Friday, January 25, 2008

PoE: Bibliography "G"

Here is the Bibliography "G" page for authors' surnames beginning with "G"

[Right: "Evolution of Living Organisms" (1977), by Pierre-Paul Grassé (1895-1985) ... Grassé was an opponent of Darwinian evolution, because he believed it to be in conflict with numerous experimental findings. He disagreed with Darwin's central tenet of evolution regarding the combined effect of mutation and natural selection." (Wikipedia). See also PS.]

which I may refer to in my book outline, "Problems of Evolution."

© Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology)



Gale, B.G., 1982, "Evolution Without Evidence: Charles Darwin and the Origin of Species," University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque NM.
Gallant, R.A., 1975, "How Life Began: Creation Versus Evolution," Four Winds: New York NY.
Galton, D.J., 2001, "Eugenics: The Future of Human Life in the 21st Century," Abacus : London, Reprinted, 2002.
Gamlin, L., 1989, "Origins of Life," Gloucester Press: London.
Gamlin, L., 1993, "Evolution," Collins Eyewitness Science, HarperCollins: Pymble, Australia.
Gamlin, L. & Vines, G., eds, 1986, "The Evolution of Life," Oxford University Press: New York NY, Reprinted, 1991.
Gamow, G., 1947, "One Two Three...Infinity: Facts and Speculations on Science," Bantam Books: New York NY, 1972, Tenth printing.
Gardner, E.J., Simmons, M.J. & Snustad, D.P., 1991, "Principles of Genetics," [1984], Wiley: New York NY, Eighth edition.
Gardner, M., 1982, "The Ambidextrous Universe: Mirror Asymmetry and Time-Reversed Worlds," [1964], Penguin: Harmondsworth UK, Second edition.
Gardner, M., 2003, "Are Universes Thicker Than Blackberries? : Discourses on Godel, Magic Hexagrams, Little Red Riding Hood, and Other Mathematical and Pseudoscientific Topics," W.W. Norton & Co: New York NY.
Gardner, M., 1992, "On the Wild Side," Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY.
Gascoigne, R.M., 1993, "The History of the Creation: A Christian View of Inorganic and Organic Evolution," Fast Books: Sydney NSW, Australia.
Gaskin, J., ed., 1995, "The Epicurean Philosophers," Everyman, J.M. Dent: London.
Gazzaniga, M.S., 1988, "Mind Matters: How Mind and Brain Interact to Create Our Conscious Lives," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA.
Gee, H., 1999, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life," The Free Press: New York NY.
Geisler, N.L., 1982, "The Creator in the Courtroom `Scopes II': The 1981 Arkansas Creation-Evolution Trial," Mott Media: Milford MI.
Geisler, N.L., 1989, "Knowing the Truth about Creation: How It Happened and What It Means for Us," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI.
Geisler, N.L. & Anderson, J.K., 1987, "Origin Science: A Proposal for the Creation-Evolution Controversy," Baker: Grand Rapids MI.
Geisler, N.L. & Brooks, R.M., 1990, "Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1996, Fourth printing.
Geisler, N.L. & Turek; F., 2004, "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist," Crossway Books: Wheaton IL.
Geivett, R.D. & Habermas, G.R., eds, 1997, "In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God's Action in History," Apollos: Leicester.
Gell-Mann, M., 1994, "The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex," Abacus: London, Reprinted, 1995.
George, T.N., 1951, "Evolution in Outline," Thrift Books: London.
Ghiselin, M.T., 1972, "The Triumph of the Darwinian Method," [1969], University of California Press: Berkeley CA, Reprinted.
Giancoli, D.C., 1991, "Physics: Principles with Applications," [1980], Prentice Hall: New Jersey NJ, Third edition.
Gibbons, T.H., 1973, "Rooms in the Darwin Hotel: Studies in English Literary Criticism and Ideas, 1880-1920," University of Western Australia Press: Nedlands WA, Australia.
Gibor, A., ed., 1976, "Conditions for Life: Readings from Scientific American," W.H. Freeman & Co: San Francisco CA.
Gilbert, S.F., 1994, "Developmental Biology," [1985], Sinauer Associates: Sunderland MA, Fourth edition.
Gilkey, L., 1985, "Creationism on Trial: Evolution and God at Little Rock," Winston Press: Minneapolis MN.
Gilkey, L., 1959, "Maker of Heaven and Earth: The Christian Doctrine of Creation in the Light of Modern Knowledge," Anchor Books: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1965.
Gillespie, N.C., 1979, "Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL.
Gillispie, C.C., 1951, "Genesis and Geology: A Study in the Relations of Scientific Thought, Natural Theology, and Social Opinion in Great Britain, 1790-1850," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, Reprinted, 1996.
Gillott, J. & Kumar, M., 1995, "Science and the Retreat from Reason," Merlin Press: London.
Gish, D.T., 1972, "Evidence Against Evolution," Tyndale: Wheaton IL.
Gish, D.T., 1979, "Evolution: The Fossils Say NO!," [1972], Creation-Life: San Diego CA, Third edition, Third printing, 1981.
Gish, D.T., 1985, "Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record," Creation-Life: El Cajon CA, Second printing, 1986.
Gish, D.T., 1993, "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics," Institute for Creation Research: El Cajon CA.
Gish, D.T., 1995, "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say NO!" [1985], Institute for Creation Research: El Cajon CA, Revised.
Gitt, W., 1993, "Did God Use Evolution?," [1988], CLV: Bielefeld, Germany, English edition.
Gitt, W., 1996, "Stars and Their Purpose: Signposts in Space, CLV: Bielefeld, Germany.
Gitt, W., 1997, "In the Beginning was Information," [1994], CLV: Bielefeld, Germany, English edition.
Gitt, W. & Vanheiden, K-H., 1994, "If Animals Could Talk," Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung: Bielefeld, Germany.
Glass, B., Temkin, O. & Straus, W.L., Jr., ed., 1959, "Forerunners of Darwin: 1745-1859," Johns Hopkins Press: Baltimore MD.
Gleick, J., 1987, "Chaos: Making a New Science," Cardinal: London, Reprinted, 1988.
Glick, T.F., ed., 1974, "The Comparative Reception of Darwinism," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Reprinted, 1988.
Glynn, I.M., 1999, "An Anatomy of Thought: The Origin and Machinery of the Mind," Phoenix: London, Reprinted, 2000.
Glynn, P., 1997, "God: The Evidence: The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World," Forum: Rocklin CA.
Godfrey, L.R., ed., 1983, "Scientists Confront Creationism," W.W. Norton: New York NY.
Golding, W., 1955, "The Inheritors," Faber & Faber: London, Reprinted, 1964.
Goldberg, S., 1992, "When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe Is False," Prometheus Books: New York NY.
Goldschmidt, R.B., 1940, "The Material Basis of Evolution," Yale University Press: New Haven CT, Reprinted, 1982.
Goldschmidt, T., 1996, "Darwin's Dreampond: Drama in Lake Victoria," [Marx-Macdonald, S., transl., MIT Press: Cambridge MA, Second printing, 1997.
Goldsmith, D.A., 1997, "The Hunt for Life on Mars," Penguin: New York NY.
Goldsmith, T.H. & Zimmerman, W.F., 2000, "Biology, Evolution, and Human Nature," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY.
Gonzalez, G. & Richards, J.W., 2004, "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed For Discovery," Regnery: Washington DC.
Gooch, S., 1977, "The Neanderthal Question," Wildwood House: London.
Good, R., 1974., "Features of Evolution in the Flowering Plants," Dover: New York NY.
Good, R., 1981, "The Philosophy Of Evolution," Dovecote Press: Stanbridge, Dorset UK.
Goodwin, B.C., 1994, "How The Leopard Changed Its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity," Phoenix: London, Reprinted, 1995.
Gorst, M., 2001, "Aeons: The Search for the Beginning of Time," Fourth Estate: London.
Goudie, A., 1993, "The Nature of the Environment," [1984], Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, Third edition.
Gould, J.L. & Gould, C.G., 1989, "Sexual Selection: Mate Choice and Courtship in Nature," Scientific American Library: New York NY, Reprinted, 1996.
Gould, S.J., 1977, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA.
Gould, S.J., 1978, "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History," Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1991.
Gould, S.J., 1980a, "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, January, pp.119- 130.
Gould, S.J., 1980b, "The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History," Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1990.
Gould, S.J., 1980c, "The promise of paleobiology as a nomothetic, evolutionary discipline," Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, January, pp.96-118.
Gould, S.J., 1981, "The Mismeasure of Man," W.W. Norton & Co: New York NY, Reprinted, 1993.
Gould, S.J., 1983, "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History," Penguin: Harmondsworth UK, Reprinted, 1986.
Gould, S.J., 1985, "The Flamingo's Smile: Reflections in Natural History," Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1991.
Gould, S.J., 1987a, "Darwinism Defined: The Difference Between Fact and Theory," Discover, January, pp.64-70.
Gould, S.J., 1987b, "Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle: Myth and Metaphor in the Discovery of Geological Time," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA.
Gould, S.J., 1987c, "An Urchin in the Storm: Essays about Books and Ideas," [1987], Penguin: London, 1990.
Gould, S.J., 1989, "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History," Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1991.
Gould, S.J., 1991, "Bully for Brontosaurus: Further Reflections in Natural History," Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1992.
Gould, S.J., 1993, "Eight Little Piggies: Reflections in Natural History," Jonathan Cape: London.
Gould, S.J., 1995, "Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History," Crown: New York NY, Reprinted, 1997.
Gould, S.J., 1996, "Life's Grandeur: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin," The Softback Preview: London, Reprinted, 1997.
Gould, S.J., 1998, "Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms: Essays on Natural History," Vintage: London, Reprinted, 1999.
Gould, S.J., 1999, "Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life," The Library of Contemporary Thought, Ballantine: New York NY.
Gould, S.J., 2000, "The Lying Stones of Marrakech: Penultimate Reflections in Natural History," Vintage: London, Reprinted, 2001.
Gould, S.J., 2002a, "I Have Landed: Splashes and Reflections in Natural History," Vintage: London, Reprinted, 2003.
Gould, S.J., 2002b, "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory," Belknap: Cambridge MA, Fifth printing.
Gould, S.J., ed., 1993, "The Book of Life: An Illustrated History of the Evolution of Life on Earth," Random House: Sydney NSW, Australia.
Gould, S.J. & Eldredge, N., 1977, "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered," Paleobiology, Vol. 3, April, pp.115-147.
Grant, J., 1981, "A Directory Of Discarded Ideas," Ashgrove Press: Sevenoaks, Kent UK.
Grassé, P.-P., 1977, "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY.
Gray, A., 1963, "Darwiniana: Essays and Reviews Pertaining to Darwinism," Dupree, A.H., ed., Belknap Press: Cambridge MA.
Gregory, R.L., 1972, "Eye and Brain: The Psychology of Seeing," [1966], Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, Second edition.
Gregory, R.L., ed., "The Oxford Companion to the Mind," Oxford University Press: New York NY, 1987.
Greene, B.R., 1999, "The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory," Vintage: London, Reprinted, 2000.
Greene, J.C., 1961, "Darwin and the Modern World View," Mentor: New York NY, Reprinted, 1963.
Greene, J.C., 1959, "The Death of Adam: Evolution and its Impact on Western Thought," Mentor: New York NY, Reprinted, 1961.
Greenfield, S., 1997, "The Human Brain: A Guided Tour," Weidenfeld Nicolson: London.
Greenstein, G., 1988, "The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos," William Morrow & Co: New York NY.
Grene, M., ed., 1983, "Dimensions of Darwinism Themes and Counterthemes in Twentieth-Century Evolutionary Theory," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK.
Gribbin, J.R., 1999, "The Birth of Time: How We Measured the Age of the Universe," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London.
Gribbin, J.R., ed., 1998, "A Brief History of Science," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London.
Gribbin, J.R., "Genesis: The Origins of Man and the Universe," Delta/Eleanor Friede: New York NY.
Gribbin, J.R., 1986, "In Search of the Big Bang: Quantum Physics and Cosmology," Heinemann: London.
Gribbin, J.R., 1985, "In Search of the Double Helix: Darwin, DNA and Beyond," Wildwood House: Aldershot UK.
Gribbin, J.R., 1993, "In The Beginning: The Birth of the Living Universe," [Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1994.
Gribbin, J.R., ed., 1986, "The Breathing Planet," A New Scientist Guide, Basil Blackwell & New Scientist: Oxford UK.
Gribbin, J.R. & Cherfas, J., 1982, "The Monkey Puzzle: A Family Tree," The Bodley Head: London.
Gribbin, J.R. & Cherfas, J., 2001, "The Mating Game: In Search of the Meaning of Sex," [1984], Penguin: London, Revised edition.
Gribbin, J.R. & Gribbin, M., 1988, "The One Per Cent Advantage: The Sociobiology of Being Human," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK.
Gribbin, J.R. & Gribbin, M., 1990, "Children of the Ice: Climate and Human Origins," Basil Blackwell: Oxford.
Gribbin, J.R. & Gribbin, M., 1996, "Fire On Earth : In Search of the Doomsday Asteroid," Simon & Schuster: London
Gribbin, J.R. & Gribbin, M., 1998, "Almost Everyone's Guide to Science: The Universe, Life and Everything," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London.
Gribbin, J.R. & Gribbin, M., 2000, "Stardust: The Cosmic Recycling of Stars, Planets and People," Penguin: London, Reprinted, 2001.
Gribbin, J.R. & Plagemann, S., 1983, "Beyond The Jupiter Effect," Macdonald & Co: London.
Gribbin, J.R. & Rees, M.J., 1989, "Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and Anthropic Cosmology," Bantam Books: New York NY.
Gribbin, M. & Gribbin, J.R., 1993, "Being Human: Putting People in an Evolutionary Perspective," J.M. Dent: London.
Griffiths, A.J.F., et al., 1999, "An Introduction to Genetic Analysis," [1976], W.H. Freeman and Co: New York NY, Seventh Edition , First printing, 2000.
Grinspoon, D.H., 2003, "Lonely Planets: The Natural Philosophy of Alien Life," ECCO: New York NY, Reprinted, 2004.
Grzimek, H.C.B., ed., 1974, "Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia: Lower Animals," [1970], Van Nostrand Reinhold Co: New York NY, Vol. 1
Grzimek, H.C.B., ed., 1976, "Grzimek's Encyclopedia of Evolution," [1972], Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York NY.
Gruber, H.E., 1974, "Darwin on Man: A Psychological Study of Scientific Creativity," together with Barrett, P.H., "Darwin's Early and Unpublished Notebooks," Wildwood House: London.
Grundy, A.H., 1991, "Amazing Unbelievable Freak Earth: New Discoveries," The Book Guild: Lewes, Sussex UK.

PS: The `tagline' quotes below are all from either from Grassé's book or about it. The latter are before the former. Emphases in italics are original and emphases in bold are mine).

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blog: TheShroudofTurin & Jesus is Jehovah!

"The book of Pierre P. Grasse is a frontal attack on all kinds of `Darwinism'. Its purpose is `to destroy the myth of evolution as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon,' and to show that evolution is a mystery about which little is, and perhaps can be, known. Now, one can disagree with Grasse but not ignore him, he is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of `Traite de Zoologie', author of numerous original investigations and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic, and his book is replete with interesting facts that any biologist would profit by knowing." (Dobzhansky, T.G., 1975, "Darwinian or `Oriented' Evolution?" Review of Grasse P.-P., "L'Evolution du Vivant" ["Evolution of Life"], Editions Albin Michel: Paris, 1973, in Evolution, Vol. 29, June, pp.376-378, p.376).

"Professor Pierre Grassé (who, for thirty years, held the chair for evolution at the Sorbonne without losing his Gallic wit) commented: `Where is the gambler, however obsessed with his passion, who would be crazy enough to bet on the roulette of random evolution? The creation, by grains of dust carried by the wind, of Durer's Melancholia has a probability less infinitesimal than the construction of an eye through the mishaps which might befall the DNA molecule - mishaps which have no connection whatsoever with the future functions of the eye. Daydreaming is permissible, but science should not succumb to it.' [Grassé's italics] [Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms," (1973), Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.104. Emphasis original)" (Koestler, A., "Janus: A Summing Up," Picador: London, 1983, p.177).

"More recently, another book critical of Darwin's theory was published in France, by Dr. Pierre P. Grassé. The book, Evolution of Living Organisms, greatly intensified the debate at hand because of the eminence of the source. Dr. Grassé is one of the world's greatest living biologists. In his review of the book, Theodosius Dobzhansky, a member of the old guard and a staunch defender of Darwinist theory, had to admit that Grassé's observations were impossible to ignore simply because of his vast research experience. Grassé is the editor of the twenty-eight volumes of Traite' de Zoologie and ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences. According to Dobzhansky, `His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic.' [Dobzhansky, T.G., "Darwinian or 'Oriented' Evolution?," Evolution, Vol. 29, 1975, p.376]. After decades of careful scholarship, Grassé concluded simply: `Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved.' [Grassé, 1977, p.202]." (Rifkin, J., 1983, "Algeny," Viking Press: New York NY, pp.116-117).

"Much to the consternation of his colleagues, Grassé ends up by issuing the single most devastating indictment that can ever be leveled against a field that professes to be scientific. `Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case.' [Grassé, 1977, p.6] "(Rifkin, 1983, p.117).

"Dr. Grassé poses the question this way: `How does the Darwinian mutational interpretation of evolution account for the fact that the species that have been the most stable-some of them for the last hundreds of millions of years-have mutated as much as the others do?' Grassé concludes: `Once one has noticed microvariations (on the one hand) and specific stability (on the other), it seems very difficult to conclude that the former (microvariation) comes into play in the evolutionary process.' Grassé says that the evidence forces us `to deny any evolutionary value whatever to the mutations we observe in the existing fauna and flora.' [Grassé, 1977, p.202]" (Rifkin, 1983, p.132).

"According to Grassé, mutations are `merely hereditary fluctuations around a medium position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect ... they modify what pre-exists.' [Grassé, 1977, p.87] Whereas Darwin thought that variations led to new species, the evidence proves the contrary: namely, that variation improves the ability of the species to maintain itself `against' radical change." (Rifkin, 1983, p.133).

"The problem, says Grassé, is that `some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution.' This conclusion, says Grassé, `does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.' [Grassé, 1977, p.88]" (Rifkin, 1983, pp.134-135).

"To hammer his point home, Grassé feels compelled to use the computer as an appropriate reference point. `The computer is limited in its operations by the program controlling it and the units of information fed into it. To enlarge its possibilities, its contents have to be enriched. What is new comes from outside.' [Grassé, 1977, p.225] Grassé concludes that the living organism, like the computer, has "to be programmed and fed with external information in order for novelties to emerge." [Ibid, p.226]" (Rifkin, 1983, p.210).

"The systematically similar structures of fossilized organisms and their modern day counterparts (if not extinct) are described by Grassé: `Biologists find it hard to admit that, in their basic structure, present living beings differ [hardly] at all from those of the past. To begin with, such a supposition seems contrary to the scientific spirit. But facts are facts; no new broad organizational plan has appeared for several hundred million years, and for an equally long time numerous species, animal as well as plant, have ceased evolving.' [Grassé, 1977, p.84]" (Bird, W.R., 1991, "The Origin of Species Revisited," Regency: Nashville TN, Vol. I, pp.65-66).

"The `most famous, strongly documented case' of natural selection is that of `the replacement of light-colored by dark-colored moths in industrial areas of England after trees were coated with soot,' so that birds picked off the more visible light-colored moths and caused the dark-colored moths to become more prevalent. Grassé and others note that this is not macroevolution but only `insignificant' microevolution: `At best, present evolutionary phenomena are simply slight change:, genotypes within populations, or substitution of an allele by a new one. For example, the mutant carbonaria of the birch moth, Biston betularia, replaces the regular butterfly in polluted industrial areas (Haldane, 1956; Ford, 1971) ... Some biologists maintain that they cannot only observe it but also describe it in action; the facts that they describe, however, either have nothing to do with evolution or are insignificant.' [Grassé, 1977, p.84]" (Bird, 1991, Vol. I, pp.162-163).

"Synthetically reproduced protolife and artificial evolution in computers have already unearthed a growing body of nontrivial surprises. Yet artificial life suffers from the same malaise that afflicts its cousin, artificial intelligence. No artificial intelligence that I am aware of-be it autonomous robot, learning machine, or massive cognition program-has run more than 24 hours in succession. After a day, artificial intelligence stalls. Likewise, artificial life. Most runs of computational life fizzle out of novelty quickly. While the programs sometimes keep running, churning out minor variation, they ascend to no new levels of complexity or surprise after the first spurt ... computational life based on unadorned natural selection has not seen the miracle of open-ended evolution that its creators, and I, would love to see. As the French evolutionist Pierre Grasse said, `Variation is one thing, evolution quite another; this cannot be emphasized strongly enough ... Mutations provide change, but not progress.' [Grassé, 1977, pp.6, 218] So while natural selection may be responsible for microchange-a trend in variations-no one can say indisputably that it is responsible for macrochange-the open-ended creation of an unexpected novel form and progress toward increasing complexity." (Kelly, K., 1994, "Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines," Fourth Estate: London, Reprinted, 1995, p.476).

"What artificial selection actually shows is that there are definite limits to the amount of variation that even the most highly skilled breeders can achieve. Breeding of domestic animals has produced no new species, in the commonly accepted sense of new breeding communities that are infertile when crossed with the parent group. ... The eminent French zoologist Pierre Grassé concluded that the results of artificial selection provide powerful testimony against Darwin's theory: `In spite of the intense pressure generated by artificial selection (eliminating any parent not answering the criteria of choice) over whole millennia, no new species are born. A comparative study of sera hemoglobins, blood proteins, interfertility, etc., proves that the strains remain within the same specific definition. This is not a matter of opinion or subjective classification, but a measurable reality. The fact is that selection gives tangible form to and gathers together all the varieties a genome is capable of producing, but does not constitute an innovative evolutionary process.' [Grassé, 1977, pp.124-25] In other words, the reason that dogs don't become as big a elephants, much less change into elephants, is not that we just haven't been breeding them long enough. Dogs do not have the genetic capacity for that degree of change, and they stop getting bigger when the genetic limit is reached." (Johnson, P.E., 1993, "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, p.18).

"The time available unquestionably has to be taken into account in evaluating the results of breeding experiments, but it is also possible that the greater time available to nature may be more than counterbalanced by the power of intelligent purpose which is brought to bear in artificial selection. With respect to the famous fruitfly experiments, for example, Grassé noted that `the fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster) the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotropical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times.' [Grassé, 1977, p.130] Nature has had plenty of time, but it just hasn't been doing what the experimenters have been doing. " (Johnson, 1993, p.19).

"None of the `proofs' provides any persuasive reason for believing that natural selection can produce new species, new organs, or other major changes, or even minor changes that are permanent. The sickle-cell anemia case, for example, merely shows that in special circumstances an apparently disadvantageous trait may not be eliminated from the population. That larger birds have an advantage over smaller birds in high winds or droughts has no tendency whatever to prove that similar factors caused birds to come into existence in the first place. Very likely smaller birds have the advantage in other circumstances, which explains why birds are not continually becoming larger. Pierre Grassé was as unimpressed by this kind of evidence as I am, and he summarized his conclusions at the end of his chapter on evolution and natural selection: `The `evolution in action' of J. Huxley end other biologists is simply the observation of demographic facts, local fluctuations of genotypes, geographical distributions. Often the species concerned have remained practically unchanged for hundreds of centuries! Fluctuation as a result of circumstances, with prior modification of the genome, does not imply evolution, and we have tangible proof of this in many panchronic species [i.e. living fossils that remain unchanged for millions of years]....' [Grassé, 1977, p130]." (Johnson, 1993, p.27).

"Grassé denied emphatically that mutation and selection have the power to create new complex organs or body plans, explaining that the intra-species variation that results from DNA copying errors is mere fluctuation, which never leads to any important innovation. Dobzhansky's famous work with fruitflies was a case in point. According to Grassé, `The genic differences noted between separate populations of the same species that are so often presented as evidence of ongoing evolution are, above all, a case of the adjustment of a population to its habitat and of the effects of genetic drift. The fruitfly (drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotropical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times.' [Grassé, 1977, p.130]." (Johnson, P.E., 1994, "Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning," in Buell, J. & Hearn, V., eds., 1994, "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, p.6).

"Grassé insisted that the defining quality of life is the intelligence encoded in its biochemical systems, an intelligence that cannot be understood solely in terms of its material embodiment. The minerals that form a great cathedral do not differ essentially from the same materials in the rocks and quarries of the world; the difference is human intelligence, which adapted them for a given purpose. Similarly, `Any living being possesses an enormous amount of `intelligence,' very much more than is necessary to build the most magnificent of cathedrals. Today, this `intelligence' is called information, but it is still the same thing. It is not programmed as in a computer, but rather it is condensed on molecular scale in the chromosomal DNA or in that of every other organelle in each cell. This `intelligence' is the sine qua non of life. Where does it come from? ...This is a problem that concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at present science seems incapable of solving it.... If to determine the origin of information in a computer is not a false problem, why should the search for the information contained in cellular nuclei be one?' [Grassé, 1977, p.2]." (Johnson, 1994, in Buell & Hearn, 1994, pp.6-7).

"Grassé was an evolutionist, but his dissent from Darwinism could hardly have been more radical if he had been a creationist. It is not merely that he built a detailed empirical case against the neo-Darwinian picture of evolution. At the philosophical level, he challenged the crucial doctrine of uniformitarianism, which holds that processes detectable by our present-day science were also responsible for the great transformations that occurred in the remote past. According to Grassé, evolving species acquire a new store of genetic information through `a phenomenon whose equivalent cannot be seen in the creatures living at the present time (either because it is not there or because we are unable to see it).' [Grassé, 1977, p.208]. ... See also p. 71: `We are certain that it [evolution] does not operate today as it did in the remote past. Something has changed.... The structural plans no longer undergo complete reorganization; novelties are no longer plentiful. Evolution, after its last enormous effort to form the mammalian orders and man, seems to be out of breath and drowsing off.' [Grassé, 1977, p.208]. " (Johnson, 1994, pp.8,19).

"Grassé acknowledged that such speculation `arouses the suspicions of many biologists... [because] it conjures up visions of the ghost of vitalism or of some mystical power which guides the destiny of living things...' He defended himself from these charges by arguing that the evidence of genetics, zoology, and paleontology refutes the Darwinian theory that random mutation and natural selection were important sources of evolutionary innovation. Given the state of the empirical evidence, to acknowledge the existence of some as yet undiscovered orienting force that guided evolution was merely to face the facts. Grassé even turned the charges of mysticism against his opponents, commenting sarcastically that nothing could be more mystical than the Darwinian view that `nature acts blindly, unintelligently, but by an infinitely benevolent good fortune builds mechanisms so intricate that we have not even finished with analysis of their structure and have not the slightest insight of the physical principles and functioning of some of them." [Grassé, 1977, p.168] "(Johnson, 1994, p.8).

"Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms. A knowledge of paleontology is, therefore, a prerequisite; only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms. Neither the examination of present beings, nor imagination, nor theories can serve as a substitute for paleontological documents. If they ignore them, biologists, the philosophers of nature, indulge in numerous commentaries and can only come up with hypotheses. This is why we constantly have recourse to paleontology, the only true science of evolution. From it we learn how to interpret present occurrences cautiously; it reveals that certain hypotheses considered certainties by their authors are in fact questionable or even illegitimate." (Grassé, P.-P., 1977, "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY 1977, p.4).

"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations. The following is one of the numerous examples found in books today: `In microorganisms, the generation time is rather short and the size of the population can be enormous. Therefore, mutation acts as a very powerful evolutionary process during a shorter lapse of time than in populations of higher organisms' (Levine, 1969, p. 196, the italics are mine). This text suggests that modern bacteria are evolving very quickly, thanks to their innumerable mutations. Now, this is not true. For millions or even billions of years, bacteria have not transgressed the structural frame within which they have always fluctuated and still do. It is a fact that microbiologists can see in their cultures species of bacteria oscillating around an intermediate form, but this does not mean that two phenomena, which are quite distinct, should be confused; the variation of the genetic code because of a DNA copy error, and evolution. To vary and to evolve are two different things; this can never be sufficiently emphasized ... Bacteria, which are both the first and the most simple living beings to have appeared, are excellent subject material for genetic and biochemical study, but they are of little evolutionary value." (Grassé, 1977, p.6).

"Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinism theory search for results that will be in agreement with their theories and consequently orient their research in a given direction ... This intrusion of theories has unfortunate results: it deprives observations and experiments of their objectivity, makes them biased, and, moreover, creates false problems. ... Darwinians have seldom taken fossils into consideration, or, and this is more serious, they have applied the laws of genetics to them without making a critical analysis .... Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that they should confirm it: the premises imply the conclusions. The error in method is obvious." (Grassé, 1977, p.7).

"Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs." (Grassé, 1977, p.8).

"The code of conduct that the naturalist wishing to understand the problem of evolution must adopt is to adhere to facts and sweep away all a priori ideas and dogmas. Facts must come first and theories must follow. The only verdict that matters is the one pronounced by the court as proved facts. Indeed, the best studies on evolution have been carried out by biologists who are not blinded by doctrines and who observe facts coldly without considering whether they agree or disagree with their theories." (Grassé, 1977, p.8).

"Thus, during the whole history of the therapsids, the ancestors of mammals, the development of the bony parts of the mandible (i.e., lower jaw) and of the motor elements the muscles has been closely coordinated. Such was also the case for innervation. The transformation of the reptilian mandible into the mammalian mandible could only occur thanks to a triple coordination simultaneously involving bones, muscles, and nerves. This is what we call evolution. It is not a mosaic of random variations affecting just anything at any time." (Grassé, 1977, pp.43-44).

"In his theoretical discussion, Simpson [Simpson, G.G., "Horses," Oxford University Press: New York, 1951] does not linger over the structure of the hoof; yet it is the result of a very innovative and precise evolution. Such a hoof, which is fitted to the limb like a die protecting the third phalanx, can without rubber or springs buffer impacts which sometimes exceed one ton. It could not have formed by mere chance: a close examination of the structure of the hoof reveals that it is a storehouse of coaptations and of organic novelties. The horny wall, by its vertical keratophyl laminae, is fused with the podophyl laminae of the keratogenous layer. The respective lengths of the bones, their mode of articulation, the curves and shapes of the articular surfaces, the structure of bones (orientation, arrangement of the bony layers), the presence of ligaments, tendons sliding with sheaths, buffer cushions, navicular bone, synovial membranes with their serous lubricating liquid, all imply a continuity in the construction which random events, necessarily chaotic and incomplete, could not have produced and maintained. This description does not go into the detail of the ultrastructure where the adaptations are even more remarkable; they provide solutions to the problems of mechanics involved in rapid locomotion on monodactyl limbs." (Grassé, 1977, p.51-52).

"Mutations do not explain how coordinated variations play upon several organs at a time; some lethal or sublethal mutations of a gene produce multiple effects. ... A mutation substituting one or more amino acids for one or more others in the globin of human hemoglobin may, depending on its location, have serious effects on the structure (at various levels) and properties of this pigment; such as the case of abnormal hemoglobin S in the anemia of cresentic red blood cells (drepanocytosis or sickle cell anemia). ... But these pathological cases have no relationship whatsoever with the slow and coherent attainment of a new form, of a new function. We do not question the existence of the multiple effects (i. e., pleiotropy) a single gene can produce but we do not think any geneticist would maintain that the transformations of the jaw, of its muscles and nerves of the ossicles of the middle ear, etc., could be induced by a single gene." (Grassé, 1977, pp.55-56).

"Mayr refers to natural selection and maintains that selection pressure was strong in the various forms of theriodonts. How does he know? His conclusion does not rely on any demographic data (we have no knowledge of population densities, ecological factors, etc.), nor on ecological or climatic data. We know little about the environments in which theriodonts lived. How could natural selection give rise to the single mammalian structure while it acted upon populations living in very different environments (Asia, South Africa, South America)? Environmental conditions change from one continent to the other, and the climates were already characterized both in the Triassic and in the Jurassic. How could natural selection, in the midst of such diversity, manage to favor the same forms everywhere, without being inconsistent with the neo-Darwinian principle that `each environment has its own privileged genotype which, by chance, is better preadapted to it'? We wonder." (Grassé, 1977, pp.56-57).

"Four events have had an immense effect on the evolutionary path: these are the synthesis of chlorophyll, the change from schizophyte to cell, from a single cell to a multicellular organism, and from diploblastic metazoans to triploblastic metazoans. Sexual reproduction, by combining in a single being the characteristics of two, plus the characteristics of the entire population through the interplay of the consecutive generations has played a fundamental role in the history of the two kingdoms." (Grassé, 1977, p.60).

"The genesis of the fundamental structural plans which characterize the subphyla and classes-themselves the main branches of the genealogical tree of the animal kingdom-has been the greatest achievement of evolution. There have been few creations: fewer than twenty phyla and eighty classes for the animal kingdom (less than half that many for the plant kingdom) They are all very ancient. The last major group to date, the vertebrates, made its appearance with the Agnatha (ostracoderms, Cyclostomata) during the Ordovician [~488-444 mya], and with jawed fishes during the Devonian [~416-359 mya], some 450 millions years ago. Since the Jurassic [~200-145 mya](Rhaetic, 200 million years ago), when the first mammals and the precursors of birds (Portlandian, 135 million years ago), no new classes have appeared. The interruption of the genesis of the fundamental plans and the fact that they are so few in number are two facts that have been underestimated in the attempt to understand evolution. ... The creative powers of evolution have gradually decreased with the aging of the flora and fauna, and since the Eocene (60 to 33 million years ago), the formation of orders has been interrupted, eutherian mammals and birds being the last to appear." (Grassé, 1977, pp.60-61).

"From the facts already discussed, one notices that the `maneuvering space' of evolution has never stopped decreasing. The genesis of the phyla stopped in the Ordovician; of the classes, in the Jurassic; of the orders, in the Paleocene-Eocene [~65-34 mya]. After the Eocene, the evolutionary `sap' still flowed through a few orders, since mammals and birds continued to specialize in various directions and invaded all the terrestrial and marine biotopes previously occupied by reptiles. The extent of evolutionary novelties gradually changed. They no longer affected the structural plan but only involved details. The only form which evolution took was speciation: in insects since the Oligocene [~34-23 mya], in mollusks since the Miocene [~23-5 mya] , in birds and simians since the Pliocene [~5-2 mya] , and in some glirines and hominids since the Holocene [~2-0 mya] ; Homo sapiens, the last in line, is probably 100,000 years old. Evolution has not only slowed down, but with the aging of the biosphere, it has also decreased in scope and in extent. We are certain that it does not operate today as it did in the remote past. Something has changed. It is of the utmost importance to determine what has changed; this should shed light upon the internal mechanisms of the phenomena. The structural plans no longer undergo complete reorganization; novelties are no longer plentiful. Evolution, after its last enormous effort to form the mammalian orders and man, seems to be out of breath and drowsing off." (Grassé, 1977, pp.70-71).

"It has often been noted that, despite the presence of all the presumably efficient causes, evolution still stops. Vandel (1972) has recently elaborated a very good example of this. The two species of woodlouse of the genus Australoniscus, A. alticolus in Nepal and A. springetti in western Australia, have been separated, because of the splitting of the Gondwana continent and because of continental drift, since the beginning of the Cretaceous (i.e., approximately 140 to 135 million years ago). They differ by a minor characteristic; `the endopodite end of the first male pleopod is different.. . it is straight in springetti, bent into a hook in alticolus. ` Thus, in 140 million years, neither segregation nor mutations (there certainly have been some), nor selection operating in different environments, has provoked any change in these crustaceans." (Grassé, 1977, pp.71-72).

"The evolution of all zoological groups was initially highly productive, then slowed down and is now restricted to the creation of new species. It seems to us that evolution is not more productive in plants than in animals. Creative stages ended long ago, except in birds and mammals which became individualized at the beginning of the Tertiary [~65-2 mya] and specialized during that era. Now their evolution is also confined to speciation. ... Biologists find it hard to admit that, in their basic structure, present living beings differ at all from those of the past. To begin with, such a supposition seems contrary to the scientific spirit. But facts are facts; no new broad organizational plan has appeared for several hundred million years, and for an equally long time numerous species, animal as well as plant, have ceased evolving." (Grassé, 1977, pp.82,84).

"Man is one of the most cosmopolitan terrestrial animals; he lives in all kinds of climates. He underwent several thousand types of mutations, judging from the number of alleles reported in the various human populations presently comprising three billion individuals, all showing different genotypes .... The potential supply of mutants for selection is thus very abundant. What has happened, then? Nothing important or even noticeable. ... Mutations do differentiate individuals, but the human species, despite the magnitude of its population and the diversity of its habitats, both of which are conditions favorable for the evolution of the human species, exhibits anatomical and physiological stability. In wealthy western societies natural selection is thwarted by medical care, good hygiene, and abundant food, but it was not always so. Today in underdeveloped countries, where birth and death rates are equally high (tropical Africa, Amazonia, Pakistan, India, Patagonia, some Polynesian islands), natural selection can exert its pressure freely; yet the human type hardly changes. ... Within each population, men differ by their genotype, and yet the species Homo sapiens has not modified its plan or structure of functions. To the common base are added a variety of diversifying and personifying ornaments, totally lacking evolutionary value." (Grassé, 1977, pp.85-86).

"Natural selection ... plays a conservative rather than an innovating role. The mutations which diverge from the wild type or from the privileged genotype are swept away when the environment changes; hence the stability of the species. Panchronic species [living fossils], which like other species are subject to the assaults of mutations remain unchanged. Their variants are eliminated except possibly for neutral mutants. In any event, their stability is an observed fact and not a theoretical concept." (Grassé, 1977, p.87).

"Panchronic species [living fossils], which like other species are subject to the assaults of mutations remain unchanged. Their variants are eliminated except possibly for neutral mutants. In any event, their stability is an observed fact and not a theoretical concept. Bacteria, the study of which has formed a great part of the foundation of genetics and molecular biology, are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. This is why they gave rise to an infinite variety of species, called strains, which can be revealed by breeding or tests. ... bacteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. ... Cockroaches, which are one of the most venerable living relict groups, have remained more or less unchanged since the Permian, yet they have undergone as many mutations as Drosophila, a Tertiary insect. It is important to note that relict species mutate as much as others do, but do not evolve, not even when they live in conditions favorable to change (diversity of environments, cosmopolitianism, large populations). How does the Darwinian mutational interpretation of evolution account for the fact that the species that have been the most stable-some of them for the last hundreds of millions of years have mutated as much as the others do?" (Grassé, 1977, pp.87-88).

"Our logic, with its many hypotheses, attributes the interruption of biogenesis to changes in the physicochemical conditions prevailing on earth, around the earth, under the earth's surface, and in the seas, which prevent the synthesis of prebiotic materials. Once the proteins floating in the ocean waters had been consumed by the first living beings, the recurrence of any new biogenesis became impossible. This situation required that their immediate successors possess the ability to reproduce on their own, as well as a capacity for chemosynthesis. Their perenniality could not have been maintained without these two conditions." (Grassé, 1977, pp.89-90).

"The number of mutations computed by geneticists is extremely high; however, the types of mutants are very much fewer in number. The source from which arises the evolutionary flow is less important than suggested by Darwinians. The `infinite creative potential' of DNA is surely not so great as has been claimed. Mutations have a very limited `constructive capacity'; this is why the formation of hair by mutation of reptilian scales seems to be a phenomenon of infinitesimal probability; the formation of mammae by mutation of reptilian integumentary glands is hardly more likely (integuments of reptiles show very few integumentary glands; Gabe and Saint-Girons, 1967), etc." (Grassé, 1977, p.97).

"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur. Much as in The Swiss Family Robinson, which I used to read in my childhood, rescue would always occur at the right moment, and this would have had to have happened throughout the ages. One could admit that one bacterium out of billions and billions can be the `lucky preadapted' one, but the number of reptiles evolving into mammals or of primates evolving into men, did not exceed a few tens of thousands and often fewer; the chances of the appearance of `useful' mutations therefore decrease in the same ratio and become almost nonexistent." (Grassé, 1977, p.103).

"Moreover, from what we know of the mechanism of mutations, invention in biology has never been the product of a genetic variation; it can occur only through the combination of several changes. Thanks to the coordination of parts, the whole is fully functional. It materializes a structural plan, the origin of which is totally unknown; natural selection could not have conceived it, and even less constructed it since adequate materials were lacking. Simpson's opposition to oriented evolution leads ultimately to the denial of evolution: in the living world, everything would be subject to randomness or change and would occur in just any fashion, and at any time. Simpson offers chaos whereas in fact the living world has evolved and perpetuates itself in an orderly manner." (Grassé, 1977, p.103).

"Our study will concentrate on the eye, the genesis of which is a major challenge to evolutionists. ... Charles Darwin ... recognized the weaknesses of his theory, which are increasingly apparent today. We are not surprised, then, to read in a letter to his friend the botanist Asa Gray: `To this day the eye makes me shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations, my reason tells me I ought to conquer my fear' [Darwin, C.R, letter to Asa Gray, February 1860, in Darwin, F., ed., "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," John Murray: London, 1888, Vol. 2, p.273] We fully understand Darwin's fears and wonder what they would have been, had he been confronted with the anatomical and cytological complexity that is revealed by modern biology; he would have been even more worried had he known that selection cannot create anything on its own. ... Darwin (1859) devotes four and a half pages of the `Origin of the Species' to the eye and its genesis, possibly thanks to innumerable mutants, to natural selection, and to time. But we note that he does not overcome any of the obstacles raised against his doctrine by `reality.'" (Grassé, 1977, pp.104-105).

"We know absolutely nothing about the evolution of the eye of the vertebrate, and embryology is of little help. The problem is to know whether random mutations could have given rise to an organ requiring, because of its complexity, a considerable number of data for its elaboration. The number of mutations must have been enormous for adequate ones to occur at a given point, by chance and to enable the organ to function. We need not belabor the diversity of the transparent parts, on the relationships between the intraocular fluid (aqueous humor) and the venous system (Schlemm's canal), among others. The complexity of the retina, of the sheaths, etc., need not detain us either; all this is extremely well known, but we must say that no recent publication inspired by Darwinism even mentions it." (Grassé, 1977, pp.104-105).

"We took the eye as an example, but the ear would have been just as instructive. Is not the human brain, the organ capable of abstraction, an even better example? Even the architecture of the cortex with its 14 billion neurons is not known with any degree of precision. In mammals, all sense organs evolved almost simultaneously." (Grassé, 1977, p.105).

"If one considers the great number of simultaneous, timely mutations satisfying existing needs involved in their genesis, one can not fail to be confounded by so much harmony, so many lucky coincidences, due entirely to omnipotent chance." (Grassé, 1977, p.105).

"Selection must complete its work on successive generations and must find in them the materials it needs. Moreover, successive generations reproduce preceding ones, otherwise they have no evolutionary value. We have already listed the lucky chances required for the slightest evolution to result from mutations (p. 94). Anyone who endorses the random theory of evolution admits that the eye and the ear, to become what they are, have required thousands and thousands of lucky chances, synchronized with the needs of their construction. What probability is there of such wonderfully fortuitous success?" (Grassé, 1977, p.106).

"Natural selection, if one admits that it is the builder of the living world, can only operate if it possesses the correct building materials needed for the construction of the organ at the right moment. What is the use of appropriate mutations if they appear too early or too late in the course of phylogenesis? If the formation of the crystalline lens and of the retina had not been closely coordinated (the retina is the inducing agent of the anterior parts of the eye), the eye could not have formed. The necessary mutations could not have occurred independently. The influence of the organ extends to structures in its immediate vicinity; can one imagine an eye without eyelids or without lachrymal glands? Moreover, these accessories necessarily formed early in the course of evolution; the eye is indeed too fragile to be able to do without them. The chronology of phenomena in any ontogenesis is inflexible. The formation and the subsistence of the living being requires that successive transformations arise in an orderly manner and that its architecture be equally ordered. Randomness and chance have no place here." (Grassé, 1977, p.106).

"Moreover, during phylogenetic organogenesis, natural selection must be capable of foresight. Isn't `choosing' its prime function? But the choice cannot take place without predicting the future role of the incipient organ. Without such prescience, the coordination of successive states is incomprehensible. Did Darwin take this into consideration? Without its predictive powers, selection would not be able to favor an incipient organ which, at the time, had little or no usefulness. What sort of advantage could result from the starting of an eye, when the materials forming it were not yet transparent? Of what use was the development of the dentary and the accompanying regression of the proximal jaw bones in theriodont reptiles, the ancestors of mammals? An answer can always be invented, but all this merely adds another supposition to the mass of previous suppositions." (Grassé , 1977, pp.106-107).

"We repeatedly hear that chance is all-powerful. Statements are insufficient. Evidence must be produced. I do not consider the spontaneous appearance of resistance to an antibiotic in a nonresistant population of bacteria as evidence. Neither structures nor fundamental functions are involved here. This is so true that variations of this kind, although repeated millions of times, have left bacteria practically unchanged." (Grassé, 1977, p.107).

"Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped. ... To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts." (Grassé, 1977, p.107).

"What interests us for the time being is to what extent the losses suffered by any animal or plant population participate in the evolutionary process. ... The wholesale destruction of eggs, spermatozoa, seeds, and larvae is not selective. Death does not choose its victims, but strikes blindly. ... During development of the embryo and in infancy, the elimination of the unfit, and of the pathological, is fully operative; it safeguards the genotype, but has no guiding influence in evolution. The massive losses caused by natural cataclysms that destroy huge areas are unselective, whether for animals or for plants. They devastate blindly and are random as to place and circumstance: tidal waves, floods, forest fires, bush fires respect no one and nothing. ... At any rate it does not call any novel species into being." (Grassé, 1977, pp.109-111).

"Let us not confuse creative evolution with variations in the composition of a population through circumstances. They are two distinct things, and any attempt to connect them is purely specious." (Grassé, 1977, p.111).

"Since evaluation of what is or is not advantageous is impossible in the case of fossil animal populations, whatever may be said about the selective value of a given characteristic is pure imagination. It is not because individuals with long spines become more numerous in a population of cidarid sea urchins that the characteristic `long spine' accounts for their predominance; this might be a very natural effect of growth continuing with age. Quite another characteristic (resistance to parasites, lower embryonic losses, etc.) may be a possible cause. Where the imagination is given free rein we must learn to control it." (Grassé, 1977, p.114).

"Many cases of selection are age-old but never modify the species. Darwin's example of the wolf and the deer is a case in point; the differences in speed among the individuals making up the population are never eliminated. Among migrating salmon there is a group too weak to negotiate the rapids or to hurdle the barriers across the rivers up which they have to swim in order to spawn. In both examples the individuals eliminated are born of progenitors who overcame these same obstacles, since only by so doing were they able to breed. The deficient individuals possibly owe their inferiority to the unfavorable conditions in which they developed. In fact, what is eliminated are acquired, not inherited, characteristics. This illustrates the complexity of phenomena concerning the equilibrium of populations and the limited power of selection." (Grassé, 1977, p.116).

"The lynx feeds on hares and is a fierce predator; both high and low figures apply to both populations, the hunter and the hunted. The struggle is unremitting, as the statistics prove. The evolutionary effect is nonexistent. Morphologically and physiologically, both hare and lynx remain unchanged." (Grassé, 1977, pp.118-119).

"Selection tends to eliminate the causes of a population's heterogeneity and thus to produce a uniform genotype. It acts more to conserve the inheritance of the species than to transform it. Thus, these are largely theoretical speculations, for natural populations are highly heterogeneous, being mainly or entirely composed of heterozygotic individuals. It may be added that uniform external appearances often mask a deep-rooted heterogeneity. The presence, in the same population, of numerous heterozygotic genotypes is attributable either to the weakness of selection, or the neutral or indifferent state of the characteristics determined by the various alleles. Both possible causes often act together and they insure the persistence of the diverse genotypes. There is no need to resort to calculations. The reason why natural populations prove on examination to be so highly heterozygotic is that selection works efficiently only against extremely harmful, pathogenic genes." (Grassé, 1977, pp.119-120).

"Natural selection acts as regulator of the genotype, performing a function of genetic hygiene. As to its role as effective agent of evolution, this is not certain. In fact, if it had the full power attributed to it, it would soon stop evolution. Every noncarrier of the environmentally adjusted genotype would be eliminated. In the event of a change of environment there would be no preadapted genotype to cope with the altered conditions. Thus, natural selection is possible for a population only if it is not too severe." (Grassé, 1977, p.121).

"Artificial selection creates nothing by itself. The same is true for natural selection. It sorts out or gathers together broodstock (in the case of multiple genes or alleles scattered through a population). In this manner it has increased the butterfat content of cow's milk, the saccharose content of the sugar beet, the length of the cotton fiber, the length and softness of sheep's fleece, and so on. Several major mutations in the dog, the pigeon, the ox, the sheep, the rabbit, the silkworm, the bee, wheat, barley, maize, fruit trees, roses, snapdragons, tobacco plants, etc., have been exploited on a grand scale. ... It is hard to visualize how lapdogs, Yorkshire terriers, or Pekinese could survive in the wild. Certainly they would not last long in the woodlands or pastures of our temperate zone. " (Grassé, 1977, pp.121-122).

"This is a very grave philosophical and truly anthropomorphic error, making selection as an active and transcendental entity. ... Selection in nature acts upon species to eliminate the `not-so-good,' the flawed, the disabled. That is its chief role." (Grassé, 1977, pp.128-129).

"Although a population threatened with destruction by a cataclysm may on occasion be saved by its randomly occurring preadapted mutants, there would seem no reason why such exceptional variants would generate a continuous guided evolution as observed in plant or animal lines. Who would dare argue that the marvelous adaptation to aquatic life and the plumbing of the ocean depths that we see in the whale represent a random collection of properties themselves aleatory, in harmony, always by chance, with an environment and mode of living not yet adopted by the animal? Yet another random event was the preadapted mammal's stumble into the water, where he liked it so much he decided to stay! ... Such fairy tales, like those told by my grandmother for my amusement, are not to be taken seriously. ... The chance preadaptations noted so far are confined to a single property (elaboration of an enzyme by a mutated gene) and have nothing to do with a set of coordinated features; their evolutionary importance, if any, is thereby seriously reduced." (Grassé, 1977, pp.160-161).

"The humblest creature often poses evolutionary problems in stark terms that cannot be escaped by mere rhetoric. None is more `antichance' than the ant lion larva, for it offers the naturalist an exceedingly rich collection of coaptations and in all its organs pushes specialization, both morphological and physiological, to an extreme. ... So we now have to turn to the Darwinians and ask: `Have you ever seen a mutation simultaneously affecting two separate components of the body and producing structures that fit one another precisely? Tell us, have you ever beheld three, four, or five simultaneous mutations with matching structures producing coordinated effects? ... How many chance occurrences would it have taken to build this extraordinary creature that braves the burning sands of the Sahara, endures prolonged fasting, economizes water, detects the slightest vibration in the ground, lies in wait for days on end at the bottom of a funnel, or goes forth, freely, to hunt down its prey? It is not enough for a property to appear, it has to come at the right time. These accidents, always fortunate of course, produced their effects by occurring in a certain order, for, out of order and untimely, they would have remained imperative. What scientist would venture to estimate the chances of such a cascade, such an avalanche, of coordinated and mutually adjusted chance occurrences? The odds are infinitesimal. Please remember, too, that the case of the ant lion is not at all an exceptional one, chosen to support a thesis; such an accumulation of adaptations and coaptations is the rule." (Grassé, 1977, pp.161-163).

"Natural selection working for the continuance and welfare of animals, plants, and man himself, is seen to be the grand law which organizes the living universe. So the Darwinians, who fancied they had exorcized finalism and transcendency but forgot to analyze critically the idea of natural selection, failed to see its implications or metaphysical consequences. They thought they were absolved from giving any finalization or deistic interpretation by decreeing that on earth all is but deceptive appearances; finality is a sham, guided evolution illusory. How is it possible to understand such an attitude? We cannot pretend that nature (with a capital or a small "n") copies man, the latest of its creations. So we are forced to admit, according to the Darwinian view, that nature acts blindly, unintelligently, but by an infinitely benevolent good fortune builds mechanisms so intricate that we have not even finished with analysis of their structure and have not the slightest insight of the physical principles and functioning of some of them." (Grassé, 1977, p.168).

"The role assigned to natural selection in establishing adaptation, while speciously probable, is based on not one single sure datum. Paleontology .. does not support it; direct observation here and now of the genesis of a hereditary adaptation is nonexistent, except, as we have stated, in the case of bacteria and insects preadapted to resist viruses or drugs. ... The role of natural selection in the present world of living things is concerned with the balance of populations; it is primarily of demographic interest. To assert that population dynamics gives a picture of evolution in action is an unfounded opinion, or rather a postulate, that relies on not a single proved fact ... Circumstances occasionally award a given mutation a selectivity bonus, but for a variable time, as witness the heterogeneity of populations due to the abundance of alleles of a single gene and their composition over time. Studies on natural populations in their own proper environment show that the composition of genes is changeable and that dominant species vary over time. ... The gene composition of populations changes continually by the occurrence of mutants. For tens of millions of years, populations of Drosophila have undergone millions of mutations. What is left of them? The insignificant modifications discovered by laborious analysis ... These tiny, disorderly fluctuations of genes start no new line; they are apparently unconnected with the great process that has given birth to types and subtypes of organization. ... No experiment justifies the assimilation of demographic changes of population to a slice of evolution as an innovative, creative process." (Grassé, 1977, pp.170-171).

"Let us go a step further. What need do reptiles have for a secondary palate, a mandible reduced to a dentary only, suitable for mammals? Lizards, snakes, and tortoises have gone on living with no partition in their buccal cavity, no complexly structured mandible. .... There was no necessity for theriodonts to acquire a secondary palate, which really served a purpose only in the case of mammals by creating in the splanchnic skull two superimposed and separate stories, one for respiration and another for food. ... In the case of the theriodont we might speak, as Cuenot did with respect to other animals, about prophetic organs ...." (Grassé, 1977, pp.173-174).

"Evolution as revealed by fossil remains of plants and animals does not bear the characteristics attributed to it by theory. From one parental stock we get variants that are perpetuated in their offspring in one or more lines, but in numerous offshoots, classes, or orders the original stock or types also persist. This raises the following question: What necessity is there for the stock to vary since it flourishes and has persisted in its unvaried form from the most ancient times? Relict species insistently pose the same question. They cannot have been so badly adapted as is imagined, since they have endured. Sometimes the ancestor cohabits with its own progeny" (Grassé, 1977, p.176).

"The changeover from aquatic to terrestrial life was probably preceded, in the case of rhipidistian Crossopterygii, by a long evolution preparatory to adaptation to the new environment and involving internal factors. It had to affect not an isolated characteristic, but the organism as a whole, since the variations had to be coordinated if they were to be meaningful and effective, and consequently could not depend on chance." (Grassé, 1977, pp.180-181).

"We are that much less inclined to accept the story of the little `Magellan of evolution' fish since the mudskippers Periophthalmus and Boleophthalmus very specifically reproduce its `experiment'; they hop about on the mud, climb onto the roots of the mangroves, and stand upright on their pectoral fins, as if on short legs. For millions of years they have lived like this and although they are hopping around all the time, however clumsily, their fins are still fins and do not turn into legs. How terribly unaccommodating of these animals!" (Grassé, 1977, p.181).

"What need did the diploblastic animals have to acquire a third layer? We can try to find out, since we can put down on paper whatever we like, but arriving at the truth is quite another matter. And these diploblastics, although engendering triploblastics, still continue with no sign of abatement." (Grassé, 1977, p.181).

"Evolution went on; the necessity inherent in the achievement of the living creature was fully satisfied. But who shall tell us what necessity there was for life to appear on earth at all? This question is not addressed to the biologists, for it concerns the transcendental: let the philosopher or theologian answer it, if he can." (Grassé, 1977, pp.180-181).

"After impartial investigation, which I have carried on for years, I am in a position to conclude that: 1. The Lamarckian and Darwinian theories, in whatever form, do not resolve the major evolutionary problem-that of the genesis of the main systematic units, the fundamental organizational schemes. 2. They fail to account for a great many fundamental aspects and phenomena of evolution. 3. We have not yet obtained from the fossil record all the information it is capable of yielding." (Grassé, 1977, p.203).

"Freeing our minds of theoretical notions, wherever they may have come from, let us take an honest look at the phenomenon of evolution and, in all objectivity, set aside the accepted doctrines, notably every form of Darwinism. I have proved that evolution is not ... the product of natural selection." (Grassé, 1977, p.203. Typo corrected]

"Moreover, it may be taken as proved that since adaptation is seldom perfect, the living creature makes do with a compromise in respect to its environment (in the broadest sense); it survives, despite its comparative inadaptation, provided its physiological balance sheet is sound .. interspecific competition is very far from being universal ... death is more often blind and unselective than it is discriminating." (Grassé, 1977, p.203).

"... I have shown with a great many facts how far mutations fall short of the evolutionary variations that gave rise to phyla, classes, orders, etc. ... In order to create, evolution demands new materials, such as genes formed de novo, or untried patterns of overprinted codons. It is not at all the same gene that, from one class of vertebrates to another, induces the tegumentary ectoblast and its mesenchymatous lining to form ganoid, placoid, or cycloid scales in fishes, epidermal osseous scales in reptiles, feathers in birds, hair in mammals. Every novelty demands its own genes, which are themselves also novelties." (Grassé, 1977, pp.203-204).

"The true course of evolution is and can only be revealed by paleontology.." (Grassé, 1977, p.204).

"Each evolution that we know about in some detail (genesis of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, history of the various orders of mammals, and so on) forces us to admit that a phenomenon whose equivalent cannot be seen in the creatures living at the present time (either because it is not there, or because we are unable to see it) occurs in the course of it. For this phenomenon the cell is both the instrument and the effector; it paves the way for the evolution of living things. It does so in accordance with the influence exerted on the organism by external factors and by certain internal ones connected with the chemistry of living things." (Grassé, 1977, p.208).

"As a non-Darwinian, I am not directly concerned in this debate but simply note that biologists do, while remaining faithful to the principles laid down by the founder, recognize that these do not entirely account for evolution, and, in particular, that natural selection acting on populations is incapable of guiding evolution." (Grassé, 1977, p.210).

"At the risk of repeating myself, mutations do not explain either the nature or the temporal ordering of evolutionary facts; they do not account for innovations; the precise arrangements of the component parts of organs and the mutual adjustments of organs are beyond their capacity.." (Grassé, 1977, p.211).

"This is what an American geneticist has to say on the subject: `Yet, being an effective policeman, natural selection is extremely conservative by nature. Had evolution been entirely dependent upon natural selection, from a bacterium only numerous forms of bacteria would have emerged. The creation of metazoans, vertebrates and finally mammals from unicellular organisms would have been quite impossible for such big leaps in evolution required the creation of new gene loci with previously nonexistent functions' (Ohno, 1970). All this is rather obvious, but if people wilfully close their eyes to it, they will not see." (Grassé, 1977, pp.217-218).

"Biochemists take as a pretext the heterogeneous structure of DNA and the transcription of its information by RNA to proclaim the dogma of DNA being not only the depository and sole distributor of the specific information available to the living creature, but of its presiding over the very genesis of that information. ... DNA does not manifest its properties, let us say its powers, unless the cytoplasm (conceived in its totality).allows it to do so. ... Through the life cycle from the ovum to the adult animal, via the genesis of the gametes and fertilization, DNA retains its structure: this is undeniable, but its activation depends on the circumambient cytoplasm. ... The organism is a whole. DNA alone can do nothing." (Grassé, 1977, pp.218,220).

"Information forms and animates the living organism. Evolution is, in the end, the process by which the creature modifies its information and acquires other information." (Grassé, 1977, p.223).

"Mutation is an accident or disease having only a remote bearing on the evolutionary process; this is proved by the independence of mutagenesis with respect to evolution.." (Grassé, 1977, p.223).

"Now, we know, and must bear in mind, that as the world of living beings has grown older, evolution has never ceased to dwindle. Why are evolutionary reactions becoming rarer? In our present state of knowledge, it is futile to ask. When molecular biology has increased in accuracy and refinement we may be able to find the answer.." (Grassé, 1977, p.223).

"But according to Darwinian doctrine and Crick's central dogma, DNA is not only the depository and distributor of the information but its sole creator. I do not believe this to be true. Left to itself, DNA undergoes, during its replications in the germinal cells, the mutations so often referred to in the body of this book. But error modifies what already exists, it does not create it. A library does not fabricate information, it receives it from without, classifies and stores it. The medieval copyists made mistakes that altered, vitiated the texts they were supposed to reproduce. Who dares assert that their errors are the work itself?" (Grassé, 1977, p.224).

"The whole range of mutations, or mutational spectrum, of a species has nothing to do with evolution. The `jordanons' (mutants) of whitlow grass (Erophila verna), the wild pansy (Viola tricolor), plantains (Plantago), candytuft (Iberis), which constitute well-catalogued and rich collections, are irrefutable proof of this: they are not derived from one another, and are indefinitely stable. They display the species with all its collection of invariant variants, translating, so to speak, oscillations in the polymorphy of a specific unit about the equilibrium state of a genome in its environment. Thus, despite their innumerable mutations, Erophila verna, Viola tricolor, and the rest do not evolve. This is a fact." (Grassé, 1977, p.225).

"The catalogue of breeds of dogs, as of any other domestic animal, is simply the mutational spectrum of the species, sifted by artificial selection. The same can be said of the list of varieties of any cultivated plant. Nothing of all this constitutes evolution." (Grassé, 1977, p.225).

"Genetics textbooks are extremely discreet about the formation of new genes. They ignore this problem, of primordial importance in any explanation of evolution. ... No formation of new genes has been observed by any biologist, yet without it evolution becomes inexplicable ... a gene ... formed can function only with the aid of a specific enzyme that opens out the DNA molecule at its level and enables synthesis of the message-bearing RNA. Such a requirement diminishes the chances of a random successful synthesis since formation of the enzyme is just as unlikely as that of the gene. In order to create, evolution has to win not just on one count, but on two or even three. In theory this is possible, but a low probability is not far from zero. Besides, is it not presumptuous to try to explain a phenomenon that has held to a precisely plotted course for thousands of years, by a mechanism based on the most slender expectation of success?" (Grassé, 1977, pp.227-229).

"The dependence of DNA on genic activators, nucleotide producers, and probably also RNA producers, originally implies a dual creation of a gene plus its activator. The gene and its activator(s) contained in the nuclear sap or the cytoplasm must have been first simultaneously or consecutively obtained. Here again we see the difference between mutation and innovation. In the former the gene changes, and the corresponding activator is always present in the cytoplasm; the gene's expressivity is constant. In the latter it is likely possible, or at any rate, that the birth of the new gene is not synchronous with the genesis of its activators. Lacking an activator for the gene, innovation cannot occur." (Grassé, 1977, p.237).

"In summary, the creative evolutionary process, conceived according to the data of molecular biology, involves three events: 1. Formation of a new meaningful sequence of codons 2. Formation of a specific enzyme to activate the new gene 3. Adequate identification of the enzyme depending upon cellular differentiation. ... But nothing of all this accounts for the orientation of evolution or the finality of the information." (Grassé, 1977, p.244).

"Let us end our survey by drawing up a balance sheet. While still unsatisfactory, it has some favorable aspects, and dispels of one or two interpretations often presented as certainties. 1. Evolution, a guided phenomenon, is not sustained merely by random hereditary variations, sorted out by a selection operating for the good of a population. 2. Evolution demands the acquisition over time, as organisms grow more complex, of novelties whose information is inserted into the DNA strands in the form of new genes. 3. The supply of information and the subsequent creation of genes are profoundly separate mechanisms from the mutagenesis that produces alleles. 4. Paleontology reveals that lines of descent from a common stock (parent form) all show, although to unequal extents, the same propensity to achieve a given form, type, or idiomorphon. 5. Evolution in its essentials depends upon work effected at the level of infrastructures and triggered by internal and external factors, and having the effect of producing certain enzymes, probably resembling polymerases, which synthesize a new DNA and new genes by means of free nucleotides in the nuclear sap or the cytoplasm. We emphasize that the inclusion of information in the genetic code is a separate operation from its acquisition; it follows the acquisition and does not take place simultaneously with it, as does mutation. The elaboration of the information may be slow and take a great many generations; paleontology teaches us that in reality this is indeed so. Thus, DNA records and stabilizes evolution, but does not create it. 6. Mutagenesis corresponding to copying errors in the DNA is used by the organism secondarily to attain the genotype best adapted to environmental conditions. It is the main cause of differences between individuals, races, and species. If evolution takes place without the acquisition of new genes, we must assume that the first living creature contained in itself enough genes to engender, by mutation of them, all past, present, and future faunas and floras. This is absurd. " (Grassé, 1977, pp.245-246).

"Any system that purports to account for evolution must invoke a mechanism not mutational and aleatory. This is indeed what the reformist Darwinians and Lamarckian biologists realize, hence their recourse to internal factors. The united efforts of paleontology and molecular biology, the latter stripped of its dogmas, should lead to the discovery of the exact mechanism of evolution, possibly without revealing to us the causes of the orientations of lineages, of the finalities of structures, of living functions, and of cycles. Perhaps in this area biology can go no farther: the rest is metaphysics." (Grassé, 1977, p.246).

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

PoE: Bibliography "Q-R"

This is the Bibliography "Q-R" page

[Left: The late Bernard Ramm's "The Christian View of Science and Scripture" (1954), which, apart from the Bible, has, influenced me more than any other book. See PS below.]

for authors' surnames beginning with "Q" and "R"which I may refer to in my book outline, "Problems of Evolution."

© Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology)



Quastler, H., 1964, "The Emergence of Biological Organization," Yale University Press: New Haven CT.

Raby, P., 1996, "Bright Paradise: Victorian Scientific Travellers," Pimlico: London, Reprinted, 1997.
Rachels, J., 1990, "Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism," Oxford University Press: New York NY, Reprinted, 1999.
Raeburn, P., 2001, "An Evolving Idea." Review of "What Evolution Is," by Ernst Mayr, Basic Books. New York, 2001. The New York Times, December 16.
Ramm, B.L., 1954, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960.
Rana, F.R. & Ross, H.N., 2004, "Origins of Life: Biblical And Evolutionary Models Face Off," NavPress: Colorado Springs CO.
Rana, F. & Ross, H.N., 2005, "Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man," NavPress: Colorado Springs CO.
Randal, D.J., Burggren, W.W. & French, K., 2001, "Eckert Animal Physiology: Mechanisms and Adaptations," [1978], W. H. Freeman and Company: New York NY, Fifth edition, Second printing, 2002.
Randles, J. & Fuller, P., 1990, "Crop Circles: A Mystery Solved," Robert Hale: London.
Ratzsch, D.L., 1996., "The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL.
Ratzsch, D.L., 2000, "Science & Its Limits: The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective," [1986], Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second edition.
Ratzsch, D.L., 2001, "Nature, Design and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science," State University of New York Press: Albany NY.
Ratzinger J., 1995, "In the Beginning...: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI.
Raup, D.M., 1991, "Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck?" Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, Reprinted, 1993.
Raup, D.M. & Stanley, S.M., 1978, "Principles of Paleontology," [1971], W.H. Freeman & Co: San Francisco CA, Second edition..
Raven, C.E., 1955, "Christianity and Science," World Christian Books, Lutterworth: London, Third impression, 1956.
Raven, P.H., Evert, R.F. & Eichhorn, S.E., 1999, "Biology of Plants," [1971], W.H. Freeman & Co/Worth Publishers: New York NY, Sixth edition.
Raven, P.H. & Johnson, G.B., 1995, "Biology," [1986], Wm. C. Brown: Dubuque IA, Third edition, Updated Version.
Reader, J., 1981, "Missing Links: The Hunt For Earliest Man," Collins: London.
Reader, J., 1986, "The Rise of Life: The First 3.5 Billion Years," Collins: London.
Rees, M.J., 1997, "Before the Beginning: Our Universe and Others," Simon and Schuster: London.
Rees, M.J., 1999, "Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe," Phoenix: London, Reprinted, 2000.
Rees, M.J., 2000, "New Perspectives in Astrophysical Cosmology," [1995], Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, Second edition, Reprinted, 2002.
Rees, M.J., 2001, "Our Cosmic Habitat,"Phoenix: London, Reprinted, 2003.
Relethford, J., 1990, "The Human Species: An Introduction to Biological Anthropology," Mayfield Publishing Co: Mountain View CA.
ReMine, W.J., 1993, "The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message Theory," St. Paul Science: Saint Paul MN.
Rendle-Short, J., 1984, "Man: Ape or Image: The Christian's Dilemma," [1981], Master Book Publishers: San Diego CA, Second edition.
Reno, C.A., 1953, "Evolution: Fact or Theory?," Moody Press: Chicago IL.
Reno, C.A., 1970, "Evolution on Trial," Moody Press: Chicago IL.
Rensberger, B., 1986, How the World Works: A Guide to Science's Greatest Discoveries," William Morrow & Co:, New York NY.
Rensch, B., 1966, "Evolution Above the Species Level," [1959 ], John Wiley & Sons: New York NY.
Reppert, V.E., 2003, "C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: A Philosophical Defense of Lewis's Argument from Reason," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL.
Rhodes, F.H.T., 1962, "The Evolution of Life," Penguin: Baltimore MD, Reprinted, 1963.
Richards, W.G., 1986, "The Problems of Chemistry," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK.
Richardson, A., 1953, "Genesis I-XI: Introduction and Commentary," SCM: London, Reprinted, 1956.
Richardson, A., 1961, "The Bible in the Age Of Science," The Cadbury Lectures in the University of Birmingham 1961, SCM Press: London.
Richardson, B.J., 2001, "Christianity, Evolution and the Environment: Fitting it Together," UNSW Press: Sydney NSW, Australia.
Richardson, K., 1999, "The Making of Intelligence," Phoenix: London, Reprinted, 2000.
Ridderbos, N.H., 1957, "Is There a Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science?," Vriend, J. transl., Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI.
Ridley, M., 1985, "The Problems of Evolution," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK.
Ridley, M., ed., 1987, "The Essential Darwin," Unwin Hyman: London.
Ridley, M., 1993, "The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature," Penguin: London, Reprinted, 2000.
Ridley, M., 1996a, "Evolution," [1993], Blackwell: Cambridge MA, Second edition, Third printing, 1999.
Ridley, M., 1996b, "The Origins of Virtue," Viking: London UK.
Ridley, M., ed., 1997, "Evolution," Oxford Readers, Oxford University Press: Oxford UK.
Rifkin, J., 1983, "Algeny," Viking Press: New York NY.
Riedman, M., 1990, "The Pinnipeds: Seals, Sea Lions, and Walruses," University of California Press: Berkeley CA.
Robinson, M., 1994, "The Faith of the Unbeliever," Monarch: Crowborough UK.
Robinson, M.H. & Tiger, L., eds, 1991, "Man & Beast Revisited," Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington DC.
Robson, G.C. & Richards, O.W., 1936, "The Variation of Animals in Nature," Longmans, Green & Co: London.
Roede, M., Wind, J., Patrick, J.M. & Reynolds, V., eds, 1991, "The Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction?: The First Scientific Evaluation of a Controversial Theory of Human Evolution," Souvenir Press: London.
Romer, A.S., 1933, "Man and the Vertebrates," Penguin: Harmondsworth UK, 2 Vols, Reprinted, 1960.
Romer, A.S., 1945, "Vertebrate Paleontology," [1933], University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Second edition, Fifth impression, 1953.
Romer, A.S., 1968, "The Procession of Life," The World Publishing Co: Cleveland OH.
Rood, R.T. & Trefil, J.S., 1981, "Are We Alone?: The Possibility of Extraterrestrial Civilizations," Charles Scribner's Sons: New York NY.
Rook, A., 1958, "The Origins and Growth of Biology," Penguin: Harmondsworth UK, Reprinted, 1964.
Rose, H. & Rose, S., eds, 1976, "The Political Economy of Science: Ideology of/in the Natural Sciences," Macmillan: London.
Rose, H. & Rose, S., eds, 2000, "Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology," Vintage: New York NY, Reprinted, 2001.
Rose, M.R., 1998, "Darwin's Spectre: Evolutionary Biology in the Modern World," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, Third printing, 2000.
Rose, S., 1997, "Lifelines: Biology, Freedom, Determinism," Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1998.
Ross, H.N., 1991, "The Fingerprint of God: Recent Scientific Discoveries Reveal the Unmistakable Identity of the Creator," [1989], Promise Publishing Co., Orange CA, Second edition.
Ross, H.N., 1993, "The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God," NavPress: Colorado Springs CO, Third printing, 1994.
Ross, H.N., 1994, "Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy," NavPress: Colorado Springs CO.
Ross, H.N., 1998, "The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis," NavPress: Colorado Springs CO.
Ross, H.N., 2004, "A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy," NavPress: Colorado Springs CO.
Ross, W.D., 1949, "Aristotle," [1923], Methuen: London, Fifth edition, Reprinted, 1974.
Rostand, J. & Tetry, A., 1971, "Larousse Science of Life: A Study of Biology Sex, Genetics, Heredity and Evolution," [1962], Hamlyn: London.
Rothwell, N.V., 1988, "Understanding Genetics," [1976], Oxford University Press: New York NY, Fourth edition.
Ruppert, E.E. & Barnes, R.D., 1994, "Invertebrate Zoology," [1968], Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: Orlando FL, Sixth edition.
Ruse, M.E., 1979, "The Darwinian Revolution: Science Red in Tooth and Claw," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Reprinted, 1981.
Ruse, M.E., 1982, "Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies," Addison-Wesley: Reading MA, Third printing, 1983.
Ruse, M.E., 1986, "Taking Darwin Seriously: A Naturalistic Approach to Philosophy," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, Reprinted, 1998.
Ruse, M.E., 1988, "Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK.
Ruse, M.E., 2001, "Can a Darwinian be a Christian?: The Relationship Between Science and Religion," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK.
Ruse, M.E., 2003, "Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose?,: Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA.
Ruse, M.E., ed., 1996, "But is it Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY.
Russell, B., 1957, "Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects," Edwards, P., ed., George Allen & Unwin: London, Fourth impression, 1961.
Russell, B., 1910, "Mysticism and Logic: And Other Essays," George Allen & Unwin: London, Reprinted, 1949.
Russell, B., 1912, "The Problems of Philosophy," Oxford University Press: London, Eighth impression, 1978.
Russell, B., 1960, "An Outline of Philosophy," Meridian: New York NY.
Russell, B., 1991, "History of Western Philosophy," [1946], George Allen & Unwin: London, Second edition, Reprinted, 1993.

PS: See `tagline' quotes below (original emphasis italics and CAPITALS, my emphasis bold), all from Ramm's book, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture." Why Ramm's book was so influential with me, is because: 1) I read it in 1968, very early in my Christian life, having been converted to Christianity from atheism via deism in 1967; 2) I was (and still am) very interested in science, and Ramm's "two books" (see second quote below) approach, i.e. "the Author of Nature and Scripture are the same God" and therefore "the two books of God must eventually recite the same story," became my bedrock assumption in interpreting the Bible; and 3) Ramm in his book argued for an Old-Earth Progressive Creation position (see below), which I adopted as my own and still hold (albeit with some modifications).

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: TheShroudofTurin & Jesus is Jehovah!

"Orthodoxy did not have a well-developed philosophy of science or philosophy of biology. The big problems of science and biology must be argued in terms of a broad philosophy of science. The evangelical always fought the battle on too narrow a strip. He argued over the authenticity of this or that bone; this or that phenomenon in a plant or animal; this or that detail in geology. The empirical data is just there, and the scientists can run the evangelical to death in constantly turning up new material. The evangelicals by fighting on such a narrow strip simply could not compete with the scientists who were spending their lifetime routing out matters of fact. ... By a Christian philosophy of Nature we mean a broad, comprehensive method and system of the interpretation of Nature, receiving its orientation from Christian theology. It would correspond to a philosophy of science as adopted by a naturalist or a materialist. We prefer a larger concept than philosophy of biology or philosophy of science, and that is why we call it a philosophy of Nature. A Christian philosophy of Nature will involve three things: (i) It will involve the Biblical data about God and Nature or creation. .... (ii) It will involve elements from the philosophy of science. ... (iii) It will concern itself with the reliable data of the sciences. It will willingly face the data of the sciences as the data which must be worked into a Christian philosophy of science. It is not only a matter of facing facts, but it is absolutely necessary to be acquainted with facts to be able to form any sort of intelligent Christian philosophy of Nature. Fosdick cannot be gainsaid when he wrote: A religion that is afraid of the facts is doomed. [Fosdick, H.E., "The Modern Use of the Bible," MacMillan: New York NY, 1924, p.178]" (Ramm, B.L., "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1954], Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, pp.18, 69-70).

"If we believe that the God of creation is the God of redemption, and that the God of redemption is the God of creation, then we are committed to some very positive theory of harmonization between science and evangelicalism. God cannot contradict His speech in Nature by His speech in Scripture. If the Author of Nature and Scripture are the same God, then the two books of God must eventually recite the same story." (Ramm, 1954, p.25).

"Mistakes peculiar to scientists. Just as there are certain mistakes that a theologian is susceptible to there are ones that the scientist is just as susceptible to in the relationship of theology to science. The first of these mistakes is to have an anti-religious attitude. No system of knowledge can be learned without some sympathy or kindly feeling toward the system- something pointed out long ago by Augustine but never fully appreciated by educators or epistemologists. Dogmatists study science as well as theology. The evangelical indicates that man is a spiritual rebel and his spirit of rebellion is reflected in all his activities. Unregenerate man opposes the doctrines of creation, sin, redemption, and eschatology. A man may be religious and yet anti-Christian. Opposition to Christianity at the level of science is in many instances simply localized or vocalized opposition to Christianity in general. Therefore anti-Christian man takes pleasure in making the gap between science and Christianity as wide as he can make it, and will heartlessly ridicule any efforts at reconciliation. In this instance, the gap between science and Christianity is in reality the gap between faith and unbelief." (Ramm, 1954, p.38).

"In discussing the Biblical cosmology we must return to our general position defended earlier in this chapter: the references of the writers of the Bible to natural things are popular, non-postulational, and in terms of the culture in which the writers wrote. This principle applies directly to Biblical cosmology. The language of the Bible with reference to cosmological matters is in terms of the prevailing culture. Biblical cosmology is in the language of antiquity and not of modern science, nor is it filled with anticipations which the future microscope and telescope will reveal. We do not agree with over-zealous expositors who try to find Einsteinian and modern astro-physical concepts buried in Hebrew words and expressions. We also disagree with the religious liberals who object to Biblical cosmology because it is not scientific. We object to the over zealous because it was not the intention of inspiration to anticipate modern science, and we object to the modernist because he sees too much in what is to us a truism. We concur with Calvin, who taught that Gen. 1 is a record of the creation of the world in the language of the common man and from the viewpoint of common sense. His actual words are: `For to my mind this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy and the other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere ... It must be remembered, that Moses does not speak with philosophical acuteness on occult mysteries, but states those things which are everywhere observed, even by the uncultivated, and which are in common use.' [Calvin J., "Genesis," I, pp.79 & 84]" (Ramm, 1954, pp.65-66).

"The present author sternly resists any effort to dogmatize about the time involved in creation, and any effort of fiat creationism to reduce progressive creationism to evolution or to impiety, as if progressive creationism questioned the omnipotence of God. `For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast' (Psa. 33:9) has been one of the verses repeatedly used in the history of Bible-and-science to refute science, and yet the fiat-heliocentric interpretation of this verse has been continually put to rout. The verse asserts nothing about time in creation, but it does assert the certainty with which Nature obeys the divine will. The command of a great and powerful general is faithfully and obediently carried out. The amount of time consumed in carrying out the will of the general is dependent on the task, and a task which takes a long time is no depreciation of the general's authority, as a task which takes a short time is no necessary tribute to his authority." (Ramm, 1954, p.77).

"A vast literature has grown up around the word yom (Hebrew for day). The flood geologists and the gap theorists vigorously defend the literal-day view and strongly attack the metaphorical interpretation. ... In view of the fact that such a great array of geologists and theologians accept the metaphorical interpretation of the word day, the case for the literal day cannot be conclusive nor the objections to the metaphorical interpretation too serious. In the first two chapters of Genesis the word day is used as follows: (i) in verse 5 it means daylight and (ii) a day marked out by an evening and morning; (iii) in verse 14 it means daylight in contrast to night, and (iv) in the expression `and for days' it means a twenty-four hour day; (v) in Gen. 2:4 it refers to the entire period of creation." (Ramm, 1954, p.145).

"The expression `evening and morning' is capable of several interpretations. Some take it to mean a period of rest and a period of creation. Others take it as a graphic means of describing a cosmic day. If one takes a metaphorical interpretation of the word yom, then mutatis mutandis the expression evening and morning, must be metaphorical. They do not mean that there is a day of a million years of light followed by a million years of darkness. The expression refers to something in the process of creation. No objection to the [day-age] theory can be made on the basis of forcing a literal meaning into the expression `evening and morning.'" (Ramm, 1954, p.146).

"Putting together our [Progressive Creation] picture we have something like this: Almighty God is Creator, World-Ground, and Omnipotent Sustainer. In His mind the entire plan of creation was formed with man as the climax. Over the millions of years of geological history the earth is prepared for man's dwelling, or as it has been put by others, the cosmos was pregnant with man. The vast forests grew and decayed for his coal, that coal might appear a natural product and not an artificial insertion in Nature. The millions of sea life were born and perished for his oil. The surface of the earth was weathered for his forests and valleys. From time to time the great creative acts, de novo, took place. The complexity of animal forms increased. Finally, when every river had cut its intended course, when every mountain was in its purposed place, when every animal was on the earth according to blueprint, then he whom all creation anticipated is made, MAN, in whom alone is the breath of God." (Ramm, 1954, p.155).

"The very obvious mistake of the extreme hyper-orthodox is that he equates divine causation with sudden creation and his thinking is brittle right at this point. He makes his entire theological system-the Deity of Christ, original sin, atonement, resurrection-hang on sudden creation, and one bone from a fossil pit can potentially bring-the whole edifice down. Surely, Christianity cannot live in constant dread as to what some palaeontologist or archaeologist is going to bring to light so that one fossil can spell the doom of orthodoxy. There is only one sure approach to evolution and biology and that is through a well-defined Christian philosophy of biology." (Ramm, 1954, p.180).

"In the earlier part of this volume we developed our own effort to set forth a philosophy of Nature, and that our philosophy of Nature is directly related to our philosophy of biology. In summary, we accept progressive creationism, which teaches that over the millions of years of geological history God has been directly creating higher and higher forms of life. Progressive creation tries to free itself from loaded a priori assumptions, and tries seriously to be inductive and empirical. It accepts the a priori of Divine Creation and the inspired account, but it turns over the million odd empirical details to science and does not try to pre-empt too much for theology. Further, we believe that creation is the realization of certain forms or ideas, and it is this realization in Nature which admits a teleological ordering and understanding of Nature. As we previously wrote, we believe that the Divine Entelechy in Nature, realizing the forms and ideas of God, is the Holy Spirit. This basic pattern of thought we apply directly to a Christian philosophy of biology, and by so doing we endeavour to escape so much of the brittle thinking of extreme fundamentalism on biological matters." (Ramm, 1954, pp.180-181).

"Harris has surveyed all the contemporary theories of the origin of life from non-living materials and finds them all defective. [Harris, R.J.C., "The Origin of Life," JTVI, 81, 1949, pp.58-84] The six theories examined and rejected are that life originated by (i) spontaneous generation; (ii) from cosmic panspermia; (iii) from cell models; (iv) from colloids; (v) from enzymes; and (vi) from viruses. Approaching the problem from a different perspective Clark arrives at a similar negative judgment to Harris. [Clark, R.E.D., "Modern Science and the Nature of Life," JTVI, 77, 1943, pp.60-69] He asserts that no definition of life or scientific explanation of its origin can stand up to criticism. The usual procedure is to explain one mystery by means of another. The fundamental criticism is that modern science works on the basis of a scientific monism by which he means that all there is is matter or substance or Nature. But, Clark continues, in that Nature operates on the grounds of random activity and the human intelligence on the principle of organization and control, we have a final dualism. A theistic explanation of the origin of life is the only possible explanation." (Ramm, 1954, p.182).

"It is du Nouy's contention that chance cannot account for life. The simplest protein molecules are so complex that there is no possibility that they could have their atoms lined up in the correct order and number. Taking a protein molecule of two thousand atoms and presuming that there are only two elements necessary, the calculus of probability is such that the possibility of such a molecule forming by chance is for all practical purposes impossible. Even if 500 trillion shakings per second were employed the possibility of a chance variation occurring which would be a protein molecule is one in 10^243 billion years. [du Nouy, L., "Human Destiny," 1947, p.34] Since du Nouy is such a controversial figure we refer also to Butler, who says much the same thing: In fact, we can hardly imagine how these complex structures came to exist on the earth. We find it difficult to conceive of any natural process by which any structure even as comparatively simple as a protein molecule could be formed. It is hardly conceivable that the atoms of a protein molecule spontaneously could come together in the right order to form a protein. Calculations have been made of the probability or chance of this happening fortuitously. The result is a chance which is so small as to have no real meaning.' [Butler, J.A.V., "Man is a Microcosm," Macmillan: New York, 1951, p.112] Butler gives the figures as one chance in 100^180 or once in 10^243 billion years. The identical figures are given by McCrady, who attributes them to Professor Charles-Eugene Guye. [McCrady, E., "Religious Perspectives in Biology," Theology Today, 9, October, 1952, pp.319-332, p.322]" (Ramm, 1954, p.182).

"But supposing that life could originate in the laboratory already hinted in the Miller-Urey experiment? What should our judgment if some day a scientist actually makes a living cell or something akin to an amoeba? Men used to believe that man could change or duplicate only the inorganic, for only God could make living creatures and their products. But since the synthesis of urea a good number of organic compounds have been created and the entire debate ceased. Even the staunchest hyper-orthodox would hardly reopen this debate. If man can think God's thoughts after Him, why is it incredible that man can do some of God's works after Him? Further, because man with a vast chemical equipment and an equally vast body of chemical data at his disposal can synthesize complex chemicals, it does not mean that Nature with only chance as its guide and creator can make life and foster it into complex creatures over the millions of years." (Ramm, 1954, pp.182-183).

"At our present state of knowledge two things may be stated. (i) Man has not produced life chemically. That he may produce protoplasmic specks is a possibility, but the production of even the smallest organism is as yet a long time away. In view of our inability to produce life with our vast chemical knowledge and our ability to reproduce almost any condition we wish of pressure, temperature or motion, we must still view a chance origin of life as a faith and not as a verified hypothesis. (ii) Unless a person is very anti-Christian it cannot be denied that the most satisfactory explanation to date is that life is the creation of the Living God. There is certainly nothing scientifically disrespectable in this connection, even though a person is not a believer. Those who do believe it, may do without fear of contravening scientific fact and without prejudicing the character of their judgment. Or, in the words of Short: `We conclude, then, that science is still unable to put forward any satisfactory explanation as to how life arose in the first place. We must either accept the Bible doctrine that God created life, or go on making improbable speculations.' [Short, A.R., "Modern Discovery and the Bible," IVF: London, 1942, p.33]" (Ramm, 1954, p.183).

"There is without question an anti-Christian version of the theory of evolution. Evolution has been used by atheists and naturalists and materialists to bolster their metaphysics and to club the orthodox. Dialectical materialism, the official philosophy of Russia, glories in evolution as the scientific doctrine of creation which frees man from faith in God. Evolution has been used to support atheism, ethical nihilism, and much anti-God, anti-Bible, and anti-Christian thought. ...With this form of the theory of evolution, or with this sense of the theory of evolution, evangelical Christianity will always be at war." (Ramm, 1954, pp.184-185).

"Evolution as a scientific theory Both the dogmatic evolutionist who calls evolution a theory proved beyond any doubt, and the dogmatic fundamentalist who brands it as a mere theory, are wrong. Scientific epistemology knows no absolutes in scientific theory. ... We cannot speak of the theory of evolution as possessing a certainty which belongs only to formal logic. " (Ramm, 1954, p.187).

"Applying these principles of the nature of scientific law to evolution, the first observation is that evolution is not a perfectly nor infallibly verified law. No theory of science enjoys such status. Scientists who might speak as if evolution were established beyond all possibility of doubt, or beyond all possibility of supplantation, are speaking from ignorance of the nature of scientific generalizations. If we are to thank the logical positivists for nothing else, we can at least thank them for the hard work they have put into showing the probability status of scientific law, and for working effectively on the notion of degree of confirmation. Although it would be rather difficult to put down the degree of confirmation of the theory of evolution, we at least know its limits, and in view of the shifting around in evolutionary theory since its proposal by Darwin, we know that the confirmation is not as high as it is usually made out to be." (Ramm, 1954, p.188).

"The theory of evolution in terms of the philosophy of science is a probability statement. It is based on a great number of observations-geological, biological, embryological, psychological. From these observations certain limited generalizations are made about individual species or families. Increasingly larger generalizations are made as to the broader laws of heredity, embryology, tissue structure, or reproduction. Finally, the great bulk of the data of life is summarized by the most universal generalization possible, which is some form of the theory of evolution. This generalization is substantiated with a variety of arguments which are usually collected in some text on evolutionary theory. No one has seen evolution at work over the hundreds of thousands of years of geological time. What we have is a vast collection of data of almost every conceivable sort. All this data is organized by the theory of evolution, a generalization of the broadest possible type. It is, therefore, a probability statement and not anything like absolute or eternal truth. Such a generalization is not as yet capable of clear, univocal verification." (Ramm, 1954, pp.188-189).

"As a hypothesis it [the theory of evolution] can survive only if no serious logical inconsistencies develop within it. At the present time it is working with two contradictory assertions: (i) life comes only from life, and (ii) life originally arose from the inorganic. Perhaps a hundred years of biological experimentation will prove this to be a fatal contradiction. Or we may assert that (i) offspring keep within a well-defined range of variability, and (ii) offspring occasionally jump well outside the usual range of variability. Perhaps in years to come this too will prove to be fatal to evolution." (Ramm, 1954, p.189).

"If evolution runs into serious material trouble it will have to be modified or discarded. Perhaps it will be shown that genes and chromosomes are too complex ever to have evolved but had to be created. Perhaps after two hundred years of intensive experimentation all proposed mechanisms of evolution will have to be discarded. Typical of many evolutionists is Howells, who admits that there is no known mechanism for evolution yet accepts the theory without facing the implications of a theory without a mechanism. He writes: `And there is also the mystery of how and why evolution takes place at all ... Evolution is a fact, like digestion ... Nor is it known just why evolution occurs, or exactly what guides its steps.' [Howells, W., "Mankind So Far," Doubleday: New York, 1944, p.5)" (Ramm, 1954, p.189).

"The geological record might be troublesome to evolution. One hundred more years of palaeontology might show the invalidity of many present assumptions." (Ramm, 1954, p.189).

"Although Standen writes popularly he nonetheless has put his finger on two of the sorest points of evolutionary theory, showing its possible ultimate embarrassment with facts. (i) He correctly observes that there is the vague theory and the precise theory. The vague theory is the belief of scientists that evolution has occurred. The precise theory is the hypothesis as to how evolution actually works. There is no known satisfactory and clearly demonstrated precise theory of evolution. If evolution is to `stick' as a scientific theory it must establish precise theory. In spite of the fact that as yet no precise theory is forthcoming, the evolutionists have unbounded faith in the vague theory [Standen, A., "Science is a Sacred Cow," E.P. Dutton & Co: New York NY, 1950, pp.101-102]. This is not science at its best. (ii) He correctly observes that the so-called evolutionary trees are all leaves or twigs with no branches or trunk. Theoretically we should be able to trace an entire series of forms from some primeval creatures to a present day creature. It is not a matter of a missing link, but of countless missing links. The wood which should support all these branches and twigs is, as Standen says, `hypothetical wood.' [Ibid, pp.104-105] The geologist or evolutionist might claim that the geological record is imperfect. Even so, the careful scientist is expected to keep his theories close to the evidence. Creating vast genealogical trees out of hypothetical wood is not keeping close to the actual data of palaeontology." (Ramm, 1954, pp.189-190).

"All we are trying to assert at this point is a call for a clear recognition that the theory of evolution is a probability statement. Its life must not depend on dogmatism of biologists, but on the actually forthcoming evidence and data. This data may increase the status of the theory, or weaken it or even destroy it. It is not true to scientific epistemology to give it the benediction of finality or even to treat it as a scientific sacred cow." (Ramm, 1954, p.190).

"The broad generalizations are usually the most difficult statements to verify, because they are at the end of a long series of probability statements and because the verification of such statements is fraught with so many problems-the possible bias of the scientist; the welter of the data; the number of possibilities of interpretation at several points of the evidence; trying to weigh the significance of certain phenomena or experiments." (Ramm, 1954, p.190).

"The history of science is the history of ruined and wrecked generalizations. This is a sign of health, exhibiting the power of science to correct itself. It is also a sign of the tentativeness of all scientific theory, evolution included. Two great generalizations have been accepted by western culture only to be subsequently discredited by later developments. The first was Ptolemaic astronomy, which seemed so obvious to the medieval astronomers. Today it is outmoded, though once universally believed in the western world. The second is Newtonian physics, which had acquired more prestige than the Ptolemaic system. Scientists boasted that Newton had discovered the very laws of God, and for over two hundred years his system reigned supreme. Newton's system is now a special condition within the more comprehensive system of Albert Einstein, and the atomic physicists have told us that Newtonian physics has little applicability to the microcosm. Hundreds of other generalizations in all the sciences have suffered the same fate. Evolutionists must seriously face the significance of the history of science before evolutionary theory becomes knighted as the everlasting law of biology." (Ramm, 1954, p.190).

"If the theory of evolution be a generalization of a host of lesser and greater generalizations, then it is not possible to show with our present state of knowledge that all possibilities are exhausted. Evolutionary theory in theory could suffer the same fate as the Ptolemaic and Newtonian theories. It is an effort to reconstruct the past history of biology, and understand the present phenomena. It is the best guess the biologists have made at the present to harmonize all the biological phenomena."(Ramm, 1954, pp.190-191).

"...the theory of progressive creationism is that interpretation of life which the author advocates and which he thinks is a more comprehensive theory than the theory of evolution. Progressive creationism endeavours to explain much that the theory of evolution tries to explain, and many of the things that the theory of evolution leaves unexplained. Gen. 1 records the broad outline of the successive creative acts of God in bringing the universe through the various stages from chaos to man. Being a very general sketch it leaves considerable room for the empirical determination of various facts. A multitude of biological facts now generally accepted by the biologists would remain unchanged. In progressive creationism there may be much horizontal radiation. The amount is to be determined by the geological record and biological experimentation. But there is no vertical radiation. Vertical radiation is only by fiat creation. A root-species may give rise to several species by horizontal radiation, through the process of the unraveling of gene potentialities or recombination. Horizontal radiation could account for much which now passes as evidence for the theory of evolution. The gaps in the geological record are gaps because vertical progress takes place only by creation." (Ramm, 1954, p.191).

"Creation and development are both indispensable categories in the understanding of geology and biology. ... Progression cannot be denied geology and biology. The chasms in the order of life can only be bridged by creation. Biology cannot be rendered totally meaningful solely in terms of progression. Both Genesis and biology start with the null and void, both proceed from the simple to the complex, and both climax with man." (Ramm, 1954, 1960, p.191).

"A series of guerrilla fights with evolution showing its weaknesses and inconsistencies will not win the day. Convictions are surrendered only when a more unifying, a more integrating hypothesis is suggested and demonstrated. The Christian approach to evolution cannot consist of snipings at the theory; but it must supply an interpretative theory of biology which will do all the evolutionary theory does for modern biologists, and something more besides. Until then we may sting the theory of evolution with some factual embarrassments here and there but we will never force a retreat. It is our hope that a theory like progressive creationism will form the basis of a new biological synthesis which will be to biology like relativity theory was to physical theory." (Ramm, 1954, 1960, p.191).

"Necessary restrictions on the theory of evolution. The author does not have the necessary learning in biology to attempt a refutation of the evidence of evolution However, there appear to be problems in the evolutionary theory which are obvious to those who are not trained biologists. There as yet remains the proof of the inorganic origin of life. It may be assumed but it is not yet verified. There is the problem of the rugged species which have endured without change for millions of years. There is the problem of the sudden appearance of new forms in the geological record. There are as yet multitudes of missing links among the species. As yet biologists are not agreed as to the mechanism of evolution, and those mechanisms advocated do not as yet possess a high degree of verification. " (Ramm, 1954, 1960, p.192).

"Our particular problem is this: what are the necessary limitations of evolutionary theory? There are limits beyond which the theory of evolution may not be pushed, and we wish to examine those limits. ... Evolution can never become the self-creation of Nature. By an actual cause we mean that which is the ultimate and final cause of a thing. By a mediate cause we mean that which is the tool of the actual cause. The carpenter is the actual cause of a house; the hammer, nails, etc., are the mediate causes, or secondary causes. It is the firm teaching of Sacred Scripture, Christian theology, and Christian theism that the sole actual cause of the universe is Almighty God. God is the First Cause, the Actual Cause, and the world-ground of all things. Without God matter could not be, laws could not be, processes could not be. The universe in every dimension and at every point depends upon God. Therefore, evolution cannot be conceived as actual cause. Nature cannot create itself. To give evolution the status of actual causation is the terrible mistake -from the perspective of theism--of naturalism, pragmatism, materialism, and positivism. The only possible status which evolution could have is that of any other scientific law, viz. that of mediate or secondary causation." (Ramm, 1954, 1960, p.192).

"Evolution can never be the rationale of the universe. Evolution has been taken (e.g. Spencer) as the key interpretative concept of the universe. The universal law of evolution has been invoked to explain the development of the cosmos, the solar system, the elements, the crust of the earth, the flora and fauna of the earth, man, and all social institutions--marriage, family, agriculture, legal systems, political systems, economic systems and religion. This is .hardly a defensible use of the word evolution. It could only be so applied if it were to mean simply change, but if that is all it means it becomes a rather empty term, a truism of not too great sophistication. Evolution applied to inorganic things can mean only a series of states, or a succession of processes, but always with a balanced equation. There are other serious problems when the term is applied to social institutions. Evolution in biology must fear the significance of epigenesis. By epigenesis we mean the constant increase of the complexity of forms over a period of time. We mean that something new is constantly added; that there is something additive to evolution, something quasi-creative. It must be something more than mere change or rearrangement." (Ramm, 1954, 1960, pp.192-193).

"Evolution, if it be true, is a law of biology. It is not a law of the elements, nor of social institutions, nor of man's higher powers. It may be a powerful interpretative principle in biology, but it cannot serve as the rationale of the universe any more than Newton's concept of gravitation could. Nature, man, and society are richer in content than can be accounted for by the biological concept of epigenesis or transformation. Evolution as a biological theory cannot be artlessly transmuted into metaphysics, epistemology, and religion. No matter how thoroughly a man of biology may believe in evolution, he must not be an idolator and worship his theory. He must have the humility to realize that there are other windows on reality." (Ramm, 1954, 1960, p.193).

"Evolution must reckon with energy and design in Nature. The second law of thermodynamics cannot be ignored in the construction of evolutionary theory. [Clark, R.E.D., "Evolution and Entropy," JTVI 75, 1943, pp.49-71]. Evolution and entropy are headed in opposite directions. Clark's fundamental thesis is that entropy represents a random and degenerative process, whereas life represents an ordered and generative process. Entropy is the gradual equalization of molecular velocities through random collisions, and it is degenerative in the sense that the physical state of energy levels is decreased. Life is possible only if miraculously these two features of entropy are reversed, and certainly entropy is the more basic and universal law than evolution. Betts agrees with Clark that entropy is a downhill process, and although while not an outright refutation of evolution, it poses serious problems to evolution. The fundamental energy process of Nature is disintegrative, not integrative. In radioactivity the process is from the complex to the simple. As Betts writes: `Indeed, modern astronomical evidence is showing that there is unidirectional "evolution" of matter from the state of high atomic complexity to one of atomic simplicity and a breakdown of matter farther into radiation. [Betts, E.H., "Evolution and Entropy," JTVI, 76, 1944, pp.1-18] It is at this point that clear metaphysical positions come forth. Even the most positivistic scientist must say something. We are faced clearly with the two theories of (i) the recoverability of energy and (ii) the irrecoverability of energy. If energy is irrecoverable we are faced with the doctrine of creation. If energy is recoverable we are not forced into creationism. If we believe in irrecoverability we believe in an omnipotent God; if not we believe in the Epicurean god of Chance. Energy confronts us with the problem of choosing between Epicurean Chance and the Eternal Deity. To this hour no known process of recoverability is proven. The Christian is convinced that of the two possibilities creation is more intellectually respectable." (Ramm, 1954, 1960, pp.193-194).

"Modern scientific thought has been insistently against an interpretation of Nature by design or final causes. Evolutionary thought must take account of at least two matters in this regard. ... There are a large number of cosmic and inorganic features necessary for life on this planet. The earth must fulfil certain cosmic relations or life would be frozen out or burnt out, or there would be wrong proportions of gases or incorrect proportions of land to water. Such a list becomes encyclopedic in length and I am sure we have not begun to determine all the necessary cosmic and chemical features of the earth absolutely necessary for life. The facts of the case are that these facts do exist so as to make life Possible. Life is a cosmic function, not just a mould on the crust of this earth. Not a bit of protoplasm could appear on this earth unless the entire cosmic structure gave its assent. NOT ONE CELL OF LIFE COULD EMERGE IN SOME PRIMEVAL POOL OF WATER UNLESS THE ENTIRE STAGE OF THE COSMOS WERE SET FOR IT. On what grounds can such facts be ignored? To assume all is chance, with not even the flutter of the eyelash, is not becoming the genuine openmindedness that characterizes science at its best. Which is the greater strain on our credulity: (i) that these countless of thousands of facts of cosmic, chemical, and physical properties-all of which are absolutely necessary to life-occurred by chance on this one planet; or (ii) that God of omnipotence raised his Son from the dead?" (Ramm, 1954, 1960, p.194. Capitals original).

"Evolution must reckon with the multitude of facts now known about sensory perception. It takes considerable experimental work and scientific erudition to discover how the eye, ear and nose function. Psychophysicists have discovered that these organs are highly engineered products. There must be sensitivity to the right ranges of energy in sound and light. There must be energy transformations and even, as in the case of the ears, reduction of gears! The eye must have a reasonably clear, workable lens, a photographic plate, and a chemical reagent to develop the picture. When we consider how much technical construction goes into the construction of a television set, and what a big mechanism it is, and then contrast it with the human eye which receives pictures in colour with automatic adjustment features built in, yet all contained in about one cubic inch, we cannot but marvel at the intelligence of the man who still insists upon chance factors alone in Nature." (Ramm, 1954, 1960, pp.194-195).

"Only in the twentieth century has science begun to unravel in detail the intricate engineering technicalities of human sensory organs. And this is but a token of the evidence available, for there is the inexhaustible study of the sensory powers and `instincts' of animals. It is further conceivable that when the biochemists tell us the fairly complete story of the chemistry of the human body we will bow our heads in holy reverence and admit the only feasible accounting of this is the work of an Omnipotent Wisdom. If evolution is the law of biology, it cannot be developed in independence of these matters we have here presented, and therefore evolution cannot expect to account for all biological phenomena by chance or random." (Ramm, 1954, 1960, p.195).

"Evolution must face the transcendental nature of man. In the nineteenth and twentieth century man had ganged up against himself. Taxonomically he put himself with the brutes. Biologically and physically he made himself only a physical object-with no mind or soul. The central nervous system is now his soul or mind. Everything in traditional philosophy and religion based on the presupposition of a soul, and thus yielding a normative discipline must now be rejected, e.g. a true religion, normative ethics, eternal laws of the true, the beautiful, and the good, and in their places has been put a positivistic, anti-metaphysical, and relativistic scientism. It is our contention that this is a gross misconstruction of the facts. Man has four types of experiences which prove that although he is part of Nature in that he possesses a physical body, he yet transcends his own physical nature, proving that he also has a mental or spiritual nature which must come from above and not from below." (Ramm, 1954, 1960, p.195).

"Man has the power of rational thought. Anti-metaphysical positivism can only be propounded and defended by a man with the powers of rational thought. All science is based on man's power of conceptualization. Rational thought is only possible because man can step out of the circle of necessity. Correct answers are not discovered by following through a series of physical states, but by following through a series of steps dictated by logic and inference. To convert ice to steam is to subject the ice to a series of states. The same is true of the conversion of crude oil to gasoline. But an entirely different sequence is followed in finding the cube root of 27. These thought processes have to step out of the circle of determined physical states of the brain itself-and they therefore testify that there is something in man that is more than body, nerves, and chemicals." (Ramm, 1954, 1960, pp.195-196).

"Man has the ability to have moral experience. In moral experience there is a definite structure. There are always two or more possibilities of moral choice, and these possibilities create a tension. The most ardent convert to materialism must decide many times a day which alternative he shall choose in a moral situation. Annually he must self-test his honesty with his income tax return. This moral structure is in all of us, and even if we get so hardened as to ignore it, we greatly resent those who ignore it in their injustices upon us. After all the psychologists have had their say about social conditioning, and after all the anthropologists have had their say about cultural conditioning, the moral structure is still part of the fundamental psychic equipment of all normal people. Such a structure escapes physical determinism. There is no way of accounting for moral experience from below; it is a part of man which comes from above." (Ramm, 1954, 1960, p.196).

"Man has an aesthetic structure within him. The sense of the beautiful is not in the sense organ but through the sense organ. Dogs may hear better than humans but they hardly enjoy a concert as a trained musician does. Birds have magnificent eyes, but they are hardly the world's great art critics. We believe that animals have the incipient structures of personality and so experience certain things which humans do, but only at a greatly reduced level. Animals exhibit certain emotions and certain powers of thought, and perhaps even have rude aesthetic experiences. Such powers are necessary for their survival and existence. But the full range of these powers is found only in man. The power to detach an object of sense from all else but its aesthetic quality is a power that is from above, not from below. Only by taking a stand outside the state of physical determination can man enjoy the beautiful." (Ramm, 1954, 1960, p.196).

"Man's belief in God, his sense of the transcendental as seen in worship, and his experience of the spiritual order, are all matters of daily experience of Christians and are not accountable on naturalistic premises. As far as can be determined nothing corresponding to religious experience or worship or adoration is detectable among animals. Erratic as metaphysical beliefs of some thinkers may be, they at least testify to man's power to think above transitory experience, and to try to peer over his narrow cell of space and time and try to catch a vision of an eternal order. Even though a man may reject the proofs for the existence of God, there is something to weigh and measure in these proofs in that man has (i) the power to construct such elaborate chains of argumentation, and that (ii) he has a sense of something eternal, transcendent, the ground of all being. Man's power to create a world other than the sensory world, and his power to worship and venerate that world, is a testimony to the fact that there is more in man than physical states, and this power is from above and not from below." (Ramm, 1954, 1960, pp.196-197).

"The conclusion at this point is this: evolution may be entertained as a possible secondary cause or mediate cause in biological science. But to raise it to a metaphysical principle or as the all-embracing key or category or scheme of Reality and to cancel out the metaphysical worth of all other possible clues is improper science and doggerel philosophy. If evolution be used so as to relativize all ethics, logic, beauty, and religion, and completely to animalize man, we can judge only that it must be severely condemned by evangelical Christianity, and by all philosophies and world views which seek genuine significance for human personality, worth, and value, and which believe in purpose in human history. Evolutionary theory must be developed within the confines of what we have here endeavoured to set forth." (Ramm, 1954, 1960, p.197).

"F. E. Zeuner (Dating the Past, third edition, 1952) has an interesting chapter on `Biological Evolution and Time' (Chapter XII). The conclusion he comes to is that evolution works too slowly to be experimentally verified in the lifetime of an experimenter or even of humanity. It is almost an admission that evolution can never be strictly demonstrated for its mechanism works too slowly to be a matter of experimentation. If this is the case then the probability status of the theory of evolution is greatly lowered, and biologists must accordingly moderate their spirit of certainty in speaking of its confirmation." (Ramm, 1954, pp.209-210).

"Christianity is a religion and not a science. In science the principle of inter-subjectivity or objectivity prevails. What is true for one scientist must be true for all. But this is not true in religion, for if the pure in heart see God [Mt 5:8], then the impure do not, and what is true for the pure is not true for the impure. God draws near to those who draw near to Him [Jas 4:8], and He is a rewarder of them who diligently seek Him [Heb 11:6]. He is not known to those who do not draw close to Him or to those who refuse to seek Him. What is true for some is emphatically not true for all. In the Gospels a very wealthy young man refused to make the motions of faith. He was intrigued by Jesus Christ, but when the issue became sharply one of Christ or his possessions, the tug of his possessions was the stronger, and sorrowfully he left Jesus Christ [Lk 18:18-25]. He wanted religion without the motions of faith. It is not a rash presumption to believe that many scientists and educated men wish for peace of mind, relief from a guilty conscience, hope for the life to come, and the blessedness of faith in God. But they find themselves caught between their science and their religious hopes, unable to move. Being possessed of great intellectual riches which manage to come first in their sentiments, they leave Jesus Christ. Just as Jesus refused to pursue the rich young man and make other terms, so today we cannot lessen or cheapen or alter the terms of the gospel for our men of science. There is no other Saviour than Jesus Christ [Jn 14:6; Acts 4:12], and there is no other means of having Him than by the motions of repentance and faith. Therefore, if a scientist comes to God he must come in the same way as any other person comes to God. He must make the appropriate spiritual motions. He must repent; he must confess his sin to God; he must believe in Jesus Christ with all his heart." (Ramm, 1954, p.245).