based on a few laboratory

experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. [8]

What significance does the term, “dogma” have in the application of the scientific method? The phrase, “…not necessarily false…” would also seem to imply the idea could very well be false. That should pose no problem for a creationist. The evolutionist on the other hand…

As devastating as the Birch/Ehrlich statement may be for evolutionist composure, it pales by comparison with one written by Geneticist William Bateson:

It had been decreed that when varieties of a species co-exist in nature, they must be connected by all intergradations, and it was an article of faith of almost equal validity that the intermediate form must be statistically the majority, and the extremes comparatively rare....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...If we cannot declare where and how species arose...the enemies of science...will obligingly offer us the solutions with which obscurantism is satisfied. Let us then proclaim in precise and unmistakable language that our faith in evolution is unshaken. [9]

Surely the Bateson quote was an anomaly. Those who followed him would certainly have tightened the act since his publication. It would seem not. Biology Prof. George Wald gave every indication of his acceptance of the miraculous, even if inadvertently:

One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are - as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. [10]

"I believe..." ("Credo" in Latin) is the beginning of the Nicene Creed pronounced by the celebrant at every Traditional Roman Catholic Latin Mass. It's unclear to me when the phrase became part of the language used by scientists. Biochemist Hans Gaffron may have only been referring to “them” when he wrote:

...[I]t is the general climate of thought which has created an unshakable belief among biochemists that evolution of life from the inanimate (biopoesis) is a matter of course. [11]

Professor Dickerson offered an example of how to pass the buck of life into the primordial ooze:

Orthodox biochemists were too convinced that Louis Pasteur had disproved spontaneous generation once and for all to consider the origin of life a legitimate scientific question. They failed to appreciate that Haldane and Oparin were proposing something very special: not that life evolves from nonliving matter today (the classical theory of spontaneous generation, which was untenable after Pasteur) but rather that life once evolved from nonliving matter under the conditions prevailing on the primitive earth and in the absence of competition from other living organisms. [12]

Yet, the strange phenomenon of these admissions by evolutionists is not limited to the biological or chemical fields of study. David A. Hanes of the Anglo-Australian Observatory gave us an astronomical version:

There are other reasons for the faith of astronomers in the expansion hypothesis...If the suggested nonlinearities are found to exist, most astronomers will seek explanations in terms of local deviations from the Hubble flow rather than in the wholesale rejection of the presently believed cosmological description of the Universe... [13]

Dr. Cummins did not provide evidence of his beliefs or faith. However, he did compose a scenario describing how a perceived worldwide flood legend could have developed into a faith commitment on the part of some of the recent tsunami victims. If the event happened several centuries in the past, in isolation, no one could blame the people affected for believing they were the recipients of divine wrath in the world as they knew it.

My brief (purely accidental) exposure to tv news reports indicated his proposal is unfounded. The limited extent of damage caused by the tsunami (from a global perspective) was recorded on film. Prior to the availability of such technology, those who were survivors would still have known the flooding was local based on observation. That would seem to me to constitute employment of the scientific method.

NOTES

[1] 2000. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT CREATIONISM. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=286, July 7.

[2] http://www.discovery.org/.

[3] Michael J. Behe. 1996. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: The Free Press.

[4] The Incorrigible Dr. Berlinski: A Rebellious Intellectual Defies Darwin. A video Interview. Palmer Lake, CO: ColdWater Media, LLC.

[5] 1994. Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy? A video debate. Colorado Springs: Access Research Network.

[6] 1983. Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution. New York: Pantheon Books, p 197.

[7] Note 4.

[8] 1967. Evolutionary History and Population Biology. NATURE, vol. 214, p. 352.

[9] 1922. Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts. SCIENCE vol. 55, January 20, pp. 56, 57, 61.

[10] 1955. The Origin of Life. In: Editors of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. The Physics and Chemistry of Life. Simon and Schuster, p. 9.

[11] 1960. The Origin of Life. In: Sol Tax, Ed. Evolution After Darwin, Volume I, The Evolution of Life. The University of Chicago Centennial, The University of Chicago Press, p. 46.

[12] 1978. Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, September, p. 71.

[13] 1981. Is the Universe Expanding? NATURE, vol. 289, 26 February, pp. 745, 746.

EVOLUTIONISM: WHERE’S THE UNANIMITY?

Prof. Roy insisted he knows of no scientist who does not believe in evolution. Prof. Hanes rejected the perception, obtained from television and newspapers, that a lack of unanimity exists among scientists regarding the

so-called "theory of evolution." Neither television viewing nor secular newspaper reading has been part of my lifestyle for about 20 years. Prof. W.R. Thompson, though he did not reveal the source(s) of his information, apparently didn’t realize the evolutionary field was one of professional harmony:

As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks by evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science. [1]

Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D., provided a less caustic, if no less revealing, appraisal of the situation in the context of the Creation/evolutionism debate:

Scientists are very much united on what happened. Evolution happened -- to modify a bumper sticker. But how it happened is something that we argue about a lot in science -- how important is natural selection, how important are other mechanisms....[N]atural selection is only a way by which evolution can take place. The evidence would still be there -- from homology, from anatomical homologies, biochemical homologies, and the fossil record. We're not dependent on the fossil record. [2]

Neither Scott nor Thompson can be legitimately accused of

anti-evolutionary bias. Yet, each pointed up what has all the earmarks of some level of infighting which had been in place for nearly half a century. Prof. Thompson's use of the term "doctrine" is interesting but, where’s the science?

It's also interesting that Dr. Scott denied natural selection as the only mechanism for evolution, but mentioned no other. She did, however mention homologous "evidence." Robin Bernhoft, M.D., was apparently unimpressed:

By itself, DNA similarity tells us nothing about evolution or ancestry one way or the other....Similar bone structure implies nothing about ancestry. [3]

Still, we creationists are accused (even if indirectly) of conspiratorial fantasy regarding the controversy raging within the hallowed halls of evolutionism as well as the alleged cover-up. [4] Science writer Roger Lewin reported on a symposium:

A wide spectrum of researchers--ranging from geologists and paleontologists, through ecologists and population geneticists, to embryologists and molecular biologists--gathered at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History under the simple conference title: Macroevolution. Their task was to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species and the evolutionary relationships between species.

Clashes of personality and academic sniping created palpable tension in an atmosphere that was fraught with genuine intellectual ferment…No book of proceedings will mark the event, but its passage will surely be reflected in the pages of future literature on evolutionary biology as new ideas and approaches generated at the meeting are tested and reported. [5]

Either Lewin’s report is accurate or, he is also guilty of conspiratorial fantasy on each count. Also noteworthy is the title of the conference: Macroevolution. That’s the real issue in the Creation/evolutionism debate. However, in my research experience, many creationists have no apparent problem using the seemingly innocuous term: “microevolution.” It has been my practice for a number of years to avoid using the term. The reason was provided by one of the ranking U.S. evolutionary biologists, George Gaylord Simpson:

…[M]icroevolution and macroevolution are not qualitatively distinct…clarity might now be improved by abandoning [the use of each term]…There is no reason to believe that any different factors are involved than those seen in lower categories or in “microevoluton.” On the contrary, those factors are fully consistent with what we know of higher category evolution and quite capable of explaining it. [6]

NOTES

[1] 1967. New challenging 'Introduction' to the Origin of Species. Evolution Protest Movement, Selsey, Sussex. Printed in booklet form (reproduced here in APPENDIX 1), pp. 17-18 (Originally published as the Introduction to the 1956 edition of Charles R. Darwin's Origin of species).

[2] 1997. "Resolved: The Evolutionists Should Acknowledge Creation"

THE FIRING LINE -- A video filmed December 4^th (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p45.htm).

[3] The Uniqueness of Man. A paper pesented at the International Catholic Symposium on Creation, Rome, Italy, October 24-25, 2002. Woodstock, VA: The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation, transcript, pp. 384-5.

[4] Carl Strock. 2004. Evolution: Let's hear alternative. THE Schenectady, NY DAILY GAZETTE, December 21, p. B81.

[5] 1980. Evolutionary Theory Under Fire: An historic conference in Chicago challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis. SCIENCE Vol. 210, 21 November, p. 883.

[6] 1953. The Major Features of Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 339, 376.

EVOLUTIONISM: DISSENT WITH MODIFICATION

Prof. Hanes insisted, after nearly a quarter century in the field of molecular biology, he had not met any scientist who rejected evolution. Prof. Roy chided one creationist for failure to provide a name of any scientist who rejected evolutionism or a source to substantiate the claim. More than 300 scientists who reject evolution have been listed on the Discovery Institute website: www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2114.

Additional sources for scientists who reject evolution are:

The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation

http://www.kolbecenter.org/,

Institute for Creation Research (ICR)

http://www.icr.org/newsletters/impact/impactapr02.html,

Creation Research Society (CRS)

http://www.creationresearch.org/,

Center for Scientific Creation

www.creationscience.com,

Access Research Network

http://www.arn.org/.

Prof. Robinson asserted that evolutionary biologists are not included in the listing of scientists who reject evolution. That statement is a truism. By definition, an evolutionary biologist is not going to reject evolution. Any biologist who rejected evolution would not qualify as an evolutionary biologist. A cursory review of the Discovery Institute website listing indicates to me that approximately 20% of the scientists are biologists.

The argument may be used that nearly all those listed are creationist organizations. However, Dr. David Berlinski noted two of the participants invited to present papers at the 1967 Wistar Symposium, Drs. Murray Eden and Marcel Schutzenberger, rejected evolution. [1]

While reading my copy of the symposium papers, an interesting pattern was noticed: of the fifty two participants, nine presented papers. The two already noted rejected evolution, the remaining seven accepted it. The following five presenters are those whose names were familiar to me: Drs. Loren C. Eiseley, Ernst Mayr, George Wald, Richard C. Lewontin and C. H. Waddington. These men were/are among the leaders in the evolutionary field. However, each of the seven identified at least one problem that plagues evolutionists. [2] It would be interesting to research those problems to determine if they've been solved.

NOTES

[1] The Incorrigible Dr. Berlinski: A Rebellious Intellectual Defies Darwin. A video Interview. Palmer Lake, CO: ColdWater Media, LLC.

[2] See APPENDIX 3.

EVOLUTIONISM: EVIDENCE BY ANY OTHER NAME…

Prof. Hanes insisted that more than a century of supportive evidence for evolution has been garnered from the related fields of “comparative biology, geology, paleontology and, most recently, by molecular biology and genetics.” Prof. Robinson contended there exists only minor challenges to the major evolutionary principles of variability, heritability, selection and shared ancestry. The primary issue, of course, is how one defines his terms. Any valid challenge to a major premise, it would seem to me, cannot legitimately sloughed off as of no consequence unless the challenge has been successfully refuted. The issue of comparative biology (at least one facet of it, homology) has alread been addressed.

The major evolutionary contribution from geology, in my research experience, is the so-called geological column which aided in “determination” of the alleged multi-billion-year time frame essential for the evolutionary "process" to have even a remote chance of success. This was confirmed by geolgist Norman D. Newell: “Geology provides evidence that enormous spans of time have been required for evolution to take place.” [1]

French sedimentologist Guy Berthault presented a conference paper destroying the notion that rock formations provide any evidence even remotely approaching the vast ages of time required for evolution. [2] Significantly, he did so by means of laboratory experiments, not "thought experiments." At the same conference, Dr. Robert V. Gentry presented a paper on radiohalos which also refutes the proposed vast-age of the Earth. [3]

Prof. David B. Kitts was apparently not particularly impressed with the "evidence" for evolution from paleontology (the fossil record):

Paleontologists often claim that fossils tell us something. But fossils, by themselves, tell us nothing: not even that they are fossils...[T]he paleontologist can provide knowledge that cannot be provided by biological principles alone. But he cannot provide us with evolution. [4]

Prof. Stephen Jay Gould expressed a view similar to that of Kitts:

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks. [5]

According to the author(s) of the NAS booklet noted above, it was wrong of me to use the Gould quote. [6] Why? Because Gould himself considered it a quote out of context (i.e., implying he denied the “fact” of evolution). The accusation, then, should not apply to me since my quoted material gives no such indication. Furthermore, in my experience, no creationist using that quote gave the slightest indication Gould was rejecting evolution. If he had written that statement in the context of rejecting evolution, there would have been no motivation for me to use it. The whole point of the quote is to expose the contradictory nature of the evolutionist mindset.

However, Gould, and his colleague, Dr. Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History, had an agenda; promotion of "punctuated equilibria" (also noted in the NAS booklet). Yet, Eldredge and Gould admitted their pet “theory” has no more basis in reality than that against which it was contrasted:

The idea of punctuated equilibria is just as much a preconceived picture as that of phyletic gradualism. We readily admit our bias towards it...[O]ur interpretations are as colored by our preconceptions as are the claims of the champions of phyletic gradualism by theirs. [7]

Prof. Michael Behe refuted the notion that molecular biology provides any support for evolution. [8] His critique of the textbook, Molecular biology of the Cell, by Bruce Alberts, et. al., includes a brief assessment of vesicular transport, which Behe calls "...a mind-boggling process..." and strongly suggests the authors glossed over the inherent problems. Anyone doubting the veracity of Behe’s critique, is encouraged to investigate the complexity of the process from the perspective of an alternative source. [9]

It’s interesting that Hanes included genetics (with molecular biology) as part of the most recent evidence for evolution. There’s no question, the latter discipline is relatively new. Yet, according to Franciscan Fr. Valentine Long, the field of genetics was ignored:

It was…Gregor Johann Mendel, a Catholic priest from Austria, who discovered the now accepted laws of heredity. With Darwinism all the rage at the time, however, his painstaking work went unrecognized for thirty years….But Mendel’s laws, once they became well known, altered the whole general concept of inheritance to disprove Darwin. [10]

Perhaps Prof. Hanes was indicating that the field of genetics originally refuted the notion of evolution but, has recently “evolved” into positive evidence. Prof. Giertych dismissed the genetic evidence for evolution based on his work:

By selection and isolation we obtain new varieties of animals and plants. We select horses, cows, dogs…plants, cereals…We select those which are useful to man, which have certain qualities and that are of special interest to us. But these populations are restricted in the genetic pool and they are very much dependent on the…external conditions that are provided for them. And if they are left alone, they will either die or…if they survive, they will return to the wild state. They will cease to be a separate variety. [11]

Between the research by Fr. Mendel and that of Prof. Giertych the field of genetics was the scene of an “ecumenical” development. Prof. Everett C. Olson described the end result:

One of the most significant events in development of recent evolutionary theory has been the synthesis of information and concepts from several contributing disciplines which reached fruitation in the late 1940’s and the 1950’s and continue to play an important role today. This produced what has come to be known as the “synthetic theory of evolution” but also has been variously termed “selection theory”, “neo-Mendelian theory”, and neo-Darinian theory.” [12]

Prior to the “evolution” of the synthesis, one geneticist made an apparently unenviable name for himself. Prof. Gould provided some background:

When I studied evolutionary biology in graduate school during the mid-1960’s, official rebuke and derision focused upon a geneticist named Richard (B.) Goldschmidt….I do, however, predict that during the next decade Goldschmidt will be largely vindicated in the world of evolutionary biology. [13]

In paraphrase, Goldschmidt had been involved in laboratory experimentation with fruit flies. The insects would be subjected to genetic alteration by x-rays. The apparent hope was to produce a new species. According to a source locked in the recesses of memory, Goldschmidt became so frustrated with failure (not only his own, but of all who were so involved) that he proposed the “hopeful monster” mechanism based on systemic mutation. Basically, his proposal meant envisioning a mutation at the embryonic stage of life that would completely alter the genetic structure of the newly-conceived organism. Gould’s declared support of Goldschmidt prompted the following response from biochemist Duane Gish (a prominent creationist):

According to Goldschmidt, and now apparently according to Gould, a reptile laid an egg from which the first bird, feathers and all, was produced. [14]

Gould responded with what could be construed as blasphemy:

Any evolutionist who believed such nonsense would rightly be laughed off the intellectual stage; yet the only theory that could ever envision such a scenario for the evolution of birds is creationism – God acts in the egg. [15]

Technically speaking, of course, no creationist in my experience is going to offer a scenario for the evolution of anything. However, Gould certainly had a point. Any evolutionist who would propose a bird hatching from a reptile egg should be derided. So, what of Gish’ accusation? He accused Goldschmidt of an absurd proposal. Gould vehemently denied it. Where are we? It would seem to me the only reasonable way to settle the issue is to quote Goldschmidt:

…O. H. Schindewolf…showed that the material presented by paleontology leads to exactly the same conclusions as derived in my writing, to which he refers….He shows by examples from fossil material that the major evolutionary advances must have taken place in single large steps, which affected early embryonic stages with the automatic consequence of reconstruction of all the later phases of development. He shows that the many missing links in the paleontological record are sought for in vain because they have never existed: “The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.” [16]

The issue of variability was addressed by Prof. Frank B. Salisbury who expressed far less confidence than that exhibited by Prof. Robinson:

I have my doubts about one point in the concept [of]…Neodarwinism…The problem is the origin of variability…The modern theory emphasizes the importance of genetic recombinations but ultimately rests upon mutations as the source of the variability acted upon by natural selection. This is where I run into problems…Could random changes in the nucleotide sequences of DNA (mutations) provide…(new) genes and ultimately the enzymes? At the moment I doubt it. [17]

Prof. Giertych agreed:

I am a geneticist and I can confirm that in all of these studies, in all the laboratories around the world, where many generations of organisms have been produced, nowhere has positive mutations ever been observed. And also, in the most studied population of all, the human population, all known mutations are either neutral or harmful. They are never an improvement. In fact, nature is programmed to protect genes from changes and so, correct the errors that have occurred. [18]

NOTES

[1] 1987. Why Scientists Believe in EVOLUTION, Fourth Printing. Alexandria, VA: AMERICAN GEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE, p. 5.

[2] Geological Dating Principles Questioned." A paper presented at the International Catholic Symposium on Creation, Rome, Italy October 24-25, 2002. Woodstock, VA: The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation, transcript, pp. 329-346.

[3] Geological Evidence for a Young Age of the Earth, pp. 347-364.

[4] Paleontology and evolutionary theory. EVOLUTION Sept. 1974, pp. 458, 466.

[5] Evolution's Erratic Pace. NATURAL HISTORY, May 1977, p. 14.

[6] Science and Creationism, A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition. Appendix. Frequently Asked Questions: http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/appendix.html.

[7] Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould. 1972. Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism. In: Thomas J. M. Schopf, Ed. Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman Cooper & Co., p. 98.

[8] 1996. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: The Free Press, p. 115.

[9] Walter Nickel, Britta Brügger and Felix T. Wieland. 2002. Vesicular transport: the core machinery of COPI recruitment and budding. JOURNAL OF CELL SCIENCE, Vol. 115,

pp. 3235-3240. http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/115/16/3235#FIG1

[10] 1978. Evolutionism – a fairy tale for adults. HOMILETIC & PASTORAL REVIEW, April, p.p. 30, 31.

[11] Evolution...Fact or Belief? CLP Video Interview produced in association with CESHE. El Cajon, CA: Master Books.

[12] 1960. Morphology, Paleontology and Evolution. In: Sol Tax, Ed. Evolution after Darwin : the University of Chicago Centennial, Volume I, The evolution of life. University of Chicago Press, p. 524.

[13] 1977. The Return of Hopeful Monsters. NATURAL HISTORY, June/July, p. 22.

[14] 1978. Evolution? The Fossils Say No! San Diego: Creation Life Publishers, p. 161.

[15] 1981. Evolution as Fact and Theory. DISCOVER, May, p. 35.

[16] 1940 (1982). The Material Basis of Evolution. New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 395.

[17] 1971. Doubts About the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution. THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, September, p. 335.

[18] Note 11.

EVOLUTIONISM: HOW SIMPLISTIC IT IS

Prof. Roy wrote that scientists are able to “create” (not just “evolve”) species in the laboratory from other species already in existence. Perhaps his definition of “create” is loose enough to accommodate “creation” by a creature. As noted earlier, he also chided one creationist for failure to provide a single example of a scientist who rejects evolutionism. Would anyone care to guess how many examples Roy provided of species “created” in the laboratory?

Prof. Hanes insisted that RNA and “simple organisms” have been “evolved” experimentally in the laboratory. Two questions come immediately to mind: From what, into what has any RNA molecule been shown to "evolve" in the laboratory or, anywhere else for that matter? What is a working definition of simple?

Prof. Behe shared biochemical knowledge that precludes the notion of “simple” as the term is apparently employed by those who promote evolutionism:

In the 19th century, when Darwin was alive, scientists thought that the basis of life, the cell, was some simple glob of protoplasm; like a little piece of jello or something that was not hard to explain at all….At the very basis of life, where molecules and cells run the show, we’ve discovered machines; literally molecular machines. There are little molecular trucks that carry supplies from one end of the cell to the other. There are machines that capture the energy from sunlight and turn it into usable energy….When we look at these machines, we asked ourselves, Where do they come from? And, the standard answer, Darwinian evolution, is very inadequate in my view. [1]

Behe’s presentation was augmented by that of molecular biologist Jed Macosko:

There are as many molecular machines in the human body as there are functions that the body has to do. So, if you think about hearing, seeing, smelling, tasting, healing, blood clotting, respiratory action, the immune response; all of those require a host of machines. [2]

Yet, Behe and Macosko is each an ID advocate. Surely neither of them could be free of prejudice. Perhaps Prof. Sergius Morgulis was less biased: “…[E]ven the most primitive unicellular organism has a complexity of structure and function that staggers the mind…” [3]

Any laboratory exists because it was designed. Where is the laboratory brought into existence through the chance combination of materials based on the laws of chemistry and physics? The answer is obvious; no such laboratory exists. Yet, somehow, species can be “created” and “simple” organisms can be “evolved” in the laboratory.

Even if a new species could be "evolved" in the laboratory it would not explain the origin of genetic information. Human manipulation in a laboratory setting, does not seem an adequate basis for extrapolation to undirected random processes. Yet, that is precisely what “origin of life,“ experimenters propose.

One of the more famous “origin of life” experiments was conducted by then graduate student Stanley L. Miller in the laboratory of Prof. Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago. The basis of the experiment was unverifiable assumption:

The idea that the organic compounds that serve as the basis of life were formed when the earth had an atmosphere of methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen instead of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen, and water was suggested by Oparin and has been given emphasis recently by Urey and Bernal. [4]

The “idea” that the early earth atmosphere contained no oxygen (a “reducing” or “anoxic” atmosphere) was admittedly not original with Aleksandr I. Oparin: “The idea has long ago been expressed that the primary atmosphere of the Earth must have been devoid of free oxygen.” [5] What is the reason for insisting on a reducing atmosphere for the early Earth? Prof. Richard E. Dickerson answered the question as well as anyone in my experience:

Assuming that terrestrial life did evolve on the earth, what was the planet like when the process began? One thing is certain: the atmosphere contained little or no free oxygen and hence was not strongly oxidizing as it is today. The organic matter that must accumulate as the raw materials from which life could evolve is not stable in an oxidizing atmosphere. One tends to forget that oxygen is a dangerously corrosive and poisonous gas, from which human beings and other organisms are protected by elaborate chemical and physical mechanisms. [6]

Post-doctoral fellow Stanley L. Miller was a little more cautious:

These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed. Most of the geological record has been altered in the four to five billion years since then, so that no direct evidence has yet been found. However, the experimental results reported here lend support to the argument that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere; for if it can be shown that the organic compounds that make up living systems cannot be synthesized in an oxidizing atmosphere, and if it can be shown that these organic compounds can be synthesized in a reducing atmosphere, then one conclusion is that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere in its early stages, and that life arose from the sea of organic compounds formed while the Earth had this atmosphere. [7]

Biochemist Duane Gish insisted: “The Earth did not have a reducing atmosphere.” [8] Gish is a creationist. Would not his position be influenced by religious beliefs? Unquestionably it’s a distinct possibility. One must wonder what religious beliefs might have influenced geologists Harry Clemmey and Nick Badham:

Geological evidence often presented in favor of an early anoxic atmosphere is both contentious and ambiguous. The features that should be present in the geological record had there been such an atmosphere seem to be missing….Ever since the work of Oparin…and the success of the experiments conducted by Miller…the dogma has arisen that Earth’s early atmosphere was anoxic, probably highly reducing…Conjecture and speculation, based on a knowledge of the chemistry of living matter, gave to them the composition of their starting materials, and it would have been surprising if they had not achieved the results they did. [9]

Scientists who assume the very conditions they should be required to verify deserve such a resounding rebuke. Apparently the “religious” influence experienced by Clemmey and Badham was of a sort that is anti-dogmatic. It is, however, interesting that they referred to the anoxic/reducing atmosphere scenario as dogma.

Oparin’s book reads as one long series of what Prof. Gould referred to in another context as: “These tales, in the "Just-So Stories" tradition…” [10] For example, in describing the alleged formation of the planets in our solar system, setting the stage for the “spontaneous generation” of life, Oparin used the phrase “must have” no less than 7 times in a single paragraph. [11]

A pair of chemists from Renssaelaer Polytechnic Institute were just as blunt as Gish and no more supportive of Miller’s contention: “We conclude that ammonia did not have an important role in chemical evolution.” [12] Even J. D. Bernal, to whose work Miller made reference, was critical:

Miller and Urey hope to save the synthesized products by removing them from the reaction zone in the atmosphere to the ocean. But even after the glycine reaches the ocean, the victory is not won…[A]bout 100 metres deep, glycine would have a half-life to ultra-violet destruction of about twenty years. Even assuming it to be mixed to the bottom of the ocean, with an average depth of 4 km., the half-life is only 1,000 years. These short lives for decomposition in the atmosphere or ocean clearly preclude the possibility of accumulating useful concentrations of organic compounds over eons of time.

The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them. [13]

Had physiologist Jared Diamond read the foregoing commentary he might have exercised more literary restraint: “Most Americans…accept the view of scientists that life sprang from inanimate matter… [14] Then again, he may very well have read that commentary and chose to ignore it. He wouldn’t seem to be alone in that respect in the science field.

Geneticist Gary Parker (a creationist) related his audience participation in a Creation/evolutionism debate on the campus of San Diego State University. Dr. Gish had given a presentation explaining why the Miller experiment was not adequate for the intended purpose. Another member of the audience announced that Dr. Stanley Miller was also in the audience. When asked if he would care to rebut the Gish presentation his response was, “No!”

Parker also commented that Miller hadn’t believed in spontaneous generation for decades. Was Parker correct? Prof. Stanley Miller was quoted in an interview by staff writer John Horgan:

The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people envisioned. [15]

NOTES

[1] 2002. Unlocking the Mystery of Life: The Case for Intelligent Design. Illustra Media video.

[2] Ibid.

[3] 1938 (1953). Introduction. In: A. I. Oparin. The Origin of Life, Second Edition. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., pp. vii-viii.

[4] Stanley L. Miller. 1953. A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions. SCIENCE, Vol. 117, p. 528.

[5] 1938 (1953). The Origin of Life, Second Edition. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., p. 96.

[6] 1978. Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, September, p. 70.

[7] 1955. Production of Some Organic Compounds under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, May 12, p. 2661.

[8] 1998. A Question of Origins. Eternal Productions video.

[9] 1982. Oxygen in the Precambrian Atmosphere: An Evaluation of the geological Evidence. GEOLOGY, March, p. 141.

[10] 1977. The Return of Hopeful Monsters. NATURAL HISTORY, June/July, p. 22.

[11] Note 5, pp. 89-90.

[12] 1972. Ammonia Photolysis and the role of Ammonia in Chemical Revolution (Evolution?). NATURE, Vol. 238, p. 269.

[13] 1960. Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation. NATURE, Vol. 186, pp. 693, 694.

[14] 1985. Voyage of the Overloaded Ark. DISCOVER, June, p. 82.

[15] 1991. In the Beginning… SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, January, p. 117.

EVOLUTIONISM: A MECHANISM BY ANY OTHER NAME...

According to Prof. Hanes evolution is no longer susceptible to demotion by creationists as “only a theory.” Evolution has been promoted to “…an established paradigm that underlies all of our work.” He contended the only debate in the evolutionary community is the mechanism by which evolution operates. The claim seems to have become a favorite evolutionist escape mechanism. It also seems to have been anticipated by Prof. Thompson:

Darwin himself considered that the idea of evolution is unsatisfactory unless its mechanism can be explained. I agree, but since no one has explained to my satisfaction how evolution could happen I do not feel impelled to say that it has happened. I prefer to say that on this matter our information is inadequate. [1]

One definition of paradigm is: “A pattern, model or example.” [2] That, in and of itself, should pose no problem for a creationist. Special Creation is also a model of origins. Granted, it’s not as well accepted as a model of origins as evolutionism which has become all-pervasive in the scientific disciplines. Yet, even Prof. Kenneth Miller, as militant as any evolutionist encountered in my experience, admitted that evolution forms an insignificant part of his work:

None of my 75-plus published papers used the term “presbyterian.” At least three of them use the term “evolution.” [3]

Prof. Gould described evolution in terms far more familiar to me but, still was not able to provide a mechanism with scientific rigor: "Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact…Darwin acknowledged the provisional nature of natural selection while affirming the fact of evolution." [4] It was my understanding that Darwin’s entire transformist premise depended on the non-provisional nature of natural selection. It would seem Prof. James Gray had the same understanding:

...[N]atural selection...is the only theory we have; but when judged as a working hypothesis it is disappointing to find so little advance in a hundred years....No amount of argument, or clever epigram, can disguise the inherent improbability of orthodox theory; but most biologists feel it is better to think in terms of improbable events than not to think at all. [5]

Prof Gray's paper was written half a century ago. Yet, Dr. Scott admitted the battle was being waged on the eve of the 21st century (see above: EVOLUTIONISM: WHERE’S THE UNANIMITY?, note 2). In between Prof. Gray and Dr. Scott, curator, David Raup was able to provide no comfort for the mechanism hunters:

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information – what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. [6]

Prof. Gray's critique would still seem to be valid. Dr. Raup’s time estimate requires the addition of another quarter century.

NOTES

[1] 1956. Introduction. In: Charles R. Darwin. Origin of species. (Printed in booklet form with permission. 1967. New challenging 'Introduction' to the Origin of Species. Selsey, Sussex: Evolution Protest Movement, pp. 17-18)

[2] R. F. Patterson, M.A., D.Litt., Editor. 2003. New Webster’s Expanded Dictionary. Weston, FL: Paradise Press, Inc., p. 200.

[3] 1997. "Resolved: The Evolutionists Should Acknowledge Creation" THE FIRING LINE, http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p45.htm.

[4] 1981. Evolution as Fact and Theory. DISCOVER, May, p. 35.

[5] 1954. The Case for Natural Selection. NATURE, 6 February, p. 227.

[6] 1979. Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology. FIELD MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY BULLETIN, January, p. 25.

EVOLUTIONISM: “BENEFICIAL” MUTATIONS

Prof. Hanes asserted, “Natural selection selects for whatever works, whether it be mutations that add, eliminate or change genetic information (sic). He further claimed that “…mutations that result in a more finely tuned biochemical response pathway can increase the fitness of an organism, and will increase its complexity.”

Apparently Prof. Giertych’s work in breeding was conducted in an environment in which he was not well adapted. He seemed unable to get the drift of Hanes’assertion:

Most laboratories all over the world are closing their mutagenic programs. Some useful varieties have been obtained through mutagenesis, but few and far between, and they are only useful from the human point of view....In each case however the plant obtained is biologically poorer and usually weaker than its unmutated progenitor. It is deprived of something that in natural conditions is useful....We know of mutations that are deleterious....We know of the existence of mutations that are biologically neutral....Positive mutations are more a postulate that (sic, than) an observation. [1]

Dr. Parker offered this observation: “Mutations really do occur. They make all kinds of changes in genes; birth defects, disease, disease organisms. They’re great at explaining the origin of disease, death and disaster; not at all in explaining the origin of something new…All the mutations we know about are only changes in genes that already exist. [2]

Prof. Roy chided those who would trivialize evolution as if it were philosophical rather than an issue “…relevant to public health.” The example he used was the drug resistance of the AIDS virus. The topic has generated a growing body of literature. It might prove fertile ground for creationist investigation by competent researchers in the biological sciences.

The issue, however pertinent it may be as “evidence” for evolution/natural selection, it reminds me of a personal experience. Approximately 20 years ago an evolutionist correspondent used as one of his examples for natural selection the argument that the mutation causing sickle cell anemia prevents malaria. My response was to encourage him to explain to a sickle cell patient how fortunate he/she was to be immune to malaria; a disease that was, for all practical purposes, nonexistent in the United States. He chastised me for bringing a moral argument into a scientific discussion. The real point of contention here is the claim of evidence for evolution from the example of drug resistance.

Assoc. Prof. Scott Minnich briefly explained his laboratory experimentation with antibiotic resistant bacteria. One cell in a population that is resistant to a drug introduced into that population is grown separately from the parent population. Selection is removed and fitness cost measured by placing the resistant strain into the same test tube with the parent population, without the drug. He concluded his commentary with information that provides no support for darwinian evolution:

Within one or two transfers...you can lose that population of resistant cells and then, after the third transfer, the resistant isolate has been completely out competed by the parent.

It turns out that the resistant strain has a defect in its information processing system. The cell's crippled and there's a limit to how much change can occur. When the resistant strain comes into contact with a parental wild type in nature, the parental wild type will reestablish dominance in the population resulting in no net evolutionary change. We're going backwards in terms of the fitness of these organisms, not forwards as used as an example of evolution. [3]

A brief internet search provided an interesting site quoting several prominent members of the science community denying mutations as having any explanatory value for evolution. [4] If the url has not been fudged, the quotes have been collected by someone at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Another site, equally interesting, has been provided by the United States Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research. [5] Several graphic examples have been provided comparing various “normal” fruit flies with mutated flies. In each case, normal and mutated, the example is described as a fly. That brings to mind the evolutionary criticism leveled by Jesuit Fr. Howard Morrison:

In books which argue for evolution there is usually much qualitative and quantitative data on mutations within a species, and between species which are very similar (sibling species). Almost all those published in the last 30 years describe observed mutations (natural and induced by experimenters) in many of the 28 different species of fruit flies (Drosophila). But they are still fruit flies! No series of mutations have been observed from a common ancestor into such insects as fruit flies, house flies, and mosquitoes, to say nothing of the much longer series from a reptile to a bird. [6]

NOTES

[1] The Arrow Points Down: The role of Information in Biology. A paper presented at the International Catholic Symposium on Creation, Rome, Italy, October 24-25, 2002. Woodstock, VA: The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation, transcript, p. 373.

[2] 1998. A Question of Origins. Eternal Productions video.

[3] 2002. Icons of Evolution. Palmer Lake, CO: ColdWater Media, LLC video.

[4] http://id-www.ucsb.edu/FSCF/LIBRARY/ORIGINS/QUOTES/mutations.html

[5] http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/mutant_flies/mutant_flies.html

[6] 1982. The irrationality of biological evolution. HOMILETIC & PASTORAL REVIEW, August-September, p. 66.

EVOLUTIONISM: NO “MEA CULPA” REQUIRED

Prof. Robinson insisted that no one could provide a single example of Intelligent Design published in any legitimate scientific source. He even meted out “penance” to anyone who might suggest that such an event had occurred: read Exodus 20:16. It turns out Robinson was wrong:

On August 4th, 2004 an extensive review essay by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239). The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.

In the article, entitled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa. [1]

Yet, there was controversy surrounding the Meyer publication. David Klinghoffer with THE WALL STREET JOURNAL identified the “culprit” who allowed the Meyer essay to be published. [2] Dr. Richard M. von

Sternberg, “the culprit,” published a number of articles on his website to clear up the "Controversy and confusion..." [3]

The matter of “penance,” motivated me to look up the Scripture verse. Exodus 20 was familiar to me as the chapter containing the Ten Commandments (not suggestions, not a nice set of guidelines) but was not committed to memory. Here, then, is Exodus 20:16: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” [4] So, the “penance” is not valid, even from a secular standpoint. After all, Roy only insisted on one example. However, perhaps a Scripture could be found that would be applicable to the professor and those of his philosophical persuasion:

For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. [5]

NOTES

[1] 2005. Discovery Institute: Center for Science & Culture, January 26.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage.

[2] 2005. The Branding of a Heretic. January 28. The text of the article is reproduced on the Discovery Institute website: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2400&program=CSC-News&callingPage=discoMainPage.

[3] http://www.rsternberg.net/.

[4] Catholic Bible. (c) 2000 Murray, KY: A production of Catholic Software. Douay Rheims translation.

[5] Ibid., THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE ROMANS, 1:22.

Monday 11th February 2008

Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes

Our Lady of Lourdes, pray for us!

APPENDIX 1

p. 1

NEW CHALLENGING 'INTRODUCTION'

TO THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES

Everyman Library No. 811 (1956).

by PROFESSOR W. R. THOMPSON, F.R.S.

EVOLUTION PROTEST MOVEMENT, 1967

p. 2

Printed by

Selsey Press Ltd.

94 High Street, Selsey, Sussex

p. 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This pamphlet under the imprimatur of The Evolution Protest Movement is made possible by the courtesy of J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., the publishers of the internationally famous Everyman's Library.

The Editors of Everyman, as a contribution to the near centenary of Darwin's first announcement of his theory of natural selection in a joint paper with Wallace, decided in their wisdom to reprint in 1956 the edition of 'The Origin' they first published in 1928. The Editors invited Professor W. R. Thompson, F.R.S., the distinguished Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control at Ottawa to supply an introduction which would place Darwin's work in the light of later discovery concerning the origin of man.

The introduction supplied by Professor Thompson is noteworthy for its erudition, its lucid exposition of a complex subject and not least for the way in which it subjects Darwin's hypothesis to a withering critical appraisal. One would not need in other fields to wax excited concerning a matter of criticism, for the critical faculty is not wholly dead. But in the case of Darwin's work it has assumed a command over the minds of educated men out of all proportion to its worth, and an objective approach to Darwin's ideas is seldom found; indeed it is the rule to find amongst men of science a hymn of universal praise to Darwin. This abject sycophancy, often coupled with downright dishonesty, Sir Arnold Lunn* has attributed not to ignorance but to theophobia.

In the firm belief that this challenge to Darwin's ideas is worthy of wider publication we offer it with full acknowledgement to J. M. Dent and Sons who have graciously allowed us to extract it from 'The Origin of Species,' No. 811 in the Everyman Library (1956).

The acknowledgement which forms an introduction to this pamphlet and the annotations distinctly printed as footnotes have been prepared by Mr. Frank W. Cousins, Council Member of the Evolution Protest Movement; they form no part of the original work. The annotations are offered as a help to students of the case against evolution and are wholly the responsibility of their author, neither Professor Thompson nor J. M. Dent and Sons have had any part in their compilation.

*IS EVOLUTION PROVED ? — A Debate, Douglas Dewar and H. S. Shelton. Published, Hollis & Carter, 1947.

p. 4

BLANK IN ORIGINAL

p. 5

NEW CHALLENGING 'INTRODUCTION'

TO THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES

Everyman Library No. 811 (1956).

by PROFESSOR W. R. THOMPSON, F.R.S.

When I was asked by the publishers of this new edition of The Origin of Species to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Arthur Keith, I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation. I admire, as all biologists must, the immense scientific labours of Charles Darwin and his lifelong, single-hearted devotion to his theory of evolution. I agree that although, as he himself readily admitted, he did not invent the doctrine of organic evolution, or even the idea of natural selection, his arguments, and especially

the arguments in The Origin of Species, convinced the world that he had discovered the true explanation of biological diversity, and had shown how the intricate adaptations of living things develop by a simple, inevitable process which even the most simple minded and unlearned can understand. But I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial.

I therefore felt obliged to explain to the editors of the Everyman's Library, that my introduction would be very different from that of Sir Arthur Keith, and that I could not content myself with mere variations on the hymn to Darwin and Darwinism that introduces so many text-books on biology and evolution, and might well be expected to precede a reprinting of the Origin. They raised no objection, so my main difficulty was removed. I am of course well aware that my views will be regarded by many biologists as heretical and reactionary. However. I happen to believe that in science heresy is a virtue and reaction often a necessity, and that in no field of science are heresy and reaction more desirable than in evolutionary theory. I have written what I think should be written; but the responsibility of the editors of the library is not involved.

I have said that it was mainly The Origin of Species that converted the

majority of men to the evolutionary doctrine. Sir Arthur Keith emphatically agreed. 'No book,' he said, 'has appeared to replace it; The Origin of Species is still the book which contains the most complete demonstration that the law of evolution is true.' But the more strongly we insist on this point, the more necessary it is to scrutinize the proofs given in the Origin. Of course, we may be induced to accept a statement that is true, by agreements that are fallacious or inadequate. Still, no one would seriously maintain that it is good to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. If arguments fail to resist analysis, assent should be withheld, and a wholesale conversion due to

unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable.

For Sir Arthur Keith, Darwin as a writer may be classed among the 'small select group of great Englishmen which holds Shakespeare.' The literary critics, apparently did not agree with him. Though he

p. 6

has often been regarded as an obscure writer, ^Darwin usually expresses himself clearly enough. He was not interested in philosophical considerations or in the exact definition of the terms he used. In the final chapter of the first edition of Origin, where he recapitulates his arguments, the word evolution is not even mentioned; yet the proposition he ^is defending can easily be defined. This is, that all the organisms that exist or have existed have developed from a few extremely simple forms or from one alone, by a process of descent with modifications. The mechanism of these transformations though infinitely complex in its detailed working, is very simple in principle. For reasons not fully understood organisms tend to vary slightly in their various characters. These variations must be called random in the sense that they have no predestined relation to the well-being of the organism. Nevertheless since they occur continually in many directions, an individual in which a particular variation has occurred will have a slight advantage over its competitors in a particular environment.

The advantages will be transmitted to its progeny in which, owing to variation, it will be manifested in different degrees, and thus there will occur through successive generations, a progressive adaptation to the environment from which the inadequately equipped competitors will disappear either through extinction or by adaptation to a different environment. We must, says Darwin, admit the truth of the following propositions: *'that gradations in the perfection of any organ or instinct, which we may consider, either do now exist or could have existed, each good of its kind—that all organs and instincts are, in ever so slight a degree, variable—and, lastly, that there

is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of each profitable deviation of structure or instinct.' These truths being admitted, the theory of descent with modification through natural selection, must be accepted. This explanation has universal value. It enables us to understand that every mental power and capacity has been a gradual but necessary acquirement and thus the origin and history of man become scientifically comprehensible. And as the past has been, so will the future. We may look with some confidence, says Darwin, 'to a secure future of equally inappreciable length. And ‘as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.'

The view that natural selection, leading to the survival of the fittest, in populations of individuals of varying characteristics and competing amongst themselves, has produced in the course of geological time gradual transformations leading from a simple primitive organism to the highest forms of life, without the intervention of any directive agency or force, is thus the essence of the Darwinian position. Purposeless and undirected evolution, says J. S. Huxley, eventually produced, in man, a being capable of purpose and of directing evolutionary change. This, it appears to me, remains the view of the most representative modern Darwinians. It is true that Darwin himself

*The Origin, chapter xv.

In the Everyman Edition No. 811, p. 437, et seq.

p. 7

admitted a Lamarckian element, the effects of use and disuse, and Sir Arthur Keith defended him against those who accused him of relying exclusively on natural selection. But this, in the modern view, would be a virtue of Darwin's theory since the inheritance of acquired characters is now generally denied by biologists.

We must now examine the arguments in the 'demonstration that the law of evolution is true.'

Darwin's first argument, to which he devoted a great deal of labour, is that there is great *variation among the individuals of many species. This variation is particularly evident among domesticated animals and plants. From these undeniable facts Darwin drew several conclusions. One was that species are not strictly immutable as biologists commonly maintained. The difference between the various types of domesticated species is often much greater than that which exists between wild species, and even in these it is often extremely difficult to decide whether a particular form is a species or variety. The great difference in the forms of domesticated species shows, on the one hand, that variation can be stimulated by particular conditions and

that the artificial selection made by breeders has produced forms with extremely distinctive characteristics. The differences between the various species of violets or between the species of the hymenopterous genus Mesoleius, for example, are clearly far less striking than the differences between a pekinese and an Irish setter, or between a snow apple and a russet. Darwin points out that under certain conditions abnormal individuals are produced, and maintains that it is impossible to draw a line between +such monstrosities and the individuals regarded as normal. These converging

arguments indicate that what we call a species is just a transitional stage in a

genealogical succession which cannot at any time be regarded as having a permanent definable essence or nature. There is therefore no intrinsic obstacle to unlimited evolution and the extrinsic conditions for it exist.

That natural selection directs the course of evolution Darwin could not prove by an appeal to facts. However, he felt certain that all organisms tend to increase in geometrical ratio, that each lives by a struggle for its requirements at some period of its life and that among individuals differing even to a slight degree, the fittest must survive and transmit their characteristics to their offspring and, since these will continue to vary, natural selection will progressively improve the adaptations and equipment of each species. ++'What checks the natural tendency of each spccics to

increase in number,' said Darwin, 'is most obscure . . . .' 'We know not exactly what the checks are even in one single instance.' He was able to show from factual examples that there is a great destruction of individuals in nature and to indicate some of the causes of this destruction; but he had little detailed evidence to offer concerning the action of natural selection.

Whether or not natural selection has produced the existing and past diversity of organic forms, this diversity exists, not only in space

* The Origin, chapters i, ii and v.

+ The Origin, chapter ii.

++The Origin, chapter iii. in the Everyman Ed. No. 811. p. 71.

p. 8

but in time. Such facts as the presence of different species of the same genus in different islands in the same area are consonant with the idea of descent with modification from a common ancestor as is the absence in isolated islands or organisms without active powers of migration and the presence of others such as bats and birds, taxonomically related to those of mainland areas.

Other supporting arguments were advanced by Darwin: the slow change and apparent progression of organic forms in the *geological strata, the evidence of the existence in the past of a great variety of organisms now extinct; the similarity between the +embryonic stages or organisms quite distinct in the adult condition; the existence of ++rudimentary organs; and the fact that a natural classification of organisms is possible, since this indicates real blood relationship and is therefore in a sense a mirror of the genealogical system by which they arose.

I have tried to include in a necessarily brief summary the most important points in Darwin's argument and have not designedly attempted to weaken the presentation. If Darwin convinced the world that species had originated through evolution by natural selection it was, I think, on the basis of the arguments I have mentioned.

But in a matter of this kind a great deal depends on the manner in which arguments are presented. Darwin considered that the doctrine of the origin of living forms by descent with modification. even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory unless the causes at work, were correctly identified, so his theory of modification by natural selection was for him, of absolutely major importance. Since he had at the time the Origin was published no body of experimental evidence to support his theory, he fell back on speculative arguments. The argumentation used by evolutionists, said de Quatrefages, makes the discussion of their ideas extremely difficult. Personal convictions, simple possibilities, are presented as if they were proofs, or at least valid arguments in favour of the theory." As an example de Quatrefages cited Darwin's explanation of the manner in which the titmouse might become transformed into the nutcracker, by the accumulation of small changes in structure and instinct owing to the effect of natural selection; and then proceeded to show that it is just as easy to transform the nutcracker into the titmouse. The demonstration can be modified without difficulty to fit any conceivable case. It is without scientific value, since it cannot be verified; but since the imagination has free rein, it is easy to convey the impression that a concrete example

* The Origin, chapters x and xi.

+ The Origin, chapter xiv.

++The Origin, Everyman No. 811, p. 429.

••A. de Quatrefages. Charles Darwin et ses pre’cuscurs francais

Etude sur le transformisme. 1870. pp. 154-159.

See also Darwin, Life and Letters, vol. 3, pp. 117-118.

p. 9

of real transmutation has been given. *This is the more appealing because of the extreme fundamental simplicity of the Darwinian explanation. The reader may be completely ignorant of biological processes yet he feels that he really understands and in a sense dominates the machinery by which the marvellous variety of living forms has been produced.

This was certainly a major reason for the success of the Origin. Another is the elusive character of the Darwinian argument. Every characteristic of organisms is maintained in existence because it has survival value. But this value relates to the struggle for existence. Therefore we are not obliged to commit ourselves in regard to the meaning of differences, between individuals or species since the possessor of a particular modification may be, in the race for life, moving up or falling behind. On the other hand, we can commit ourselves if we like, since it is impossible to disprove our statement. The plausibility of the argument eliminates the need for proof and its very nature gives it a kind of immunity to disproof. Darwin did not show in the Origin that species had originated by natural selection; he merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others.

But the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince. The long-continued investigations on heredity and variation have undermined the Darwinian position. We now know that the variations determined by environmental changes—the individual differences regarded by Darwin as the material on which natural selection acts—are not hereditary. We can, by selection, sort out from a natural population a number of pure lines or genotypes, (sic, genotypes) each possessing with respect to a given character its special curve of variability; but we cannot change this curve by selection within the genotype. For example, in a certain pure line of the house-fly, those with the longest wings may conceivably have an advantage—though I cannot see how this could be demonstrated. But we cannot, by choosing and mating these long-winged flies, produce a progressive increase in the proportion of long-winged flies, or a progressive increase in wing length.

It is true that some variations are hereditary. These are the so-called mutations which do not develop gradually but appear suddenly and remain as they appear. The varieties of domesticated plants

•This point is strikingly made by Professor Nilsson in his great work Synthetische Artbildung, in these words: A close inspection discovers an empirical impossibility to be inherent in the idea of evolution. If we state that Homo has evolved from Amoeba during millions of years we do not find it impossible, because the differences between the species offer no points for comparison and the distance between the species is biologically incomprehensible. If, as links in the chain, we choose specific animals which are somewhat more similar to man, acceptance does not lie quite as easy to our mind. The statement that man has successfully been a cod fish, a frog, a crocodile, a duckbill and a gorilla makes the thought bridle, because such changes are outside our empirical comprehension; they are at home in Alice in Wonderland.

p. 10

and animals are the result of mutations. *But such forms must be eliminated in nature, which would otherwise present a spectacle entirely different from the reality. This is partly due to the fact that mutations are not adaptive. If we say that it is only by chance that they are useful, we are still speaking too leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, or lethal. Darwin himself did not think that the races of domesticated animals were capable of surviving in nature but the modern Darwinians are obliged to explain evolution as the result of mutations. If we minimize or at least limit the survival value of characters in general, we can agree that certain distinctive morphological dispositions may well be the result of mutations. But the neo-Darwinians hold firmly to the belief that every specific character has survival value. This to my mind puts them in a very awkward position.

To realize how unconvincing their position is, we have only to consider the fact of organic correlation. Strangely enough, though Darwin was evidently well acquainted with the work of Cuvier he pays practically no attention, in the Origin, to Cuvier's principle of adaptive correlation. For him correlation is merely a concurrence of characters like 'the relation between blue eyes and deafness in cats, and the tortoise-shell colour with the female sex, the feathered felt and skin between the outer toes of pigeons, and the presence of more or less down on the young birds when first hatched, with the future colour of their plumage; or, again, the relation between the hair and teeth in the naked Turkish dog.' Indeed, Darwin's remarks suggest that he thinks of correlation as a material connection between malformations rather than as an adaptation. His modern, disciples in general simply ignore the problem of correlation. However, to ignore it is easier than to solve it. +As Emile Guyenot has said, mutations arc powerless to explain the general adaptation which is the basis of organization. 'It is impossible to produce the world of life where the dominant note is functional organization, correlated variation and progression, from a series of random events.' The position therefore is that while the modern Darwinians have retained the essentials of Darwin's evolutionary machinery, to wit, natural selection, acting on random hereditary variations, their explanation, plausible in Darwin's day, is not plausible now.

It has been said that the substitution of particulate for blending inheritance removed what was a serious difficulty in Darwin's own position. The inference with progressive evolution resulting from blending inheritance was certainly a weakness in the argument of the Origin but, as I have said, particulate inheritance has introduced other difficulties.

An important point in Darwin's doctrine, as set out in the Origin, was the conviction that evolution is a progressive process. We may

•This point is ably and more fully put by Professor R. Good in his

article 'Natural Selection Re-examined.' The Listener

May 7th, 1959, pp. 797—799.

+Emile Guye’not, Professor at the University of Geneva. See his

'Les Sciences de la vie aux xvii et xviii sie’cles.

L'lde’e d’evolution. (BM. 9010 a 1).

p. 11

look forward, he said, to a secure future of inappreciable length. 'And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.' The Victorians accepted this idea with enthusiasm. Here I need only say that on this point Darwin was inconsistent since, in his view, natural selection acts not only by the survival of the, fittest but also by the extermination of the less fit and may produce anatomical degradation as well as improvement.

That owing to the existence of different genotypes within a species and the somewhat different adaptive characters of these genotypes, samples of a widespread population taken at different points may be recognizably different in various ways, or a population of this kind spreading from a centre (as in the case of an introduced insect) may develop local varieties sufficiently marked to be regarded as species by a taxonomist, may be freely acknowledged. Furthermore, when we consider the development of a complex organism from the structurally simple germ cell, we must recognize, that in this field at least, evolution, in the classical sense, is a fact accessible to direct observation. But it is a far cry from these facts to the speculations of the Origin and the Victorian concept of evolution.

It is hardly necessary to dwell at length on all the minor arguments advanced by Darwin. These consist essentially in the translation of certain facts in terms of evolutionary theory, or, in other words, on an historical basis. If an organism possesses a structure having no assignable function, but looking like a reduced specimen of a functional structure existing in some other form, it was regarded as a 'rudiment' whose existence is explicable only as a relic that has gradually degenerated in coming down from a remote ancestor, where it was well developed and functional.

It is clear that this supposition has no demonstrative value. It itself requires demonstration. Unless one adopts the Darwinian postulate that all characteristics have survival value, it is not necessary to assume that they have, or ever had, definite functions. Some so-called rudiments, such as the homologues of the mammary glands in man cannot, so far as any plausible evidence goes, have been inherited from an ancestor in which they were functional. Others, once believed, to be useless. have definite functions. The existence in whales of transitory teeth and of small bones buried in the flesh, but corresponding to the pelvis, the femur, and the tibia, is commonly regarded as proof of their descent from ancestors of the tetrapod type with functional teeth; *but in the first place some anatomists consider that these structures have an important role in the developmental process; in the second place, we have no proof of a descent from ancestors in which these structures were more strongly developed; in the third place, it is clear that if they exist now, this is not primarily because they existed in the past, but because actual present causes now operate to produce them. What such cases like those of anatomical

*See for example: The Evolution Theory in its Relation to Tooth

Replacement, F. Gordon Cawston, E.P.M. Pamphlet No. 29. (BM, WP 12598).

p. 12

'convergence' and general homology actually demonstrate is that there are large numbers of organisms differing considerably in the details of structure but constructed on the same fundamental plan. However, this is no proof of descent from one original ancestor of this anatomical type. This itself requires proof. It may be said that unless we admit this, we must make the much more difficult supposition that many complex types originated independently. This, it will be remembered, was a point Darwin made against Lamarck. But I, for my part, do not sec that I am obliged to express a view on such matters. Darwin himself considered that the idea of evolution is unsatisfactory unless its mechanism can be explained. I agree, but since no one has explained to my satisfaction how evolution could happen 1 do not feel impelled to say that it has happened. I prefer to say that on this matter our information is inadequate.

Darwin suggested in the Origin that embryological development provides evidence for evolution. He postulated that characteristics appear in the embryo at the stage in which they developed in the ancestor, so that new developments may be tacked on, so to speak, to a phase representing the ancestral development, since Darwin also held that the slight variations on which, in his view, evolution depends, 'generally appear at a not very early period of life.' This idea, elaborated by other workers, eventually became in the hands of Haeckel the 'great biogenetic law,' *according to which the ontogeny repeats the phylogeny, or, as propagandists have put it, the developing animal 'climbs up its family tree.'

A natural law can only be established as an induction from facts. Haeckel was of course unable to do this. What he did was to arrange existing forms of animal life in a series proceeding from the simple to the complex, intercalating imaginary entities where discontinuity existed and then giving the embryonic phases names corresponding to the stages in his so-called evolutionary series. Cases in which this parallelism did not exist were dealt with by the simple expedient of saying that the embryological development had been falsified. When the 'convergence' of embryos was not entirely satisfactory, +Haeckel altered the illustrations of them to fit his theory. The alterations were slight but significant. The 'biogenetic law' as a proof of evolution is valueless.

A more important argument in the opinion of Darwin himself was the possibility of classifying organisms. All true classification, he said, is genealogical. Community of descent 'is the hidden bond which naturalists have been unconsciously seeking.' The arrangement of the groups within each class, 'in due subordination and relation to the other groups, must be strictly genealogical in order to be natural.' And again, 'the natural system is genealogical in its arrangement, like a pedigree; but the degrees of modification which the different groups have undergone have to be expressed by ranking them under so-called

*E Haeckel—The Evolution of Man, 1905. Vol. II. Human

Stem-Hislory or Phylogeny. pp. 413-414. (B.M. 7001 r 4).

+See 'Haeckel's Frauds and Forgeries,' by J. Assmuth and E. R.

Hull, 1915. (B.M. 7006 aaa 51).

p. 13

different genera, sub-families, sections, orders, and classes.' What we call the natural system of classification is a proof of evolution since it can only be explained as a result of evolution.

The plausibility of this argument is obvious. Yet it is not so convincing as it may appear at first sight. On the Darwinian theory, evolution is essentially undirected, being the result of natural selection acting on small fortuitous variations. The argument specifically implies that nothing is exempt from this evolutionary process. Therefore, the last thing we should expect on Darwinian principles is the persistence of a few common fundamental structural plans. Yet this is what we find. The animal world, for example, can be divided into some ten great groups or phyla, all of which are not morphologically as coherent and clear-cut as we might wish for convenience in classification, but nevertheless are stable and definable entities from the taxonomic standpoint. All identifiable animals that ever have existed can be placed in these groups. Generally speaking, the subordinate groups are equally well defined. We can tell at a glance to what Order or Family a particular insect belongs. As I have already noted there is often controversy and, uncertainty about the definitions of genera. species, and varieties; but taking the taxonomic system as a whole, it appears as an orderly arrangement of clear-cut entities which are clear cut because they are separated by gaps. These gaps Darwin explained by the hypothesis that the intermediates are constantly eliminated by natural selection. I do not think that we can be expected to accept this unproved supposition as an argument for Darwinism. But in any case it has no bearing on the persistence throughout geological time, in spite of the fortuitous variation and natural selection, on the persistence of the fundamental anatomical plans exhibited by the great groups. Darwin insisted on several occasions that characteristics long inherited became stabilized and perhaps he considered that the persistence of morphological types can be explained in this way. But without introducing considerations quite foreign to his system, we cannot explain why the anatomical type of the Echinoderm or the Insect continued to be inherited.

Because all organisms we know are generated by other organisms, it is natural to interpret biological classification in terms of genealogy. But not all the things that can be classified are connected by generation. The arrangement of the chemical elements and their compounds is a true classification and so is the arrangement of geometric forms; yet no genealogical considerations are involved. Looking at the matter from this angle, we can easily see that in actual fact the system of biological classification is simply based on the characteristics of organisms as they are here and now. The basis of these characteristics here and now is the physico-chemical constitution. If we wish to erect a genealogical classification we cannot do so with a collection abstractions drawn from our arrangement of existing organisms—we must discover through what forms the existing organisms have actually descended. If these historical facts cannot he ascertained, then it is useless to seek for substitutes, and from the

p. 14

fact that a classification is possible we certainly cannot infer that it is genealogical and is in any sense a proof of evolution.

Evolution, if it has occurred, can in a rather loose sense be called a historical process; and therefore to show that it has occurred historical evidence is required. History in the strict sense is dependent on human testimony. Since this is not available with respect to the development of the world of life we must be satisfied with something less satisfactory. The only evidence available is that provided by the fossils. It has been pointed out by both supporters and opponents of the evolutionary doctrine, that even if we can demonstrate the chronological succession of certain organisms, this is not proof of descent. This may seem like a quibble. If we put a pair of house-flies in a cage and let them breed, we do not doubt that the live flies we find there in a month's time are the descendants of the original pair. Similarly, if in an apparently undisturbed geological formation we find snail shells at an upper level very similar to those at a lower level, we may reasonably conclude that there is some genealogical connection between the two groups, though we cannot trace the descent from individual to individual as is required in a true family tree. Therefore, if we found in the geological strata a series of fossils showing a gradual transition from simple to complex forms and could be sure that they correspond to a true time-sequence, then we should be inclined to feel that Darwinian evolution has occurred, even though its mechanism remained unknown. *This is certainly what Darwin would have liked to report but of course he was unable to do so. What the available data indicated was a remarkable absence of the many intermediate forms required by the theory; the absence of the primitive types that should have existed in the strata regarded as the most ancient; and the sudden appearance of the principal taxonomic groups. Against these difficulties he could only suggest that the geological record is imperfect, but that if it had been perfect it would have provided evidence for his views. It is clear therefore that the palaeontological evidence at his disposal, since it had not led competent naturalists acquainted with it to a belief in evolution, could only justify a suspense of judgment. The condition of fossil material is, of course, unsatisfactory since soft tissues usually disappear, leaving only skeletal structures, frequently much distorted. The fossil insects of the group with which I am best acquainted cannot be accurately determined, even to genera. It is evident that many organisms now extinct existed in the past, but we can never know them as we know living forms. The chronological succession of the fossils is also open to doubt, for it appears, generally speaking, that the age, of the rocks is not determined by their intrinsic characteristics but by the fossils they contain; while the succession of the fossils is determined by the succession of the strata. It was thought also that the fossils should

* The Origin, chapter x.

It is pertinent to remark that the eminent philosopher Oswald Spencer in his Decline of the West, remarks: 'There is no more conclusive refutation of Darwinism than that furnished by palaeontology.'

p. 15

appear in a certain order, corresponding roughly to the stages in embryological development. In fact the strata, and therefore the fossils they, contain, do not always occur in the accepted order. In some areas of the world, for example, the Cambrian strata, which are regarded as the oldest fossiliferous formations, rest on the Cretaceous which are regarded as relatively recent; in other, Cretaceous or Tertiary beds appear, instead of the Cambrian, on the granite. Sometimes the character of the deposits would lead to the belief that they were chronologically continuous since they can be separated only by the fossils they contain. Various hypotheses have been proposed to explain these departures from accepted theory, and though they are often the subject of controversy among geologists I do not suggest that the problems to which they relate are insoluble.

On the other hand, it does appear to me, in the first place, that Darwin in the Origin was not able to produce palaeontological evidence sufficient to prove his views but that the evidence he did produce was adverse to them; and I may note that the position is not notably different to-day. The modern Darwinian palaeontologists are obliged, just like their predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary hypotheses which, however plausible, are in the nature of things unverifiable.

It has been said that though we do not find in the geological deposits the intermediates required by Darwinian theory, some very striking intermediates have been found of which the classical oft-cited example is *Archaeopteryx. To me, however, it appears that since the geological strata probably represent environmental conditions very different from those of the present, collections made in them may be regarded something like those made on the continent of Europe or in the tropics, with respect to the fauna and flora of the British Isles. As the range of our collections extends, so we invariably enrich our representation of various groups, and this necessarily and inevitably entails the appearance of intermediates between the forms in the collection from the restricted area in which we started. The recognition of this fact, with respect to the collections of organisms existing here and now, does not necessarily commit us to any particular view of the origin of species; and the same thing is true of the collection of fossil material.

The Origin of Species converted the majority of its readers to a belief in Darwinian evolution. We must now ask whether this was an unadulterated benefit to biology and to mankind! Sir Arthur Keith, as we have seen, had no doubts about this point. Some of the Darwinian propagandists were even more positive.

Writing in his Anthropogeny of the evolutionary controversy Haeckel asserted, that in this intellectual battle, which excites all the thinking sections of humanity, and prepares for the future a truly humane society, we see on one side, under the splendid banner of science, the liberation of the mind, truth, reason, civilization, development, and progress. In the other camp are ranged, under the banner

*See Archaeapteryx—Not a Link, by C. E. A. Turner,

E.P.M. Pamphlet No. 76. (B.M. WP 12598).

p. 16

of the hierarchy, intellectual servitude, error, irrationality, barbarous ways of life, superstition, and decadence. Quite recently an evolutionary propagandist has said, that without the evolutionary doctrine, biology, except in certain restricted fields, becomes unintelligible.

I find myself unable to agree with these views. I do not contest the fact that the advent of the evolutionary idea, due mainly to the Origin, very greatly stimulated biological research. But it appears to me that owing, precisely to the nature of the stimulus, a great deal of this work was directed into unprofitable channels or devoted to the pursuit of will-o'-the-wisps. I am not the only biologist of this opinion. Darwin's conviction that evolution is the result of natural selection, acting on small fortuitous variations, says Guye’not, was to delay the progress of investigations on evolution by half a century. Really fruitful researches on heredity did not begin until the rediscovery in 1900 of the fundamental work of Mendel, published in 1865 and owing nothing to the work of Darwin. In his great work Growth and Form*, D'Arcy Thompson remarked on the stultifying effect of Darwinian theory. 'So long and so far as "fortuitous variation" and the "survival of the fittest" remain engrained as fundamental and satisfactory hypotheses in the philosophy of biology, so long will these "satisfactory and specious causes" tend to stay "severe and diligent inquiry," to the great arrest and prejudice of future discovery.' Much time was wasted in the production of unverifiable family trees. For example, by plausible but unconvincing arguments zoologists have 'demonstrated' the descent of the Vertebrates from almost every group of the Invertebrates. During the thirty years from 1870 to 1900, there was an immense concentration of effort on embryology, inspired by the 'biogenetic law.' Here again the main objective was the tracing of ancestries. The attempt of His to explain development in terms of actual physical causes was rejected with contempt by authors like Haeckel. 'We have better things to do in embryology,' said one of them, 'than to discuss tensions of germinal layers and similar questions, since all explanations must of necessity be of a phylogenetic nature.' Gradually it was realized that the objective was unattainable. Embryology then ceased to be fashionable. Taxonomists also followed the trend, constructing hypothetical ancestors for their groups and explaining the derivation preexisting forms from these imaginary entities. I do not of course deny that a great amount of valuable information was gathered in these studies, but I think it could have been obtained more effectively on a purely objective basis. My impression is, also, that though it was unproductive from the Darwinian standpoint, this was not usually admitted. The deficiencies of the data were patched up with hypotheses, and the reader is left with the feeling that if the data do not support the theory they really ought to.

A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of the Origin was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculation. 'Explanations', of the origin of structures, instincts, and mental aptitudes of

*A complete list of D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson's writings is to

be found in Essays on Growth and Form, presented to D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson, 1942. (B.M. 7008 b 22).

p. 17

all kinds in terms of Darwinian principles, marked with the Darwinian plausibility but hopelessly unverifiable, poured out from every research centre. The speculations on the origin and significance of the resemblances between animals, or between animals and their environment and of the striking colour patterns they often exhibit, constitute one of the best-known examples. In the article on 'Mimicry' in the 14th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica we find a remarkable explanation of the form of tropical insects belonging to the group of the 'lantern-flies.' The head of this insect, which is not very large, resembles, in miniature, the head of an alligator, being prolonged into a snout at the base of which is a protuberance resembling an eye, while along the side are formations resembling minute teeth. Curious though the resemblance is, it is obviously a mere coincidence. The insect as a whole, does not look anything like an alligator. However, for the Darwinian author of the article we have here an example of the development of protective resemblance by natural selection. The similarity of the head of the insect to the head of an alligator is a protection against monkeys. The monkey does not actually mistake the insect for an alligator, but the sight of its head recalls to him the occasion on which an alligator almost seized him when he was drinking from a stream. Such is the effect of Darwinian fantasy on biological thinking.

The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. This is already evident in the reckless statement of Haeckel* and in the shifting, devious, and histrionic argumentation of T. H. Huxley. A striking example, which has only recently come to light, is the alteration of the Piltdown skull+ so that it could be used as evidence for the descent of man from the apes; but even before this a similar instance of tinkering with evidence was finally revealed by the discoverer of Pithecanthropus**, who admitted, many years after his sensational report, that he had found in the same deposits bones that are definitely human. Though these facts are now well known, a work published in 1943 still accepts the diagnosis of Pithecanthropus given by Dubois, as a creature with a femur of human form permitting an erect posture. Not long ago (1947), an exhibit in London, designed for public instruction, presented human development in such a way as to insinuate the truth of the 'biogenetic law'; and in the same exhibit were problematic reconstructions indicating the descent of man and including the Ptltdown type.

As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the

*See 'Haeckel's Fallacies,' by R. Blake, 1908. (B.M. 4018 h 31).

+The Piltdown Forge-i. Dr. Weiner.The Solution of the Piltdown Problem. J. S. Weiner, K. P. Oakley and W. E. Le Gros Clark. B.M. (NH) Geology Vol. 2, No. 3, 1953. Before any reader comes to a conclusion he should not fail to consult Lessons of Piltdown by Francis Vere, pub. E.P.M, 1958.

**See page 18.

p. 18

disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.

It is difficult to assess the effect of the Origin on the public mentality. It must be considered in conjunction with Darwin's later work: The Descent of Man, and the writings of the supporters of Darwin in several countries. However, Sir Arthur Keith said that Darwin himself had done more than anyone to lift 'the pall of superstition' from mankind and, in another place, that Darwinism is a 'basal doctrine in the rationalist liturgy.' These remarks suggest that in his opinion the decline of belief in the supernatural, and probably the decline of Christianity, is largely due to the influence of Darwin. I think there is much to be said for this view. It is true that in the Origin Darwin speaks of life 'having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one'; and refers to a Creator. Furthermore, he objected to the spontaneous generations for which Lamarck argued. But I think this objection was merely to an idea that would have made his own theory less comprehensively explanatory.

**In regard to the facts surrounding Pithecanthropus, see

E.P.M. pamphlet 75 Pithecanthropus (Ape-Man): The Facts, by A. G. Tilney; see also E.P.M. pamphlet 94, Four Weak Links, by Francis Vere (BM. WP 12598).

The learned professor is too generous. The whole approach to the origin of man in the leading museums of the world is based on reconstructions, the validity of which is open to serious criticism.

Entire reconstructions of early man based on the smallest unverified discovery is often rashly presented in the literature directed to the lay public; when subsequently the reconstruction is shown to be false, no adequate redress of the point is offered to clear up any misunderstanding. No student of evolution should deny himself the pleasure of turning back to The Illustrated London News of June 24th, 1922, pages 942, 943, 944. The entire spread of this glossy magazine is devoted to Hesperopithicus, Ape Man of the Western World, by no less a luminary than Professor Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, F.R.S., Professor of Anatomy in the University of London.

Hesperopithicus (male and female) are shown desporting themselves surrounded by the early horse Pliohippus, strepsicerine antelopes Ilingoceras and the hornless Rhinoceros. Hesperopithicus is based on the solitary finding by Harold J. Cook, a consulting geologist, of a molar tooth in the Pliocene deposit of the Snake Creek beds of Western Nebraska. Professor Henry Fairfield Osborn hailed the tooth as belonging to a new genus and species, Hesperopithicus haroldcookii. Subsequently it was shown by Dr. W. K. Gregory that the celebrated tooth was a tooth of an extinct peccarry, Prosthennops serus.

See:

American Museum Novitates.

April 25, 1922.

January 6, 1923

Science. Vol. 66, 1927.

“Hesperopithecus apparently not an ape, nor a man.”

p. 19

Although the Origin contains no direct attack on the Christian concept of the universe, it is, on a number of crucial points, opposed to this concept. The biblical account of the creation of living things can be, and often has been, interpreted in a manner more or less compatible with the doctrine of evolution. Propagandists like T. H. Huxley, however, made every effort to minimize this possibility, and to prove that Christian orthodoxy implies a literal interpretation of Genesis which is irreconcilable with the evolutionary idea. Darwin himself though he once held some rather vaguely Christian views, abandoned them quite rapidly and soon ceased to believe in the Christian revelation.

The doctrine of evolution by natural selection as Darwin formulated, and as his followers still explain it, has a strong anti-religious flavour. This is due to the fact that the intricate adaptations and co-ordinations we see in living things, naturally evoking the idea of finality and design and, therefore, of an intelligent providence, are explained, with what seems to be a rigorous argument, as the result of chance. It may be said, and the most orthodox theologians indeed hold, that God controls and guides even the events due to chance; but this proposition the Darwinians emphatically reject, and it is clear that in the Origin evolution is presented as an essentially undirected process. For the majority of its readers, therefore, the Origin effectively dissipated the evidence of providential control. It might be said that this was their own fault. Nevertheless the failure of Darwin and his successors to attempt an equitable assessment of the religious issues at stake indicates a regrettable obtuseness and lack of responsibility. Furthermore, on the purely philosophical plane, the Darwinian doctrine of evolution involves some difficulties which Darwin and Huxley were unable to appreciate. Between the organism that simply lives, the organism that lives and feels, and the organism that lives, feels, and reasons, there are, in the opinion of respectable philosophers, abrupt transitions corresponding to an ascent in the scale of being, and they hold that the agencies of the material world cannot produce transitions of this kind. I shall not attempt to discuss this difficult question here. Nevertheless it is clear that the view just mentioned has been that of mankind in general. That plants, animals, and man can be distinguished because they are radically different is the common-sense conviction, or was, at least until the time of Darwin. Biologists still agree on the separation of plants and animals, but the idea that man and animals differ only in degree is now so general among, them, that even psychologists no longer attempt to use words like 'reason’ or 'intelligence’ in the exact sense.

This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypotheses based on hypotheses, where fact

p. 20

and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion. That these constructions correspond to a natural appetite, there can be no doubt. It is certain also that in the Origin Darwin established what may be called the classical method of satisfying this appetite. We are beginning to realise now that the method is unsound and the satisfaction illusory. But to understand our own thinking, to see what fallacies we must eradicate in order to establish general biology on a scientific basis, we can still return with profit to the source-book which is The Origin of Species.

W. R. THOMPSON.

APPENDIX 2

GALILEO'S HERESY

Paula Haigh

The real centerpiece of the Galileo affair is the Letter that Saint Robert Cardinal Bellarmine wrote to the Carmelite friar, Paolo Antonio Foscarini, after reading Galileo's Letter to Castelli and Foscarini's sixty-four page book defending the compatibility of the new Copernican system with Holy Scripture. Foscarini died June 10, 1616, just two months after his book had been condemned by the Congregation of the Index. Fr. Jerome Langford does not tell us if there is any record of the Carmelite friar's reaction to the condemnation, to Cardinal Bellarmine's Letter, or whether he submitted to the Church's judgment before he died. [19]

As one would expect of a saint, Cardinal Bellarmine's letter is a model of supernatural wisdom and prudence. It is fair to scientific opinion but unrelentingly firm in the defense of Catholic doctrine. I give the Letter in full, and I have divided it into numbered paragraphs for convenient reference. I take the text from Langford's book. (See note 19)

1. I have gladly read the letter in Italian and the treatise which Your Reverence sent me, and I thank you for both. And I confess that both are filled with ingenuity and learning, and since you ask for my opinion, I will give it to you very briefly, as you have little time for reading and I for writing.

2. First, I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke.

3. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this and it is sufficient for mathematicians.

4. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself [turns upon its axis] without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false.

5. For Your Reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.

6. Second. I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators.

7. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

8. Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth, but the earth circled around the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them, than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated.

9. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me.

10. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the center and the earth is in the heavens, as it is to demonstrate that the sun is really in the center and the earth in the heavens.

11. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers.

12. I add that the words "the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc." were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated.

13. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away from the ship, I shall answer that one who departs from the beach, though it looks to him as though the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man is needed to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges the sun to move, just as it is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move.

14. And that is enough for the present. I salute Your Reverence and ask God to grant you every happiness.

Fraternally,

Cardinal Bellarmine

12 April 1615

Cardinal Bellarmine assures us that the consent of the Fathers and their commentators is unanimous in holding a geocentric and geostatic view of the universe based on Holy Scripture (#6). Just how far the contemporary Church has departed from Catholic tradition is emphasized by this as well as by the other points of Cardinal Bellarmine's Letter, for he refuses to recognize the distinction, rejected also in our times by Benedict XV and Leo XIII, between references to physical things and supernatural facts (#7) as dividing truth from possible error in Holy Scripture. Fr. Jerome Langford is of the modernist mentality and reads the Decree of Trent according to Galileo: "... the Fathers had to affirm, explicitly or implicitly, that the text under consideration pertained to a matter of faith or morals."20 But as we have already shown, this is not what Trent said nor could have so said because both Benedict XV and Leo XIII have emphatically reaffirmed the integrity of Holy Scripture in all its parts and all its meanings, both physical and spiritual, both natural and super-natural. Galileo and the heliocentrists or Copernicans attacked a truth of faith, namely, that Holy Scripture is inspired and inerrant in all its parts and that we may not depart from the common agreement of the Fathers in our interpretations. [pp. 10-12]

[19] Jerome Langford, Galileo, Science and the Church. New York: Desclee, 1966, p. 59 about Fr. Foscarini and pp. 60-63 for Cardinal Bellarmine's Letter.

This paper is the first in a trilogy of studies:

I. Galileo's Heresy

II. Galileo's Empiricism

III. Was It / Is It Infallible?

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Written in 1992; revised & computerized in 1999

Paula Haigh

Nazareth Village I, #102

POB 1000

Nazareth KY 40048

USA

+ + +

origins@ev1.net

APPENDIX 3

Dr. Martin Kaplan, one of the four organizers of the Wistar Symposium, noted that the motivation to conduct the conference resulted from, "...a rather weird discussion between (sic, among) four mathematicians..." at each of two Sunday picnics in Geneva in 1965. [1] Following is an overview of the contributions from those who participated in some way in the symposium in the order of presentation.

Each emphasizes a particular problem for Darwinian evolution. The commentary of Dr.s Murray Eden and Marcel Schutzenberger, the two participants who reject evolution, has not been included.

Sir Peter Medawar, National Institute for Medical Research, London:

...[T]here are philosophical or methodological objections to evolutionary theory. They have been very well voiced by Professor Karl Popper -- that the current neo-Darwinian Theory has the methodological defect of explaining too much. It is too difficult to imagine or envisage an evolutionary episode which could not be explained by the formulae of neo-Darwinism. [2]

Dr. Loren C. Eiseley, University Professor of Anthropologuy and the

History of Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia:

Have we really answered all the questions; or is there something peculiarly

natural selection?...I still think Darwin expressed a certain tolerance, a marked degree of wary unease, as to whether, indeed, the phrase "fortuitous variation" was a sufficient answer to all our problems. [3]

Dr. Stanislaw M. Ulam, Research Advisor, Los Alamos Scientific

Laboratories:

...[I]t seems to require many thousands, perhaps millions, of successive mutations to produce even the easiest complexities we see in life now. It appears, naively at least, that no matter how large the probability of a single mutation is, should it be even as great as one-half, you would get this probability raised to a millionth power, which is so very close to zero that the chances of such a chain seem to be practically nonexistent....If one wants to produce some organ like an eye, together with the whole apparatus of the nervous system connecting it with what we might call a "brain", one seems to need an enormous number of such successive steps. [4]

Dr. William Bossert, Harvard University:

...[T]he basic evolutionary operators of mutation and natural selection do not

perform well, in the sense of translating a population to which they are applied over a space of genotypes to that genotype which is optimum. [5]

Dr. Ernst Mayr, Director, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard

University:

I heard of another case, still unpublished, of a blue green alga from some chert in central Australia...This material is extraordinarily well preserved, so that the gelatinous sheath and every other detail is still clearly visible; and yet it is indistinguishable in all these details from a living species. However, the dating by the radioactive method indicates that this Australian form is 900 million years old. [6]

Dr. George Wald, Professor of Biology, Harvard University:

Perhaps there is...no occasion for surprise in finding organisms highly and subtly adapted in ways that seem to represent no direct advantage, yet offer an ultimate advantage through their effects upon other organisms. Such evolution by proxy would seem to be a very general phenomenon, and its mechanisms may merit more attention than they seem as yet to have received. [7]

Dr. Richard C. Lewontin, Professor of Zoology, University of Chicago:

...[I]f we look at the distribution of populations...we see that it reaches a kind

of equilibrium situation. It wobbles quite a bit because the sample size has become quite small...but, in general, no obvious trend is occurring. There is a unimodal distribution... [8]

Dr. C. H. Waddington, Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh:

We can't quantify the theory of evolution in any sense until we can answer questions such as: How much information is needed to produce a given complexity of structure? [9]

POST-CONFERENCE COMMENTS

Dr. Walter E. Howard, Department of Animal Physiology, University of California, Davis:

Until ecologists can obtain a keener insight into the factors that regulate

productivity and stability of vertebrate communities, it is difficult to obtain the needed empirical evidence about the processes of speciation. [10]

Dr. Alex Fraser, Professor of Genetics, University of California, Davis:

Separate mutations of the same gene which are each lethal as homozygotes may interact to produce a normal function. It would appear that each mutation produces a protein product which is defective, but the polymerization of the two differently defective proteins can result in an effective unit. [11]

PRELIMINARY WORKING PAPER

Dr. Sewall Wright, Emeritus Professor of Genetics, University of

Wisconsin:

The interpretation of macroevolution has consisted largely of the speculations of comparative anatomists and paleontologists. [12]

NOTES

[1] Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, Editors. 1966. MATHEMATICAL CHALLENGES TO THE NEO-DARWINIAN INTERPRETATION OF EVOLUTION. A Symposium held at THE WISTAR INSTITUTE OF ANATOMY AND BIOLOGY, Philadelphia April 25 and 26, "PREFACE," p. vii.

[2] Ibid., "REMARKS BY THE CHAIRMAN," p. xi.

[3] Ibid., "INTRODUCTION TO THE CONFERENCE," pp. 3, 4.

[4] Ibid., "How to Formulate Mathematically Problems of Rate of Evolution?" pp. 21, 23.

[5] Ibid., "Mathematical Optimization: Are There Abstract Limits on Natural

Selection?" p. 40.

[6] Ibid., "Evolutionary Challenges to the Mathematical Interpretation of

Evolution," p. 48.

[7] Ibid., "The Problems of Vicarious Selection," p. 61.

[8] Ibid., "The Principle of Historicity in Evolution," p. 83.

[9] Ibid., "Summary Discussion," p. 97.

[10] Ibid., Some Ecobehavioral Problems to Mathematical Analysis of Evolution," p. 105.

[11] Ibid., "Comments on Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Concept of Evolution," p. 107.

[12] Ibid., "Comments on the Preliminary Working Papers of Eden and Waddington," p. 118.