This is the Bibliography "N" page for author's surnames beginning 
with "N" of books
[Left: Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel, Wikipedia. See my comments below (emphasis mine) about his book, "The Last Word" (1997).]
and journals which I may refer to in my book outline, "Problems of Evolution."Nagel, one of the world's leading atheist philosophers, admits in his "The Last Word," that: "many people in this day and age" have "a fear of religion" (p.130), which he defines as including the fear of "the existence of a personal god" (p.133), and to which he confessed to "being strongly subject to this fear myself" (p.130). Nagel felt "uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers" (p.130).
Nagel, whose specialty is philosophy of mind asks, "How is it possible for finite beings like us to think infinite thoughts" (p.74). Although an atheist, he regards an answer based on "evolutionary naturalism" as "laughably inadequate" (p.75). He also notes that, "a possible naturalistic explanation of the existence of reason," namely "the idea that our rational capacity was the product of natural selection would render reasoning far less trustworthy" (p.135). However, as an atheist Nagel cannot accept "The other well-known answer is the religious one: The universe is intelligible to us because it and our minds were made for each other" (p.75). But of the only other alternative, that "rationality could be a fundamental feature of the natural order" Nagel agrees that, "it is very difficult to imagine any answer ... that is not teleological" (p.138), since "the theory of evolution ... provides absolutely no support for this" (p.138).
It is this "thought that the relation between mind and the world is something fundamental" that "makes many people in this day and age nervous" (p.130), including Nagel. Why? Because it just another line of evidence that points to there being a personal God to whom they intuitively know they are accountable to (Rom 1:18-20). That is why the Nagel gives as his bottom-line reason for why he is an atheist, "I don't want there to be a God" (p.130)!
© Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology)
BIBLIOGRAPHY "N"
Nagel, T., 1987, "What Does It All Mean?: A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy," Oxford University Press: New York NY.
Nagel, T., 1997, "The Last Word," Oxford University Press: New York NY.
Napier, J.R. & Napier, P.H., 1985, "The Natural History of the Primates," British Museum (Natural History): London.
Nash, J.M., 1995, "Where Do Toes Come From?," Time, Vol. 146, No. 5, July 31.
Nash, R.H., 1988, "Searching for a Rational Faith," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI.
Nash, R.H., 1999, "Worldviews in Conflict: Choosing Christianity in a World of Ideas," [1992], Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted.
National Academy of Sciences, 1999, "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences," [1984], National Academy Press: Washington DC, Second edition.
Nelson, B.C., 1967, "After Its Kind," [1927], Bethany Fellowship: Minneapolis MN, Revised edition, Nineteenth printing, 1970.
Nelson, H. & Jurmain, R., 1991, "Introduction to Physical Anthropology," [1979], West Publishing Company: St. Paul MN, Fifth edition.
Nesse, R.M. & Williams, G.C., 1995, "Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine," Vintage: New York NY, Reprinted, 1996.
Newell, N.D., 1982, "Creation and Evolution: Myth or Reality?," Columbia University Press: New York NY.
Newman, J.R., ed., 1955, "What Is Science?," Washington Square: New York NY, Reprinted, 1961.
Newman, R.C., 1997, "Fulfilled Prophecy as Miracle," in Geivett, R.D. & Habermas, G.R., eds., "In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God's Action in History," Apollos: Leicester UK
Newman, R.C., 1999, "Progressive Creationism (Old Earth Creationism)," in Moreland, J.P. & Reynolds, J.M., eds., 1999, "Three Views on Creation and Evolution," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI
Newman, R.C., ed., 1988, "The Evidence of Prophecy: Fulfilled Prediction as a Testimony to the Truth of Christianity," Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute: Hatfield PA, Fourth printing, 1998.
Newman, R.C. & Eckelmann, H.J., Jr., 1977, "Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth, "Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute: Hatfields PA, Fourth printing, 1991.
Newman, R.C., Wiester, J.L., Moneymaker, J. & Moneymaker, J., 2000, "What's Darwin Got to Do With It?: A Friendly Conversation About Evolution," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL.
Newton, T.J. & Joyce, A.P., 1995a, "Human Perspectives, Book 1," [1979], McGraw-Hill Book Co: Sydney NSW, Australia, Third edition, Reprinted, 1996.
Newton, T.J. & Joyce, A.P., 1995b, "Human Perspectives, Book 2," [1979], McGraw-Hill Book Co: Sydney NSW, Australia, Third edition, Reprinted, 1997.
Nichols, H.L., 2000., "Science Blundering: An Outsider's View," [1984], Bellemore Books: Lyme CT, Second edition.
Nichols, P. , 2003, "Evolution's Captain: The Dark Fate of the Man Who Sailed Charles Darwin Around the World," Harper Collins: New York NY
Nichols, T.L., 2003, "The Sacred Cosmos: Christian Faith and the Challenge of Naturalism," Brazos Press: Grand Rapids MI.
Niditch, S., 1985, "Chaos to Cosmos: Studies in Biblical Patterns of Creation," Scholars Press: Chico CA.
Ninio, J., 1983, "Molecular Approaches to Evolution," [1979], Lang, R., transl., Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, Revised.
Noda, H., ed., 1978, "Origin of Life: Proceedings of the Second ISSOL Meeting, the Fifth ICOL Meeting," Center for Academic Publications: Japan.
Noll, M.A., 1994, "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1995.
Noll M.A. & Livingstone D.N., eds, 2000, "B.B. Warfield: Evolution, Science and Scripture: Selected Writings," Baker: Grand Rapids MI
Nordenskiold, E., 1928, "The History of Biology: A Survey," [1920-24], Eyre, L.B., transl., Tudor Publishing Co: New York NY.
Norman, D., 1994, "Dinosaur!" [1991], Boxtree: London, Revised.
Norman, D. & Milner, A., 1989, "Dinosaur," Collins Eyewitness Guides, Dorling Kindersley: London, Reprinted, 1992.
Noske, B., 1989, "Humans and Other Animals: Beyond the Boundaries of Anthropology," Pluto Press: London.
Nourse, A.E., 1971, "The Body," [1964], Time-Life International: Netherlands.
Noyes, R., ed., 1990, "The Crop Circle Enigma: Grounding The Phenomenon in Science, Culture, and Metaphysics," Gateway Books: Bath UK.
Numbers, R.L., 1992, "The Creationists: the Evolution of Scientific Creationism," University of California Press: Berkeley CA, Reprinted, 1993.
Numbers, R.L., 1998, "Darwinism Comes to America," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA.
See `tagline' quotes below (original emphasis italics, my emphasis bold), from the above book by Nagel and other works listed above, on a variety of interesting creation, evolution and design topics.
Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: TheShroudofTurin & Jesus is Jehovah!
"We seem to be left with a question that has no imaginable answer: How is it possible for finite beings like us to think infinite thoughts and even if they take priority over any possible outside view of them, what outside view can we take that is at least consistent with their content? The constant temptation toward reductionism-the explanation of reason in terms of something less fundamental-comes from treating our capacity to engage in it as the primary clue to what it is. ... The problem then will be not how, if we engage in it, reason can be valid, but how, if it is universally valid, we can engage in it. There are not many candidates for an answer to this question. Probably the most popular nonsubjectivist answer nowadays is an evolutionary naturalism: we can reason in these ways because it is the consequence of a more primitive capacity of belief formation that had survival value during the period when the human brain was evolving. This explanation has always seemed to me laughably inadequate. ... The other well-known answer is the religious one: The universe is intelligible to us because it and our minds were made for each other." (Nagel, T., 1997, "The Last Word," Oxford University Press: New York NY, pp.74-75).
"The thought that the relation between mind and the world is something fundamental makes many people in this day and age nervous. I believe this is one manifestation of a fear of religion which has large and often pernicious consequences for modern intellectual life. In speaking of the fear of religion, I don't mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper-namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that." (Nagel, 1997, p.130).
"I admit that this idea-that the capacity of the universe to generate organisms with minds capable of understanding the universe is itself somehow a fundamental feature of then universe - has a quasi-religious `ring' to it ... Here, as elsewhere, the idea of God serves as a placeholder for an explanation where something seems to demand explanation and none is available; that is why so many people welcome Darwinist imperialism. But there is really no reason to assume that the only alternative to an evolutionary explanation of everything is a religious one. However, this may not be comforting enough, because the feeling that I have called the fear of religion may extend far beyond the existence of a personal god, to include any cosmic order of which mind is an irreducible and nonaccidental part. I suspect that there is a deep-seated aversion in the modern `disenchanted' Weltanschauung to any ultimate principles that are not dead-that is, devoid of any reference to the possibility of life or consciousness." (Nagel, 1997, pp.132-133).
"An evolutionary explanation of human reason is endorsed in Robert Nozick's recent book The Nature of Rationality [Princeton University Press, 1993] ... The proposal is supposed to be an explanation of reason but not a justification of it. Although it `grounds' reason in certain evolutionary facts, this is a causal grounding only: Those facts are not supposed to provide us with grounds for accepting the validity or reliability of reason. So the explanation is not circular. But what is it intended to provide? It seems to be a proposal of a possible naturalistic explanation of the existence of reason that would, if it were true, make our reliance on reason `objectively' reasonable-that is, a reliable way of getting at the truth ... . But is the hypothesis really compatible with continued confidence in reason as a source of knowledge about the nonapparent character of the world? In itself, I believe an evolutionary story tells against such confidence. Without something more, the idea that our rational capacity was the product of natural selection would render reasoning far less trustworthy than Nozick suggests, beyond its original `coping' functions. There would be no reason to trust its results in mathematics and science, for example. (And insofar as the evolutionary hypothesis itself depends on reason, it would be self-undermining.)" (Nagel, 1997, pp.133-135).
"I suppose it is possible that rationality-the capacity to recognize objectively valid reasons and arguments- is a distinctively accessible member of the set of biological possibilities, one that becomes likely at sufficiently high levels of biological complexity-much more likely than would be predictable on the basis of random mutation and natural selection alone. Like the possibility of molecules or the possibility of consciousness, the possibility of rationality could be a fundamental feature of the natural order. ... But as Mark Johnston has said to me, if one asks, `Why is the natural order such as to make the appearance of rational beings likely?' it is very difficult to imagine any answer to the question that is not teleological." (Nagel, 1997, p.138).
"So it is not inconsistent to regard ourselves as rational in this sense and also as creatures who have been produced through Darwinian evolution. On the other hand, as I have said, the theory of evolution as usually understood provides absolutely no support for this. " (Nagel, 1997, p.138).
"It is one of those fixed images of evolution: adventurous fish managing to hoist themselves onto their stubby fins and crawling clumsily out of the swamps to forage for food. Once these primeval creatures were on terra firma, their offspring began to adapt to their new environment, natural selection (over tens of millions of years) favoring those that developed features well suited to life on land: paws, hooves, knees, joints, fingers and thumbs. Thus, as generations of schoolchildren have learned, did these marine creatures give rise to frogs, birds, dinosaurs and all the rest. There's only one problem with this familiar version of how our distant ancestors emerged from the sea: it's probably wrong. For one thing, the first creatures to waddle ashore were arthropods with well-developed legs and pincers. For another, newly assembled fossils-in particular, a 360 million-year-old salamander-like aquatic animal called Acanthostega-strongly suggest that toes and feet were developed before the first relatives of fish climbed onto land, not after. Moreover, in shape and function, Acanthostega's fully jointed toes bear no resemblance to the spiky, fanlike fins of a fish. Scientists believe they understand how a fish's gills evolved into an amphibian's lungs. But how did fins turn into feet like these?" (Nash, J.M., 1995, "Where Do Toes Come From?," Time, Vol. 146, No. 5, July 31, p.68).
"The drawback for scientists is that nature's shrewd economy conceals enormous complexity. Researchers are finding evidence that the Hox genes and the non-Hox homeobox genes are not independent agents but members of vast genetic networks that connect hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other genes. Change one component, and myriad others will change as well--and not necessarily for the better. Thus dreams of tinkering with nature's toolbox to bring to life what scientists call a `hopeful monster'- such as a fish with feet--are likely to remain elusive." (Nash, 1995).
"A careful analysis of naturalism reveals a problem so serious that it fails one of the major tests that rational men and women will expect any worldview to pass. .... Naturalism claims that everything can be explained in terms of something else within the natural order. .... All that is required for naturalism to be false is the discovery of one thing that cannot be explained in the naturalistic way. C.S. Lewis set up this line of argument: `If necessities of thought force us to allow to any one thing any degree of independence from the Total System-if any one thing makes good a claim to be on its own, to be something more than an expression of the character of Nature as a whole-then we have abandoned Naturalism. For by Naturalism we mean the doctrine that only Nature-the whole interlocked system-exists. And if that were true, every thing and event would, if we knew enough, be explicable without remainder ... as a necessary product of the system.' [Lewis, C.S., "Miracles," Fontana: London, Second edition, 1960, p.16] .... Lewis explains: `All possible knowledge ... depends on the validity of reasoning. ...The human mind ... has the power to grasp necessary connections, that is, what must be the case. This latter power, the ability to grasp necessary connections, is the essential feature of human reasoning. .... Naturalists must appeal to this kind of necessary connection in their arguments for naturalism; indeed, in their reasoning about everything. But can naturalists account for this essential element of the reasoning process that they utilize in their arguments for their own position? .... As Lewis sees it, naturalism `discredits our processes of reasoning or at least reduces their credit to such a humble level that it can no longer support Naturalism itself.' [p.19] ... the only way a person can provide rational grounds for believing in naturalism is first to cease being a naturalist. ": (Nash, R.H., 1992, "Worldviews in Conflict: Choosing Christianity in a World of Ideas," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1999, pp.122-126) .
"From the biological view, the differences between humans and other animals are quantitative. The difficulty is not that we possess physical characteristics lacking in, or radically different from, other animals, but that we possess the same attributes to a greater or lesser degree. To mention only a few: we are larger than most animals, but have less hair; our brain is not the largest in relative or absolute size, but it is very large according to the standards of both these categories. We are not the only animal that is bipedal (birds are, too), but we are the only primates who are so structured-we have a skeleton adapted for standing upright and walking, which leaves the hands free for purposes other than locomotion. All these traits, elaborated and coordinated under the control of a brain capable of abstract thought, give us our remarkable physical uniqueness." (Nelson, H. & Jurmain, R., 1991, "Introduction to Physical Anthropology," West Publishing Co: St. Paul MN, Fifth Edition, p.11).
"... there is a general tendency in all primates for erect body posture and some bipedalism. However, of all living primates, efficient bipedalism as the primary form of locomotion is seen only in hominids. Functionally, the human mode of locomotion is most clearly shown in our striding gait, where weight is alternately placed on a single fully extended hindlimb. This specialized form of locomotion has developed to a point where energy levels are used to near peak efficiency. Such is not the case in nonhuman primates, who move bipedally with hips and knees bent and maintain balance in a clumsy and inefficient manner." (Nelson & Jurmain, 1991, p.428).
"As an old earth creationist I believe that unguided evolution is not capable of producing the features we see in our universe-not the universe itself, life, its actual variety, not humankind. Nor do I think that God-guided evolution is the way God chose to create, at least not to produce the large-scale differences between the various plants and animals, nor to make humans. Presumably God is capable of creating everything we see either by means of miracles in just a few days (even no time at all!) or by guiding purely natural processes over a long period of time. But I don't think the biblical or scientific evidence we have suggests that he used either of these means exclusively. Instead, it seems to me that God used some combination of supernatural intervention and providential guidance to construct the universe. ... This old earth position is also sometimes called `progressive creationism.'" (Newman, R.C., 1999, "Progressive Creationism (Old Earth Creationism)," in Moreland, J.P. & Reynolds, J.M., eds., 1999, "Three Views on Creation and Evolution," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, pp.105-106).
"The authors of this work consider the Bible to be the authoritative, inerrant revelation of God. It does not follow from this, however, that (1) the scientific models regarding the age of the earth and the universe must be overthrown in order to maintain the scientific authority of Scripture, or that (2) the scientific authority of Scripture must be reduced to a few propositions like "God is behind it all." Although neither theistic evolution nor recent creationism is necessarily as extreme as the ends of the spectrum above indicate, our position is to be identified with neither of these. We advocate a third, intermediate view usually labeled `progressive creationism'." (Newman, R.C. & Eckelmann, H.J., Jr., 1977, "Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth," Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute: Hatfields PA, 4th printing, 1991, p.11).
"The time of the Messiah As a final example, let us consider a passage that appears to predict the time of the coming of the Messiah. That some such prophecy was thought to have expired in the first century A.D. is suggested by remarks to this effect by the Jewish historian Josephus and by the Roman historians Tacitus. For the sake of brevity, we quote only the first of these: But what more than all else incited them [the Jews] to the war [revolt against Rome, A.D. 66-73] was an ambiguous oracle, likewise found in their sacred scriptures, to the effect that at that time one from their country would become ruler of the world. This they understood to mean someone of their own race, and many of their own cause men went astray in their interpretation of it. ... If we search the Old Testament for a passage that gives some timed prophecy of this sort) the only good candidate is found in Daniel 9:24-26 ... There has been considerable argument about the interpretation of this passage. A very reasonable interpretation, however, notes the significance of a decree issued by the Persian king Artaxerxes I during his twentieth year (445 B.C.). This edict officially approved Nehemiah's return to Jerusalem to rebuild its walls (Neh 2:1-9) The `sevens' of Daniel 9 (often translated `weeks') most likely refer to the recurring seven-year sabbatical cycle for land use, since sixty-nine weeks of days would have run out before Daniel's prophecy could even have been circulated, and these weeks of years were an established institution in Israel. Using these cycles as units of measurement, the sixty-ninth such cycle (7 + 62), measured from the starting point of 445 B.C., spans the years A.D. 28-35. One cannot help but note with interest that on this analysis the `Anointed One' is `cut off' precisely when Jesus is crucified! So the only Jew claiming to be Messiah who has inaugurated a world religion of predominantly Gentile adherents was cut off precisely when Daniel predicted! And the significance Christians ascribe to Jesus' death is given by Daniel-`to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness.' As it happens, Jesus Christ is also one of the most significant figures in world history, as even secular historians acknowledge." (Newman, R.C., 1997, "Fulfilled Prophecy as Miracle," in Geivett, R.D. & Habermas, G.R., eds., "In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God's Action in History," Apollos: Leicester UK, pp.223-224).
"Humans: unique animals Like the apes, humans are hominoids, so they have the same basic characteristics as the apes ... In humans there is a continued extension of those trends in characteristics described for the apes, and humans differ from them in certain obvious features of appearance and functional anatomy. Every animal species has some features that make it unique, because it develops adaptations that help it to survive and reproduce in its particular environment. Humans, however, have some very special adaptations, and it is these that make the human a unique animal." (Newton, T.J. & Joyce, A.P., 1995, "Human Perspectives, Book 1," [1979], McGraw-Hill Book Co: Sydney NSW, Australia, Third Edition, Reprinted, 1996, p.347).
"The human hand The human hand differs structurally and functionally from that of the other hominoids. It is short and broad, with short, straight fingers and a long, strong thumb when compared to that of an ape. This arrangement gives the thumb a great degree of freedom, and it can readily oppose each of the other digits, thumb-tip to fingertip, allowing humans to grasp objects with precision. The precision grip, such as that used for holding a pencil when writing or a needle when sewing, is highly developed in humans. When grasping an object between the undersides of the fingers and the palm of the hand, a power grip can be used. The power grip, which exerts considerable strength, is found in other primates, such as the gorilla and chimpanzee ... ." (Newton & Joyce, 1996, p.348).
"The human brain Humans have relatively large brains: they range in size from 900 to 2200 cm3, but average around 1350 cm3. This contrasts markedly with those of the other hominoids, which average between 400 and 500 cm3. Most of the increase in brain size is associated with the cerebrum, which is divided by a longitudinal fissure into two halves, the left and the right hemi spheres. The outer portion of these hemispheres is the cortex, and it is this portion of the human brain that shows the greatest degree of development. The surface area of the cerebral cortex is greatly increased by foldings, called convolutions, which give a resulting surface area 50 per cent greater than a brain with no convolutions. The front part of the cerebrum, known as the frontal lobe, has the greatest relative enlargement in surface area. In humans it makes up 47 per cent of the total cortical surface, whereas in pongids it com prises only 33 per cent. It is in the frontal lobe that the higher functions of thinking, reasoning, planning and processing take place." (Newton & Joyce, 1996, pp.348-349).
"Speech Humans have a prominent chin, which, when coupled with the shortened jaw, has provided some of the tongue's muscles with a more forward attachment. This has resulted in a greater degree of freedom for their tongue in the front of the mouth, an important factor for the formation of certain distinctive sounds during speech. Also important in this respect is the position of the voice box, or larynx: it lies directly below the tongue and soft palate, another consequence of human's erect stance. Together, these structural features make speech possible. When air passes over the vocal cords in the larynx they produce sounds that can be modulated by a highly mobile tongue, acting in conjunction with the hard and soft palate, the teeth and the lips .... However, these structural features alone are not responsible for speech. Speech is very much a product of the human brain, and the portion of the cerebrum devoted to the muscles of speech is very large, second only to the portion devoted to the muscles of the hand." (Newton & Joyce, 1996, pp.349-350).
"Writing on 'Creation, Evolution, and Mediate Creation' for The Bible Student in 1901 (pp. 197-210), for example, Warfield reviewed the `scientific theology' of Otto Pfleiderer which, on inspection, revealed a wholesale importation of evolutionism into theological reflection. What Pfleiderer's project amounted to was-ultimately-a denial of God's creative intervention by an overemphasis on providential superintendence. Pfleiderer's conclusions prompted Warfield to insist that `when we say "evolution," we definitely deny creation. and when we say "creation," we definitely deny evolution. Whatever comes by the one process by that very fact does not come by the other. Whatever comes by evolution is not created; whatever is created is not evolved.' Evolution and creation were mutually exclusive categories. ... This 1901 essay was Warfield's most articulate presentation yet of a crucial distinction he was drawing between three modes of divine action or superintendence of the physical world. Warfield saw them as methods that God used to generate physical forms, species, and individuals. First was theistic evolution, or the providentially controlled unfolding of nature. Second was creation ex nihilo, or out of nothing. Warfield's third category was the most complicated and the one that least resembles schemes developed since his time. This was the category of mediate creation-in effect, a via media between evolution and creation ex nihilo that he developed from hints in earlier Reformed theologians. By mediate creation Warfield meant that God acted, or intervened, with already existing material to bring something new into existence that could not have developed from the forces latent in the material itself. Like creation ex nihilo, mediate creation required a direct act of God. Like evolution, mediate creation featured already existing material." (Noll, M.A. & Livingstone, D.N., "Introduction," in Noll M.A. & Livingstone D.N., eds, 2000, "B.B. Warfield: Evolution, Science and Scripture: Selected Writings," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, pp.34-35).
"As one of the earliest of the natural philosophers in Greece is mentioned THALES of Miletus. ... between 650 and 580 B.C. ... He was probably of Phoenician origin ... he had educated himself by travailing and studying in the East. He was very rich and of high standing and collected around him a number of disciples. Of his philosophy it is mentioned that he regarded water as the cause of all things. The earth floated like a disk on a vast sea which surrounded it on all sides. The details of his philosophy are unknown, but the assumption mentioned above is to a certain extent reminiscent of the story of the creation in Genesis, with its definite assertion of 'waters which were under the firmament' and `waters which were above the firmament' That we are here dealing with a theory of oriental origin seems beyond all doubt." (Nordenskiold, E., 1928, "The History of Biology: A Survey," [1920-24], transl. Eyre L.B., Tudor Publishing Co: New York NY, pp.10-11).
"Living beings he [Anaximander (c. 610?546 BC)] conceives as having evolved through a kind of primordial procreation in the mud which formerly covered the earth. Thus, first there arose animals and plants, and then human beings, who, originally formed like fishes, lived in the water, but afterwards cast off their fish-skin, went up on dry land and thenceforth lived there. We see, then, that Anaximander produced a complete theory of evolution, childishly clumsy, it is true, but interesting for the audacity with which he deduced his conclusions from his premisses." (Nordenskiold, 1928, p.12).
"MODERN CRITICS have often asked themselves how it is that a hypothesis like Darwin's, based on such weak foundations, could all at once win over to its side the greater part of contemporary scientific opinion. If the defenders of the theory refer with this end in view to its intrinsic value, it may be answered that the theory has long ago been rejected in its most vital points by subsequent research." (Nordenskiold, 1928, p.477).
"Bypassing the recent wave of Creationism in the US and its criticism of Darwin's theory, a number of objections can be made against the notion of natural selection, some of which I will mention here. Such intricate changes have arisen in nature, involving such immensely complex series of mutations that mathematicians find it almost impossible to attribute these to blind chance. Rattray Taylor mentions several instances of features which evolved long before they were of any advantage so that they hardly can have been caused by natural selection. Even Darwin himself was occasionally seized by doubt while contemplating organs of extreme perfection. `The eye gives me a cold shudder,' he wrote." (Noske, B., 1989, "Humans and Other Animals: Beyond the Boundaries of Anthropology," Pluto Press: London, p.65).
"Within a couple of decades of the publication of Charles Darwin's landmark book Origin of Species (1859), the idea of organic evolution had captivated most British and American scientists and was beginning to draw favorable comment from religious leaders on both sides of the Atlantic. By the late nineteenth century, evolutionary notions were infiltrating even the ranks of evangelical Christians, and, in the opinion of many observers, belief in special creation seemed destined to go the way of the dinosaur. But contrary to the hopes of liberals and the fears of conservatives, creationism did not become extinct. Many English-speaking Christians, particularly in North America, remained true to a traditional reading of Genesis and from time to time, most notably in the 1920s and since the 1960s, mounted campaigns to contain the spread of evolutionary theory. An overwhelming majority of Americans saw no reason to oppose the teaching of creationism in public schools, and according to a 1991 Gallup poll 47 percent, including a fourth of the college graduates, continued to believe that `God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.' ["Poll Finds Americans Split on Creation Idea," New York Times, August 29, 1982]" (Numbers, R.L., 1992, "The Creationists: the Evolution of Scientific Creationism," University of California Press: Berkeley CA, Reprinted, 1993, p.ix).
"... C.S. Lewis (1898-1963), perhaps the best-known Christian apologist of his day and a personal friend of Captain Acworth's [Chairman, Evolution Protest Movement, London]. ... In 1951 he confessed that his belief in the unimportance of evolution had been shaken while reading one of his friend's manuscripts. `I wish I were younger,' he confided to Acworth. `What inclines me now to think that you may be right in regarding it [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders' [Lewis, C.S., to Acworth, B., September 13, 1951]" (Numbers, 1992, p.153).
"Meanwhile, during the same years, biologists, after decades of disagreeing over the mechanism of evolution to the point of fostering reports of Darwinism lying on its `death-bed,' began to forge a common explanation of evolution, which came to be known, perhaps misleadingly, as the modern or neo-Darwinian synthesis. Geneticists, taxonomists, and paleontologists, who had long worked virtually isolated from one another, finally began interacting-and agreeing on the centrality of natural selection in the evolutionary process. In doing so, they repudiated other evolutionary explanations, particularly ones that gave evolution the appearance of having a purpose. This created, in the words of the historian-biologist William B. Provine, an `evolutionary constriction' that squeezed any talk of supernatural design out of biological discourse. `The evolutionary constriction,' he asserts, `ended all rational hope of purpose in evolution,' thus making belief in Darwinism the functional equivalent of atheism. Many evolutionists remained devout Christians and Jews, but it became increasingly difficult to do so on the basis of the scientific evidence for evolution." (Numbers, R.L, "Darwinism Comes to America," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1998, p.4).
"Support for creationism ran deep in North American society. Despite the nearly unanimous endorsement of naturalistic evolution by leading biologists, a Gallup poll in 1993 showed that 47 percent of Americans continued to believe that `God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years,' and an additional 35 percent thought that the process of evolution had been divinely guided. Only 11 percent subscribed to purely naturalistic evolution. (Seven percent expressed no opinion.) Fifty-eight percent of the public favored teaching creationism in the schools. In Canada, which had experienced comparatively little controversy over origins, 53 percent of adults rejected evolution. In 1986, during a visit to New Zealand, the American paleontologist and anticreationist Stephen Jay Gould assured his hosts that scientific creationism was so `peculiarly American' that it stood little chance of `catching on overseas.' His colleague Richard C. Lewontin seemed to agree. `Creationism is an American institution,' he declared, `and it is not only American but specifically southern and southwestern.' So it may have seemed at the time, but scientific creationism was already traveling far beyond the borders of the United States, enjoying growing popularity in Europe, Asia, and the South Pacific." (Numbers, R.L., 1998, "Darwinism Comes to America," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, pp.9,11).
"If Dawkins played the role of point man for late-twentieth-century naturalistic evolutionists, Daniel C. Dennett gladly served as their hatchet man. In a book called Darwin's Dangerous Idea (1995), which Dawkins warmly endorsed, Dennett portrayed Darwinism as `a universal solvent, capable of cutting right to the heart of everything in sight'-and particularly effective in dissolving religious beliefs. The most ardent creationist could not have said it with more conviction, but Dennett's agreement with them ended there. He despised creationists, arguing that `there are no forces on this planet more dangerous to us all than the fanaticisms of fundamentalism.' Displaying a degree of intolerance more characteristic of a fanatic Fundamentalist than an academic philosopher, he called for `caging' those who would deliberately misinform children about the natural world, just as one would cage a threatening wild animal. `The message is clear,' he wrote: `those who will not accommodate, who will not temper, who insist on keeping only the purest and wildest strain of their heritage alive, we will be obliged, reluctantly, to cage or disarm, and we will do our best to disable the memes [traditions] they fight for.' With the bravado of a man unmindful that only 11 percent of the public shared his enthusiasm for naturalistic evolution, he warned parents that if they insisted on teaching their children `falsehoods-that, the Earth is flat, that 'Man' is not a product of evolution by natural selection-then you must expect, at the very least, that those of us who have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest opportunity.' Those who resisted conversion to Dennett's scientific fundamentalism would be subject to `quarantine.'" (Numbers, R.L., 1998, p.13).
"It is clear from this testimony that Bryan not only rejected the notion of a 6,000-year-old Earth but freely interpreted the days of Genesis as vast periods of time. Such beliefs may have struck Darrow (and a host of historians) as being inconsistent with hard-core Fundamentalism, but there is little evidence that Fundamentalists themselves expressed either shock or surprise. During the 1920s Fundamentalists divided over the correct interpretation of the Mosaic account of creation, but few insisted on a young Earth. ... An influential minority, including Bryan, chose to accommodate the fossil evidence by reading the `days' of Genesis as vast geological ages. Only a relatively tiny group, mostly Seventh-day Adventists, insisted on the recent appearance of life on Earth in six days of twenty-four-hours each. Despite their differences, the Fundamentalists in all three hermeneutical camps regarded themselves as strict biblical literalists. ... In advocating the day-age interpretation of Genesis, Bryan found himself in impeccable Fundamentalist company. George Frederick Wright, author of an essay on evolution in The Fundamentals, subscribed to the same view, as did William Bell Riley, head of the World's Christian Fundamentals Association, the organization that had sent Bryan to Dayton." (Numbers, 1998, pp.80-81).
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment