Philosophy of Science, Practice of Science: "...There will be well-testable theories, hardly testable theories, and non-testable theories.

Those which are non-testable are of no interest to empirical scientists. They may be described as metaphysical." (Popper, Karl, Conjectures and Refutations ( ew !or"# $asic $oo"s, %&'(), p. *+,.) "- hypothesis is empirical or scientific only if it can be tested by e.perience. hypothesis or theory which cannot be, at least in principle, falsified by empirical obser/ations and e.periments does not belon0 to the realm of science." (1rancisco 2. -yala, "$iolo0ical 3/olution# atural 4election or Random 5al"6," -merican 4cientist, 7ol. '*, o/ember-8ecember %&,9, p. ,::) "5hat 0ambler would be cra;y enou0h to play roulette with random e/olution6 The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducin0 8urer<s <=elancholia< is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the 8 - molecule leadin0 to the formation of the eye> besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoe/er with the function that the eye would ha/e to perform or was startin0 to perform. There is no law a0ainst daydreamin0, but science must not indul0e in it." (1rench ;oolo0ist Pierre-Paul ?rasse in @3/olution of Ai/in0 Br0anisms@ ( ew !or"# -cademic Press, %&,,), %:9) "=ultiple hypotheses should be proposed whene/er possible. Proposin0 alternati/e e.planations that can answer a Cuestion is 0ood science. Df we operate with a sin0le hypothesis, especially one we fa/or, we may direct our in/esti0ation toward a hunt for e/idence in support of this hypothesis." (Campbell .-., Reece 2.$. E =itchell A.?., "$iolo0y," F%&G,H, $enjaminICummin0s# =enlo Par" C-, 1ifth 3dition, %&&&, p.%9) "There are ob/ious the difficulties in discussin0 uniCue e/ents that happened a lon0 time a0o. Jow can we e/er "now that our su00ested e.planations are correct6 -fter all, historians cannot a0ree about the causes of the 4econd 5orld 5ar. 5e accept that certainty is impossible, but there are se/eral reasons why we thin" the enterprise is worth while. 1irst, we ha/e one 0rat ad/anta0e o/er historians# we ha/e a0reed theories both of chemistry and of the mechanism of e/olutionary chan0e. 5e can therefore insist that our e.planations be plausible both chemically, and in terms of natural selection. This places a se/ere constraint on possible theories. Dndeed, the difficulty often lies, not in choosin0 between ri/al theories, but in findin0 a theory that is chemically and selecti/ely plausible. 1urther, theories are often testable by loo"in0 at e.istin0 or0anisms." (2ohn =aynard 4mith and 3Krs 4;athmLry, The =ajor Transitions in 3/olution, ew !or"# 5. J. 1reeman and Company, %&&+) "Certainly science has mo/ed forward. $ut when science pro0resses, it often opens /aster mysteries to our 0a;e. =oreo/er, science freCuently disco/ers that it must abandon or modify what it once belie/ed. 4ometimes it ends by acceptin0 what it has pre/iously scorned."

(3iseley, Aoren C., FProfessor of -nthropolo0y, Mni/ersity of Pennsyl/aniaH, "The 1irmament of Time," The 4cientific $oo" Club# Aondon, %&':, p.+) "- scientist commonly professes to base his beliefs on obser/ations, not theories. Theories, it is said, are useful in su00estin0 new ideas and new lines of in/esti0ation for the e.perimenter> but "hard facts" are the only proper 0round for conclusion. D ha/e ne/er come across anyone who carries this profession into practice--certainly not the hardheaded e.perimentalist, who is the more swayed by his theories because he is less accustomed to scrutinise them. Bbser/ation is not sufficient. 5e do not belie/e our eyes unless we are first con/inced that what they appear to tell us is credible. Dt is better to admit fran"ly that theory has, and is entitled to ha/e, an important share in determinin0 belief." (3ddin0ton -., "The 3.pandin0 Mni/erse," Pen0uin# Jarmondsworth, =iddlese. MK, %&9:, p.*+) "=edawar admonishes the youn0 to formulate hypotheses but not to identify with them. <The intensity of a con/iction that a hypothesis is true has no bearin0 on whether it is true or false<. 7oltaire put it more stron0ly# <Dn fact, no opinion should be held with fer/our. o one holds with fer/our that , . G N +' because it can be shown to be the case. 1er/our is only necessary in commendin0 an opinion which is doubtful or demonstrably false<. D am told that when anybody contradicted 3instein, he thou0ht it o/er, and if he was found wron0 he was deli0hted, because he felt that he had escaped an error." (=a. Perut;, "Ds 4cience ecessary6" (p.%&'), in a re/iew he wrote of Peter =edawar<s boo" "-d/ice to a !oun0 4cientist") "The scientific establishment bears a 0risly resemblance to the 4panish DnCuisition. 3ither you accept the rules and attitudes and beliefs promul0ated by the <papacy< (for which read, perhaps, the Royal 4ociety or the Royal Colle0e of Physicians), or face a dreadful retribution. 5e will not actually burn you at the sta"e, because that sanction, unhappily, is now no lon0er a/ailable under our mil"sop laws. $ut we will ma"e damned sure that you are a dead duc" in our trade." (?ould, 8onald Fformer editor of ew 4cientistH, "Aettin0 poetry loose in the laboratory," ew 4cientist, *& -u0ust %&&*, p.+%) "There must be no barriers for freedom of inCuiry. There is no place for do0ma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to as" any Cuestion, to doubt any assertion, to see" for any e/idence, to correct any errors." "-s lon0 as men are free to as" what they must, free to say what they thin", free to thin" what they will, freedom can ne/er to be lost, and science can ne/er re0ress." (2. Robert Bppenheimer, physicist, =anhatten Project, Aife =a0a;ine %:I%:I%&9&) "5hat has "ept desi0n outside the scientific mainstream these last %(: years is the absence of precise methods for distin0uishin0 intelli0ently caused objects from unintelli0ently caused ones. 1or desi0n to be a fruitful scientific theory, scientists ha/e to be sure they can reliably determine whether somethin0 is desi0ned. 2ohannes Kepler, for instance, thou0ht the craters on the moon were intelli0ently desi0ned by moon dwellers.

5e now "now the craters were formed naturally. This fear of falsely attributin0 somethin0 to desi0n only to ha/e it o/erturned later has pre/ented desi0n from enterin0 science proper ... FwHith precise methods for discriminatin0 intelli0ently from unintelli0ently caused objects, scientists are now able to a/oid Kepler<s mista"e" (8embs"i, 5. -., "Dntroduction# =ere Creation", =ere Creation 4cience 1aith E Dntelli0ent 8esi0n, edited by 5illiam 8embs"i (Dnter7arsity Press, %&&G) p0. %') "5hile the admission of a desi0n for the uni/erse ultimately raises the Cuestion of a 8esi0ner (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to e.clude data which lead to the conclusion that the uni/erse, life and man are based on desi0n. To be forced to belie/e only one conclusion--that e/erythin0 in the uni/erse happened by chance --would /iolate the /ery objecti/ity of science itself." "The inconcei/ability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that e.plains the interrelationship of obser/ed data and is useful for prediction." "Dt is in that same sense of scientific honesty that D endorse the presentation of alternati/e theories for the ori0in of the uni/erse, life and man in the science classroom." (5erner 7on $raun, Ph.8., the father of the -4- space Pro0ram, in an open letter to the California 4tate $oard of 3ducation on 4eptember %9, %&,*. 4ee http#IIwww.pastornet.net.auIjmmIaasiIaasi:*+:.htm for the entire te.t with more 0ood CuotesO) "8urin0 the period of nearly uni/ersal rejection, direct e/idence for continental drift-that is, the data 0athered from roc"s e.posed on our continents-was e/ery bit as 0ood as it is today. .... Dn the absence of a plausible mechanism, the idea of continental drift was rejected as absurd. The data that seemed to support it could always be e.plained away. ... The old data from continental roc"s, once soundly rejected, ha/e been e.humed and e.alted as conclusi/e proof of drift. Dn short, we now accept continental drift because it is the e.pectation of a new orthodo.y. D re0ard this tale as typical of scientific pro0ress. ew facts, collected in old ways under the 0uidance of old theories, rarely lead to any substantial re/ision of thou0ht. 1acts do not Pspea" for themsel/es<, they are read in the li0ht of theory." (?ould, 4tephen 2ay FProfessor of Qoolo0y and ?eolo0y, Jar/ard Mni/ersityH, "The 7alidation of Continental 8rift," in "3/er 4ince 8arwin# Reflections in atural Jistory," F%&,GH, Pen0uin# Aondon, %&&%, reprint, p%'%, note# 4o D 0uess today<s <old theory< would be e/olution, and the continental drift, for which ample e/idence already e.ists, would be "Dntelli0ent 8esi0n<) "$ut our ways of learnin0 about the world are stron0ly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thin"in0 that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objecti/e <scientific method,< with indi/idual scientists as lo0ical (and interchan0eable) robots, is self-ser/in0 mytholo0y." (?ould, 4tephen 2ay, "Dn the =ind of the $eholder," atural Jistory, /ol. %:( (1ebruary %&&9), pa0e %9)

"=ost scientific theories, howe/er, are ephemeral. 3.ceptions will li"ely be found that in/alidate a theory in one or more of its tenets. These can then stimulate a new round of research leadin0 either to a more comprehensi/e theory or perhaps to a more restricti/e (i.e., more precisely defined) theory. othin0 is e/er completely finished in science> the search for better theories is endless. The interpretation of a scientific e.periment should not be e.tended beyond the limits of the a/ailable data. Dn the buildin0 of theories, howe/er, scientists propose 0eneral principles by e.trapolation beyond a/ailable data. 5hen former theories ha/e been shown to be inadeCuate, scientists should be prepared to relinCuish the old and embrace the new in their ne/er-endin0 search for better solutions. Dt is unscientific, therefore, to claim to ha/e "proof of the truth" when all that scientific methodolo0y can pro/ide is e/idence in support of a theory." (4tansfield, 5illiam 8. FProfessor of $iolo0ical 4ciences, California Polytechnic 4tate Mni/ersityH,"The 4cience of 3/olution," F%&,,H, =acmillan# ew !or" !, %&G(, 3i0hth Printin0, pp.G-&) "-s noted in the Preface, one often sees it said that Pe/olution is not a fact, but a theory.< Ds this the essence of my claim6 ot reallyO Dndeed, D su00est that this wise-soundin0 statement is confused to the point of falsity# it almost certainly is if, without re0ard for cause, one means no more by Pe/olution< than the claim that all or0anisms de/eloped naturally from primiti/e be0innin0s. 3/olution is a fact, fact, 1-CTO" (Ruse, =ichael FProfessor of Jistory and Philosophy, Mni/ersity of ?uelph, CanadaH, "8arwinism 8efended# - ?uide to the 3/olution Contro/ersies," F%&G*H, -ddison-5esley# Readin0 =-, %&G(, Third Printin0, p.+G. 3mphasis Ruse<s. Please note# Please read this in li0ht of the Cuotes by 4tansfield abo/e. -lso, please note that sayin0 that all life-forms de/loped naturally from primiti/e be0innin0s is a far cry from the definition of e/olution. The definition of e/olution is chan0e throu0h time. Dn this sense, 0ene pools in populations chan0e e/erytime a new or0anism is born. Dn this sense, e/olution is a fact. 5hat Ruse has said is that life came about completely naturally, which is the /ery philosophical idea that Dntelli0ent 8esi0n proponents oppose.) " ow and then a scientist stumbles across a fact that seems to sol/e one of the 0reat mysteries of science o/erni0ht. 4uch une.pected disco/eries are rare. 5hen they occur, the scientific community 0ets /ery e.cited. $ut e.citement is not the best barometer of scientific /alidity. 4cience, said -dam 4mith, should be "the 0reat antidote to the poison of enthusiasm". The case of the disappearin0 dinosaurs is a fascinatin0 demonstration that science is not based on facts alone. The interpretation of the facts is e/en more important." (Robert 2astrow, Ph.8. (physics), 8irector, Dnstitute for 4pace 4tudies, M4-), "The dinosaur massacre", Bme0a 4cience 8ie0est, =archI-pril, %&G9, p0. *(). "D encoura0e FstudentsH to be s"eptical-as lon0 as their s"epticism is based on lo0ic and e/idence. . . .Ruestions are what dri/es science, not answers. . . . Ta"e nothin0 for 0ranted, D counsel my students# that is what ma"es a scientist" (=ichi0an 4tate physiolo0y professor Robert 4. Root-$ernstein "8arwin<s Rib," in 8isco/er, 4eptember %&&+, pp. (G-9%)

"Bur willin0ness to accept scientific claims that are a0ainst common sense is the "ey to an understandin0 of the real stru00le between science and the supernatural. 5e ta"e the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its e.tra/a0ant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we ha/e a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. Dt is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material e.planation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of in/esti0ation and a set of concepts that produce material e.planations, no matter how counterintuiti/e, no matter how mystifyin0 to the uninitiated. =oreo/er, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a 8i/ine 1oot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Aewis $ec" used to say that anyone who could belie/e in ?od could belie/e in anythin0. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the re0ularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." (Aewontin, Richard, "$illions and $illions of 8emons", ew !or" Re/iew of $oo"s, 2anuary &, %&&,, p. *G) "4cience, fundamentally, is a 0ame. Dt is a 0ame with one o/erridin0 and definin0 rule. Rule o. %# Aet us see how far and to what e.tent we can e.plain the beha/ior of the physical and material uni/erse in terms of purely physical and material causes, without in/o"in0 the supernatural." (Richard 3. 8ic"erson Fe/olutionist scientistH# "The ?ame of 4cience." Perspecti/es on 4cience and 1aith (7olume 99, 2une %&&*), p. %(,) "Ai"e Kamin, D am, myself rather more harsh in my /iew. 4cientists, li"e others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they belie/e that small lies can ser/e bi0 truths." (Aewontin, Richard C., "The Dnferiority Comple.," re/iew of The =ismeasure of =an, by 4tephen 2. ?ould, ew !or" Re/iew of $oo"s (Bctober **, %&G%), in which ?ould ar0ued that the sociopolitical bias of a scientist mi0ht ha/e an unconscious effect on his scientific results) "There is superstition in science Cuite as much as there is superstition in theolo0y, and it is all the more dan0erous because those sufferin0 from it are profoundly con/inced that they are freein0 themsel/es from all superstition. o 0rotesCue repulsi/eness of mediS/al superstition, e/en as it sur/i/ed into nineteenth-century 4pain and aples, could be much more intolerant, much more destructi/e of all that is fine in morality, in the spiritual sense, and indeed in ci/ili;ation itself, than that hard do0matic materialism of to-day which often not merely calls itself scientific but arro0ates to itself the sole ri0ht to use the term. Df these pretensions affected only scientific men themsel/es, it would be a matter of small moment, but unfortunately they tend 0radually to affect the whole people, and to establish a /ery dan0erous standard of pri/ate and public conduct in the public mind." (Theodore Roose/elt, Jistory -s Aiterature, %&%( )

"The study of paradi0ms, includin0 many that are for more speciali;ed than those named illustrati/ely abo/e, is what mainly prepares the student for membership in the particular scientific community with which he will later practice. $ecause he there joins men who learned the bases of their field forms the same concrete models, his subseCuent practice will seldom e/o"e o/ert disa0reement o/er fundamentals. =en whose research is based on shared paradi0ms are committed to the same rules and standards for scientific practice. That commitment and the apparent consensus it produces are prereCuisites for normal science, i.e. for the 0enesis and continuation of a particular research tradition." (Thomas Kuhn, "The 4tructure of 4cientific Re/olutions") "Dn the absence of a paradi0m or some candidate for paradi0m, all of the facts that could possibly pertain to the de/elopment of a 0i/en science are li"ely to seem eCually rele/ant. -s a result, early fact-0atherin0 is a far more nearly random acti/ity than the one that subseCuent scientific de/elopment ma"es familiar. 1urthermore, in the absence of a reason for see"in0 some particular form of more recondite information, early fact0atherin0 is usually restricted to the wealth of data that lie read to hand. The resultin0 pool of facts contains those accessible to casual obser/ation and e.periment to0ether with some of the more esoteric data retrie/able from established crafts li"e medicine, calendar ma"in0, and metallur0y. $ecause the crafts are one readily accessible source of facts that could not ha/e been casually disco/ered, technolo0y has often played a /ital role in the emer0ence of new sciences" (Thomas Kuhn, "The 4tructure of 4cientific Re/olutions") "in the early sta0es of the de/elopment of any science different men confrontin0 the same ran0e of phenomena, but not usually all the same particular phenomena, describe and interpret them in different ways. 5hat is surprisin0, and perhaps also uniCue in its de0ree to the fields we call science, is that such initial di/er0ences should e/er lar0ely disappear. 1or they do disappear to a /ery considerable e.tent and then apparently once and for all. 1urthermore, their disappearance is usually caused by the triumph of one of the preparadi0matic schools, which, because of its own characteristic beliefs and preconceptions, emphasi;ed only some special part of the too si;eable and inchoate pool of information. T To be accepted as a paradi0m, a theory must seem better than its competitors, but it need not, and in fact ne/er does, e.plain all the facts with which it can be confronted." (Thomas Kuhn, "The 4tructure of 4cientific Re/olutions", (P0s. %,-%G)) "Dn a science, on the other hand, a paradi0m is rarely an objection for replication Fi.e. an e.planation meant for simple re-usa0e o/er and o/er a0ainH. Dnstead, li"e an accepted judicial decision in the common law, it is an object for further articulation and specification under new or more strin0ent conditions." (Thomas Kuhn, "The 4tructure of 4cientific Re/olutions" p0. *(--D am not sure if the brac"ets are mine or his--D thin" they are hisO) "Paradi0ms 0ain their status because they are more successful than their competitors in sol/in0 a few problems that the 0roup of practitioners has come to reco0ni;e as acute." (Thomas Kuhn, "The 4tructure of 4cientific Re/olutions", P0. *()

"To be more successful is not, howe/er, to be either completely successful with a sin0le problem or notably successful with any lar0e number. The success of a paradi0m-whether -ristotle<s analysis of motion, Ptolemy<s computations of planetary position, Aa/oisier<s application of the balance, or =a.ell<s mathemati;ation of the electroma0netic field--is at the start lar0ely a promise of success disco/erable in selected and still incomplete e.amples. ormal science consists in the actuali;ation of that promise, an actuali;ation achie/ed by e.tendin0 the "nowled0e of those facts that the paradi0m displays as particular re/ealin0, by increasin0 the e.tend of the match between those facts and the paradi0m<s predictions, and by further articulation of the paradi0m itself. (Thomas Kuhn, "The 4tructure of 4cientific Re/olutions", P0. *(-*9.) "1ew people who are not actually practitioners of a mature science reali;e how much mop-up wor" of this sort a paradi0m lea/es to be done or Cuite how fascinatin0 such wor" can pro/e in the e.ecution. -nd these points need to be understood. =oppin0-up operations are what en0a0e most scientists throu0hout their careers. They constitute what D am here callin0 normal science." (Thomas Kuhn, "The 4tructure of 4cientific Re/olutions") " o part of the aim of normal science is to call forth new sorts of phenomena> in deed those that will not fit the bo. are often not seen at all. or do scientists normally aim to in/ent new theories, and they are often intolerant of those in/ented by others. Dnstead, normal-scientific research is directed to the articulation of those phenomena and theories that the paradi0m already supplies." (Thomas Kuhn, "The 4tructure of 4cientific Re/olutions") "The project whose 0oal is paradi0m articulation does not aim at the une.pected no/elty. $ut if the aim of normal science is not major substanti/e no/elties -- if failure to come near the anticipated result is usually failure as a scientist" (Thomas Kuhn, "The 4tructure of 4cientific Re/olutions") " ormal science does not aim at no/elties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none. ew and unsuspected phenomena are, howe/er, re-peatedly unco/ered by scientific research, and radical new theories ha/e a0ain and a0ain been in/ented by scientists. Jis-tory e/en su00ests that the scientific enterprise has de/eloped a uniCuely powerful techniCue for producin0 surprises of this sort. Df this characteristic of science is to be reconciled with what has already been said, then research under a paradi0m must be a particularly effecti/e way of inducin0 paradi0m chan0e. That is what fundamental no/elties of fact and theory do. Produced inad/ertently by a 0ame played under one set of rules, their assimilation reCuires the elaboration of another set. -fter they ha/e become parts of science, the enterprise, at least of those specialists in whose particular field the no/elties lie, is ne/er Cuite the same a0ain." (Thomas Kuhn, "The 4tructure of 4cientific Re/olutions", P0. +*) "Dn science, as in the playin0 card e.periment, no/elty emer0es only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, a0ainst a bac"0round pro/ided by e.pectation. Dnitially only the anticipated and usual are e.perienced e/en under circumstances where anomaly is later to

be obser/ed. 1urther acCuaintance, howe/er, does result in awareness of somethin0 0one wron0 or does related the effect to somethin0 that has 0one wron0 before. That awareness of anomaly opens a period in which conceptual cate0ories are adjusted until the initially anomalous has become the anticipated. -t this point, the disco/ery has been completed." (Thomas Kuhn, "The 4tructure of 4cientific Re/olutions", P0. '9) "Dn the de/elopment of any science, the first recei/ed paradi0m is usually felt to account Cuite successfully for most of the obser/ations and e.periments easily accessible to that science<s practitioners. 1urther de/elopment, therefore ordinarily calls for the construction of elaborate eCuipment, the de/elopment of an esoteric /ocabulary and s"ills, and a refinement of concepts that increasin0ly lessens their resemblance to their usual common-sense prototypes. That professionaliation leads, on the one hand, to an immense restriction of the scientists< /ision and to a considerable resistance to paradi0m chan0e. The science has become increasin0ly ri0id. Bn the other hand, within those areas of which the paradi0m directs the attention of the 0roup, normal science leads to a detail of information and to a precision of the obser/ation-theory mach that could be achie/ed in no other way. 1urthermore, that detail and precision of match ha/e a /alue that transcends their not always /ery hi0h intrinsic interest. 5ithout the special apparatus that is constructed mainly for the anticipated function, the result that lead ultimately to no/elty could not occur. -nd when the apparatus e.ists, no/elty ordinarily emer0es only for a the man who, "nowin0 with precision what he should e.pect, is able to reco0ni;e that somethin0 has 0one wron0. -nomaly appears only a0ainst the bac"0round pro/ided by the paradi0m. The more precise and far-reachin0 that paradi0m is, the more sensiti/e an indicator it pro/ides of anomaly and hence of an occasion for paradi0m chan0e. (Thomas Kuhn, "The 4tructure of 4cientific Re/olutions", P0. '9) "Dn the normal mode of disco/ery, e/en resistance to chan0e has a use that will be e.plored more fully in the ne.t section. $y ensurin0 that the paradi0m will not be too easily surrendered, resistance 0uarantees that scientists will not be li0htly distracted and that the anomalies that lead to paradi0m chan0e will penetrate e.istin0 "nowled0e to the core. The /ery fact that a si0nificant scientific no/elty so often emer0es simultaneously from se/eral laboratories is an inde. both to the stron0ly traditional nature of normal science and to the completeness with which that traditional pursuit prepare the completeness with which that traditional pursuit prepares the away for its own chan0e." (Thomas Kuhn, "The 4tructure of 4cientific Re/olutions", P0. '+) "1urthermore, the chan0es in which these disco/eries were implicated were all destructi/e as well as constructi/e. -fter the disco/ery had been assimilated, scientists were able to account for a wider ran0e of natural phenomena or to account with 0reater precision for some of those pre/iously "nown. $ut that 0ain was achie/ed only by discardin0 some pre/iously standard beliefs or procedures and, simultaneously, by replacin0 those components of the pre/ious paradi0m with others. 4hifts of this sort are, D ha/e ar0ued, associated with all disco/eries achie/ed throu0h normal science, e.ceptin0 only tile unsurprisin0 ones that had been anticipated in all but their details. 8isco/eries are not, howe/er, the only sources of these destructi/e-constructi/e paradi0m chan0es. Dn this section we shall be0in to consider the similar, but usually far lar0er, shifts that result

from the in/ention of new theories." (Thomas Kuhn, "The 4tructure of 4cientific Re/olutions", P0. '') "...a scientific theory is declared in/alid only if an alternati/e candidate is a/ailable to ta"e its place. o process yet disclosed by the historical study of scientific de/elopment at all resembles the methodolo0ical stereotype of falsification by direct comparison with nature. ..the act of jud0ment that leads scientists to reject a pre/iously accepted theory is always based upon more than a comparison of that theory with the world. The decision to reject one paradi0m is always simultaneously the decision to accept another, and the jud0ment leadin0 to that decision in/ol/es the comparison of both paradi0ms with nature and with each other" (Thomas Kuhn, "The 4tructure of 4cientific Re/olutions", P0. ,,) "Consider now, as a third and final e.ample, the late nineteenth century crisis in physics that prepared the way for the emer0ence of relati/ity theory. Bne root of that crisis can be traced to the late se/enteenth century when a number of nat-ural philosophers, most notably Aeibni;, critici;ed ewton<s retention of an updated /ersion of the classic conception of ab-solute space.%o They were /ery nearly, thou0h ne/er Cuite, able to show that absolute positions and absolute motions were with-out any function at all in ewton<s system> and they did suc-ceed in hintin0 at the considerable aesthetic appeal a fully relati/istic conception of space and motion would later come to display. $ut their critiCue was purely lo0ical. Ai"e the early Copernicans who critici;ed -ristotle<s proofs of the earth<s sta-bility, they did not dream that transition to a relati/istic system could ha/e obser/ational conseCuences. -t no point did they relate their /iews to any problems that arose when applyin0 ewtonian theory to nature. -s a result, their /iews died with them durin0 the early decades of the ei0hteenth century to be resurrected only in the last decades of he nineteenth when they had a /ery different relation to the practice of physics." (Thomas Kuhn, "The 4tructure of 4cientific Re/olutions") "There is, in addition, a second reason for doubtin0 that scientists reject paradi0ms because confronted with anomalies or counterinstances. Dn de/elopin0 it my ar0ument will itself foreshadow one of this essay<s main theses. The reasons for doubt s"etched abo/e were purely factual> the were, that is, themsel/es counterinstances to a pre/alent epistemolo0ical theory. -s such, if my present point is correct, they can at best help to create a crisis, or ore accurately, to reinforce one that is already /ery much in e.istence. Tthemsel/es they cannot and will not falsify that philosophical theory, for its defenders will do what we ha/e already seen scientists doin0 when confronted by anomaly. They will de/ise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict. =any of the rele/ant modifications and Cualifications are, in fact, already in the literature. Df, therefore, these epistemolo0ical counterinstances are not constitute more than a minor irritant, that will be because they help to permit the emer0ence of a new and different analysis of science in which they are no lon0er a source f trouble. 1urthermore, if a typical pattern, which we shall alter obser/e in scientific re/olutions, is applicable here, these anomalies will then no lon0er seem to be simply facts. 1orm within a new theory of scientific "nowled0e, they may instead seem /ery

much li"e tautolo0ies, statements of situations that could not concei/ably ha/e been otherwise. " (Thomas Kuhn, "The 4tructure of 4cientific Re/olutions", P0. ,,-,G--please note the word "crisis"--these discussions of Kuhn<s "crises" are employed by =ichael 8enton--see the last chapter of his boo" "3/olution# - Theory in CrisisO) "To reject one paradi0m without simultaneously substitutin0 another is to reject science itself." (Thomas Kuhn, "The 4tructure of 4cientific Re/olutions", P0. ,&) "The pu;;les that constitute normal science e.ist only because no paradi0m that pro/ides a basis for scientific research e/er completely resol/es all its problems. The /ery few that ha/e e/er seemed to do so (e.0. 0eometric optics) ha/e shortly cased to yield research problems at all and ha/e instead become tools for en0ineerin0." (Thomas Kuhn, "The 4tructure of 4cientific Re/olutions", P0. ,&) "3instein saw as counterinstances what Aorent;, 1it;0erald, and others had seen as pu;;les in the articulation of ewton<s and =a.well<s theories. 1urthermore, e/en the e.istence of crisis does not by itself transform a pu;;le into a counsterinstance. There is no such sharp di/idin0 line. Dnstead by proliferatin0 /ersions of the paradi0m, crisis loosens the rules of normal pu;;le sol/in0 in ways that ultimately permit a new paradi0m to emer0e." (Thomas Kuhn, "The 4tructure of 4cientific Re/olutions", P0. ,&-G:) "5hen, in the de/elopment of a natural science, an indi/idual or 0roup first produces a synthesis able to attract most of the ne.t 0eneration<s practitioners the older schools 0radually disappear. Dn part their disappearance is caused by their members con/ersion to the new paradi0m T $ut there are always some men who clin0 to one or another of the older /iews, and they are simply read out of the profession, which thereafter i0nores their wor". The new paradi0m implies a new and more ri0id definition of the field. Those unwillin0 or unable to accommodate their wor" to it must proceed in isolation or attach themsel/es to some other 0roup" (Thomas Kuhn, "The 4tructure of 4cientific Re/olutions") "Dn time, research becomes focused. 1indin0s are no lon0er written in 0roundbrea"in0 boo"s. ?roundrules of the paradi0m are ta"en for 0ranted, and researchers no lon0er justify the bases for their conclusions throu0h references to the principles which established the paradi0m. Dn short, the paradi0m becomes ta"en for 0ranted. -t this point, new research becomes much more esoteric, and is published in journals often only accessible to the professional collea0ues of the scientist who conducts the research. (Thomas Kuhn, "The 4tructure of 4cientific Re/olutions", Please note: This seems to be an actual quote, but I am not 100% positive--it could be my notes, althou h it loo!s too ood to be somethin I "rote, definitely chec! before usin ) "Today in the sciences, boo"s are usually either te.ts or retrospecti/e reflections upon one aspects or another of the scientific life. The scientist who writes one is more li"ely to

find his professional reputation impaired rather than enhanced. Bnly in the earlier, preparadi0m sta0s of de/elopment of the /arious sciences did the boo" ordinarily possess the same relation to professional achie/ement that it still retains in other creati/e fields." (Thomas Kuhn, "The 4tructure of 4cientific Re/olutions") "Philosophers of science ha/e repeatedly demonstrated that more than one theoretical construction can always be placed upon a 0i/en collection of data. Jistory of science indicates that, particularly in the early de/elopmental sta0es of a new paradi0m, it is not e/en /ery difficult to in/ent such alternates, $ut that in/ention of alternates is just what scientists seldom underta"e e.cept durin0 the pre-paradi0m sta0e of their science<s de/elopment and at /ery special occasions durin0 its subseCuent e/olution. 4o lon0 as the tools a paradi0m supplies continue to pro/e capable of sol/in0 the problems it defines, science mo/es fastest and penetrates most deeply throu0h con-fident employment of those tools. The reason is clear. -s in manufacture so in science-retoolin0 is an e.tra/a0ance to be reser/ed for the occasion that demands it. The si0nificance of crises is the indication they pro/ide that an occasion for retoolin0 has arri/ed." (Thomas Kuhn, "The 4tructure of 4cientific Re/olutions"--a0ain, please not ethe word "crisis"--these discussions of "crises" are employed by =ichael 8enton--see the last chapter of his boo"--"3/olution# - Theory in CrisisO") Science and #eli ion, Scientists and #eli ion: "D cannot concei/e of a 0enuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be e.pressed by an ima0e# science without reli0ion is lame." (4cience, Philosophy, -nd Reli0ion# - 4ymposium, %&9%, CJ.%(. ) "-s we sur/ey all the e/idence, the thou0ht insistently arises that some supernatural a0ency-or, rather, -0ency-must be in/ol/ed. Ds it possible that suddenly, without intendin0 to, we ha/e stumbled upon scientific proof of the e.istence of a 4upreme $ein06 5as it ?od who stepped in and so pro/identially crafted the cosmos for our benefit6 8o we not see in its harmony, a harmony so perfectly fitted to our needs, e/idence of what one reli0ious writer has called "a preser/in0, a continuin0, an intendin0 mind, a 5isdom, Power and ?oodness far e.ceedin0 the limits of our thou0hts6" heady prospect. Mnfortunately D belie/e it to be illusory. -s D claim man"ind is not the center of the uni/erse, as D claim anthropism to be different from anthropocentrism, so too D belie/e that the disco/eries of science are not capable of pro/in0 ?od<s e.istencenot now, not e/er. -nd more than that# D also belie/e that reference to ?od will ne/er suffice to e.plain a sin0le one of these disco/eries. ?od is not an e.planation." (?reenstein, ?eor0e FProfessor of -stronomy, -mherst Colle0e, M4-H., "The 4ymbiotic Mni/erse# Aife and =ind in the Cosmos," 5illiam =orrow E Co# ew !or" !, %&GG, pp.*,-*G...well, if he refuses to accept ?od as an e.planatory cause, its his loss.) "Dt turns out that the physical constants ha/e just the /alues reCuired to ensure that the Mni/erse contains stars with planets capable of supportin0 intelli0ent life...The simplest interpretation is that the Mni/erse was desi0ned by a creator who intended that intelli0ent life should e/ol/e. This interpretation lies outside science."

(=aynard 4mith, 2ohn F3meritus Professor of $iolo0y at the Mni/ersity of 4usse.H E 4;athmary, 3ors FDnstitute for -d/anced 4tudy, $udapestH, "Bn the li"elihood of habitable worlds," ature, 7ol. (G9, %9 o/ember %&&', p.%:,) "D "now the Cuestions in the minds of many of you who ha/e followed me to this point# "8oes not science pro/e that there is no Creator6" 3mphatically, science does not pro/e thatO" (Paul -. =oody, Ph8. (;oolo0y) (3meritus Professor of atural Jistory and Qoolo0y, Mni/ersity of 7ermont) in Dntroduction to 3/olution, Jarper E Row, ew !or", second edition, %&'*, p +%() "1aith tells us what the senses cannot, but it is not contradictory to their findin0s." ($laise Pascal) "There is nothin0 in which deduction is so necessary as reli0ion," said 4herloc" Jolmes, leanin0 with his bac" a0ainst the shutters. "Dt can be built up as an e.act science by the reasoner. Bur hi0hest assurance of the 0oodness of Pro/idence seems to me to rest in the flowers. -ll other thin0s, our powers, our desires, our food, are really necessary for our e.istence in the first instance. $ut this rose is an e.tra. Dts smell and its colour are an embellishment of life, not a condition of it. Dt is only 0oodness which 0i/es e.tras, and so D say a0ain that we ha/e much to hope from the flowers." (---rthur Conan 8oyle, in "The -d/enture of the a/al Treaty" (4trand =a0a;ine, %G&()) "-nother reason that scientists are so prone to throw the baby out with the bath water is that science itself, as D ha/e su00ested, is a reli0ion. The neophyte scientist, recently come or con/erted to the world /iew of science, can be e/ery bit as fanatical as a Christian crusader or a soldier of -llah. This is particularly the case when we ha/e come to science from a culture and home in which belief in ?od is firmly associated with i0norance, superstition, ri0idity and hypocrisy. Then we ha/e emotional as well as intellectual moti/es to smash the idols of primiti/e faith. - mar" of maturity in scientists, howe/er, is their awareness that science may be as subject to do0matism as any other reli0ion." (Pec", =. 4cottU Fpsychiatrist and =edical 8irector of ew =ilford Jospital =ental Jealth Clinic, Connecticut, M4-H, "The Road Aess Tra/elled# - ew Psycholo0y of Ao/e, Traditional 7alues and 4piritual ?rowth", F%&,GH, -rrow# Aondon, %&&:, p.*(G) "D ha/e always thou0ht it curious that, while most scientists claim to eschew reli0ion, it actually dominates their thou0hts more than it does the cler0y." (Joyle 1., "The Mni/erse# Past and Present Reflections," -nnual Re/iew of -stronomy and -strophysics, 7ol. *:, %&G*, pp.%-(+, p.*() "-nother major reason that scientists are prone to throw the baby out with the bath water is that they do not see the baby. =any scientists simply do not loo" at the e/idence of the reality of ?od. They suffer from a "ind of tunnel /ision, a psycholo0ically self-imposed psycholo0ical set of blinders which pre/ents them from turnin0 their attention to the

realm of the spirit." (Pec", =. 4cottU Fpsychiatrist and =edical 8irector of ew =ilford Jospital =ental Jealth Clinic, Connecticut, M4-H, "The Road Aess Tra/elled# - ew Psycholo0y of Ao/e, Traditional 7alues and 4piritual ?rowth," F%&,GH, -rrow# Aondon, %&&:, p.*9%) " or should we for0et that the structure of the 2udeo-Christian myth was lar0ely responsible for the de/elopment of modern science. The former was founded on the doctrine of a pre/ailin0 order in a uni/erse created by a ?od who was himself not part of nature, but who directed it by means of laws intelli0ible to human reason." (1rancois 2acob states in his %&&G boo" <Bf 1lies, =ice and =en (p.%*G-%*&, Jar/ard M. Press) $volution and Science: "...8arwin did not show in the Bri0in that species had ori0inated by natural selection> he merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this mi0ht ha/e happened, and as he had con/inced himself he was able to con/ince others." "The success of 8arwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific inte0rity. This is already e/ident in the rec"less statements of Jaec"el and in the shifty, de/ious and histrionic ar0umentation of T. J. Ju.ley ... To establish the continuity reCuired by the theory, historical ar0uments are in/o"ed e/en thou0h historical e/idence is lac"in0. Thus are en0endered those fra0ile towers of hypotheses based on hypotheses, where fact and fiction intermin0le in an ine.tricable confusion. (Thompson, 5. R., Canadian entomolo0ist, (%&+'), Dntroduction to The Bri0in of 4pecies, (Reprint of the first edition, Centennial 3dition), Charles 8arwin, 3/eryman Aibrary, no. G%%, 8ent, 3.P. 8utton and Co., ew !or", %&+') "...D ha/e come to the conclusion that 8arwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research pro0rammeUa possible framewor" for testable scientific theories." (Popper, Karl, Mnended Ruest (Aa 4alle, Dllinois# Bpen Court Pub. Co., %&,'), p. %'G.) "D now wish to 0i/e some reasons why D re0ard 8arwinism as metaphysical, and as a research pro0ramme. Dt is metaphysical because it is not testable. Bne mi0ht thin" that it is. Dt seems to assert that, if e/er on some planet we find life which satisfies conditions (a) and (b), then (c) will come into play and brin0 about in time a rich /ariety of distinct forms. 8arwinism, howe/er, does not assert as much as this. 1or assume that we find life on =ars consistin0 of e.actly three species of bacteria with a 0enetic outfit similar to that of three terrestrial species. Ds 8arwinism refuted6 $y no means. 5e shall say that these three species were the only forms amon0 the many mutants which were sufficiently well adjusted to sur/i/e. -nd we shall say the same if there is only one species (or none). Thus 8arwinism does not really predict the e/olution of /ariety. Dt therefore cannot really e.plain it. -t best, it can predict the e/olution of /ariety under "fa/ourable conditions". $ut it is hardly possible to describe in 0eneral terms what fa/ourable conditions are e.cept that, in their presence, a /ariety of forms will emer0e." (Popper, Karl R., F3meritus Professor of Philosophy, Mni/ersity of AondonH, "Mnended

Ruest# -n Dntellectual -utobio0raphy," Bpen Court# Aa 4alle Dll., Re/ised 3dition, %&G*, p.%,%) "Jowe/er, 8arwin<s own most important contribution to the theory of e/olution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, e/en some e.perimental tests> and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon "nown as "industrial melanism," we can obser/e natural selection happenin0 under our /ery eyes, as it were. e/ertheless, really se/ere tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry." (Popper, Karl R., F3meritus Professor of Philosophy, Mni/ersity of AondonH, " atural 4election and the 3mer0ence of =ind," 8ialectica, 7ol. (*, os. (-9, %&,G, pp.((&-(++, p.(99) Chapter D7 of the Bri0in, entitled " atural 4election> or the 4ur/i/al of the 1ittest," occupies 99 pa0es in the %&+G =entor edition. Dn this chapter 8arwin used the lan0ua0e of speculation, ima0ination, and assumption at least %G, times. 1or e.ample, pa0es %%G and %%& contain the followin0 phrases# "may ha/e been," "is supposed to," "perhaps," "Df we suppose," "may still be," "we ha/e only to suppose," "as D belie/e," "it is probable," "D ha/e assumed," "are supposed," "will 0enerally tend," "may," "will 0enerally tend," "Df," "Df...assumed," "supposed," "supposed," "probably," "Dt seems, therefore, e.tremely probable," "and "5e may suppose." "...D am Cuite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science...Dt is a mere ra0 of an hypothesis with as many flawFsH and holes as sound parts." (Charles 8arwin to -sa ?ray, cited by -drian 8esmond and 2ames =oore, 8arwin, ( ew !or"# 5.5. orton and Company, %&&%) p. 9+', 9,+.) "There are ob/ious the difficulties in discussin0 uniCue e/ents that happened a lon0 time a0o. Jow can we e/er "now that our su00ested e.planations are correct6 -fter all, historians cannot a0ree about the causes of the 4econd 5orld 5ar. 5e accept that certainty is impossible, but there are se/eral reasons why we thin" the enterprise is worth while. 1irst, we ha/e one 0rat ad/anta0e o/er historians# we ha/e a0reed theories both of chemistry and of the mechanism of e/olutionary chan0e. 5e can therefore insist that our e.planations be plausible both chemically, and in terms of natural selection. This places a se/ere constraint on possible theories. Dndeed, the difficulty often lies, not in choosin0 between ri/al theories, but in findin0 a theory that is chemically and selecti/ely plausible. 1urther, theories are often testable by loo"in0 at e.istin0 or0anisms." (2ohn =aynard 4mith and 3Krs 4;athmLry, The =ajor Transitions in 3/olution, ew !or"# 5. J. 1reeman and Company, %&&+) "1or e.ample, the assertion that populations of or0anisms can chan0e in their 0enetic composition from one 0eneration to another (i.e., e/ol/e) is undisputed, e/en by the creationists. To say without Cualification that "all present life has e/ol/ed from more primiti/e forms" is unscientific because such a statement is an absolute. - scientifically acceptable restatement is that Pscientists ha/e found a 0reat deal of e/idence from many

sources which they ha/e interpreted to be consistent with the theory that all present life has e/ol/ed from more primiti/e forms.<" "The purpose of science is not to find "facts" or disco/er "truth," but rather to formulate and use theories in order to sol/e problems and ultimately to or0ani;e, unify, and e.plain all the material phenomena of the uni/erse. 4cientists attempt to a/oid the use of "fact, "proof," and "truth," because these words could easily be interpreted to connote absolutes. othin0 in science is deemed absolute. 4cience deals only with theories or relati/e "truth,"-a temporary correctness so far as can be ascertained by the rational mind at the present time." "Dn some instances, the e/idence for e/olution is mea0er andIor eCui/ocal. Creationists focus attention on any tendency to acceptance of such e/idence carte blanche. Perhaps the 0reatest contribution creationists are currently ma"in0 to science is their reco0nition of "creepin0 do0matism" in the science of e/olution Throu0h their efforts, it is li"ely that science te.tboo"s in California will ha/e to retreat from such do0matic statements as "Aife be0an in the primordial sea at least three billion years a0o." -n acceptable re/ision of this concept mi0ht be "=ost scientists ha/e interpreted from the fossil record that life be0an in the primordial sea at estimates e.ceedin0 three billion years a0o." This is as it should be. -bsolutes ha/e no place in science. The scientist should carefully a/oid do0matic statements, couchin0 all conclusions in relati/istic terms. 5hen the scientist fails to do this, other members of the scientific community must be ready to correct such errors. Df e/olutionists do not "eep their own house in order, the creationists stand ready to attac" their /eracity." (4tansfield, 5illiam 8. FProfessor of $iolo0ical 4ciences, California Polytechnic 4tate Mni/ersityH,"The 4cience of 3/olution," F%&,,H, =acmillan# ew !or" !, %&G(, 3i0hth Printin0, p&, ,, %%) "D "now that, at least in paleoanthropolo0y, data are still so sparse that theory hea/ily influences interpretations. Theories ha/e, in the past, clearly refelcted our current ideolo0ies instead of the actual data." (8r. 8a/id Pilbeam (Physical -nthropolo0ist, !ale Mni/ersity, M4-), <Rearran0in0 our family tree<. Juman ature, 2une %&,G, p0. 9+) "Ruir"s, by definition, are e.ceptions to the rule> facts that do not fit into an otherwise perfect hypothesis. The word Cuir" has been employed by the pro-ta0onists of any pre/ailin0 hypothesis, so as to render contradictions innocuous. - short e.cursion into history tells us that the Cuir" may really be a 0ift of nature. Thus, blac" body radiation was a Cuir" in an otherwise perfect theory of elec-troma0netic radiation until the Cuir" became the rule in form of the Cuantum thoery. The relati/ity theory -an aberration as far as the obel Committee was concerned, at least until 3instein<s deathU -is presently our "ey to the uni/erse. $olt;mann<s constant, mobile 0enes and e/olution itself, all too" time to e/ol/e from that dreaded minority status to le0itimacy. ot e/ery Cuir", when attended to, pays off that handsomely but more often than not they help unco/er the deeper realms of natural laws, and in that sense, the ori0inal hypothesis that created these e.ceptions at its frin0es has also fulfilled an important function. The Cuir"s D want to elaborate upon are bein0 e.coriated at e/ery opportunity by their unwittin0 creators, the prota0onists of the ew 4ynthesis or neo-darwinian hypothesis of e/olution.

The hypothesis states that the primary structures*,( (seCuences of homolo0ous proteins) can be used to construct phylo0enetic trees, and indeed the branchin0 seCuence of ta.a deduced from some proteins appears to coincide within reasonable limits with the tree structure proposed by paleontolo0ists9,s. 5hy would one e.pect this to be so6 Consider species - suddenly di/ided into -D, -* and -( by insurmountable obstacles. Population -l accumulates mutations different from those spreadin0 throu0h the population -* and -( and if millions of years later, for e.ample, their insulin molecules are compared, they should differ from one another proportionately to the time of specia-tion, which is a sin0le e/ent in this case. Df instead of the e.pected eCual distribu-tion of differences one were to obser/e that the insulins of -l and -* differ by four residues whereas the insulin of -( differs by *+ residues from both -l and -* then one would ha/e disco/ered an e.ception to the neo-darwinian hy-pothesis. There are /irtually no de0rees of freedom in this scenario so that contradiction can be smoothed o/er only by ad hoc ar0uments such as faster rates of e/olution*, lateral 0ene mi0ra-tion' or 0ross errors committed by paleontolo0ists in determinin0 the time of branchin0 of -D, -* and -(. 5ithout such corrections, the insulins in this e.ample will appear to 0i/e rise to different 0eneolo0ies whereas the paradi0m, by its /ery nature, can only accommodate one branchin0 seCuence. Thus cats and do0s branched from each other either at time V or at time ! but not at both times." ("Bn the /alidity of molecular e/olution" by Christian 4chwabe (TD$4 %% - 2uly %&G' p0. *G:-*G().) "...Personal con/ictions, simple possibilities, are presented as if they were proofs, or at least /alid ar0uments in fa/or of the theory... The demonstration can be modified without difficulty to fit any concei/able case. Dt is without scientific /alue, since it cannot be /erified> but since the ima0ination has free rein, it is easy to con/ey the impression that a concrete e.ample of real transmutation Fchan0e of one species to anotherH has been 0i/en." (Thompson, 5. R., Canadian entomolo0ist, (%&+'), Dntroduction to The Bri0in of 4pecies, (Reprint of the first edition, Centennial 3dition), Charles 8arwin, 3/eryman Aibrary, no. G%%, 8ent, 3.P. 8utton and Co., ew !or", %&+') "3/olution, at least in the sense that 8arwin spea"s of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a sin0le obser/er." (Kitts, 8a/id $. FProfessor of ?eolo0y, Mni/ersity of B"lahomaH, "Paleontolo0y and 3/olutionary Theory," 3/olution, 7ol. *G, 4eptember %&,9, p.9'') "Dn China its B.K. to critici;e 8arwin but not the 0o/ernment, while in the Mnited 4tates its B.K. to critici;e the 0o/ernment, but not 8arwin." (Chinese Paleontolo0ist 8r. 2.!. Chen) "The fact that a theory so /a0ue, so insufficiently /erifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in <hard< science has become a do0ma can only be e.plained on sociolo0ical 0rounds." (Audwi0 /on $ertalanffy, biolo0ist)

"7irtually all the fundamentals of the orthodo. e/olutionary faith ha/e shown themsel/es to be either of e.tremely doubtful /alidity or simply contrary to fact.... 4o basic are these erroneous Fe/olutionaryH assumptions that the whole theory is now lar0ely maintained in spite of rather than because of the e/idence...... -s a conseCuence, for the 0reat majority of students and from that lar0e ill-defined 0roup, <the public,< it has ceased to be a subject of debate. $ecause it is both incapable of proof and yet may not be Cuestioned, it is /irtually untouched by data which challen0e it in any way. Dt has become in the strictest sense irrational...... Dnformation or concepts which challen0e the theory are almost ne/er 0i/en fair hearin0...." "3/olutionary philosophy has indeed become a state of mind, one mi0ht almost say a "ind of mental prison rather than a scientific attitude...... To eCuate one particular interpretation of the data with the data inself is e/idence of mental confusion..... The theory of e/olution... is detrimental to ordinary intelli0ence and warps jud0ment." (-rthur Constance, Ph8 (-nthropolo0y), "3/olution# -n Drrational 1aith" in 3/olution or Creation6 7ol. 9- The 8oorway Papers (?rand Rapids, =D# Qonder/an, %&,'), %,(-,9) "The e.treme difficulty of obtainin0 the necessary data, for any Cuantitati/e estimation of the efficiency of natural selection ma"es it seem probable that this theory will be reestablished, if it be so, by the collapse of alternati/e e.planations which are more easily attac"ed by obser/ation and e.periment. Df so, it will present a parallel to the theory of e/olution itself, a theory uni/ersally accepted not because it can be pro/ed by lo0ically coherent e/idence to be true but because the only alternati/e, special creation, is clearly incredible." (5atson 8.=.4. F$ritish palaeontolo0istH, "-daptation", ature, o. (%%&, 7ol. %*9, -u0ust %:, %&*&, pp.*(%-*(9) "The problem was, as so often, that adapti/e e.planations were just too powerful. They could e.plain anythin0. Df they are, in 8aniel 8ennett<s phrase, <a uni/ersal acid<, capable of eatin0 throu0h e/erythin0, they will e/entually consume e/en the subjects we want them to illuminate. Dt<s not much use ha/in0 a ma0ic substance that will unbloc" your intellectual drains if it eats out the bottom of the sin" as well." ($rown -., "The 8arwin 5ars# Jow 4tupid ?enes $ecame 4elfish ?ods," 4imon E 4chuster# Aondon, %&&&, p.%%&) "it is difficult to pin down the precise identity of ancestors, and there is a 0ood case for not e/en tryin0 to do so." (Richard 8aw"ins The $lind 5atchma"er, %&&', p. *G9) "- peculiarity of 8arwinism, both in biolo0y and in other fields, is that it e.plains too much. Dt is /ery hard to ima0ine a condition of thin0s which could not be e.plained in terms of natural selections. Df the state of /arious elements at a 0i/en moment is such and such then these elements ha/e displayed their sur/i/al /alue under the e.istin0 circumstances, and that is that. atural selection e.plains why thin0s are as they are# Dt does not enable us, in 0eneral, to say how they will chan0e and /ary. Dt is in a sense rather a historical than a predicti/e principle and, as is well "nown, it is rather a necessary than a sufficient principle for modern biolo0y."

(=acRae 8.?., "8arwinism and the 4ocial 4ciences," in $arnett 4.-., ed., "- Century of 8arwin," F%&+GH, =ercury $oo"s# Aondon, %&'*, p.(:9) "1inally, there is the Cuestion of natural selection. Dn one sense, the influence of the theory of natural selection on sociolo0y was enormous. Dt created for a while, in fact, a branch of sociolo0y. Dt seems now to be felt that the influence on sociolo0y of the doctrine of <sur/i/al of the fittest< was theoretically spea"in0, unfortunate, chiefly because it seemed to offer an e.planatory short cut, and encoura0ed social theorists to aspire to be 8arwin<s when probably they should ha/e been tryin0 to be Ainnaeuses or Cu/iers. -s Professor =acRae points out, in sociolo0y the principle e.plains too much. -ny state of affairs "nown to e.ist or to ha/e e.isted can be e.plained by the operation of natural selection. Ai"e Je0el<s dialectic and 8r Chasuble<s sermon on The =eanin0 of =anna in the 5ilderness, it can be made to suit any situation." ($urrow 2.5., "3/olution and 4ociety# - 4tudy in 7ictorian 4ocial Theory," F%&''H, Cambrid0e Mni/ersity Press# Aondon, %&'G, reprint, p.%%+) "Bur theory of e/olution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible obser/ations. 3/ery concei/able obser/ation can be fitted into it. Dt is thus "outside of empirical science" but not necessarily false. o one can thin" of ways in which to test it. Ddeas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory e.periments carried out in e.tremely simplified systems, ha/e attained currency far beyond their /alidity. They ha/e become part of an e/olutionary do0ma accepted by most of us as part of our trainin0." ($irch A. Charles, FProfessor 3meritus of $iolo0y at the Mni/ersity of 4ydney, -ustraliaH E 3hrlich, Paul R., FProfessor of $iolo0ical 4ciences, 4tanford Mni/ersity, M4-H, "3/olutionary Jistory and Population $iolo0y," ature, 7ol. *%9, ** -pril %&',, p.(+*) "Df numerous species, belon0in0 to the same 0enera or families, ha/e really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification throu0h natural selection." (Charles 8arwin, The Bri0in of 4pecies# - 1acsimileof the 1irst 3dition, Jar/ard Mni/ersity Press, %&'9, p. (:*.) "Dt is sometimes su00ested that 8arwin<s theory is systematically irrefutable (and hence scientifically /acuous), but 8arwin was forthri0ht about what sort of findin0 it would ta"e to refute his theory. "Thou0h nature 0rants /ast periods of time for the wor" of natural selection, she does not 0rant an indefinite period" (Bri0in, p. %:*), so, if the 0eolo0ical e/idence mounted to show that not enou0h time had elapsed, his whole theory would be refuted. This still left a temporary loophole, for the theory wasn<t formulatable in sufficiently ri0orous detail to say just how many millions of years was the minimal amount reCuired, but it was a temporary loophole that made sense, since at least some proposals about its si;e could be e/aluated independently." (8ennett 8.C., "8arwin<s 8an0erous Ddea," %&&', p.9') "CritiCue of Current Theories of 3/olution. 5e belie/e that it is possible to draw up a list of basic rules that underlie e.istin0 molecular e/olutionary models# %. -ll theories are

monophyletic, meanin0 that they all start with the Mr0ene and the Mr;elle which ha/e 0i/en rise to all proteins and all species, respecti/ely. *. Comple.ity e/ol/es mainly throu0h duplications and mutations in structural and control 0enes. (. ?enes can mutate or remain stable, mi0rate laterally from species to species, spread throu0h a population by mechanisms whose operation is not fully understood, e/ol/e coordinately, splice, stay silent, and e.ist as pseudo0enes. 9. -d hoc ar0uments can be in/ented (such as insect /ectors or /iruses) that can transport a 0ene into places where no monophyletic lo0ic could otherwise e.plain its presence. This liberal spread of rules, each of which can be obser/ed in use by scientists, does not just sound facetious but also, in our opinion, robs monophyletic molecular e/olution of its /ulnerability to disproof, and thereby of its entitlement to the status of a scientific theory." (4chwabe, Christian F8epartment of $iochemistry, =edical Mni/ersoty of 4outh Carolina, M4-H E 5arr, ?re0ory, "- Polyphyletic 7iew of 3/olution# The ?enetic Potential Jypothesis," Perspecti/es in $iolo0y and =edicine, 7ol. *,, o. (, pp.9'+-9G+, 4prin0 %&G9, p.9',. 1ootnotes omitted.) "Creationists ha/e loo"ed forward to the day when science may actually create a "li/in0" thin0 from simple chemicals. They claim, and ri0htly so, that e/en if such a man-made life form could be created, this would not pro/e that natural life forms were de/eloped by a similar chemical e/olutionary process. The scientist understands this and plods on testin0 theories." (4tansfield, 5illiam 8. FProfessor of $iolo0ical 4ciences, California Polytechnic 4tate Mni/ersityH, "The 4cience of 3/olution," F%&,,H, =acmillan# ew !or" !, %&G(, 3i0hth Printin0, pp%:-%%) "The concept of or0anic e/olution is /ery hi0hly pri;ed by biolo0ists, for many of whom it is an object of 0enuinely reli0ious de/otion, because they re0ard it as a supreme inte0rati/e principle. This is probably the reason why se/ere methodolo0ical criticism employed in other departments of biolo0y has not yet been brou0ht to bear on e/olutionary speculation." (Con"lin, 3dwin ?. FProfessor of $iolo0y , Princeton Mni/ersity, M4-H, "=an Real and Ddeal", 4cribner, %&9(, p.%9,, in =acbeth ., "8arwin Retried# -n -ppeal to Reason", ?ambit# $oston =-, %&,%, pp.%*'-%*,) "Bne of the ironies of the history of biolo0y is that 8arwin did not really e.plain the ori0in of new species in The Bri0in of 4pecies, because he didn<t "now how to define species. The Bri0in was in fact concerned mostly with how a sin0le species mi0ht chan0e in time, not how one species mi0ht proliferate into many." (1utuyma, 8ou0las 2. FProfessor of 3/olutionary $iolo0y, 4tate Mni/ersity of ew !or", 4tony $roo"H, "4cience on Trial# The Case for 3/olution," Pantheon# ew !or" !, %&G*, p.%+*) "The pathetic thin0 is that we ha/e scientists who are tryin0 to pro/e e/olution, which no scientist can e/er pro/e." (8r. Robert =illi"an, obel Pri;e winner and eminent e/olutionist)

"3/olution is unpro/ed and unpro/able. 5e belie/e it only because the only alternati/e is special creation which is unthin"able." (-rthur Keith) "$iolo0y is the study of complicated thin0s that 0i/e the appearance of ha/in0 been desi0ned for a purpose." (8aw"ins, Richard F-theist, Qoolo0ist, and Professor for the Public Mnderstandin0 of 4cience, B.ford Mni/ersityH, "The $lind 5atchma"er," F%&G'H, Pen0uin# Aondon, %&&%, reprint, p.%) "$iolo0ists must constantly "eep in mind that what they see was not desi0ned, but rather e/ol/ed." (Cric" 1.J.C., FCo-disco/erer of the structure of 8 -, obel laureate %&'*, Professor at the 4al" Dnstitute, M4-H, "5hat =ad Pursuit# - Personal 7iew of 4cientific 8isco/ery," F%&GGH, Pen0uin $oo"s# Aondon, %&&:, reprint, p.%(G, ote# 4o, in other words, biolo0ists should not 0o where their intuition leads, but rather abide by what the do0matic paradi0m tells them6) "The e/olutionary di/er0ence of a sin0le species into two has ne/er been directly obser/ed in nature, primarily because speciation can ta"e a lon0 time to occur." (8arren 3. Drwin, et al., 4peciation in a rin0, -TMR3 9:&, (((-((,, *::%) "Jere, D assume without proof that natural selection was the "ey e/olutionary mechanism and that, conseCuently, the or0anic world is to be understood as hi0hly adapted." (Ruse =., "Jomose.uality# - Philosophical DnCuiry," $asil $lac"well# B.ford MK, %&GG, p.%(%) "To the s"eptic, the proposition that the 0enetic pro0rammes of hi0her or0anisms, consistin0 of somethin0 close to a thousand million bits of information, eCui/alent to the seCuence of letters in a small library of one thousand /olumes, containin0 in encoded form countless thousands of intricate al0orithms controllin0, specifyin0, and orderin0 the 0rowth and de/elopment of billions and billions of cells into the form of a comple. or0anism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. $ut to the 8arwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradi0m ta"es precedenceO (=ichael 8enton, 3/olution# - Theory in Crisis. Aondon# $urnett $oo"s, %&G+, p. (+%.) "Bur hypothetical nucleic acid synthesis system is therefore analo0ous to the scaffoldin0 used in the construction of a buildin0. -fter the buildin0 has been erected the scaffoldin0 is remo/ed, lea/in0 no physical e/idence that it was e/er there. Most of the statements in this section must therefore be taken as educated guesses. 5ithout ha/in0 witnessed the e/ent, it seems unli"ely that we shall e/er be certain of how life arose" (7oet 8. E 7oet 2.?., "$iochemistry," 2ohn 5iley and 4ons# ew !or", %&&+ p*(, in -shton 2.1., ed., "Dn 4i. 8ays# 5hy +: 4cientists Choose to $elie/e in Creation," ew Jolland# 4ydney, -ustralia, %&&&, p.%'+. (emphasis in the ori0inal)

" othin0 in biolo0y ma"es sense e.cept in the li0ht of e/olution." (Theodosius 8ob;hans"y in othin0 in $iolo0y =a"es 4ense 3.cept in the Ai0ht of 3/olution, -merican $iolo0y Teacher, (+, %*+-%*& "The Bri0in of 4pecies con/erted the majority of its readers to a belief in 8arwinian e/olution. 5e must now as" whether this was an unadulterated benefit to biolo0y and to man"ind. ... D do not contest the fact that the ad/ent of the e/olutionary idea, due mainly to the Bri0in, /ery 0reatly stimulated biolo0ical research. $ut it appears to me that owin0 precisely to the nature of the stimulus, a 0reat deal of this wor" was directed into unprofitable channels or de/oted to the pursuit of will-o<- the-wisps. D am not the only biolo0ist of this opinion. 8arwin<s con/iction that e/olution is the result of natural selection, actin0 on small fortuitous /ariations, says ?uyenot, was to delay the pro0ress of in/esti0ations on e/olution by half a century. Really fruitful researches on heredity did not be0in until the redisco/ery in %&:: of the fundamental wor" of =endel, published in %G'+ and owin0 nothin0 to the wor" of 8arwin.." (Thompson 5.R.U, 1.R.4., Fentomolo0ist and 8irector of the Commonwealth Dnstitute of $iolo0ical Control, Bttawa, CanadaH, "Dntroduction," in 8arwin C.R., "The Bri0in of 4pecies by =eans of atural 4election," F%G,*H, 3/eryman<s Aibrary, 2.=. 8ent E 4ons# Aondon, 'th 3dition, %&',, reprint, pp..i.-..) "The subject of e/olution occupies a special, and parado.ical, place within biolo0y as a whole. 5hile the 0reat majprity biolo0ists would probably a0ree with Theodosius 8ob;hans"y<s dictum that <nothin0 in biolo0y ma"es sense e.cept in the li0ht of e/olution<, most can conduct their wor" Cuite happily without partiuclar reference to e/olutionary ideas. <3/olution< would appear to be the indispensible unifyin0 idea and, at the same time, a hi0hly superfluous one." (Dntroduction 8ecember *::: issue of $io3ssays, a special issue on e/olution) "..8arwin introduced historicity into science. 3/olutionary biolo0y, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science -- the e/olutionist attempts to e.plain e/ents and processes that ha/e already ta"en place. Aaws and e.periments are inappropriate techniCues for the e.plication of such e/ents and processes. Dnstead one constructs a historical narrati/e, consistin0 of a tentati/e reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the e/ents one is tryin0 to e.plain." (3rnst =ayr, 2uly *::: issue of 4cientific -merican) "The account of the ori0in of life that D shall 0i/e is necessarily speculati/e> by definition, nobody was around to see what happened. There are a number of ri/al theories, but they all ha/e certain features in common." (8aw"ins, Richard FQoolo0ist and Professor for the Public Mnderstandin0 of 4cience, B.ford Mni/ersityH, "The 4elfish ?ene," F%&,'H, B.ford Mni/ersity Press# B.ford MK, ew 3dition, %&G&, p.%9) "- 0rowin0 number of respectable scientists are defectin0 from the e/olutionist camp ... moreo/er, for the most part these <e.perts< ha/e abandoned 8arwinism, not on the basis of reli0ious faith or biblical persuasions, but on scientific 0rounds, and in some instances,

re0retfully." "The e/olutionist thesis has become more strin0ently unthin"able than e/er before." (5olf0an0 4mith, Ph.8., physicist and mathematician) "The theory of e/olution suffers from 0ra/e defects, which are more and more apparent as time ad/ances. Dt can no lon0er sCuare with practical scientific "nowled0e." (8r - 1leishmann, Qoolo0ist, 3rlan0en Mni/ersity) "$iolo0ists are simply nai/e when they tal" about e.periments desi0ned to test the theory of e/olution. Dt is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will undoubtedly be depri/ed of continuin0 research 0rants." (Professor 5hitten, Professor of ?enetics, Mni/ersity of =elbourne, -ustralia, %&G: -ssembly 5ee" address.) "Dn the years after 8arwin, his ad/ocates hoped to find predictable pro0ressions. Dn 0eneral. these ha/e not been found-yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into te.tboo"s. This is illustrated by other statements in the Root-$ernstein letter, such as# "3/olution postdicts certain immutable trends of pro0ressi/e chan0e that can be falsified." This is simply not the caseO" (Raup, 8a/id =. FProfessor of ?eolo0y, Mni/ersity of Chica0oH, "3/olution and the 1ossil Record," 4cience, 7ol. *%(, o. 9+:+, %, 2uly %&G%, p.*G&) "-nother beauty - and an important wea"ness - of the theory of e/olution by natural selection is that with a little ima0ination it is possible to come up with an e.planation of anythin0. 3/olutionary biolo0ists li"e to spend their time ma"in0 up stories about how selection has moulded the most unli"ely characteristics. 4ometimes they e/en turn out to be ri0ht." (2ones, 4te/e, FProfessor of ?enetics, Mni/ersity Colle0e, AondonH, "The Aan0ua0e of the ?enes# $iolo0y, Jistory and the 3/olutionary 1uture," F%&&(H, 1lamin0o# Aondon, %&&9, p.%&') "Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of e/olution, considered as a simple, understood, and e.plained phenomenon which "eeps rapidly unfoldin0 before us. $iolo0ists must be encoura0ed to thin" about the wea"nesses of the interpretations and e.trapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owin0 to their sectarianism, purposely o/erloo" reality and refuse to ac"nowled0e the inadeCuacies and the falsity of their beliefs." (?rasse, Pierre-P. Feditor of the *G-/olume "Traite de Qoolo0ie", former Chair of 3/olution, 4orbonne Mni/ersity and e.-president of the 1rench -cademie des 4ciencesH, "3/olution of Ai/in0 Br0anisms# 3/idence for a ew Theory of Transformation", -cademic Press# ew !or" !, %&,,, p.G) "5hen e/olution is said to be a fact, not a theory, what is actually meant6 That nowli/in0 thin0s ha/e descended from ancestors, with modification, o/er time6 Br that the

modifications came by chance, not by desi0n6 Br, in addition, that all li/in0 thin0s ultimately had the same ancestor6 Br, still further, that the "first li/in0 thin0" had as its ancestor a nonli/in0 thin06 Conte.t indicates that when e/olution is asserted to be a fact, not a theory, the /iew actually bein0 pushed includes that of common ori0in, ultimate inor0anic ancestry, and modification throu0h nonpurposi/e mechanisms# a set of beliefs that 0oes far beyond the mountain of fact that is actually there, which consists lar0ely of fossils that demonstrate some sort of relationship and some sort of chan0e o/er time." ($auer J.J., "4cientific Aiteracy and the =yth of the 4cientific =ethod," F%&&*H, Mni/ersity of Dllinois Press# Mrbana and Chica0o DA., %&&9, p.'+. 3mphasis in ori0inal) "Paleontolo0ists (and e/olutionary biolo0ists in 0eneral) are famous for their facility in de/isin0 plausible storie> but they often for0et that plausible stories need not be true." (4tephen 2ay ?ould (Prof. of ?eolo0y and Paleontolo0y, Jar/ard Mni/ersity), 8r. 8a/id = Raup (Curator of ?eolo0y, 1ield =useum of atural Jistory, Chica0o), 2. 2ohn 4ep"os"i, 2r, (8pt of ?eolo0ical 4ciences, Mni/ersity of Rochester, ew !or"), Thomas 2.=. 4choph (8pt of ?eophysical 4ciences, Mni/ersity of Chica0o), and 8aniel 4. 4imberloff (8pt of $iolo0y, 1lorida 4tate Mni/ersity), <The shape of e/olution# a comparison of real and random clades<. Paleobiolo0y, /ol ((%), &,,, pp (9-(+) "-lthou0h the comparati/e study of li/in0 animals and lants may 0i/e /ery con/incin0 circumstantial e/idence, fossils pro/ide the only historical, documentary e/idence that life e/ol/ed from simpler to more and more comple. forms." (Carl B. 8unbar, Ph8. (0eolo0y) (Professor 3meritus of Paleontolo0y and 4trati0raphy, !ale Mni/ersity, and formerly -sst. 3ditor, -merican 2ournal of 4cience) in Jistorical ?eolo0y, 2ohn 5iley E 4ons, Dnc., ew !our", %&':, p0. 9,) "Dn any confrontation Fwith creationistsH, you should be prepared to show that e/olution is scientific, not that it is correct...Bne need not discuss fossils, intermediate forms, or probabilities of mutation. These are incidental. The Cuestion is, what is scientific, and what is reli0ious.Therefore, if you must confront the creationists, we su00est you discuss the nature of science, the "ind of "nowled0e it can pro/ide, and the "ind it cannot pro/ide. " (article in -merican 2ournal of 4cientific -nthropolo0y entitled "- Recommendation to the -ssociation Concernin0 Creation," 7olume *, %&G(, 9+,-9+G) "3/olution is a fairy tale for 0rown-ups. This theory has helped nothin0 in the pro0ress of science. Dt is useless." (8r Aouise $ounoure, 8irector of Research at the 1rench ational Centre for 4cientific Research, 8irector of the Qoolo0ical =useum and former president of the $iolo0ical 4ociety of 4trasbour0) "Paleontolo0ists disa0ree about the speed and pattern of e/olution. $ut they do not--as much recent publicity has implied--doubt that e/olution is a fact. The evidence for evolution simply does not depend upon the fossil record. 4ome palaeontolo0ists maintian tha tanimals ha/e e/ol/ed 0radually, throu0h an infinity of intermediate sta0es from one form to another. Bthers point out tha tthe fossil record

offers no firm e/idence of such 0radual chan0e. 5hat really happened, they su00est, is that any one animal species in the past sur/i/ied more or less unchan0ed for a time, and then either died out or e/ol/ed rapidly into a new descendant form (or forms). Thus, instead of 0radual chan0es, they posit the idea of "punctuated eCuilibrium". The ar0ument is about the actual historical pattern of e/oluion> but outsiders, seein0 a contro/ersy unfoldin0, ha/e ima0ined that it is about the truth of e/olution--whether e/olution occured at all. This is a terrible mistake; and it springs, I believe, from the false idea that the fossil record provides an important part of the evidence that evolution took place. In fact, evolution is proved by a totally separate set of arguments--and the present debate within palaeontology does not impinge at all on the evidence that supports evolution." "Dn any case, no real e/olutionist, whether 0radualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as e/idence in fa/our of the theory of e/olution as opposed to special creation." (=ar" Ridley (;oolo0ist, B.ford Mni/ersity), <5ho doubts e/olution6< ew 4cientist, /ol. &:, *+ 2une %&G%, p. G(: (3mphasis -dded), G(%) "The united efforts of paleontolo0y and molecular biolo0y, the latter stripped of its do0mas, should lead to the disco/ery of the e.act mechanism of e/olution, possibly without re/ealin0 to us the causes of the orientations of linea0es, of the finalities of structures, of li/in0 functions, and of cycles. Perhaps in this area biolo0y can 0o no farther# the rest is metaphysics." "$iochemists and biolo0ists who adhere blindly to the 8arwinism theory search for results that will be in a0reement with their theories and conseCuently orient their research in a 0i/en direction, whether it be in the field of ecolo0y, etholo0y, sociolo0y, demo0raphy (dynamics of populations), 0enetics (so-called e/olutionary 0enetics), or paleontolo0y. This intrusion of theories has unfortunate results# it depri/es obser/ations and e.periments of their objecti/ity, ma"es them biased, and, moreo/er, creates false problems." (?rasse, Pierre-P. Feditor of the *G-/olume "Traite de Qoolo0ie," former Chair of 3/olution, 4orbonne Mni/ersity and e.- president of the 1rench -cademie des 4ciencesH, "3/olution of Ai/in0 Br0anisms# 3/idence for a ew Theory of Transformation," -cademic Press# ew !or" !, %&,,, p%,, *9', ,) "5as it an accident that 8arwin<s conclusion meant just what e/ery reader wanted it to mean6 D thin" not. 8arwin used the same ambi0uity in his pri/ate letters. 8arwinism, therefore, be0an as a theory that e/olution could be e.plained by natural selection. Dt ended as a theory that e/olution could be e.plained just as you would li"e it to be e.plained." (8arlin0ton, Cyril 8. Flate Professor of $otany, B.ford Mni/ersityH, "The Bri0in of 8arwinism," 4cientific -merican, 7ol. *:%, =ay %&+&, p.':) "Present-day ultra-8arwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biolo0ists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations." (?rasse, Pierre-P., Feditor of the *G-/olume "Traite de Qoolo0ie," former Chair of 3/olution, 4orbonne Mni/ersity and e.-president of the 1rench -cademie des 4ciencesH, "3/olution of Ai/in0 Br0anisms# 3/idence for a ew Theory of Transformation," F%&,(H, -cademic Press# ew !or" !, %&,,, p')

"D mean the stories, the narrati/es about chan0e o/er time. Jow the dinosaures became e.tinct, how the mammals e/ol/ed, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-tellin0. -nd this is the result about cladistics because as it turns out, as it seems to me, all one can learn abou the history of life is learned from systematics, from 0roupin0s one finds in nature. The rest of it is story-tellin0 of one sort or another. 5e ha/e access to the tips of a tree, the tree itself is a theory and people who pretened to "now about the tree and to describe what went on with it, how the branches came off and the twi0s came off are, D thin", tellin0 stories." (8r. Colin Patterson (4enior Palaeontolo0ist, $ritish =useum of atural Jistory, Aondon) in an inter/iew on $ritish $roadcastin0 Corporation ($$C) tele/ision 9 =arch %&G*.) "5e must as" first whether the theory of e/olution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific .... Ta"in0 the first part of the theory, that e/olution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a sin0le process of species-splittin0 and pro0ression. This process must be uniCue and unrepeatable, li"e the history of 3n0land. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about uniCue e/ents, and uniCue e/ents are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test." (Patterson, Colin (%&,G), 3/olution, Aondon# $ritish =useum of atural Jistory, pp. %9+-%9' (Je is 4enior Principal 4cientific Bfficer of the Paleontolo0y 8epartment of the $ritish =useum of atural Jistory in Aondon.)) "!et, clearly, e/olution is not a "fact" in the sense that the man in the street understands the word. 5ithout a time machine, we cannot pro/e that birds e/ol/ed from reptiles. ... or can we pro/e that natural selection is the mechanism responsible for the whole de/elopment of life on earth...." ($owler, Peter 2. FProfessor of the Jistory and Philosophy of 4cience, Rueen<s Mni/ersity, $elfastH, "3/olution# The Jistory of an Ddea," F%&G(H, Mni/ersity of California Press# $er"eley C-, Re/ised 3dition, %&G&, p(+,). "Puttin0 the matter bluntly, those of our possible ancestors who had the sorts of features that ha/e been passed down to us-bipedalism, lar0e brains, manual de.terity, sociality, and so forth-tended to sur/i/e and reproduce. -nd those of our possible ancestors who did not ha/e these sorts of features did not." (Ruse =.,"Jomose.uality# - Philosophical DnCuiry," $asil $lac"well# B.ford MK, %&GG, p.%(%) $volution and Philosophy and #eli ion: "...the philosophy of e/olution is based upon assumptions that cannot be scientifically /erified...whate/er e/idence can be assembled for e/olution is both limited and circumstantial in nature." (?.-. Ker"ut, F8epartment of Physiolo0y and $iochemistry, Mni/ersity of 4outhampton, MKH)

"-nd certainly, there<s no doubt about it, that in the past, and D thin" also in the present, for many e/olutionists, e/olution has functioned as somethin0 with elements which are, let us say, a"in to bein0 a secular reli0ion ... -nd it seems to me /ery clear that at some /ery basic le/el, e/olution as a scientific theory ma"es a commitment to a "ind of naturalism, namely, that at some le/el one is 0oin0 to e.clude miracles and these sorts of thin0s come what may." (Ruse, =. (%&&() " onliteralist -ntie/olution" ---4 4ymposium# "The ew -ntie/olutionism," 1ebruary %(, %&&(, $oston, =-) "8r. ?ray 0oes further. Je says, PThe proposition that the thin0s and e/ents in nature were not desi0ned to be so, if lo0ically carried out, is doubtless tantamount to atheism.< -0ain, PTo us, a fortuitous Cosmos is simply inconcei/able. The alternati/e is a desi0ned Cosmos... Df =r. 8arwin belie/es that the e/ents which he supposes to ha/e occurred and the results we behold around us were undirected and undesi0ned> or if the physicist belie/es that the natural forces to which he refers phenomena are uncaused and undirected, no ar0ument is needed to show that such belief is atheistic. 5e ha/e thus arri/ed at the answer to our Cuestion, 5hat is 8arwinism6 Dt is -theism. This does not mean, as before said, that =r. 8arwin himself and all who adopt his /iews are atheists> but it means that his theory is atheistic, that the e.clusion of desi0n from nature is, as 8r. ?ray says, tantamount to atheism." (Jod0e, CharlesU Flate Professor of Theolo0y, Princeton Theolo0ical 4eminary, M4-H, in Ai/in0stone 8. ., eds., "5hat Ds 8arwinism6", %&&9, reprint, p.%+') "The di/ersity of life on earth is the outcome of e/olution# an unsuper/ised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of ... descent with 0enetic modification that is affected by natuural selection, chance, .. and chan0in0 en/ironments" (%&&+ 4tatement of the ational -ssociation of $iolo0y Teachers) "The Cosmos is all that there is or e/er was or e/er will be." (Carl 4a0an (%&G:) Cosmos tele/ision series) "$efore 8arwin, we thou0ht that a bene/olent ?od had created us. o inter/enin0 spirit watches lo/in0ly o/er the affairs of nature..." (?ould, 4tephen 2ay FProfessor of Qoolo0y and ?eolo0y, Jar/ard Mni/ersityH, "4o Cle/erly Kind an -nimal," in "3/er 4ince 8arwin# Reflections in atural Jistory," F%&,GH, Pen0uin# Aondon MK, %&&%, reprint, p.*',) "=an is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not ha/e him in mind." (4impson, ?eor0e ?aylord, The =eanin0 of 3/olution, re/ised edition, ew Ja/en# !ale Mni/ersity Press, %&',, p. (9+. 4impson is an e/olutionist paleontolo0ist) "FKenneth =iller isH usin0 the e.act same ar0uments as $ehe Fan ad/ocate of intelli0ent desi0n theoryH, e.cept that instead of desi0nin0 biochemical pathways, =iller<s deity plays dice with Cuar"s" ("1allin0 off a ti0htrope# Compromise and -ccommodation in the 5ar between

Creationism and 3/olution," a re/iew of 1indin0 8arwin<s ?od (by Kenneth =iller) by $arry Pale/it; in $io4cience, Bctober %, *:::, o. %:, 7ol. +:> P0. &*') ""5e are here because one odd 0roup of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into le0s for terrestrial creatures> because the earth ne/er fro;e entirely durin0 an ice a0e> because a small and tenuous species, arisin0 in -frica a Cuarter of a million years a0o, has mana0ed, so far, to sur/i/e by hoo" and by croo". 5e may yearn for a <hi0her< answer - but none e.ists." (4tephen 2ay ?ould) "Dn other words, it<s natural selection or a Creator. This is why prominent 8arwinists li"e ?. ?. 4impson and 4tephen 2ay ?ould, who are not secreti/e about their hostility to reli0ion, clin0 so /ehemently to natural selection. To do otherwise would be to admit the probability that there is desi0n in nature-and hence a 8esi0ner. (?eor0e 4. 2ohnston, "The ?enesis Contro/ersy," Crisis. =ay %&G&, p. %,) ""5e must, howe/er, ac"nowled0e ... that man with all his noble Cualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with bene/olence which e.tends not only to other men but to the humblest li/in0 creature, with his 0od-li"e intellect which has penetrated into the mo/ements and constitution of the solar system- with all these e.alted powers- =an still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly ori0in." (Charles 8arwin) "Df two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, paintin0, sculpture, music,---comprisin0 composition and performance, history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-do;en names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. 5e may also infer that if men are capable of decided eminence o/er women in many subjects, the a/era0e standard of mental power in man must be abo/e that of a woman." (Charles 8arwin, The 8escent of =an, /ol. DD, p.(*,.) "The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two se.es is shewn FshownH by man attainin0 to a hi0her eminence in whate/er he ta"es up, than woman can attainwhether reCuirin0 deep thou0ht, reason, or ima0ination, or merely the use of the senses and hands." (Charles 8arwin, The 8escent of =an, /ol. DD, p. (*,.) "8arwin was one of our finest specimens. Je did superbly what human bein0s are desi0ned to do# manipulate social information to personal ad/anta0e. The information in Cuestion was the pre/ailin0 account of how human bein0s, and all or0anisms, came to e.ist> 8arwin reshaped it in a way that radically raised his social status. 5hen he died in %GG*, his 0reatness was acclaimed in newspapers around the world, and he was buried in 5estminster -bbey, not far from the body of Dsaac ewton. -lpha-male territory." (Robert 5ri0ht, "The =oral -nimal")

"4een in retrospect, e/olution as a whole doubtless had a 0eneral direction, from simple to comple., from dependence on to relati/e independence of the en/ironment, to 0reater and 0reater autonomy of indi/iduals, 0reater and 0reater de/elopment of sense or0ans and ner/ous systems con/eyin0 and processin0 information about the state of the or0anism<s surroundin0s, and finally 0reater and 0reater consciousness. !ou can call this direction pro0ress or by some other name." (Theodosius 8ob;hans"y) "Aet me lay my cards on the table. Df D were to 0i/e an award for the sin0le best idea anyone e/er had, D<d 0i/e it to 8arwin, ahead of e/en ewton or 3instein and e/eryone else. Dn a sin0le stro"e, the idea of e/olution by natural selection unifies the realm of life, meanin0 and purpose with the realm of space and time, cause and effect, mechanism and physical law." (8aniel 8ennett) "-ll Cuestions about life ha/e the same answer # natural selection." (Jenry $ennet-Clar") "The uni/erse has in/ented a way to "now itself." (Paul 8ressler) "5e are sur/i/al machines - robot /ehicles blindly pro0rammed to preser/e the selfish molecules "nown as 0enes." (Richard 8aw"ins) "Aife results from the non-random sur/i/al of randomly /aryin0 replicators." (Richard 8aw"ins) "Bur minds ha/e been built by selfish 0enes, but they ha/e been built to be social, trustworthy and cooperati/e." (=att Ridley, "The Bri0ins of 7irtue") "here was a re/olution in biolo0y in the mid %&':s, pioneered especially by two men, ?eor0e 5illiams and 5illiam Jamilton. This re/olution is best "nown by Richard 8aw"ins<s phrase <The 4elfish ?ene<, and at its core lies the idea that indi/iduals do not consistently do thin0s for the 0ood of their 0roup, or their families, or e/en themsel/es. They consistently do thin0s that benefit their 0enes, because they are all ine/itably descended from those that did the same. one of your ancestors died celibate. ... always, without e.ception, li/in0 thin0s are desi0ned to do thin0s that enhance the chances of their 0enes or copies of their 0enes sur/i/in0 and replicatin0." (- =att Ridley, "The Bri0ins of 7irtue") "-s a 0eneral rule, a modern biolo0ist seein0 an animal doin0 somethin0 to benefit another assumes either that it is bein0 manipulated by the other indi/idual or that it is bein0 subtly selfish." (?eor0e 5illiams)

""3/ery human bein0 is irresistibly impelled to act to act precisely as he does act# in the eternity which preceded his birth, a chain of causes was 0enerated which, operatin0 under the name of moti/es, ma"es it impossible that any thou0ht of his mind, or any action of his life, should be otherwise than what it is... The doctrine of ecessity tends to introduce a 0reat chan0e into the established notions of morality... "" (4helly (e.plainin0 Aaplace)) "4ociety wor"s not because we ha/e consciously in/ented it, but because it is an ancient product of our e/ol/ed predispositions. Dt is literally in our nature." (=att Ridley) "Thin" of it # ;illions and ;illions of or0anisms runnin0 around, each under the hypnotic spell of a sin0le truth, all these truths identical, and all lo0ically incompatible with one another # <=y hereditary material is the most important material on earth> its sur/i/al justifies your frustration, pain, e/en death<. -nd you are one of those or0anisms, li/in0 your life in the thrall of a lo0ical absurdity." (Robert 5ri0ht, "The =oral -nimal") "Theolo0ians worry away at the Pproblem of e/il< and a related Pproblem of sufferin0.< ... Bn the contrary, if the uni/erse were just electrons and selfish 0enes, meanin0less tra0edies li"e the crashin0 of this bus are e.actly what we should e.pect, alon0 with eCually meanin0less U0oodU fortune. 4uch a uni/erse would be neither e/il nor 0ood in intention. Dt would manifest no intentions of any "ind. Dn a uni/erse of blind physical forces and 0enetic replication, some people are 0oin0 to 0et hurt, other people are 0oin0 to 0et luc"y, and you won<t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The uni/erse we obser/e has precisely the properties we should e.pect if there is, at bottom, no desi0n, no purpose, no e/il and no 0ood, nothin0 but blind, pitiless indifference. -s that unhappy poet -.3. Jousman put it# P1or ature, heartless, witless ature 5ill neither care nor "now.< 8 - neither cares nor "nows. 8 - just is. -nd we dance to its music." (8aw"ins R., "Ri/er out of 3den# - 8arwinian 7iew of Aife," Phoeni.# Aondon, %&&', p.%++. 3mphasis in ori0inal) "Today, the theory of e/olution is an accepted fact for e/eryone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasonin0 but on doctrinaire adherence to reli0ious principles." (5atson 2.8., "=olecular $iolo0y of the ?ene," 5.-. $enjamin# =enlo Par" C-, 4econd 3dition, %&,:, p.*. ote# P4# This 8arwinist has problems estimatin0 a "minority". Polls ha/e shown for decades that "the theory of e/olution" Uas the 8arwinists belie/e itU, i.e. with ?od playin0 no part, is in fact the minority, with less than %:W of the public acceptin0 it. The so-called "fundamentalist minority" has always outnumbered the 8arwinists by about 9 to %O) "The 0eneral lesson we should learn is ne/er to use human jud0ment in assessin0 such matters" (8aw"ins, Richard. Ri/er But of 3den. $asic$oo"s %&&+. p ,:)

"/accination has preser/ed thousands, who from a wea" constitution would formerly ha/e succumbed to small-po.. Thus the wea" members of ci/ili;ed societies propa0ate their "ind this must be hi0hly injurious to the race of man. Dt is surprisin0 how soon a want of care, or care wron0ly directed, leads to the de0eneration of a domestic race" (Charles 8arwin, The 8escent of =an, /ol. D, p. %'G.) "we must bear without complainin0 the undoubtedly bad effects of the wea" sur/i/in0 and propa0atin0 their "ind" (Charles 8arwin, The 8escent of =an, /ol. D, p. %'&.) ""-lmost no one is indifferent to 8arwin, and no one should be. The 8arwinian theory is a scientific theory, and a 0reat one, but that is not all it is. The creationists who oppose it so bitterly are ri0ht about one thin0# 8arwin<s dan0erous idea cuts much deeper into the fabric of our most fundamental beliefs than many of its sophisticated apolo0ists ha/e yet admitted, e/en to themsel/es. ... The "indly ?od who lo/in0ly fashioned each and e/ery one of us (all creatures 0reat and small) and sprin"led the s"y with shinin0 stars for our deli0ht-that ?od is, li"e 4anta Claus, a myth of childhood, not anythin0 a sane, undeluded adult could literally belie/e in. That ?od must either be turned into a symbol for somethin0 less concrete or abandoned alto0ether." (8ennett 8.C., "8arwin<s 8an0erous Ddea# 3/olution and the =eanin0s of Aife," F%&&+H, Pen0uin# Aondon, %&&', p.%G) "...e/olution wor"s without either plan or purpose." (=iller and Ae/ine, $iolo0y Prentice Jall, %&&+, p. '+G. =iller and Ae/ine are both e/olutionists) "8arwin showed that material causes are a sufficient e.planation not only for physical phenomena, as 8escartes and ewton had shown, but also for biolo0ical phenomena with all their seemin0 e/idence of desi0n and purpose. $y couplin0 undirected, purposeless /ariation to the blind, uncarin0 process of natural selection, 8arwin made theolo0ical or spiritual e.planations of the life processes superfluous. To0ether with =ar.<s materialistic theory of history and society and 1reud<s attribution of human beha/ior to influences o/er which we ha/e little control, 8arwin<s theory of e/olution was a crucial plan" in the platform of mechanism and materialism --- of much of science, in short --that has since been the sta0e of most 5estern thou0ht." (1utuyma, 8. 2., 3/olutionary $iolo0y, 4inauer -ssociates Dnc., %&G', 4underland, =-, p. *. %ote: This is a very common te&tboo! used in classes about evolution 'includin (I$( 1)0 at *+S,-) "Dt is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to belie/e in e/olution, that person is i0norant, stupid or insane (or wic"ed, but D<d rather not consider that)." (8aw"ins, Richard FQoolo0ist and Professor for the Public Mnderstandin0 of 4cience, B.ford Mni/ersityH, "Put !our =oney on 3/olution", Re/iew of 2ohanson 8. E 3dey =.-., "$lueprints# 4ol/in0 the =ystery of 3/olution", in ew !or" Times, -pril &,

%&G&, sec. ,, p(9. Comment by the Cuote collector# ./.. 8aw"ins may be puttin0 his money on e/olution, but D<d li"e to see him put his money where his mouth is.) "To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the /ariety of life on this planet was produced by a process of e/olution is simply i0norant--ine.cusably i0norant, in a world where three out of four people ha/e learned to read and write." ." (8aniel 8ennet, "8arwin<s 8an0erous Ddea"...seee comment for prei/ous Cuote ) "The point, howe/er, is that the doctrine of e/olution has swept the world, not on the stren0th of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a ?nostic myth. Dt affirms, in effect, that li/in0 bein0s created themsel/es, which is, in essence, a metaphysical claim.... Thus, in the final analysis, e/olutionism is in truth a metaphysical doctrine dec"ed out in scientific 0arb." (4mith, 5olf0an0, Teilhardism and the ew Reli0ion, Tan $oo"s and Publishers, %&GG, Roc"ford, Dllinois, p. *9*.) "The social and conceptual re/olution that we are now witnessin0 can be traced bac" to 8arwin.... They are also usin0 e/olutionary and ecolo0ical concepts to e.plain social conflict and social chan0e. -s re/olutionary as their wor" may appear to conser/ati/e scholars, it is 0rounded in the e/olutionary model that scientists no lon0er Cuestion" ($etty 2ean Crai0e, "The Pursuit of Truth is Dnherently 8isrupti/e and -nti-uthoritarian," Chronicle of Ji0her 3ducation (2anuary ', %&&(), p. -+') "CJ-RA34 RB$3RT 8-R5D stands amon0 the 0iants of 5estern thou0ht because he con/inced a majority of his peers that all of life shares a sin0le, if comple., history. Je tau0ht us that we can understand life<s history in purely naturalistic terms, without recourse to the supernatural or di/ine." (3ldred0e ., "Time 1rames# The Rethin"in0 of 8arwinian 3/olution and the Theory of Punctuated 3Cuilibria," 4imon E 4chuster# ew !or" !, %&G+, p.%() "D am opposed to 8arwinism, or better said, to the transformist hypothesis as such, no matter what one ta"es to be the mechanism or cause (e/en perhaps teleolo0ical or theistic) of the postulated macroe/olutionary leaps. D am con/inced, moreo/er, that 8arwinism (in whate/er form) is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudometaphysical hypothesis dec"ed out in scientific 0arb. Dn reality the theory deri/es its support not from empirical data or lo0ical deductions of a scientific "ind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biolo0ical ori0ins that can be concei/ed within the constricted 5eltanschauun0 to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe." (4mith, 5olf0an0U FProfessor of =athematics, Bre0on 4tate Mni/ersityH, "The Mni/erse Ds Mltimately to $e 3.plained in Terms of a =etacosmic Reality," in =ar0enau J. E 7ar0hese R.-., ed., "Cosmos, $ios, Theos# 4cientists Reflect on 4cience, ?od, and the Bri0ins of the Mni/erse Aife, and Jomo sapiens," F%&&*H, Bpen Court# Aa 4alle Dll., %&&(, 4econd Printin0, pp.%%(-%%9)

"5hat theistic e/olutionists ha/e failed abo/e all to comprehend is that the conflict is not o/er "facts" but o/er ways of thin"in0. The problem is not just with any specific doctrine of 8arwinian science, but with the naturalistic rules of thou0ht that 8arwinian scientists employ to deri/e those doctrines. Df scientists had actually obser/ed natural selection creatin0 new or0ans, or had seen a step-by-step process of fundamental chan0e consistently recorded in the fossil record, such obser/ations could readily be interpreted as e/idence of ?od<s use of secondary causes to create. $ut 8arwinian scientists ha/e not obser/ed anythin0 li"e that. 5hat they ha/e done is to assume as a matter of first principle that purposeless material processes can do all the wor" of biolo0ical creation because, accordin0 to their philosophy, nothin0 else was a/ailable. They ha/e defined their tas" as findin0 the most plausible-or least implausible- description of how biolo0ical creation could occur in the absence of a creator. The specific answers they deri/e may or may not be reconcilable with theism, but the manner of thin"in0 is profoundly atheistic. To accept the answers as indubitably true is ine/itably to accept the thin"in0 that 0enerated those answers. That is why D thin" the appropriate term for the accommodationist position is not "theistic e/olution," but rather theistic naturalism. Mnder either name, it is a disastrous error." (2ohnson P.3., "4houtin0 PJeresy< in the Temple of 8arwin", Christianity Today, 7ol. (G, o. %*, Bctober *9, %&&9, p.*') "3/olution is the creation-myth of our a0e. $y tellin0 us our ori0in it shapes our /iews of what we are. Dt influences not just our thou0ht, but our feelin0s and actions too, in a way which 0oes far beyond its official function as a biolo0ical theory. Dn callin0 it a myth, D am not of course sayin0 that it is a false story. D mean that it has 0reat symbolic power, which is independent of its truth. Ds the word reli0ion appropriate to it6 This will depend on the sense we 0i/e to that /ery elastic word." (=id0ley, =ary Fformer 4enior Aecturer in Philosophy, Mni/ersity of ewcastle upon Tyne, MKH, "The Reli0ion of 3/olution," in 8urant 2., ed., "8arwinism and 8i/inity# 3ssays on 3/olution and Reli0ious $elief," $asil $lac"well# B.ford MK, %&G+, p.%+9) "D ha/e as"ed myself whether D may not ha/e de/oted my life to a fantasy." (Charles 8arwin) "...althou0h atheism mi0ht ha/e been lo0ically tenable before 8arwin, 8arwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (8aw"ins, Richard F;oolo0ist and Professor for the Public Mnderstandin0 of 4cience, B.ford Mni/ersityH, "The $lind 5atchma"er," F%&G'H, Pen0uin# Aondon, %&&%, reprint, p.') "Jow much of this can be belie/ed6 3/ery 0eneration needs its own creation myths, and these are ours. They are probably more accurate than any that ha/e come before, but they are undoubtedly subject to re/ision as we find out more about the nature and the history of life. The best that can be said for any scientific theory is that it e.plains all the data at hand and has no ob/ious internal contradictions." (5ilson, 3dward B. FJonorary Curator in 3ntomolo0y, =useum of Comparati/e

Qoolo0y, Jar/ard Mni/ersityH, et al., "Aife on 3arth", F%&,(H, 4inauer -ssociates# 4underland =-, %&,+, reprint, p.'*9) "The fact of e/olution is the bac"bone of biolo0y, and biolo0y is thus in the peculiar position of bein0 a science founded on an unpro/ed theory-is it then a science or a faith6 $elief in the theory of e/olution is thus e.actly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which belie/ers "now to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof" (=atthews, A. Jarrison F$ritish biolo0ist and 1ellow of the Royal 4ocietyH, "Dntroduction", 8arwin C.R., "The Bri0in of 4pecies by =eans of atural 4election," 2. =. 8ent E 4ons# Aondon, %&,', pp..,.i, in -n"erber0 2.U E 5eldon 2.U, "Rational DnCuiry E the 1orce of 4cientific 8ata# -re ew Jori;ons 3mer0in06," in =oreland 2.P., ed., "The Creation Jypothesis# 4cientific 3/idence for an Dntelli0ent 8esi0ner," Dnter7arsity Press# 8owners ?ro/e DA., %&&9, p.*,+) "...the only alternati/e e.planation of the sudden appearance of so many comple. animal types in the Cambrian era is di/ine creation and FweH both reject this alternati/e" (8aw"ins, R., The $lind 5atchma"er, 5.5. orton E Company, ew !or" (%&&')) "Dn the e/olutionary pattern of thou0ht there is no lon0er either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created# it e/ol/ed. 4o did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, includin0 our human sel/es, mind and soul as well as brain and body. 4o did reli0ion. " (Ju.ley, 2ulian 4. Flate 0randson of Thomas Jenry Ju.ley, former Professor of Qoolo0y at Kin0<s Colle0e, Aondon, and foundin0 8irector-?eneral of M 34CBH, "The Jumanist 1rame", in "3ssays of a Jumanist," F%&'9H, Pen0uin $oo"s# Jarmondsworth, =iddlese. MK, %&'&, reprint, pp.G*-G() "Bne is forced to conclude that many scientists and technolo0ists pay lip-ser/ice to 8arwinian Theory only because it supposedly e.cludes a Creator from yet another area of material phenomena, and not because it has been paradi0mantic in establishin0 the canons of research in the life sciences and the earth sciences" (8r. =ichael 5al"er, 4enior Aecturer, -nthropolo0y, 4ydney Mni/ersity. Ruadrant, Bctober %&G%, pa0e 9+) "The more one studies palaeontolo0y, the more certain one becomes that e/olution is based on faith alone> e.actly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to ha/e when one encounters the 0reat mysteries of reli0ion." (=ore, Aouis T. Flate Professor of Physics, Mni/ersity of Cincinnati, M4-H, "The 8o0ma of 3/olution," Princeton Mni/ersity Press# Princeton 2, %&*+, 4econd Printin0, p.%':) "3/olution comprises all the sta0es of the de/elopment of the uni/erse# the cosmic, biolo0ical, and human or cultural de/elopments. -ttempts to restrict the concept of e/olution to biolo0y are 0ratuitous. Aife is a product of the e/olution of inor0anic nature, and man is a product of the e/olution of life." (8ob;hans"y, Theodosius Flate Professor of ?enetics, Mni/ersity of California, 8a/is and

Professor of $iolo0y and ?enetics, Roc"efeller Mni/ersity, ew !or"H, "Chan0in0 =an," 4cience, *, 2anuary %&',, 7ol. %++, o. (,'%, p9:&...note# there<s a reason this particular Cuote appears in our "Philosophy of e/olution" Cuote collectionO) "Contrary to the popular notion that only creationism relies on the supernatural, e/olutionism must as well, since the probabilities of random formation of life are so tiny as to reCuire a <miracle< for spontaneous 0eneration tantamount to a theolo0ical ar0ument." (Chandra 5ic"ramasin0e) "Dt is as a reli0ion of science that 8arwinism chiefly held, and holds men<s minds. The deri/ation of life, of man, of man<s deepest hopes and hi0hest achie/ements, from the e.ternal and indirect determination of small chance errors, appears as the /ery "eystone of the naturalistic uni/erse. -nd the defence of natural selection appears, therefore, as the defence of their inte0rity, the independence, the di0nity of science itself." "8arwin<s "horrid doubt" as to whether the con/ictions of man<s e/ol/ed mind could be trusted applies as much to abstract truth as to ethics> and "e/olutionary truth" is at least as suspect as e/olutionary ethics. -t this point, therefore, it would seem that the armies of science are in dan0er of destroyin0 their own base. 1or the scientist must be able to trust the conclusions of his reasonin0. Jence he cannot accept the theory that man<s mind was e/ol/ed wholly by natural selection if this means, as it would appear to do, that the conclusions of the mind depend ultimately on their sur/i/al /alue and not their truth, thus ma"in0 all scientific theories, includin0 that of natural selection, untrustworthy.Aac" concludes from this that the old opposition of science and reli0ion is still, and must remain, an "unresol/ed conflict." $ut D thin" one may conclude, on the contrary, that it is the con/entional lo0ic of science, and the /iew of mind implied in it, that needs re/ision. 1or, as Plato ar0ued lon0 a0o about Prota0onas< "man the measure," there is surely somethin0 wron0 in a theory which, at its /ery root, in/alidate itself." (?rene, =arjorie FProfessor 3meritus of Philosophy, Mni/ersity of California, 8a/isH, "The 1aith of 8arwinism", 3ncounter, 7ol. ,9, o/ember %&+&, p.9G, +') "Mltimately, the 8arwinian theory of e/olution is no more nor less than the 0reat cosmo0enic myth of the twentieth century." (=ichael 8enton, <3/olution, - Theory in Crisis< pa0e (+G) "The fact of e/olution is the bac"0one of biolo0y, and biolo0y is thus in the peculiar position of bein0 a science founded upon an unpro/ed thoery--is it then a science or a faith6 $elief in e/olution is thus e.actly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which belie/ers "now to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." (A. Jarrison =athews, 1R4, Dntroduction to 8arwin<s Bri0in of 4pecies, 2. =. 8ent E 4ons Atd., Aondon, %&,%, p. ., .i.) "$ut what if the /ast majority of scientists all ha/e faith in the one un/erified idea6 The modern <standard< scientific /ersion of the ori0in of life on earth is one such idea, and we would be wise to chec" its real merit with 0reat care. Jas the cold blade of reason been

applied with sufficient /i0our in this case6 =ost scientists want to belie/e that life could ha/e emer0ed spontaneously from the prime/al waters, because it would confirm their belief in the e.plicability of ature the belief that all could be e.plained in terms of particles and ener0y and forces if only we had the time and the necessary intellect. They also want to belie/e because their arch opponents - reli0ious fundamentalists such as creationists - do not belie/e in life<s spontaneous ori0in. Dt is this combati/e atmosphere which sometimes encoura0es scientists writin0 and spea"in0 about the ori0in of life to become as do0matic and bi0oted as the creationist opponents they so despise." (4cott -., "The Creation of Aife# Past, 1uture, -lien," $asil $lac"well# B.ford MK, %&G', p.%%%-%%*) "Mnfortunately many scientists and non-scientists ha/e made 3/olution into a reli0ion, somethin0 to be defended a0ainst infidels. Dn my e.perience, many students of biolo0y professors and te.tboo" writers included - ha/e been so carried away with the ar0uments for 3/olution that they ne0lect to Cuestion it. They preach it ... Colle0e students, ha/in0 0one throu0h such a closed system of education, themsel/es become teachers, enterin0 hi0h schools to continue the process, usin0 te.tboo"s written by former classmates or professors. Ji0h standards of scholarship and teachin0 brea" down. Propa0anda and the pursuit of power replace the pursuit "nowled0e. 3ducation becomes a fraud." (?eor0e Kocan, 3/olution isn<t 1aith $ut Theory, Chica0o Tribune & =onday -pril *% %&G:)
This is a Cuite lon0, and scary Coute# "8o you belie/e, literally, in an anthropomorphic ?od6 Df not, then you must a0ree with me that the son0 is a beautiful, comfortin0 falsehood. Ds that simple son0 ne/ertheless a /aluable meme6 D certainly thin" it is. Dt is a modest but beautiful part of our herita0e, a treasure to be preser/ed. $ut we must face the fact that, just as there were times when ti0ers would not ha/e been /iable, times are comin0 when they will no lon0er be /iable, e.cept in ;oos and other preser/es, and the same is true of many of the treasures in our cultural herita0e. ... 5e cannot preser/e all the features of the cultural world in which these treasures flourished. 5e wouldn<t want to. ... D0norance is a necessary condition for many e.cellent thin0s. The childish joy of seein0 what 4anta Claus has brou0ht for Christmas is a species of joy that must soon be e.tin0uished in each child by the loss of i0norance. 5hen that child 0rows up, she can transmit that joy to her own children, but she must also reco0ni;e a time when it has outli/ed its /alue. ... $ut how many of us are cau0ht in that /ery dilemma, lo/in0 the herita0e, firmly con/inced of its /alue, yet unable to sustain any con/iction at all in its truth6 5e are faced with a difficult choice. $ecause we /alue it, we are ea0er to preser/e it in a rather precarious and "denatured" state-in churches and cathedrals and syna0o0ues, built to house hu0e con0re0ations of the de/out, and now on the way to bein0 cultural museums. ... $ut hasn<t there been a tremendous rebirth of fundamentalist faith in all these creeds6 !es, unfortunately, there has been, and D thin" that there are no forces on this planet more dan0erous to us all than the fanaticisms of fundamentalism, of all the species# Protestantism, Catholicism, 2udaism, Dslam, Jinduism, and $uddhism, as well as countless smaller infections. Ds there a conflict between science and reli0ion here6 There most certainly is. 8arwin<s dan0erous idea helps to create a condition in the memosphere that in the lon0 run threatens to be just as to.ic to these memes as ci/ili;ation in 0eneral has been to.ic to the lar0e wild mammals. 4a/e the 3lephantsO !es, of course, but not Uby all meansU. ot by forcin0 the people of -frica to li/e nineteenth- century li/es, for instance. .... 5e must find an accommodation. D lo/e the Kin0 2ames 7ersion of the $ible. =y own spirit recoils from a ?od 5ho is Je or 4he in the same way my heart sin"s when D see a lion pacin0 neurotically bac" and forth in a small ;oo ca0e. D "now, D "now, the lion is beautiful but dan0erous> if you let the lion roam free, it would "ill me> safety demands that it be put in a ca0e. 4afety demands that reli0ions be put in ca0es, too-when absolutely necessary. 5e just can<t ha/e forced female circumcision, and the second-class status of women in Roman Catholicism and =ormonism, to say nothin0 of their status in Dslam. ... ... 5e are wise to respect these traditions. Dt is, after all, just part of respect for the biosphere. 4a/e the $aptistsO !es, of course, but not Uby all meansU. ot if it means toleratin0 the deliberate misinformin0 of children about the natural world. -ccordin0 to a recent poll, 9G percent of the people in the Mnited 4tates today belie/e that the boo" of ?enesis is literally true. -nd ,: percent belie/e that "creation science" should be tau0ht in school alon0side e/olution. 4ome recent writers recommend a policy in which parents would be able to "opt out" of materials they didn<t want their children tau0ht. 4hould e/olution be tau0ht in the schools6 4hould arithmetic be tau0ht6 4hould history6 =isinformin0 a child is a terrible offense. - faith, li"e a species, must e/ol/e or 0o e.tinct when the en/ironment chan0es. Dt is not a 0entle process in either case. 5e see in e/ery Christian subspecies the battle of memesshould women be ordained6 4hould we 0o bac" to the Aatin litur0y6-and the same can also be obser/ed in the /arieties of 2udaism and Dslam. 5e must ha/e a similar mi.ture of respect and self-protecti/e caution about memes. This is already accepted practice, but we tend to a/ert our attention from its implications. 5e preach freedom of reli0ion, but only so far. Df your reli0ion ad/ocates sla/ery, or mutilation of women, or infanticide, or puts a price on 4alman Rushdie<s head because he has insulted it, then your reli0ion has a feature that cannot be respected. Dt endan0ers us all. Dt is nice to ha/e 0ri;;ly bears and wol/es li/in0 in the wild. They are no lon0er a menace> we can peacefully coe.ist, with a little wisdom. The same policy can be discerned in our political tolerance, in reli0ious freedom. !ou are free to preser/e or create any reli0ious creed you wish, so lon0 as it does not become a public menace. 5e<re all on the 3arth to0ether, and we ha/e to learn some accommodation. The Jutterite memes are "cle/er" not to include any memes about the /irtue of destroyin0 outsiders. Df they did, we would ha/e to combat them. 5e tolerate the Jutterites because they harm only themsel/es thou0h we may well insist that we ha/e the ri0ht to impose some further openness on their schoolin0 of their own children. Bther reli0ious memes are not so beni0n. The messa0e is clear# those who will not accommodate, who will not temper, who insist on "eepin0 only the purest and wildest strain of their herita0e ali/e, we will be obli0ed, reluctantly, to ca0e or disarm, and we will do our best to disable the memes they fi0ht for. ... ... Mntil we can pro/ide an en/ironment for all

people in which fanaticism doesn<t ma"e sense, we can e.pect more and more of it. $ut we don<t ha/e to accept it, and we don<t ha/e to respect it. Ta"in0 a few tips from 8arwinian medicine (5illiams and esse %&&%), we can ta"e steps to conser/e what is /aluable in e/ery culture without "eepin0 ali/e (or /irulent) all its wea"nesses. ... ... There is much more to learn. There is certainly a treasury of ill- appreciated truths embedded in the endan0ered cultures of the modern world, desi0ns that ha/e accumulated details o/er eons of idiosyncratic history, and we should ta"e steps to record it, and study it, before it disappears, for, li"e dinosaur 0enomes, once it is 0one, it will be /irtually impossible to reco/er. 5e should not e.pect this /ariety of respect to be satisfactory to those who wholeheartedly embody the memes we honor with our attenti/e-but not worshipful-scholarship. Bn the contrary, many of them will /iew anythin0 other than enthusiastic con/ersion to their own /iews as a threat, e/en an intolerable threat. 5e must not underestimate the sufferin0 such confrontations cause. To watch, to ha/e to participate in, the contraction or e/aporation of belo/ed features of one<s herita0e is a pain only our species can e.perience, and surely few pains could be more terrible. $ut we ha/e no reasonable alternati/e, and those whose /isions dictate that they cannot peacefully coe.ist with the rest of us we will ha/e to Cuarantine as best we can, minimi;in0 the pain and dama0e, tryin0 always to lea/e open a path or two that may come to seem acceptable. Df you want to teach your children that they are the tools of ?od, you had better not teach them that they are ?od<s rifles, or we will ha/e to stand firmly opposed to you# your doctrine has no 0lory, no special ri0hts, no intrinsic and inalienable merit. Df you insist on teachin0 your children falsehoods-that the 3arth is flat, that "=an" is not a product of e/olution by natural selection-then you must e.pect, at the /ery least, that those of us who ha/e freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachin0 as the spreadin0 of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest opportunity. Bur future well-bein0-the well-bein0 of all of us on the planetdepends on the education of our descendants. 5hat, then, of all the 0lories of our reli0ious traditions6 They should certainly be preser/ed, as should the lan0ua0es, the art, the costumes, the rituals, the monuments. Qoos are now more and more bein0 seen as second-class ha/ens for endan0ered species, but at least they are ha/ens, and what they preser/e is irreplaceable. The same is true of comple. memes and their phenotypic e.pressions. ... 4hall we deconsecrate these churches and turn them into museums, or retrofit them for some other use6 The latter fate is at least to be preferred to their destruction. ... -nd there<s the rub. 5hat will happen, one may well wonder, if reli0ion is preser/ed in cultural ;oos, in libraries, in concerts and demonstrations6 Dt is happenin0> the tourists floc" to watch the ati/e -merican tribal dances, and for the onloo"ers it is fol"lore, a reli0ious ceremony, certainly, to be treated with respect, but also an e.ample of a meme comple. on the /er0e of e.tinction, at least in its stron0, ambulatory phase> it has become an in/alid, barely "ept ali/e by its custodians. 8oes 8arwin<s dan0erous idea 0i/e us anythin0 in e.chan0e for the ideas it calls into Cuestion6 ... 4pino;a called his hi0hest bein0 ?od or ature (8eus si/e atura), e.pressin0 a sort of pantheism. There ha/e been many /arieties of pantheism, but they usually lac" a con/incin0 Ue.planationU about just how ?od is distributed in the whole of nature. .... !ou could e/en say, in a way. that the Tree of Aife created itself. ot in a miraculous, instantaneous whoosh, but slowly, slowly, o/er billions of years. Ds this Tree of Aife a ?od one could worship6 Pray to6 1ear6 Probably not. $ut it did ma"e the i/y twine and the s"y so blue, so perhaps the son0 D lo/e tells a truth after all. The Tree of Aife is neither perfect nor infinite in space or time, but it is actual, and if it is not -nselm<s "$ein0 0reater than which nothin0 can be concei/ed," it is surely a bein0 that is 0reater than anythin0 any of us will e/er concei/e of in detail worthy of its detail. Ds somethin0 sacred6 !es, say D with iet;sche. D could not pray to it, but D can stand in affirmation of its ma0nificence. This world is sacred." (8ennett 8.C., "8arwin<s 8an0erous Ddea# 3/olution and the =eanin0s of Aife," Pen0uin# Aondon, %&&+, pp.+%9-+%,, +%&-+*:. 3mphasis in ori0inal)

"...the material world is all that e.ists...there is nothin0 supernatural, no ?od or 0ods, no creator, no creation" (=on"ey $usiness, 3u0enie 4cott, ew !or" -cademy of 4cience, 2anI1eb %&&', pp. *:*+) "Jundreds of scientists who once tau0ht their uni/ersity students that the bottom line on ori0ins had been fi0ured out and settled are today confessin0 that they were completely wron0. They</e disco/ered that their pre/ious conclusions, once held so fer/ently, were based on /ery fra0ile e/idences and suppositions which ha/e since been refuted by new disco/eries. This has necessitated a chan0e in their basic philosophical position on ori0ins. Bthers are admittin0 0reat wea"nesses in e/olution theory." "Dt is easy enou0h to ma"e up stories, of how one form 0a/e rise to another, and to find reasons why the sta0es should be fa/oured by natural selection. $ut such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of puttin0 them to the test." (Auther 8 4utherland, 8arwin<s 3ni0ma, =aster $oo"s %&GG, p,,G, G&) "8iscussions of e/olution came to an end primarily because it was ob/ious that no pro0ress was bein0 made....5hen students of other sciences as" us what is now currently belie/ed about the ori0in of species we ha/e no clear answer to 0i/e. 1aith has 0i/en place to a0nosticism.... $iolo0ical science has returned to its ri0htful place, in/esti0ation of the structure and properties of the concrete and /isible world. 5e cannot see how the differentiation into species came about. 7ariation of many "inds, often considerable, we daily witness, but no ori0in of species.... D ha/e put before you /ery fran"ly the considerations which ha/e made us a0nostic as to the actual mode and processes of

e/olution. 5hen such confessions are made the enemies of science see their chance.... Aet us then proclaim in precise and unmista"able lan0ua0e that our faith in e/olution is unsha"en." ($ateson, 5illiam Flate founder of the science of ?enetics, first Professor of ?enetics, Cambrid0e Mni/ersity, MKH, "3/olutionary 1aith and =odern 8oubts." -n address deli/ered to the -merican -ssociation for the -d/ancement of 4cience, *G 8ecember, %&*%, 4cience, /ol. A7, p.++., in =ore A.T., "The 8o0ma of 3/olution", Princeton Mni/ersity Press# Princeton 2, %&*+, p.*G) "The first assumption was that non-li/in0 thin0s 0a/e rise to li/in0 material. This is still just an assumption. Dt is concei/able that li/in0 material mi0ht ha/e suddenly appeared on this world in some peculiar manner, say from another planet, but this then raises the Cuestion, "5here did life ori0inate on that planet6" 5e could say that life has always e.isted, but such an e.planation is not a /ery satisfactory one. Dnstead, the e.planation that nonli/in0 thin0s could ha/e 0i/en rise to comple. systems ha/in0 the properties of li/in0 thin0s is 0enerally more acceptable to most scientists. There is, howe/er, little e/idence in fa/our of bio0enesis and as yet we ha/e no indication that it can be performed. There are many schemes by which bio0enesis could ha/e occurred but these are still su00esti/e schemes and nothin0 more. They may indicate e.periments that can be performed, but they tell us nothin0 about what actually happened some %,::: million years a0o. Dt is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biolo0ist that bio0enesis did occur and he can choose whate/er method of bio0enesis happens to suit him personally> the e/idence for what did happen is not a/ailable." (Ker"ut, ?.-. F8epartment of Physiolo0y and $iochemistry, Mni/ersity of 4outhampton, MKH, " Dmplications of 3/olution," in Ker"ut ?.-., ed. "Dnternational 4eries of =ono0raphs on Pure and -pplied $iolo0y, 8i/ision# Qoolo0y," 7olume 9, Per0amon Press# ew !or" !, %&':, p.%+:) "- chic"en is really the chic"en 0enes< way of ma"in0 more copies of themsel/es." (5ilson, 3.B. %&,+. 4ociobiolo0y# The ew 4ynthesis. Jar/ard Mni/ersity Press, Cambrid0e, =-) "5ith respect to the theolo0ical /iew of the Cuestion. This is always painful to me. D am bewildered. D had no intention to write atheistically. $ut D own that D cannot see as plainly as others do, and as D should wish to do, e/idence of desi0n and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. D cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent ?od would ha/e desi0nedly created the Dchneumonidae with the e.press intention of their feedin0 within the li/in0 bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. ot belie/in0 this, D see no necessity in the belief that the eye was e.pressly desi0ned."" (8arwin C., letter to -sa ?ray, =ay **, %G':, in 8arwin 1., ed., "The Aife of Charles 8arwin," F%&:*H, 4enate# Aondon, %&&+, reprint, p.*(')XIP6 "3/olution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. 3/olution is promul0ated as an ideolo0y, a secular reli0ion -- a full-fled0ed alternati/e to Christianity, with meanin0 and morality. D am an ardent e/olutionist and an e.-Christian, but D must

admit that in this one complaint -- and =r. ?ish is but one of many to ma"e it -- the literalists are absolutely ri0ht. 3/olution is a reli0ion. This was true of e/olution in the be0innin0, and it is true of e/olution still today." ..."Today, professional e/olution thri/es. $ut the old reli0ion sur/i/es and thri/es ri0ht alon0side it. 3/olution now has its mystical /isionary, its 4aint 2ohn of the Cross. Jar/ard entomolo0ist and sociobiolo0ist 3dward B. 5ilson tells us that we now ha/e an "alternati/e mytholo0y" to defeat traditional reli0ion. "Dts narrati/e form is the epic# the e/olution of the uni/erse from the bi0 ban0 of fifteen years a0o throu0h the ori0in of the elements and celestial bodies to the be0innin0s of life on earth.""1aithful to the oldest tradition of e/olutionary theori;in0 -- readin0 his morality and politics into his science and then readin0 it ri0ht bac" out a0ain -- =r. 5ilson warns us that we ha/e e/ol/ed in symbiotic relationship with the rest of li/in0 nature, and lest we cherish and preser/e biodi/ersity we will all perish. 8rawin0 on the dispensationalism of his 4outhern $aptist childhood, with the eloCuence and moral fer/our of $illy ?raham, =r. 5ilson be0s us to repent, to stand up and ac"nowled0e our sins and to wal" forward in the ways of e/olution. 5e ha/e but a short time, else moral dar"ness will fall on us all.The lan0ua0e of 4tephen 2ay ?ould is hardly more tempered. 5e learn that e/olution "liberates the human spirit," that for sheer e.citement e/olution "beats any myth of human ori0ins by li0ht years," and that we should "praise this e/olutionary ne.us -- a far more stately mansion for the human soul than any pretty or parochial comfort e/er conjured by our swollen neurolo0y to obscure the source of physical bein0."" "=r. ?ould ultimately rejects traditional readin0s of e/olution for a more inspirin0, liberatin0 /ersion# "5e must assume that consciousness would not ha/e e/ol/ed on our planet if a cosmic catastrophe had not claimed the dinosaurs as /ictims. Dn an entirely literal sense, we owe our e.istence, as lar0e and reasonin0 mammals, to our luc"y stars." Df this is not to ri/al traditional 2udaeo-Christian teachin0 -- with its central belief that we humans are not just random happenstances, but a major reason why ?od created hea/en and earth -- D do not "now what is." ..."$ut, let us be tolerant. Df people want to ma"e a reli0ion of e/olution, that is their business. 5ho would deny the /alue of =r. 5ilson<s plea for biodi/ersity6 5ho would ar0ue a0ainst =r. ?ould<s hatred of racial and se.ual prejudice, which he has used e/olution to attac"6The important point is that we should reco0ni;e when people are 0oin0 beyond the strict science, mo/in0 into moral and social claims, thin"in0 of their theory as an all-embracin0 world picture. -ll too often, there is a slide from science to somethin0 more, and this slide 0oes unmentioned -- unreali;ed e/en. "1or pointin0 this out we should be 0rateful for the opponents of e/olution. The Creationists are wron0 in their Creationism, but they are ri0ht in at least one of their criticisms. 3/olution, 8arwinian e/olution, is wonderful science. Aet us teach it to our children. -nd, in the classroom, let us lea/e it at that. The moral messa0es, the underlyin0 ideolo0y, may be worthy. $ut if we feel stron0ly, there are other times and places to preach that 0ospel to the world. (=ichael Ruse, professor of philosophy and ;oolo0y at the Mni/ersity of ?uelph from 4aturday, "Jow e/olution became a reli0ion Creationists correct6# 8arwinians wron0ly mi. science with morality, politics, ational !ost, =ay %(, *:::)

"There was little doubt that the star intellectual turn of last wee"<s $ritish -ssociation for the -d/ancement of 4cience meetin0 in 4alford was 8r 2ohn 8urant, a youthful lecturer from Mni/ersity Colle0e 4wansea. ?i/in0 the 8arwin lecture to one of the bi00est audiences of the wee", 8urant put forward an audacious theory-that 8arwin<s e/olutionary e.planation of the ori0ins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of science and social pro0ress. 8urant said that scientists and popularisers ha/e as"ed too much of the theory of e/olution, demandin0 that it e.plain... "Aife, the Mni/erse, and 3/erythin0". -s a result 8arwin<s theory has burst at the seams, lea/in0 a wrec"a0e of distorted and mutilated ideas, and man<s understandin0 of his society has been hobbled by his inability to escape the conser/ati/e myths he has created. 8urant bemoaned the transformation of e/olutionary ideas into "secular or scientific myths". ... they ha/e assumed the social role of myths-le0ends about remote ancestors that e.press and reinforce peoples< ideas about the society around them. "Ai"e the creation myths which ha/e so lar0ely replaced, theories of human e/olution are basically stories about the first appearance of man on 3arth and the institution of human society," said 8urant. ... 8urant concludes that the secular myths of e/olution ha/e had "a dama0in0 effect on scientific research", leadin0 to "distortion, to needless contro/ersy, and to the 0ross misuse of science". (8r. 2ohn 8urant, Mni/ersity Colle0e 4wansea, 5ales), as Cuoted in "Jow e/olution became a scientific myth," ew 4cientist, %% 4eptember %&G:, p.,'+) "8irected by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of pro/idence, which, under the co/er of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped" (?rasse, Pierre-Paul (%&,,), 3/olution of Ai/in0 Br0anisms, -cademic Press, ew !or", .!. (?rasse is past president of the 1rench -cademie des 4ciences and editor of the (+ /olume "Traite de Qoolo0ie" published by =asson, Paris)) "The theory of e/olution by natural selection is not a difficult concept to 0rasp, and Charles 8arwin addressed The Bri0in of 4pecies itself to a 0eneral audience. $ut neither is it self-e/ident to many people that natural selection can fully account for the world they obser/e. Thus when Cuestions about the theory arise in public forums, the scientific community would do much better in the lon0 run to patiently list supportin0 facts and fran"ly admit where positi/e e/idence is lac"in0, rather than paternalistically maintainin0 that an understandin0 of the theory of e/olution is reser/ed for the priesthood of professional scientists." ($ehe =.2., "Mnderstandin0 3/olution," Aetters, 4cience, (: -u0ust %&&%) "=eanwhile, 2uliette and D had been in/ited to attend the celebration of the centenary of the publication of 8arwin<s Bri0in of 4pecies, at the Mni/ersity of Chica0o ... The preparations for the centenary celebrations were now in full swin0, people arri/in0 from many countries to render their homa0e to 8arwin..." (Ju.ley, 2ulian 4. Flate 0randson of Thomas Jenry Ju.ley, former Professor of Qoolo0y at Kin0<s Colle0e, Aondon, and foundin0 8irector-?eneral of M 34CBH, "=emories DD," F%&,(H, Pen0uin $oo"s# Jarmondsworth, =iddlese. MK, %&,G, reprint, pp.%G%-%G*)

"These so-called = and noteboo"s were written in %G(G and %G(&, while 8arwin was compilin0 the transmutation noteboo"s that formed the basis for his s"etches of %G9* and %G99. They ... include many statements showin0 that he espoused but feared to e.pose somethin0 he percei/ed as far more heretical than e/olution itself# philosophical materialism-the postulate that matter is the stuff of all e.istence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. ... The noteboo"s pro/e that ... the primary feature distin0uishin0 his theory from all other e/olutionary doctrines was its uncompromisin0 philosophical materialism. .... Dn the noteboo"s 8arwin resolutely applied his materialistic theory of e/olution to all phenomena of life, includin0 what he termed "the citadel itself" - the human mind. -nd if mind has no real e.istence beyond the brain, can ?od be anythin0 more than an illusion in/ented by an illusion6 Dn one of his transmutation noteboo"s, he wrote# PAo/e of the deity effect of or0ani;ation, oh you materialistO...<" (?ould, 4tephen 2ay FProfessor of Qoolo0y and ?eolo0y, Jar/ard Mni/ersity, M4-H, "8arwin<s 8elay," in "3/er 4ince 8arwin# Reflections in atural Jistory," F%&,GH, Pen0uin# Aondon, %&&%, reprint, pp.*(-*+) "The writer is not nai/e enou0h to thin" that this discussion will con/ince any materialist. People who ha/e a faith cannot be con/inced by mere words and lo0ic. =en with an irrational faith - and we hope that we ha/e made it clear that such is their case do not yield to rational ar0uments because words do not ha/e the same meanin0 for us and for them. we tal" about moral and spiritual /alues to which we attribute a 0reater reality with respect to man than to the electron, while they do not e/en admit the e.istence of such /alues and firmly belie/e in a material world which we consider only as a prete.t. ... Bur aim in discussin0 the mechanistic attitude toward e/olution and liberty, or free will, was to show that the materialist, who boasts about his strict and scientific rationalism, is not infallible in his own trade. Je is not li"ely of course to ad/ertise his errors or his conflicts but it must be "nown that he is no lon0er Cualified to claim strict rational thin"in0 and scientific facts as the basic foundation of his creed." (du ouy A., "Juman 8estiny," Aon0mans, ?reen E Co# ew !or" !, %&9,, 4e/enteenth Printin0, p.+%) "Dn fact, e/olution became in a sense a scientific reli0ion> almost all scientists accepted it and many are prepared to <bend< their obser/ations to fit in with it." "Df li/in0 matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atmos, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into bein06 There is another theory, now Cuite out of fa/our, which is based upon the ideas of Aamarc"# that if an or0anism needs an impro/ement it will de/elop it, and transmit it to its pro0eny. D thin", howe/er, that we must 0o further than this and admit that the only acceptable e.planation is creation. D "now that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not li"e if the e.perimental e/idence supports it." (J. 2. Aipson, 1.R.4. professor of physics, Mni/ersity of =anchestor, MK, "- physicist loo"s at e/olution" Physics $ulletin, /ol (%, p %(G, %&G:) "$ut e/olution is different. 3/olutionists purport to e.plain where we came from and how we de/eloped into the comple. or0anisms that we are. Physicists, by and lar0e, do

not. 4o, the study of e/olution trespasses on the bailiwic" of reli0ion. -nd it has somethin0 else in common with reli0ion." (5ills, Christopher FProfessor of $iolo0y, Mni/ersity of California, 4an 8ie0oH, "The 5isdom of the ?enes# ew Pathways in 3/olution," $asic $oo"s# ew !or" !, %&G&, p.&) "-ll this apparent desi0n has come about without a desi0ner. o purpose, no 0oals, no blueprints. atural selection is simply about 0enes replicatin0 themsel/es down the 0enerations. ?enes that build bodies that do what<s needed-seein0, runnin0, di0estin0, matin0-0et replicated> and those that don<t, don<t." (Cronin J., "The 3/olution of 3/olution," TD=3, 4ummer %&&,I&G, p.G:) "3/olution is the 0reatest en0ine of atheism e/er in/ented." (Pro/ine 5illiam $., FProfessor of $iolo0ical 4ciences, Cornell Mni/ersityH, "8arwin 8ay" website, Mni/ersity of Tennessee Kno./ille, %&&G. " aturalistic e/olution has clear conseCuences that Charles 8arwin understood perfectly. %) o 0ods worth ha/in0 e.ist> *) no life after death e.ists> () no ultimate foundation for ethics e.ists> 9) no ultimate meanin0 in life e.ists> and +) human free will is none.istent." (Pro/ine, 5illiam $. FProfessor of $iolo0ical 4ciences, Cornell Mni/ersityH, ", "3/olution# 1ree will and punishment and meanin0 in life", -bstract of 5ill Pro/ine<s %&&G 8arwin 8ay Keynote -ddress. http#IIfp.bio.ut".eduIdarwinI%&&GIpro/ine@abstract.html) "...2acCues =onod ( obel Pri;e, %&'+) calls e/olution a <0i0antic lottery< or <nature<s roulette< and concludes# PChance alone is at the source of e/ery inno/ation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the /ery root of the stupendous edifice of e/olution# this central concept of modern biolo0y is no lon0er one amon0 other concei/able hypotheses. Dt is today the sole concei/able hypothesis, the only one that sCuares with obser/ed and tested fact. -nd nothin0 warrants the supposition - or the hope - that on this score our position is li"ely e/er to be re/ised... The uni/erse was not pre0nant with life nor the biosphere with man. Bur number came up in the =onte Carlo 0ame.< (=onod 2., "Chance and ecessity," ew !or", %&,%, pp.%*%-%**, %9') "-t some future period, not /ery distant as measured by centuries, the ci/ili;ed races of man will almost certainly e.terminate and replace the sa/a0e races throu0hout the world. -t the same time the anthropomorphous apes... will no doubt be e.terminated. The brea" between man in a more ci/ilised state, as we may hope, e/en than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the ne0ro or -ustralian and the 0orilla" (Charles 8arwin, The 8escent of =an, *nd ed., ew !or", -.A. $urt Co., %G,9, p.%,G) "The more ci/ili;ed so-called Caucasian races ha/e beaten the Tur"ish hollow in the stru00le for e.istence. Aoo"in0 to the world at no /ery distant date, what an endless

number of the lower races will ha/e been eliminated by the hi0her ci/ilised races throu0hout the world." (8arwin, Charles R. F3n0lish naturalist and founder of the modern theory of e/olutionH, "The Aife of Charles 8arwin", F%&:*H, 4enate# Aondon, %&&+, reprint, p.'9). "D wish D were youn0er. 5hat inclines me now to thin" you may be ri0ht in re0ardin0 Fe/olutionH as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now 0o/erns our li/es is not so much your ar0uments a0ainst it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders." ( C. 4. Aewis, Pri/ate letter (%&+%) to Captain $ernard -cworth, one of the founders of the 3/olution Protest =o/ement (3n0land). Cited by 8r. Ronald umbers in his boo", The Creationists (-dolph Knoff Co., %&&%), p. %+(.) +reationism and Science: "Dt seems to me that, in our present state of "nowled0e, creation is the only answer-but not the crude creation en/isa0ed in ?enesis. D thin" that the fossil record shows successi/e e.periments in introducin0 new properties, biomolecularly, into li/in0 bein0s, those that were, successful bein0 proceeded with and those that were failures bein0 left alone or eliminated. -s a scientist, D am not happy with these ideas. $ut D find it distasteful for scientists to reject a theory because it does not fit in with their preconcei/ed ideas." (Aipson, J.4. FProfessor of Physics, Mni/ersity of =anchester Dnstitute of 4cience and Technolo0y, MKH, "Bri0in of species," in "Aetters," ew 4cientist, %9 =ay %&G%, p.9+*) "1rom my earliest trainin0 as a scientist, D was /ery stron0ly brainwashed to belie/e that science cannot be consistent with any "ind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. "-t the moment, D can<t find any rational ar0ument to "noc" down the /iew which ar0ues for con/ersion to ?od. 5e used to ha/e an open mind> now we reali;e that the only lo0ical answer to life is creation--and not accidental random shufflin0." (5ic"ramasin0he, C., Dnter/iew in Aondon 8aily 3.press (-u0ust %9, %&G%), 5ic"ramasin0he is Professor of -pplied =ath E -stronomy, Mni/ersity Colle0e, Cardiff. ) "...FcreationismH fails to display the most basic characteristic of science# reliance upon naturalistic e.planations. Dnstead, proponents of "creation-science" hold that the creation of the uni/erse, the earth, li/in0 thin0s, and man was accomplished throu0h supernatural means inaccessible to human understandin0." ( ational -cademy of 4ciences ( -4), %&G9. %/T$: this is not a pro-creationist quote0 It is usable, ho"ever, for it quite clearly displays the naturalistic philosophical presuppositions held by the authorities of science0 The %1S here states proper scientific e&planations are those naturalistic in character, thus eliminatin any chance of the consideration that there "ere non-natural causes involved in the ori ins of life0 It has contrived a definition for science and truth by "hich it can allo" itself e&clude any idea that a +reator had a part in the process of ori ins0 Is this the unbounded ob2ective pursuit of truth "hich "e love and for

"hich people trust science3 (e "ary of such sophistry promoted by the %1S, for it is quite common in their %1P literature0) +reationism and Philosophy and #eli ion: "$y faith we understand that the uni/erse was formed at ?od<s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was /isible" (Jebrews %%#(, ( D7 Translation)) "The hea/ens declare the 0lory of ?od and the s"ies proclaim the wor" of his hands." (Psalms %&#%, ( D7 Translation)) Intelli ent ,esi n and Philosophy: "-ny li/in0 bein0 possesses an enormous amount of "intelli0ence," /ery much more than is necessary to build the most ma0nificent of cathedrals. Today, this "intelli0ence" is called "information," but it is still the same thin0. Dt is not pro0rammed as in a computer, but rather it is condensed on a molecular scale in the chromosomal 8 - or in that of any other or0anelle in each cell. This "intelli0ence" is the sine Cua non of life. Df absent, no li/in0 bein0 is ima0inable. 5here does it come from6 This is a problem which concerns both biolo0ists and philosophers and, at present, science seems incapable of sol/in0 it." "5hen we consider a human wor", we belie/e we "now where the Pintelli0ence< which fashioned it comes from> but when a li/in0 bein0 is concerned, no one "nows or e/er "new, neither 8arwin nor 3picurus, neither Aeibni; nor -ristotle, neither 3instein nor Parmenides. -n act of faith is necessary to ma"e us adopt one hypothesis rather than another. 4cience, which does not accept any credo, or in any case should not, ac"nowled0es its i0norance, its inability to sol/e this problem which, we are certain, e.ists and has reality. Df to determine the ori0in of information in a computer is not a false problem, why should the search for the information contained in cellular nuclei be one6" "Throu0h use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded e.trapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. Dt is ta"in0 root in the /ery heart of biolo0y and is leadin0 astray many biochemists and biolo0ists, who sincerely belie/e that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case." (?rasse, Pierre-P., Feditor of the *G-/olume "Traite de Qoolo0ie," former Chair of 3/olution, 4orbonne Mni/ersity and e.-president of the 1rench -cademie des 4ciencesH, "3/olution of Ai/in0 Br0anisms# 3/idence for a ew Theory of Transformation," F%&,(H, -cademic Press# ew !or" !, %&,,, p*) "3/idently nature can no lon0er be seen as matter and ener0y alone. or can all her secrets be unloc"ed with the "eys of chemistry and physics, brilliantly successful as these two branches of science ha/e been in our century. - third component is needed for any e.planation of the world that claims to be complete. To the powerful theories of chemistry and physics must be added a late arri/al# a theory of information. ature must be interpreted as matter, ener0y, and information." (Campbell, 2eremy C., F2ournalistH, "?rammatical =an# Dnformation, 3ntropy, Aan0ua0e and Aife," F%&G*H, Pen0uin $oo"s# Jarmondsworth, =iddlese. MK, %&G9, reprint, p.%')

"The e.istence of desi0n and nature is a fact which must certainly be ta"en seriously ... FbecauseH in e/ery main branch of science- physics, 0eophysics, astronomy, chemistry, biolo0y- we are faced by the same surprisin0 fact.... early e/erywhere it FnatureH shows the si0ns.... of somethin0 that we can only thin" of in terms of in0enuity and deliberate desi0n." (Robert 3.8.Clar", Phd Br0anic Chemistry (Cambrid0e Mni/ersity), The Mni/erse# Plan or -ccident6 (?rand Rapids, =D# Qonder/an, %&,*), %+%, %G%. ) "D would ha/e no problem reconcilin0 8arwinism to Christianity if -- on scientific 0rounds -- D thou0ht 8arwinism was true." (5illiam -. 8embs"i, 4K3PTDC4, D 1D83A4, -? B4TDC4, - 8 -44BRT38 8B?=-TD4T4 in -merican Butloo", o/emberI8ecember *::: edition66) 4ie"s of Individual Scientists and Intellectuals: "Philosophically, the notion of a be0innin0 of the present order of ature is repu0nant . . . D should li"e to find a 0enuine loophole." (4ir -rthur 3ddin0ton) "3motionally D am an atheist. D don<t ha/e the e/idence to pro/e that ?od doesn<t e.ist, but D so stron0ly suspect Je doesn<t that D don<t want to waste my time." (Dsaac -simo/ (%&G*), Conte.t) "The more D study science, the more D belie/e in ?od." (-lbert 3instein) "1or myself, faith be0ins with the reali;ation that a supreme intelli0ence brou0ht the uni/erse into bein0 and created man. Dt is not difficult for me to ha/e this faith, for it is incontro/ertible that where there is a plan there is intelli0ence--an orderly, unfoldin0 uni/erse testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement e/er uttered--"Dn the be0innin0 ?od." (-rthur Compton (%&('), Chica0o 8aily ews) "D had moti/e for not wantin0 the world to ha/e a meanin0> conseCuently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfyin0 reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meanin0 in the world is not concerned e.clusi/ely with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to pro/e that there is no /alid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not sei;e political power and 0o/ern in the way that they find most ad/anta0eous to themsel/es. 1or myself, the philosophy of meanin0lessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, se.ual and political." (-ldous Ju.ley# 3nds and =eans, pp. *,: ff.) "B/erwhelmin0 stron0 proofs of intelli0ent and bene/olent desi0n lie around us ... The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that D cannot put it into words." (Aord Kel/in, 7ict. Dnst., %*9, p*',. It should be noted: 5elvin, a +hristian, "as one

of the first scientists to put propose evidence that the earth "as millions of years old that "as actually accepted by the scientific community0 The earth may or may not be millions of years old, but its a e "as not a factor in 5elvin6s understandin of desi n in the "orld, or his reli ious beliefs0) " ow, my own suspicion is that the uni/erse is not only Cueerer than we suppose, but Cueerer than we can suppose. D ha/e read and heard many attempts at a systematic account of it, from materialism and theosophy to the Christian system or that of Kant, and D ha/e always felt that they were much too simple. D suspect that there are more thin0s in hea/en and earth than are dreamed of, or can be dreamed of, in any philosophy." (Jaldane, 2ohn $.4. FProfessor of ?enetics, Aondon Mni/ersityH, "Possible 5orlds# -nd Bther 3ssays," F%&*,H, Chatto and 5indus# Aondon, %&(*, reprint, p.*G'. 3mphasis in the ori0inal.) "The more the uni/erse seems comprehensible (/ia the bi0 ban0) the more it also seems pointless)" (4te/e 5einber0 (%&,,), The 1irst Three =inutes, Please note# it is only hopeless if one ascribes to the point of /iew that there is nothin0 beyond the uni/erse which could e.ist that mi0ht pro/ide hope) "D 0i/e than"s to thee, B Aord Creator, 5ho has deli0hted me with thy ma"in0s .. the wor"s of thy hands." (2ohannes Kepler (%'%&), Jarmonies of the 5orld) "Dn reli0ion, as in war and e/erythin0 else, comfort is the one thin0 you cannot 0et by loo"in0 for it. Df you loo" for truth, you may find comfort in the end# if you loo" for comfort you will not 0et either comfort or truth -- only soft soap and wishful thin"in0 to be0in with and, in the end, despair." (C.4. Aewis, =ere Christianity) "Dt is as impossible that e/er pure inco0itati/e matter should produce a thin"in0 intelli0ent $ein0, as that nothin0 should of itself produce =atter" (2ohn Aoc"e, 3ssay Concernin0 Juman Mnderstandin0, %'&:, D7, .. %:)

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. Bne is spontaneous 0eneration arisin0 to e/olution> the other is a supernatural creati/e act of ?od. There is no third possibility. 4pontaneous 0eneration, that life arose from non-li/in0 matter was scientifically dispro/ed %*: years a0o by Aouis Pasture and others. That lea/es us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creati/e act of ?od. D will not accept that philosophically because D do not want to belie/e in ?od. Therefore, D choose to belie/e in that which D "now is scientifically impossible> spontaneous 0eneration arisin0 to e/olution."

(8r. ?eor0e 5all professor emeritus of biolo0y at Jar/ard Mni/ersity. obel Pri;e winner in biolo0y. 1rom an article in 4cientific -merican) "Dn %&,(, D proposed that our Mni/erse had been created spontaneously from nothin0 (e. nihilo), as a result of established principles of physics. This proposal /ariously struc" people as preposterous, enchantin0, or both. The no/elty of a scientific theory of creation e. nihilo is readily apparent, for science has lon0 tau0ht us that one cannot ma"e somethin0 from nothin0." (Tryon, 3dward P. FProfessor of physics, Junter Colle0e E City Mni/ersity of ew !or"H., "5hat made the world6" ew 4cientist, 7ol. %:%, o. %9::, G =arch %&G9, p.%') "The more statistically improbable a thin0 is, the less can we belie/e that it just happened by blind chance. 4uperficially the ob/ious alternati/e to chance is an intelli0ent 8esi0ner." (8r. Richard 8aw"ins 8epartment of Qoolo0y B.ford Mni/ersity) PP4ince we "now that scales and feathers are closely related, it ma"es sense that we would e/entually find somethin0 li"e this,<< 1educcia said." (-lan 1educcia in references to the appenda0es on Aon0isCuama, as Cuoted in "1ossil Reptiles< 1eathers 8ebated", o/ *', *:::, $y TJ3 -44BCD-T38 PR344) "5e</e 0ot to ha/e some ancestors. 5e<ll pic" those. 5hy6 $ecause we "now they ha/e to be there, and these are the best candidates. That<s by and lar0e the way it has wor"ed. D am not e.a00eratin0." ( elson, ?areth FChairman and Curator of the 8epartment of Jerpetolo0y and Dchthyolo0y, -merican =useum of atural Jistory, ew !or"H, inter/iew, $ethell T., The 5all 4treet 2ournal, 8ecember &, %&G', in 2ohnson P.3., "8arwin on Trial," Dnter7arsity Press# 8owners ?ro/e Dll., 4econd 3dition, %&&(, p,') "Bnce we see, howe/er, that the probability of life ori0inatin0 at random is so utterly minuscule as to ma"e it absurd, it becomes sensible to thin" that the fa/ourable properties of physics on which life depends are in e/ery respect deliberate....Dt is therefore almost ine/itable that our own measure of intelli0ence must reflect ...hi0her intelli0ences...e/en to the limit of ?od...such a theory is so ob/ious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as bein0 self-e/ident. The reasons are psycholo0ical rather than scientific." (4ir 1red Joyle, well-"nown $ritish mathematician, astronomer and cosmolo0ist and Chandra 5ic"ramasin0he, 3/olution from 4pace, p. %(:.) "-t this point, it is necessary to re/eal a little inside information about how scientists wor", somethin0 the te.tboo"s don<t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objecti/e and dispassionate in their wor" as they would li"e you to thin". =ost scientists first 0et their ideas about how the world wor"s not throu0h ri0orously lo0ical processes but throu0h hunches and wild 0uesses. -s indi/iduals they often come to belie/e somethin0 to be true lon0 before they assemble the hard e/idence that will con/ince somebody else that it is. =oti/ated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years "nowin0 in his heart that his

theory is correct but de/isin0 e.periment after e.periment whose results he hopes will support his position." ($oyce Rensber0er, Jow the 5orld 5or"s, 5illiam =orrow, !, %&G', pp. %,%G. Rensber0er is an ardently anti-creationist science writer.) "Df you isolate a small number of indi/iduals from the main population and pre/ent them from interbreedin0 with the main population, then, after a time, the distribution of 0enes in the 0ene pool of the new population will differ somewhat from that of the ori0inal population. This will happen e/en if selection pressures are completely absent. =orit; 5a0ner, a contemporary of 8arwin, and of course a pre- =endelian, was aware of this situation. Je therefore introduced a theory of e/olution by 0enetic drift, made possible by reproducti/e isolation throu0h 0eo0raphical separation. Dn order to understand the tas" of natural selection, it is 0ood to remember 8arwin<s reply to =orit; 5a0ner. 8arwin<s main reply to 5a0ner was# if you ha/e no natural selection, you cannot e.plain the e/olution of the apparently desi0ned or0ans, li"e the eye. Br in other words, without natural selection, you cannot sol/e Paley<s problem." (Popper, Karl R., F3meritus Professor of Philosophy, Mni/ersity of AondonH, " atural 4election and the 3mer0ence of =ind," 8ialectica, 7ol. (*, os. (-9, %&,G, pp.((&-(++, p.(9+) "...(D)t should be apparent that the errors, o/erstatements and omissions that we ha/e noted in these biolo0y te.ts, all tend to enhance the plausibility of hypotheses that are presented. =ore importantly, the inclusion of outdated material and erroneous discussions is not tri/ial. The items noted mislead students and impede their acCuisition of critical thin"in0 s"ills. Df we fail to teach students to e.amine data critically, loo"in0 for points both fa/orin0 and opposin0 hypotheses, we are sellin0 our youth short and mort0a0in0 the future of scientific inCuiry itself " ("Bri0in of Aife 3/olution in $iolo0y Te.tboo"s - - CritiCue," =ills, Aancaster, $radley, The -merican $iolo0y Teacher, 7olume ++, o. *, 1ebruary, %&&(, p. G() "Ds such a harmony that is emer0ed only out of coincidences possible in reality6 This is the basic Cuestion of the whole biolo0ical e/olution. -nswerin0 this Cuestion as "!es, it is possible" is somethin0 li"e /erifyin0 faith in the modern science of nature. Critically spea"in0, we can say that somebody who accepts the modern science of nature has no other alternati/e but to say "yes", because he would aim to e.plain the natural phenomenon by understandable ways and try to deri/e them from laws of nature without applyin0 to metaphysical interference. Jowe/er at this point, e.plainin0 e/erythin0 by means of laws of nature, that is, by coincidences, is a si0n that he has nowhere else to escape. $ecause, what could he do other than belie/in0 in coincidences6" (Joimar 7on 8ithfurt, Dm -nfan0 5ar 8er 5asserstoff (4ecret i0ht of the 8inosaurs), 7ol *, p. '9. ) "-ny suppression which undermines and destroys that /ery foundation on which scientific methodolo0y and research was erected, e/olutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish ... Dt is a confrontation between scientific objecti/ity and in0rained prejudice - between lo0ic and emotion - between fact and fiction ... Dn the final

analysis, objecti/e scientific lo0ic has to pre/ail - no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honoured idols ha/e to be discarded in the process ... -fter all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of e/olution and stic" by it to the bitter end -no matter what illo0ical and unsupported conclusions it offers ... Df in the process of impartial scientific lo0ic, they find that creation by outside intelli0ence is the solution to our Cuandary, then let<s cut the umbilical chord that tied us down to 8arwin for such a lon0 time. Dt is cho"in0 us and holdin0 us bac" ... 3/ery sin0le concept ad/anced by the theory of e/olution (and amended thereafter) is ima0inary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. 8arwin was wron0... The theory of e/olution may be the worst mista"e made in science." (D A Cohen, 8arwin 5as 5ron0 - - 4tudy in Probabilities PB $o. *(%, ?reen/ale, ew !or" %%+9G# ew Research Publications, Dnc. pp '-G, *:&-*%:, *%9-*%+. D.A.Cohen, =ember of the ew !or" -cademy of 4ciences and Bfficer of the -rchaeolo0ical Dnstitute of -merica.) "D rubbed my eyes in ama;ement. 5e are bac" in the days of ?alileo, D thou0ht, when a totalitarian Church prescribed to scientists what could be said and what not. Bnly the roles seem to ha/e been re/ersed. Theolo0ians "eep their mouth shut by their own free will, scared to death to utter anythin0 that could possibly displease scientists. Dronically enou0h, science does not forbid at all anybody to wal" on the water or to rise from the dead. The situation is perhaps well summari;ed by the philosopher Paul 1eyerabend, who wrote# <4cience is the most a00ressi/e reli0iousdo0matic institution of our time.< " "Df it is true, and D thin" it is, that science played an important part in destroyin0 the relation between modern man and ?od by ta"in0 ?od<s place itself, then a scientist who tries to be a belie/er at the same time, has somethin0 to do. Dt is his duty to demonstrate that this is a blind road. That the roused e.pectations on sal/ation by science are false. That they are based on arro0ance. Je must not belittle science, but show to science its due place# the position of ser/ant of man"ind instead of its idol. " (Aecture 0i/en at 8ayton Mni/ersity by Prof. 3meritus -rie /an den $eu"el, 8elft Mni/ersity, The etherlands "4al/ation throu0h science6") "D was standin0 today in the dar" toolshed. The sun was shinin0 outside and throu0h the crac" at the top of the door there came a sun beam. 1rom where D stood that beam of li0ht, with the spec"s of dust floatin0 in it, was the most stri"in0 thin0 in the place. 3/erythin0 else was almost pitch-blac". D was seein0 the beam, not seein0 thin0s by it. Them D mo/ed, so that the beam fell on my eyes. Dnstantly the whole pre/ious picture /anished. D saw no toolshed, and (abo/e all) no beam. Dnstead D saw, framed in the irre0ular cranny at the top of the door, 0reen lea/es mo/in0 on the branches of a tree outside and beyond that, ninety-odd million miles away, the sun. Aoo"in0 alon0 the beam, and loo"in0 at the beam are /ery different e.periences." (Aewis C.4., "Compellin0 Reason# 3ssays on 3thics and Theolo0y," F%&&'H, 1ount# Aondon, %&&G, reprint, p.+*) "The personal and intellectual drama of 8arwin and 8ana pro/ides the main subject for this essay, but D also write to illustrate a broader theme in the li/es of scholars and the nature of science# the inte0rati/e power of world/iews (the positi/e side), and their hold as conceptual loc"s upon major inno/ation (the ne0ati/e side)."

(?ould, 4tephen 2ay FProfessor of Qoolo0y and ?eolo0y, Jar/ard Mni/ersityH, "Aeonardo<s =ountain of Clams and the 8iet of 5orms# 3ssays on atural Jistory", F%&&GH, 7inta0e# Aondon, %&&&, reprint, p.%:() "4cientists are particularly loath to relinCuish the last form of prejudice ... Dt must be true because anythin0 else would be unthin"able." (1er0uson, K., 1ire in the 3Cuations, 3erdmans, ?rand Rpaids, =D (%&&9)) "Bn the other hand, D cannot anyhow be contented to /iew this wonderful uni/erse, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that e/erythin0 is the result of brute force. D am inclined to loo" at e/erythin0 as resultin0 from desi0ned laws, with the details, whether 0ood or bad, left to the wor"in0 out of what we may call chance. ot that this notion at all satisfies me. D feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. - do0 mi0ht as well speculate on the mind of ewton. Aet each man hope and belie/e what he can. Certainly D a0ree with you that my /iews are not at all necessarily atheistical. The li0htnin0 "ills a man, whether a 0ood one or bad one, owin0 to the e.cessi/ely comple. action of natural laws. - child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of e/en more comple. laws, and D can see no reason why a man, or other animal, may not ha/e been abori0inally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may ha/e been e.pressly desi0ned by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw e/ery future e/ent and conseCuence. $ut the more D thin" the more bewildered D become> as indeed D ha/e probably shown by this letter." (8arwin, %G':, p.*('). "$ut passin0 o/er the endless beautiful adaptations which we e/erywhere meet with, it may be as"ed how can the 0enerally beneficent arran0ement of the world be accounted for6 4ome writers indeed are so much impressed with the amount of sufferin0 in the world, that they doubt, if we loo" to all sentient bein0s, whether there is more of misery or of happiness> whether the world as a whole is a 0ood or a bad one. -ccordin0 to my jud0ment happiness decidedly pre/ails, thou0h this would be /ery difficult to pro/e. Df the truth of this conclusion be 0ranted, it harmoni;es well with the effects which we mi0ht e.pect from natural selection. Df all the indi/iduals of any species were habitually to suffer to an e.treme de0ree, they would ne0lect to propa0ate their "ind> but we ha/e no reason to belie/e that this has e/er, or at least often occurred. 4ome other considerations, moreo/er, lead to the belief that all sentient bein0s ha/e been formed so as to enjoy, as a 0eneral rule, happiness." (8arwin C.R., in 8arwin 1., ed., "The Aife of Charles 8arwin," F%&:*H, 4enate# Aondon, %&&+, reprint, p.+&). "The two cases which appear to me to ha/e the most of difficulty in them, is formin0 the most of the appearance of e.ception to the representation here 0i/en, are those of U/enomousU animals, and of animals Upreyin0U upon one another. These properties of animals, where/er they are found, must, D thin"s be referred to desi0n> because there is, in all cases of the first, and in most cases of the second, an e.press told distinct or0ani;ation pro/ided for the producin0 of them. Mnder the first head, the fan0s of /ipers the stin0s of wasps and scorpions, are as clearly intended for their purpose, as any animal structure is

for any purpose the most incontestable beneficial. -nd the same thin0 must, under the second head, be ac"nowled0ed of the talons and bea"s of birds, of the tus"s, teeth, and claws of beasts of prey, of the shar"<s mouth, of the spider<s web, and of numberless weapons of offense belon0in0 to different tribes of /oracious insects. 5e cannot, therefore, a/oid the difficulty by sayin0, that the effect was not intended. The only Cuestion open to us is, whether it be ultimately e/il." (Paley, %G:*, p.(9G. 3mphasis in ori0inal). "Dt is a happy world after all. The air, the earth, the water, teem with deli0hted e.istence. Dn a sprin0 noon, or a summer e/enin0 on whiche/er side D turn my eyes, myriads of happy bein0s crowd upon my /iew. "The insect youth are on the win0." 4warms of newborn flies are tryin0 their pinions in the air. Their sporti/e motions, their wanton ma;es, their 0ratuitous acti/ity, their continual chan0e of place without use or purpose, testify their joy, and the e.ultation which they feel in their lately disco/ered faculties." (Paley 5., " atural Theolo0y# or, 3/idences of the 3.istence and -ttributes of the 8eity, Collected from the -ppearances of ature," F%G:*H, 4t. Thomas Press# Jouston TV, %&,*, reprint, p.(9:) "Dt is interestin0 to contemplate a tan0led ban", clothed with many plants of many "inds, with birds sin0in0 on the bushes, with /arious insects flittin0 about, and with worms crawlin0 throu0h the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so comple. a manner, ha/e all been produced by laws actin0 around us." (8arwin C.R., "The Bri0in of 4pecies by =eans of atural 4election," F%G,*H, 3/eryman<s Aibrary, 2.=. 8ent E 4ons# Aondon, 'th 3dition, %&*G, reprint, p.9'*) "D may be permitted to say, as some e.cuse, that D had two distinct objects in /iew> firstly, to shew that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief a0ent of chan0e...hence if D ha/e erred in 0i/in0 to natural selection 0reat power...D ha/e at least as D hope, done 0ood ser/ice in aidin0 to o/erthrow the do0ma of separate creations." (8arwin, Charles R. F3n0lish naturalist and founder of the modern theory of e/olutionH, "The 8escent of =an," bound in one /olume with "The Bri0in of 4pecies," F%G,%H, =odern Aibrary, Random Jouse# ew !or", nd., pp.99%-99*. ote# D<m not totally sure about this, but this Cuote seems to imply that 8arwin was more interested in refutin0 creationist ideas (i.e. reli0ious doctrines of creation) rather than actually contributin0 to the scientific cause.) "This shall be such an e.traordinary note as you ha/e ne/er recei/ed from me, for it shall not contain one sin0le Cuestion or reCuest. D than" you for your impression on my /iews. 3/ery criticism from a 0ood man is of /alue to me. 5hat you hint at 0enerally is /ery, /ery true# that my wor" will be 0rie/ously hypothetical, and lar0e parts by no means worthy of bein0 called induction, my commonest error bein0 probably induction from too few facts." (8arwin, Charles R. F3n0lish naturalist and joint founder of the modern theory of

e/olutionH, letter to -sa ?ray of o/ember *&, %G+&, in 8arwin 1., ed., "=ore Aetters of Charles 8arwin," 2ohn =urray# Aondon, %&:(, 7ol. D, pp.%*'-%*,) "!ou will be 0reatly disappointed (by the forthcomin0 boo")> it will be 0rie/ously too hypothetical. Dt will /ery li"ely be of no other ser/ice than collocatin0 some facts> thou0h D myself thin" D see my way appor.imately on the ori0in of the species. $ut, alas, how freCuently, how almost uni/ersal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own do0mas." (Charles 8arwin, %G+G, in a letter to a collea0ue re0ardin0 the concludin0 chapters of his Bri0in Bf 4pecies. -s Cuoted in <2ohn Aofton<s 2ournal<, The 5ashin0ton Times, G 1ebruary %&G9) "The intellectual con/er0ence that fostered such commensurable /iews amon0 scientists of /astly different disciplines reinforced my surmise from earlier studies that prior subscription to a hypothesis is the chief conditionin0 factor in the co0nition of facts, methods, and standards of appraisal." "the difficulty in stayin0 abreast of the professional literature in these debates has made scientists especially dependent on re/iew articles, and /ulnerable to poorly informed and biased commentary from many Cuarters." (5illiam ?len (ed.) The mass e.tinction debates# how science wor"s in a crisis. 4tanford Mni/ersity Press. %&&9.) "...it is the Christian world which finally 0a/e birth in a clear articulate fashion to the e.perimental method of science itself...Dt is surely one of the curious parado.es of history that science which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its ori0ins to an act of faith that the uni/erse can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption." (3iseley, Aoren C. FProfessor of -nthropolo0y, Mni/ersity of Pennsyl/aniaH, "8arwin<s Century# 3/olution and the =en 5ho 8isco/ered Dt," F%&+GH, -nchor $oo"s# 8oubleday E Co# ?arden City !, %&'%, reprint, p.'*) "The theory of 3/olution ... will be one of the 0reat jo"es in the history boo"s of the future. Posterity will mar/el that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has." (=alcolm =u00erid0e, (journalist and philosopher), Pascal Aectures, Mni/ersity of 5aterloo, Bntario, Canada) "Dn fact the a priori reasonin0 is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won<t fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feelin0." (3rasmus 8arwin, in a letter to his brother Charles, after readin0 his new boo", "The Bri0in of 4pecies," in 8arwin, 1., ed., "The Aife of Charles 8arwin," F%&:*H, 4enate# Aondon, %&&+, reprint, p*%+) "5e ha/e had enou0h of the 8arwinian fallacy. Dt is time that we cry# <The emperor has no clothes.<" (K.Jsu, 0eolo0ist at the ?eolo0ical Dnstitute at Qurich)

"3/olutionary scientists "now e/erythin0 about the missin0 lin" e.cept the fact that it is missin0." (?.K. Chesterton, 5riter) "4cientists who 0o about teachin0 that 3/olution is a fact of life are 0reat con men, and the story they are tellin0 may be the 0reatest hoa. e/er. Dn e.plainin0 e/olution we do not ha/e one iota of fact." (8r T Tahmisian, a former M.4. -tomic 3ner0y Commission physiolo0ist, in <The 1resno $ee<, -u0ust *: %&+&. -s Cuoted by .2. =itchell, 3/olution an dthe 3mperor<s ew Clothes, Roydon publications, MK, %&G(, title pa0e) "The 3ldred0e-?ould concept of punctuated eCuilibria has 0ained wide acceptance amon0 paleontolo0ists. Dt attempts to account for the followin0 parado.# 5ithin continuously sampled linea0es, one rarely finds the 0radual morpholo0ical trends predicted by 8arwinian e/olution> rather, chan0e occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. 3ldred0e and ?ould eCuate such appearances with speciation, althou0h the details of these e/ents are not preser/ed. They su00est that chan0e occurs rapidly, by 0eolo0ic standards, in small, peripheral populations. They belie/e that e/olution is accelerated in such populations because they contain a small, random sample of the 0ene pool of the parent population (founder effect) and therefore can di/er0e rapidly just by chance and because they can respond to local selection pressures that may differ from those encountered by the parent population. 3/entually some of these di/er0ent, peripheral opulations are fa/ored by chan0ed en/ironmental conditions (species selection) and so they incrase and spread rapidly into fossil assembla0es. The punctuated eCilibrium model has been widly accepted, not because it has a compellin0 theoretical basis but because it appears to resol/e a dilemma. ... apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could ar0ue that speciation can occur only when phyletic chan0e is rapid, not /ice /ersa), the model is more ad hoc e.planation than theory, and it rests on sha"y 0round." (Robert 3. Ric"lefs (8pt. $iolo0y, Mni/ersity of Pennsyl/ania) "Paleontolo0ists confrontin0 macroe/olution.< 4cience, /ol. %&&, ' 2an %&,G, p. +&) "The code of conduct that the naturalist wishin0 to understand the problem of e/olution must adopt is to adhere to facts and sweep away all a priori ideas and do0mas. 1acts must come first and theories must follow. The only /erdict that matters is the one pronounced by the court as pro/ed facts. Dndeed, the best studies on e/olution ha/e been carried out by biolo0ists who are not blinded by doctrines and who obser/e facts coldly without considerin0 whether they a0ree or disa0ree with their theories." (?rasse, Pierre-P. Feditor of the *G-/olume "Traite de Qoolo0ie," former Chair of 3/olution, 4orbonne Mni/ersity and e.-president of the 1rench -cademie des 4ciencesH, "3/olution of Ai/in0 Br0anisms# 3/idence for a ew Theory of Transformation," F%&,(H, -cademic Press# ew !or" !, %&,,, pG) "Bn readin0 The Bri0in of 4pecies, D found that 8arwin was much less sure himself than he is often represented to be> the chapter entitled "8ifficulties of the Theory" for

e.ample, shows considerable self-doubt. -s a physicist, D was particularly intri0ued by his comments on how the eye would ha/e arisen" (J. 4. Aipson, "- Physicist<s 7iew of 8arwin<s Theory", 3/olution Trends in Plants, 7ol *, o. %, %&GG, p. '.) "Dt would be foolhardy, howe/er, for any defender of neo-8arwinism to claim that contemporary e/olution theory 0i/es onethe power to read history so finely from present data as to rule out the earlier historical presence of rational desi0ners-a wildly implausible fantasy, but a possibility after all." (8ennett 8.C., "8arwin <s 8an0erous Ddea# 3/olution and The =eanin0s of Aife," F%&&+H, Pen0uin# Aondon, %&&', reprint, pp.(%,-(%G) "5ith the failure of these many efforts Fto e.plain the ori0in of lifeH science was left in the somewhat embarrassin0 position of ha/in0 to postulate theories of li/in0 ori0ins which it could not demonstrate. -fter ha/in0 chided the theolo0ian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unen/iable position of ha/in0 to create a mytholo0y of its own# namely, the assumption that what, after lon0 effort, could not be pro/ed to ta"e place today had, in truth, ta"en place in the prime/al past." (3iseley, Aoren C., Flate Professor of -nthropolo0y, Mni/ersity of Pennsyl/aniaH, "The Dmmense 2ourney," F%&9'H, 7inta0e# ew !or" !, %&+,, reprint, p.%&&) "Professor 3iseley presents a detailed ar0ument desi0ned to show that 8arwin probably deri/ed the idea of natural selection from two articles written by his acCuaintance 3dward $lyth and published in The =a0a;ine of atural Jistory in %G(+ and %G(,. Df these articles were in fact the source of 8arwin<s theory, 8arwin was 0uilty of 0ra/e intellectual dishonesty. Dn the present writer<s opinion, Professor 3iseley fails to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt, althou0h the e/idence he presents is sufficiently disturbin0 to merit further in/esti0ation aimed at establishin0 or dispro/in0 his thesis." (?reene 2.C., "The 8eath of -dam# 3/olution and its Dmpact on 5estern Thou0ht," F%&+&H, =entor# ew !or" !, %&'%, reprint, p.('') "To say that there is a complete consensus amon0 scientists that e/olution has occurred does not mean there is complete understandin0 of the underlyin0 mechanisms, or ways, in which e/olution has occurred. 1ar from it. 5hile e/olution is a fact, how it occurs will always be the subject of debate. This is the fascination of science. To put it another way, there is no dispute about the fact that e/olution has occurred but there is dispute amon0 scientists about how it has occurred." (Price, $arry Fformer 8irector, 4chool Physics Project, -ustralian -cademy of 4cienceH, "The Creation 4cience Contro/ersy," =illennium $oo"s# 4ydney, %&&:, pG. Dtalics in ori0inal. note# 4o, 3/olutionists claim it is a Pfact< that e/olution has occurred e/en thou0h they don<t "now how it occurred) "The doctrine of e/olution by natural selection as 8arwin formulated, and as his followers still e.plain it, has a stron0 anti-reli0ious fla/our. This is due to the fact that the intricate adaptations and co-ordinations we see in li/in0 thin0s naturally e/o"in0 the idea of finality and desi0n and, therefore of an intelli0ent pro/idence, are e.plained, with what

seems to be a ri0orous ar0ument, as the result of chance. Dt may be said, and the most orthodo. theolo0ians indeed hold, that ?od controls and 0uides e/en the e/ents due to chance - but this proposition the 8arwinians emphatically reject, and it is clear that in the Bri0in e/olution is presented as an essentially undirected process. 1or the majority of its readers, therefore, the Bri0in effecti/ely dissipated the e/idence of pro/idential control. Dt mi0ht be said that this was their own fault. e/ertheless the failure of 8arwin and his successors to attempt an eCuitable assessment of the reli0ious issues at sta"e indicates a re0rettable obtuseness and lac" of responsibility." (Thompson 5.R.U Fentomolo0ist and 8irector of the Commonwealth Dnstitute of $iolo0ical Control, Bttawa, CanadaH, "Dntroduction," in 8arwin C.R., "The Bri0in of 4pecies by =eans of atural 4election," F%G,*H, 3/eryman<s Aibrary, 2.=. 8ent E 4ons# Aondon, 'th 3dition, %&',, reprint, p...iii) "5e ha/e no acceptable theory of e/olution at the present time. There is none> and D cannot accept the theory that D teach to my students each year. Aet me e.plain. D teach the synthetic theory "nown as the neo-8arwinian one, for one reason only> not because it<s 0ood, we "now it is bad, but because there isn<t any other. 5hilst waitin0 to find somethin0 better you are tau0ht somethin0 which is "nown to be ine.act, which is a first appro.imation." (Professor 2erome Aejeune# 1rom a 1rench recordin0 of internationally reco0nised 0eneticist, Professor 2erome Aejeune, at a lecture 0i/en in Paris on =arch %,, %&G+. Translated by Peter 5ilders of =onaco.) "=any well Cualified scientists of the hi0hest standin0 would today accept many of 5ilberforce<s criticims of 8arwin ... =issin0 lin"s in the seCuence of fossil e/idence were a worry to 8arwin. Je felt sure they would e/entually turn up, but they are still missin0 and seem li"ely to remain so." (Professor 4ir 3dmund Aeech, addresin0 the %&G% annual meetin0 of the $ritish -ssociation for the ad/ancement of 4cience, <=en, bishops and apes<. ature /ol *&(, ( 4ept %&G%, pp %& and *:) "a "ind of scientific inte0rity, a principle of scientific thou0ht that corresponds to a "ind of utter honesty -a "ind of leanin0 o/er bac"wards. ... if you<re doin0 an e.periment, you should report e/erythin0 that you thin" mi0ht ma"e it in/alid-not only what you thin" is ri0ht about it# other causes that could possibly e.plain your results. ... 8etails that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be 0i/en ... if you "now anythin0 at all wron0, or possibly wron0-to e.plain it. Df you ma"e a theory ... and ad/ertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disa0ree with it, as well as those that a0ree with it." (1eynman R.P., "Car0o Cult 4cience," in "P4urely !ou<re 2o"in0, =r 1eynmanO<", %&&:, p.(9%) "D here simply note that the concept of e/olution in 0eneral (includin0 cosmic, or0anic and cultural e/olutions) has itself captured the ima0ination of our society in this century for /arious reasons, amon0 which has been a stru00le to 0et free of reli0ious bonds standin0 in the way of /arious projects. ...

"Randomness is deeply fundamental to the theory in the sense that its major purpose was to find a model of e/olution that did not in/ol/e any force 0i/in0 it direction. This relates directly to its ideolo0ical challen0e to reli0ious /iews on the ori0in of humans." (4tanley . 4althe, Ph.8. Qoolo0y, %&'(, Columbia Mni/ersity, former Professor 3meritus, $roo"lyn Colle0e of the City Mni/ersity of ew !or" E 7isitin0 4cientist in $iolo0ical 4ciences, $in0hamton Mni/ersity in "-nalysis and critiCue of the concept of atural 4election (and of the 8arwinian theory of e/olution) in respect to its suitability as part of =odernism<s ori0ination myth, as well as of its ability to e.plain or0anic e/olution") "Df there is no means to discern whether somethin0 has been intelli0ently desi0ned, on what basis do paleontolo0ists and archaeolo0ists re0ularly conclude that mar"in0s, structures, and /arious artifacts were intelli0ently desi0ned6 8oes not the search for e.traterrestrial intelli0ence depend on the assumption that intelli0ently 0enerated radio si0nals can be distin0uished from naturally 0enerated ones6" (-shby A. Camp, - Response to Priests Bf 4cientific Brthodo.y, in "uman #vents, 4ept. *+, *:::) "Jowe/er, there is a real dan0er that in e.plainin0 so much the theory actually e$plains nothin0. This is the core of the philosophical doubt facin0 8arwinism. -n e.ample of the perils of <e.plainin0 too much< can be seen in the notion of adaptation. 5hen a biolo0ist finds a creature with an intricate and useful adaptation-such as the chameleon<s ability to chan0e colour to match its bac"0round-he immediately e.plains it in terms of natural selection and e/olution. Dn fact the e.istence of such adaptations is freCuently ta"en as proof of the power of selection. $ut what will the biolo0ist say when he finds a similar li;ard without this camoufla0e adaptation6 The chances are he will conclude that such an adaptation is unnecessary for the sur/i/al of the second li;ard, or that selection has not been stron0 enou0h to <create< it. $oth of these conclusions may be /alid- they seem reasonable enou0h-but we are tempted now to as" him what sort of e/idence would contradict the idea of selection6 Df the presence of adaptations is e/idence for selection, but the absence of adaptations is not e/idence a0ainst selection, then is it possible to deny the e.istence of selection at all6 Dn other words if selection can e.plain e/erythin0 then it really e.plains nothin0. ?ood scientific theories should be testable and e/en falsifiable." "Ds selection really so stron06 Df the philosophers are satisfied that the idea of selection is not tautolo0ous, that it really is a useful scientific theory, our ne.t tas" is to measure it in the wild and find out how powerful a force it is. This has posed some difficulties. ot only is natural selection e.tremely difficult to pin down and measure, but many of the obser/ations of /ariation amon0 plants and animals in different en/ironments also appear to contradict the e.pectations of selection. 5hy is there so much /ariability in creatures in the first place6 5hy doesn<t that /ariability respond to en/ironmental stresses in any predictable way6 The /ast amount of 0enetic /ariation that is now "nown to e.ist in most species does not confer any ob/ious benefits. Dn addition, the /ariation doesn<t occur as one would e.pect-species found in stable en/ironments seem to show as much /ariability as species in chan0in0, unstable en/ironments contrary to what 8arwinian principles would lead one to e.pect."

(Aeith $., "The 8escent of 8arwin# - Jandboo" of 8oubts about 8arwinism," Collins# Aondon, %&G*, p.*%, **. 3mphasis in ori0inal) "Two shafts of criticism struc" 8arwin more directly than the outside world was allowed to "now. They touched his particular theory that e/olution too" place by natural selection, a process analo0ous to the artificial selection which plant and animal breeders were practicin0 with such 0reat success at that time. The first criticism asserted that 8arwin<s thesis was not true> the second, that it was not new. 4uch criticisms are raised a0ainst all re/olutionary hypotheses, but both of these were serious and well informed." (8arlin0ton, Cyril 8. Flate Professor of $otany, B.ford Mni/ersityH, "The Bri0in of 8arwinism," 4cientific -merican, 7ol. *:%, =ay %&+&, p.':) "8esi0n appears out of nothin0. There is no need for a creator or a master plan, and no end point towards which creation is headin0." (5a"in0 from the =eme 8ream, Paper presented at# The Psycholo0y of -wa"enin0# Dnternational Conference on $uddhism, 4cience and Psychotherapy 8artin0ton ,-%: o/ember %&&' by 4usan $lac"more 8epartment of Psycholo0y Mni/ersity of the 5est of 3n0land $ristol $4%' *2P) "-s we "now, there is a 0reat di/er0ence of opinion amon0 biolo0ists, not only about the causes of e/olution but e/en about the actual process. This di/er0ence e.ists because the e/idence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. Dt is therefore ri0ht and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disa0reements about e/olution. $ut some recent remar"s of e/olutionists show that they thin" 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 ri0our, attemptin0 to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science." (Thompson 5.R.U Fentomolo0ist and 8irector of the Commonwealth Dnstitute of $iolo0ical Control, Bttawa, CanadaH, "Dntroduction," in 8arwin C.R., "The Bri0in of 4pecies by =eans of atural 4election," F%G,*H, 3/eryman<s Aibrary, 2.=. 8ent E 4ons# Aondon, 'th 3dition, %&',, reprint, p...ii) "4ome future day may yet arri/e when all reasonable chemical e.periments run to disco/er a probable ori0in for life ha/e failed uneCui/ocally. 1urther, new 0eolo0ical e/idence may indicate a sudden appearance of life on the earth. 1inally, we may ha/e e.plored the uni/erse and found no trace of life, or processes leadin0 to life, elsewhere. Dn such a case, some scientists mi0ht choose to turn to reli0ion for an answer. Bthers, howe/er, myself included, would attempt to sort out the sur/i/in0 less probable scientific e.planations in the hope of selectin0 one that was still more li"ely than the remainder." (4hapiro R.8., "Bri0ins# - 4"eptic<s ?uide to the Bri0in of Aife," 4ummit# ew !or" !, %&G', p.%(:). "- 0ood e.ample of disciplinary chau/inism can be seen in Robert 4hapiro<s fine boo", Bri0ins# - 4"eptic<s ?uide to the Creation of Aife on 3arth. -fter presentin0 a /ery readable, /ery de/astatin0 critiCue of scientific studies on the ori0in of life, 4hapiro

proclaims his steadfast loyalty-not to the 0oal of "e.plainin0 the physical world," but to science ... 4hapiro 0oes on 0amely to say that thin0s don<t loo" Cuite so blea" ri0ht now, pretty much contradictin0 e/erythin0 he had written to that point. Je can rest secure in the "nowled0e that there will ne/er be a time when all e.periments ha/e "failed uneCui/ocally," just as there will ne/er be a time when the e.istence of the Aoch ess =onster has been absolutely ruled out. -nd the time when the uni/erse will ha/e been fully e.plored is comfortably far off." ($ehe =.2., "8arwin<s $lac" $o.," %&&', pp.*(9-*(+) "This notion of species as <natural "inds< fits splendidly with creationist tenets of a pre8arwinian a0e. Aouis -0assi;, e/en ar0ued that species are ?od<s indi/idual thou0hts, made incarnate so that we mi0ht percei/e both Jis majesty and Jis messa0e. 4pecies, -0assi; wrote, are "instituted by 8i/ine Dntelli0ence as the cate0ories of Jis mode of thin"in0. $ut how could a di/ision of the or0anic world into discrete entities be justified by an e/olutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless chan0e as the fundamental fact of nature6" (4tephen 2ay ?ould, Professor of ?eolo0y and Paleontolo0y, Jar/ard Mni/ersity), <Cuaho0 is a Cuaho0<, atural Jistory /ol AVVV7DDD(,), -u0ust-4eptember, %&,&, p0. %G) "-nother thin0 D must point out is that you cannot pro/e a /a0ue theory wron0. Df the 0uess that you ma"e is poorly e.pressed and rather /a0ue, and the method that you use for fi0urin0 out the conseCuences is a little /a0ue - you are not sure, and you say, <D thin" e/erythin0<s ri0ht because it<s all due to so and so, and such and such do this and that more or less, and D can sort of e.plain how this wor"s...<, then you see that this theory is 0ood, because it cannot be pro/ed wron0O -lso if the process of computin0 the conseCuences is indefinite, then with a little s"ill any e.perimental results can be made to loo" li"e the e.pected conseCuences." (1eynman, Richard P. Flate Professor of Theoretical Physics, California Dnstitute of Technolo0y, and obel Pri;e for Physics, %&&+H, "The Character of Physical Aaw," F%&'+H, Pen0uin# Aondon, %&&*, reprint, pp.%+G-%+&) "1or D am well aware that scarcely a sin0le point is discussed in this /olume on which facts can be adduced, often apparently leadin0 to conclusions directly opposite to those at which D ha/e arri/ed. - fair result can be obtained only by fully statin0 and balancin0 the fats and ar0uments on both sides of each Cuestion> and this is here impossible." (Charles 8arwin, %G+&, Dntroduction to Bri0in of 4pecies, p0. *. -lso Cuoted in "2ohn Aofton<s 2ournal", TJe 5ashin0ton Times, G 1eb %&G9) "Dt is now possible, howe/er, to redescribe the e/olutionary process in the lan0ua0e of modern 0enetics. 3/olution can be broadly defined as a chan0e in the heredity of a population. Population 0enetics permits an e/en more precise definition# e/olution is any chan0e in 0ene freCuency in a population." (5ilson, 3dward B. FJonorary Curator in 3ntomolo0y, =useum of Comparati/e Qoolo0y, Jar/ard Mni/ersityH, et al., "Aife on 3arth," F%&,(H, 4inauer -ssociates# 4underland =-, %&,+, reprint, p.,,*)

"The definition widely adopted in recent decades-"3/olution is the chan0e of 0ene freCuencies in populations"-refers only to the transformational component. Dt tells us nothin0 about the multiplication of species nor, more broadly, about the ori0in of or0anic di/ersity. - broader definition is needed which would include both transformation and di/ersification." (=ayr, 3rnst F3meritus Professor of Qoolo0y, Jar/ard Mni/ersityH, "The ?rowth of $iolo0ical Thou0ht# 8i/ersity, 3/olution, and Dnheritance," $el"nap Press# Cambrid0e =-, %&G*, p9::) "FTHhe real core of 8arwinism .. is the theory of natural selection. This theory is so important for the 8arwinian becaues it permits the e.planation of adapation, the <desi0n< of the natural theolo0ian, by natural means." (3rnst =ayer, 1oreward to =ichael Ruse, 8arwinism 8efended, .i-.ii (%&G*)) "There is a theory which states that many li/in0 animals can be obser/ed o/er the course of time to under0o chan0es so that new species are formed. This can be called the "4pecial Theory of 3/olution " and can be demonstrated in certain cases by e.periments. Bn the other hand there is the theory that all the li/in0 forms in the world ha/e arisen from a sin0le source which itself came from an inor0anic form. This theory can be called the "?eneral Theory of 3/olution" and the e/idence that supports it is not sufficiently stron0 to allow us to consider it as anythin0 more than a wor"in0 hypothesis. Dt is not clear whether the chan0es that brin0 about speciation are of the same nature as those that brou0ht about the de/elopment of new phyla. The answer will be found by future e.perimental wor" and not by do0matic assertions that the ?eneral Theory of 3/olution must be correct because there is nothin0 else that will satisfactorily ta"e its place." (Ker"ut, ?.-. F8epartment of Physiolo0y and $iochemistry, Mni/ersity of 4outhampton, MKH, "Dmplications of 3/olution," in Ker"ut ?.-., ed. "Dnternational 4eries of =ono0raphs on Pure and -pplied $iolo0y, 8i/ision# Qoolo0y," 7olume 9, Per0amon Press# ew !or" !, %&':, p.%+,) "Dronically it is this apparent stren0th of the theory-that it can e.plain so much-which may be its -chilles< heel. eo-8arwinism is incredibly ambitious> it attempts to e.plain a /ast part of reality, all the subtlety and comple.ity of nature, in one breath. $ut do all the indi/idual pieces of this cosmic ji0saw pu;;le actually fit to0ether6 Dt is all /ery well to half close your eyes and ima0ine you see a coherent picture, but what is it li"e in closeup6" (Aeith $., "The 8escent of 8arwin# - Jandboo" of 8oubts about 8arwinism," Collins# Aondon, %&G*, p.*:) "-nd as 8arwinists and neo-8arwinists ha/e become e/er more adept at findin0 possible selecti/e ad/anta0es for any trait one cares to mention, e.planation in terms of the allpowerful force of natural selection has come more and more to resemble e.planation in terms of the conscious desi0n of the omnipotent Creator." (Jo, =ae-5an F$iolo0ist, The Bpen Mni/ersity, MKH E 4aunders, Peter T. F=athematician, Mni/ersity of AondonH, eds., "$eyond eo- 8arwinism# -n Dntroduction to the ew 3/olutionary Paradi0m," -cademic Press# Aondon, %&G9, pp.i.-.)

"- lon0-endurin0 and re0rettable effect of the success of the Bri0in was the addiction of biolo0ists to un/erifiable speculation. <3.planations< of the ori0in of structures, instincts, and mental aptitudes of all "inds, in terms of 8arwinian principles, mar"ed with the 8arwinian plausibility but hopelessly un/erifiable, poured out from e/ery research centre. The speculations on the ori0in and si0nificance of the resemblances between animals, or between animals and their en/ironment and of the stri"in0 colour patterns they often e.hibit, constitute one of the best-"nown e.amples." (Thompson 5.R.U Fentomolo0ist and 8irector of the Commonwealth Dnstitute of $iolo0ical Control, Bttawa, CanadaH, "Dntroduction," in 8arwin C.R., "The Bri0in of 4pecies by =eans of atural 4election," F%G,*H, 3/eryman<s Aibrary, 2.=. 8ent E 4ons# Aondon, 'th 3dition, %&',, reprint, pp...i) "D, as a scientist, must postulate a source of information to supply the teleonomy or "nowhow, D don<t find it in the uni/erse, and, therefore, D assume that it is transcendent to this uni/erse. D belie/e, myself, in a li/in0 ?od who did it. D belie/e that this ?od, who supplied the information, re/ealed Jimself in the form of a man - so that man could understand Jim. 5e are made to understand. D want to understand ?od. $ut D can only do it if Je comes down to my wa/elen0th, the wa/elen0th of man. D belie/e that ?od re/ealed Jimself in the form of Christ, and that we can ser/e Jim and "now Jim in our hearts as the source of the Ao0os - all information is necessary to ma"e the uni/erse and to ma"e life itself ... Aoo" at the beauty of nature around us. 5hen you consider that it all 0rew out of matter injected with information of the type D ha/e been describin0, you can only be filled with wonder of the wisdom of a Creator, who, first of all, had the sense of beauty to do it, and then the technical ability. D am filled with wonder as D loo" at nature, to see how ?od technically did it and reali;ed the beauty of Jis own soul in doin0 it. The 4cripture teaches perfectly plainly, and it fits in with my science perfectly well, that the one who did called Jimself TJ3 AB?B4. That Ao0os was 2esus. 2esus called Jimself the Creator who made e/erythin0 - <for Jim and by Jim<. ow, if that is the case, then D am /ery happy and filled with joy that Je made the Creation so beautiful and that Je also /alued me enou0h to die for me, to become my Redeemer as well." (-rthur 3 5ilder-4mith, Ph.8.,8.4c.,8r.es.4c., The atural 4ciences Know othin0 of 3/olution (4antee, California# =aster $oo"s, p.%+9). "5e are faced more with a 0reat leap of faith that 0radual, pro0ressi/e adapti/e chan0e underlies the 0eneral pattern of e/olutionary chan0e we see in the roc"s than any hard e/idence." (3ldred0e, . and Tattersall, D. (%&G*) The =yths of Juman 3/olution, Columbia Mni/ersity Press, p. +,) "To attempt to restore the soft parts is an e/en more ha;ardous underta"in0. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip lea/e no clues on the underlyin0 bony parts. !ou can with eCual facility model on a eanderthaloid s"ull the features of a chimpan;ee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alle0ed restorations of ancient types of man ha/e /ery little if any scientific /alue and are li"ely only to mislead the public... 4o put not your trust in reconstructions. (3arnest -. Jooton, Mp 1rom The -pe, ew !or"# =c=illan, %&(%, p. ((*)

"There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. - man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. Tis the crown and 0lory of or0anic science that it does, thro< final cause, lin" material to moral> . . . !ou ha/e i0nored this lin"> and, if D do not mista"e your meanin0, you ha/e done your best in one or two pre0nant cases to brea" it. 5ere it possible (which, than" ?od, it is not) to brea" it, humanity, in my mind, would suffer a dama0e that mi0ht brutali;e it, and sin" the human race into a lower 0rade of de0radation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history." -dam 4ed0wic", a Cambrid0e Mni/ersity professor, writin0 a letter to 8arwin in %G+&, shortly after readin0 The Bri0in of 4pecies) "-ll scholarly subjects seem to 0o throu0h cycles, from periods when most of the answers seem to be "nown to periods when no one is sure that e/en the Cuestions are ri0ht. 4uch is the case for e/olutionary biolo0y. Twenty years a0o =ayr, in his -nimal 4pecies and 3/olution, seemed to ha/e shown that if e/olution is a ji0saw pu;;le, then at least all the ed0e pieces were in place. $ut today we are less confident and the whole subject is in the most e.citin0 ferment. 3/olution is both troubled from without by the na00in0 insistencies of antiscientists and na00ed from within by the troublin0 comple.ities of 0enetic and de/elopmental mechanisms and new Cuestions about the central mystery-speciation itself. Dn loo"in0 o/er recent literature in and around the field of e/olutionary theory, D am struc" by the necessity to ree.amine the simpler foundations of the subject, to distin0uish carefully between what we "now and what we merely thin" we "now. The first and stron0est of our critics to be answered should be oursel/es." (Thomson, Keith 4tewart FProfessor of $iolo0y and 8ean of the ?raduate 4chool, !ale Mni/ersity, M4-H, "The =eanin0s of 3/olution," -merican 4cientist, 7ol. ,:, pp.+*&+(%, 4eptember-Bctober %&G*, p.+*& note# 4o D 0uess e/olution is just on a *: year down cycle ri0ht now, ri0ht6) "4uppose contemporary e/olutionary theory had blind chance built into it so firmly that there was simply no way of reconcilin0 it with any sort of di/ine 0uidance. Dt would still be perfectly possible for theists to reject that theory of e/olution and accept instead a theory accordin0 to which natural processes and laws dro/e most of e/olution, but ?od on occasion abrid0ed those laws and inserted some crucial mutation into the course of e/ents. 3/en were ?od to inter/ene directly to suspend natural law and inject essential new 0enetic material at /arious points in order to facilitate the emer0ence of new traits and, e/entually, new species, that miraculous and deliberate di/ine inter/ention would by itself lea/e unchallen0ed such "ey theses of e/olutionary theory as that all species deri/e ultimately from some common ancestor. 8escent with 0enetic inter/ention is still descent-it is just descent with nonnatural elements in the process." (Rat;sch 8.A.U FProfessor of Philosophy, Cal/in Colle0e, M4-H, "The $attle of $e0innin0s# 5hy either 4ide is 5innin0 the Creation-3/olution 8ebate," Dnter7arsity Press# 8owners ?ro/e, Dll., %&&', pp%G,-%GG) "Bne must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describin0 the 0enesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written."

(!oc"ey, Jubert P. (%&,,), "- Calculation of the Probability of 4pontaneous $io0enesis by Dnformation Theory," 2ournal of Theoretical $iolo0y, 7ol. ',, p. (&G) "3/olutionary man can no lon0er ta"e refu0e from his loneliness by creepin0 for shelter into the arms of a di/ini;ed father-fi0ure whom he has himself created, nor escape from the responsibility of ma"in0 decisions by shelterin0 under the umbrella of 8i/ine -uthority, nor absol/e himself from the hard tas" of meetin0 his present problems and plannin0 his future by relyin0 on the will of an omniscient but unfortunately inscrutable Pro/idence. " (Ju.ley, 2ulian 4. Flate 0randson of Thomas Jenry Ju.ley, former Professor of Qoolo0y at Kin0<s Colle0e, Aondon, and foundin0 8irector-?eneral of M 34CBH, "3ssays of a Jumanist," F%&'9H, Pen0uin $oo"s# Jarmondsworth, =iddlese. MK, %&'&, reprint, p.G(. ote# he mi0ht be ri0ht, if his theory was true and ?od didn<t e.ist. Mnfortunately for him, both of those preconditions are false.) "5e are told do0matically that 3/olution is an established fact> but we are ne/er told who has established it, and by what means. 5e are told, often enou0h, that the doctrine is founded upon e/idence, and that indeed this e/idence <is henceforward abo/e all /erification, as well as bein0 immune from any subseCuent contradiction by e.perience>< but we are left entirely in the dar" on the crucial Cuestion wherein, precisely, this e/idence consists." (4mith, 5olf0an0 (%&GG) Teilhardism and the ew Reli0ion# - Thorou0h -nalysis of The Teachin0s of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin Roc"ford, Dllinois# Tan $oo"s E Publishers Dnc., p.*) "Br0anisms either appeared on the earth fully de/eloped or they did not. Df they did not, they must ha/e de/eloped from pree.istin0 species by some process of modification.Df they did appear in a fully de/eloped state, they must indeed ha/e beencreated by some omnipotent intelli0ence." (8ou0las 2. 1utuyma, 4cience on Trial, ew !or"#Pantheon $oo"s, %&G(. p. %&,. ) "Dt was-and still is-/ery hard to arri/e at this concept from inside biolo0y. The trouble lay in an unremittin0 cultural stru00le which had de/eloped from %G': onward between biolo0ists on the one hand and the supporters of old beliefs on the other. The old belie/ers said that rabbits had been created by ?od usin0 methods too wonderful for us to comprehend. The new belie/ers said that rabbits had been created from slud0e, by methods too comple. for us to calculate and by methods li"ely enou0h in/ol/in0 improbable happenin0s. Dmprobable happenin0s replaced miracles and slud0e replaced ?od, with belie/ers both old and new see"in0 to co/er up their i0norance in clouds of words, but different words. Dt was o/er the words that passions ra0ed, passions which continue to rumble on in the modern world, passions that one can read about with hilarious satisfaction in the columns of the wee"ly science ma0a;ine ature and listen to in basso profundo pronouncements from learned scientific societies." (Joyle, 1red Fformer Professor of -stronomy, Cambrid0e Mni/ersityH, "=athematics of 3/olution," F%&G,H, -corn 3nterprises# =emphis T , %&&&, p.()

"The ori0in of life by chance in a prime/al soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The e.tremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discoura0in0 to true belie/ers ... Fhowe/erH - practical person must conclude that life didn<t happen by chance." (Jubert !oc"ey, Dnformation Theory and =olecular $iolo0y, Cambrid0e Mni/ersity Press, %&&*, p. *+,) "Dt is true that both 0enuine homolo0ous resemblance, that is, where phenomenon has a clear 0enetic and embryolo0ical basis (which as we ha/e seen abo/e is far less common than is often presumed), and the hierarchic patterns of class relationships are su00esti/e of some "ind of theory of descent. $ut neither tell us anythin0 about how the descent or e/olution mi0ht ha/e occurred, as to whether the process was 0radual or sudden, or as to whether the causal mechanism was 8arwinian, Aamarc"ian, /italistic or e/en creationist. 4uch a theory of descent is therefore de/oid of any si0nificant meanin0 and eCually compatible with almost any philosophy of nature." (8enton =.2. F4enior Research 1ellow in Juman =olecular ?enetics, Mni/ersity of Bta0o, ew QealandH, "3/olution# - Theory in Crisis," $urnett $oo"s# Aondon, %&G+, pp%+9-%++) "There is a /ast wei0ht of empirical e/idence about the uni/erse which says that unless you in/o"e supernatural causes, the birds could not ha/e arisen from muc" by any natural processes. 5ell, if the birds couldn<t ha/e arisen from muc" by any natural processes, then they had to arise from non-birds. The only alternati/e is to say that they did arise from muc" because ?od<s fin0er went out and touched that muc". That is to say, there was a non-natural process. -nd that<s really where the action is. 3ither you thin" that comple. or0anisms arose by non-natural phenomena, or you thin" that they arose by natural phenomena. Df they arose by natural phenomena, they had to e/ol/e. -nd that<s all there is to it." (Aewontin, Richard C. FProfessor of Qoolo0y and $iolo0y, Jar/ard Mni/ersityH, in $ethell, Tom, "-0nostic 3/olutionists," in "The 3lectric 5indmill# -n Dnad/ertent -utobio0raphy," Re0nery ?ateway# 5ashin0ton 8C, %&GG, pp.*:+-*:'). "=any faculty fear that they will ha/e to teach less content if they teach critical thin"in0, and D ha/e ar0ued that this trade-off is illusory -- as ima0inary as the unicorn<s horn" (Crai0 elson, professor of biolo0y at Dndiana Mni/ersity, as Cuoted in "DM biolo0ist wins <Professor of the !ear< award from the Carne0ie 1oundation") "FTHhou0h these bodies may, indeed, continue in their orbits by the mere laws of 0ra/ity, yet they could by no means ha/e at first deri/ed the re0ular position of the orbits themsel/es from those laws ... FThusH FtHhis most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelli0ent and powerful $ein0." (4ir Dsaac ewton, ewton<s Principa =otte<s Translation Re/ised (+9(-99), (-ndrew =otte Trans. E 1lorian Cajori re/. %&(9), %'G')

"Jow came the $odies of -nimals to be contri/ed with so much -rt, and for what ends were their se/eral parts6 5as the 3ye contri/ed without 4"ill in Bptic"s, and the 3ar without Knowled0e of 4ounds6 ... -nd these thin0s bein0 ri0htly dispatch<d, does it not appear from Phaenomena tha tthere is a $ein0 incorporeal, li/in0, intelli0ent omnipresent..." (4ir Dsaac ewton, Bptic"s, ('&-(,: (8o/er PMblications %&+*)) "Dt mi0ht be thou0ht, therefore, that e/olutionary ar0uments would play a lar0e part in 0uidin0 biolo0ical research, but this is far from the case. Dt is difficult enou0h to study what is happenin0 now. To try to fi0ure out e.actly what happened in e/olution is e/en more difficult. Thus e/olutionary ar0uments can usefully be used as hints to su00est possible lines of research, but it is hi0hly dan0erous to trust them too much. Dt is all too easy to ma"e mista"en inferences unless the process in/ol/ed is already /ery well understood." (Cric", 1rancis J.C. FCo- disco/erer of the structure of 8 -, obel laureate %&'*, Professor at the 4al" Dnstitute, M4-H, "5hat =ad Pursuit# - Personal 7iew of 4cientific 8isco/ery," F%&GGH, Pen0uin# Aondon, %&&:, reprint, pp.%(G-%(&) "5e tell this story Fabout Pasteur<s disproof of spontaneous 0eneration of lifeH to be0innin0 students of biolo0y as thou0h it represents a triumph of reason o/er mysticism. Dn fact it is /ery nearly the opposite. The reasonable /iew was to belie/e in spontaneous 0eneration> the only alternati/e, to belie/e in a sin0le, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. 1or this reason many scientists a century a0o chose to re0ard the belief in spontaneous 0eneration as a "philosophical necessity." Dt is a symptom of the philosophical po/erty of our time that this necessity is no lon0er appreciated. =ost modern biolo0ists, ha/in0 re/iewd with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous 0eneration hypothesis, yet unwillin0 to accept the alternati/e belief in special creation, are left with nothin0." (?eor0e 5ald (late Professor of $iolo0y, Jar/ard Mni/ersity), "The ori0in of life". 4cientific -merican, /ol %&%(*), -u0ust %&+9, p0. 9') "Dt is no more heretical to say the Mni/erse displays purpose, as Joyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as 4te/en 5einber0 has done. $oth statements are metaphysical and outside science. !et it seems that scientists are permitted by their own collea0ues to say metaphysical thin0s about lac" of purpose and not the re/erse. This su00ests to me that science, in allowin0 this metaphysical notion, sees itself as reli0ion and presumably as an atheistic reli0ion (if you can ha/e such a thin0)." (4hallis, =ichael F-strophysicist, B.ford Mni/ersityH, "Dn the eye of a storm", ew 4cientist, 2anuary %&, %&G9, pp.9*-9() "-ll e.periences indicate that a thin"in0 bein0 /oluntarily e.ercisin0 his own free will, co0nition, and creati/ity, is reCuired. There is no "nown law of nature, no "nown process and no "nown seCuence of e/ents which can cause information to ori0inate by itself in matter." (5erner ?itt. Dn the $e0innin0 5as Dnformation. CA7, $ielefeld, ?ermany, p. %:,, %9% )

"<DT D4 TBT-AA! 5RB ?. Dt<s wron0 li"e infectious medicine was wron0 before Pasteur. Dt<s wron0 li"e phrenolo0y is wron0. 3/ery major tenet of it is wron0,< said the outspo"en biolo0ist Aynn =ar0ulis about her latest tar0et# the do0ma of 8arwinian e/olution.... =ar0ulis was now denouncin0 the modern framewor" of the century-old theory of 8arwinism, which holds that new species build up from an unbro"en line of 0radual, independent, random /ariations. =ar0ulis is not alone in challen0in0 the stron0hold of 8arwinian theory, but few ha/e been so blunt. 8isa0reein0 with 8arwin resembles creationism to the uninformed> therefore the sti0ma that any taint of creationism can brin0 to a scientific reputation, coupled with the intimidatin0 0enius of 8arwin, ha/e "ept all but the boldest iconoclasts from doubtin0 8arwinian theory in public. 5hat e.cites =ar0ulis is the remar"able incompleteness of 0eneral 8arwinian theory. 8arwinism is wron0 by what it omits and by what it incorrectly emphasi;es. number of microbiolo0ists, 0eneticists, theoretical biolo0ists, mathematicians, and computer scientists are sayin0 there is more to life than 8arwinism. They do not reject 8arwin<s contribution> they simply want to mo/e beyond it. D call them the Ppostdarwinians.<" (Kelly, Ke/in F3.ecuti/e 3ditor of 5iredH, "But of Control# The ew $iolo0y of =achines," F%&&9H, 1ourth 3state# Aondon, %&&+, reprint, pp9,:-9,%. 3mphasis in ori0inal) "Ds -rchaeoptery. the ancestor of all birds6 Perhaps yes, perhaps no# there is no way of answerin0 the Cuestion. Dt is easy enou0h to ma"e up stories of how one form 0a/e rise to another, and to find reasons why the sta0es should be fa/oured by natural selection. $ut such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of puttin0 them to the test." (Patterson, Colin Flate ;oolo0ist specialisin0 in fossil fishes, $ritish =useum of atural Jistory, AondonH, letter %: -pril %&,&, in 4underland A.8., "8arwin<s 3ni0ma# 1ossils and Bther Problems," F%&G9H, =aster $oo" Publishers# 3l Cajon C-, 1ourth 3dition, %&GG, pG&) "$ut the roulette analo0y hides rather than indicates the fantastic improbability of any major e/olutionary ad/ance produced by chance mutations. 1or such an e/ent to occur, it is not enou0h that a certain reCuired number, say the %,, should come up on the roulette table - but that it should come up simultaneously on a do;en or so tables in the same establishment, followed by the %G, %& and *: simultaneously on all tables." (Koestler -., "2anus# - 4ummin0 Mp," F%&,GH, Picador# Aondon, %&G(, reprint, pp.%,(%,9) "Today, howe/er, the picture is entirely different. =ore and more wor"ers are showin0 si0ns of dissatisfaction with the synthetic theory. 4ome are attac"in0 its philosophical foundations, ar0uin0 that the reason that it has been so amply confirmed is simply that it is unfalsifiable# with a little in0enuity any obser/ation can be made to appear consistent with it. Bthers ha/e been deliberately settin0 out to wor" in just those areas in which neo8arwinism is least comfortable, li"e the problem of the 0aps in the fossil record or the mechanisms of non-=endelian inheritance. 4till others, notably some systematists, ha/e decide to i0nore the theory alto0ether, and to carry on their research without any a priori assumption about how e/olution has occurred. Perhaps most si0nificantly of all, there is

now appearin0 a stream of articles and boo"s defendin0 the synthetic theory. Dt is not so lon0 a0o that hardly anyone thou0ht this was necessary." (Jo, =ae-5an F$iolo0ist, The Bpen Mni/ersity, MKH E 4aunders, Peter T. F=athematician, Mni/ersity of AondonH, eds., "$eyond eo-8arwinism# -n Dntroduction to the ew 3/olutionary Paradi0m," -cademic Press# Aondon, %&G9, p.i.) "D belie/e that one day the 8arwinian myth will be ran"ed the 0reatest deceit in the history of science. 5hen this happens, many people will pose the Cuestion# Jow did this e/er happen6" (Ao/trup, 4oren, "8arwinism# The Refutation of a =yth" ( ew !or"# Routled0e, Chapman E Jall, %&G,) p0. 9**) "The solution to Cordelia<s dilemma-the promotion of her nothin0 to a meanin0ful somethin0-reCuires the more e.tensi/e re/ision of conceptual o/erhaul. Cordelia<s dilemma cannot be resol/ed from within, for the e.istin0 theory has defined her action as a denial or non-phenomenon. - different theory must be imported from another conte.t to chan0e conceptual cate0ories and ma"e her response meanin0ful. Dn this sense, Cordelia<s dilemma best illustrates the dynamic interaction of theory and fact in science. Correction of error cannot always arise from new disco/ery within an accepted conceptual system. 4ometimes the theory has to crumble first, and a new framewor" be adopted, before the crucial facts can be seen at all." (?ould, 4tephen 2ay FProfessor of Qoolo0y and ?eolo0y, Jar/ard Mni/ersity, M4-H, "Cordelia<s 8ilemma," in "8inosaur in a Jaystac"# Reflections in atural Jistory," F%&&+H, Crown# ew !or" !, %&&,, reprint, p.%*,) "5ell, =r. Kristol, e/olution (as theory) is indeed Pa con0lomerate idea consistin0 of conflictin0 hypotheses," and D and my collea0ues teach it as such.<" (?ould, 4tephen 2ay FProfessor of Qoolo0y and ?eolo0y, Jar/ard Mni/ersityH, "8arwinism 8efined# The 8ifference $etween 1act and Theory," 8isco/er, 2anuary %&G,, p'+) "8arwin<s boo"-Bn the Bri0in of 4pecies-D find Cuite unsatisfactory# it says nothin0 about the ori0in of species> it is written /ery tentati/ely> with a special chapter on "8ifficulties on theory"> and it includes a 0reat deal of discussion on why e/idence for natural selection does not e.ist in the fossil record. 8arwin, D thin", has been ill-ser/ed by the stren0th of his supporters." (Aipson, J.4. FProfessor of Physics, Mni/ersity of =anchester Dnstitute of 4cience and Technolo0y, MKH, "Bri0in of species," in "Aetters," ew 4cientist, %9 =ay %&G%, p.9+*. 3mphasis in ori0inal.) "The basic framewor" of the theory is that e/olution is a two-sta0e phenomenon the production of /ariation and the sortin0 of the /ariants by natural selection. !et a0reement on this basic thesis does not mean that the wor" of the e/olutionist is completed. The basic theory is in many instances hardly more than a postulate and its application raises numerous Cuestions in almost e/ery concrete case."

(=ayr, 3rnst F3meritus Professor of Qoolo0y, Jar/ard Mni/ersityH, "Populations, 4pecies and 3/olution," F%&'(H, Jar/ard Mni/ersity Press# Cambrid0e =-, %&,9, reprint, p') "The <modern e/olutionary synthesis< con/inced most biolo0ists that natural selection was the only directi/e influence on adapti/e e/olution. Today, howe/er, dissatisfaction with the synthesis is widespread, and creationists and antidarwinians are multiplyin0. The central problem with the synthesis is its failure to show (or to pro/ide distinct si0ns) that natural selection of random mutations could account for obser/ed le/els of adaptation." (Aei0h, 30bert ?., 2r. F$iolo0ist, 4mithsonian Dnstitution, M4-H, "The modern synthesis, Ronald 1isher and creationism," Trends in 3colo0y and 3/olution, 7ol. %9, o. %*, pp.9&+-9&G, 8ecember %&&&, p.9&+) " eo-8arwinism has failed as an e/olutionary theory that can e.plain the ori0in of species, understood as or0anisms of distincti/e form and beha/iour. Dn other words, it is not an adeCuate theory of e/olution. 5hat it does pro/ide is a partial theory of adaptation, or microe/olution (small- scale adapti/e chan0es in or0anisms)." (?oodwin, $rian FProfessor of $iolo0y, Bpen Mni/ersity, MKH, " eo-8arwinism has failed as an e/olutionary theory," The Times Ji0her 3ducation 4upplement, =ay %&, %&&+) "D suppose D had better mention the concept of a di/ine creator, but personally D do not find that particular hypothesis useful and D am tempted to as" about the cosmic accident that created Jim (presumably before the <bi0 ban0s< that started the uni/erse). -nd what did Je do before Je created the world and man"ind6" (-0er, 8ere" 7. F3meritus Professor of ?eolo0y, Mni/ersity Colle0e of 4wansea, 5alesH, "The ew Catastrophism# The Dmportance of the Rare 3/ent in ?eolo0ical Jistory," Cambrid0e Mni/ersity Press# Cambrid0e MK, %&&(, p.%9&. ote# 4o in your opinion, what caused the uni/erse, =r. -0er6) "Dt loo"s to me as if 8arwinians are li"e someone who, ha/in0 obser/ed that tu0boats sometimes maneu/er ocean liners in ti0ht places by directin0 hi0h-pressure streams of water at them, concludes that he has disco/ered the method by which the liners cross the -tlantic." (7an Dnwa0en P. FProfessor of Philosophy, otre 8ame Mni/ersityH, "8oubts -bout 8arwinism," in $uell 2. E Jearn 7., eds., "8arwinism# 4cience or Philosophy6" 1oundation for Thou0ht and 3thics# Richardson TV, %&&9, p%G'. http#IIwww.leaderu.comIor0sIfteIdarwinismIchapter%*.html) "-s D said, we shall all be embarrassed, in the fullness of time, by the nai/ete of our present e/olutionary ar0uments. $ut some will be /astly more embarrassed than others." (Piattelli- Palmarini, =assimo, FPrincipal Research -ssociate of the Center for Co0niti/e 4cience at =DTH, "Dne/itable Dllusions# Jow =ista"es of Reason Rule Bur =inds," 2ohn 5iley E 4ons# ew !or", %&&9, p%&+) "=r. $ird is concerned with ori0ins and the e/idence rele/ant thereto. Je is basically correct that e/idence, or proof, of ori0ins-of the uni/erse, of life, of all of the major 0roups of life, of all of the minor 0roups of life, indeed of all of the species-is wea" or none.istent when measured on an absolute scale, as it always was and will always be."

( elson, ?areth FChairman and Curator of the 8epartment of Jerpetolo0y and Dchthyolo0y, -merican =useum of atural Jistory, ew !or"H, "Preface," in $ird 5. R., "The Bri0in of 4pecies Re/isited," Re0ency# ash/ille T , %&&%, 7ol. D, p.ii)