The intent of this book is to examine whether Evolution is properly called a proven Fact. In order to avoid confusion about terms, here are two simple definitions that reflect the meaning commonly applied to the words Fact and Evolution:
Fact: A claim supported by unambiguous evidence that makes it indisputable.
Evolution: All life on earth is tied to a common ancestor through a set of random genetic mutations. This definition equates Evolution with the broad claim of common descent. The starting point for Evolution is a common ancestor that allegedly came into existence through random chemical reactions in a primordial sea.
There is no doubt that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) actively promotes the concept that Evolution is a fact, and not just a theory. For example, here is a quote from Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences:
Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of Evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.[1]
However, is the NAS being honest in stating that scientists no longer question whether Evolution is a Fact? For example, the same NAS publication asks the following question: “Don’t many famous scientists reject Evolution?” and answers it with the single word “No.”[2] This seems to imply that opposition to the Fact of Evolution does not exist in the scientific community. However, this is simply not true.
For example, the Discovery Institute created a petition entitled A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. The statement at the top of this petition reads:
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.[3]
The signers of the Discovery Institute petition include a worldwide body of over 700 scientists with impressive academic credentials:
The list of signatories includes member scientists from National Academies of Science in Russia , Czech Republic , Hungary , India (Hindustan), Nigeria , Poland , and the United States Japan , Ben-Gurion University in Israel , MIT, The Smithsonian and Princeton .[4]
The Discovery Institute’s petition clearly indicates that numerous PhD level scientists are skeptical of the Fact of Evolution. This contrasts with the NAS implication that the scientific community stands unanimously behind the Fact of Evolution. Like the skeptical scientists who have signed the Discovery Institute’s Petition, I believe a careful and independent examination of the evidence for the Fact of Evolution needs to be made.
I bring the viewpoint of a design engineer to this task. I have approximately 25 years of experience in designing complex systems of computer logic. In designing such systems, it is quite common to have an independent design review. Even the best team of designers can miss flaws in their own logic. Technical designers benefit from an independent design review, just as authors benefit from an independent editor.
An important qualification of a technical reviewer is the desire to ask skeptical questions. A rubber-stamp review adds nothing of value to a project. That would be like an egoistic boss hiring a yes-man to nod constant approval to everything he said. A flawless design has nothing to fear from a skeptical reviewer. However, a skeptical reviewer can pave the way to correcting a flawed design.
If the evidence for the Fact of Evolution were as strong as the NAS contends, a public discussion of disputed issues would only serve to strengthen the case for it. However, the NAS seems far more interested in denying that scientific opposition to the Fact of Evolution exists than in allowing a legitimate debate. This is especially true regarding any alternative to Evolution that involves supernatural intervention.
In an essay that describes how vital Naturalism is to the dogma of Evolution, Phillip Johnson made these comments:
Victory in the creation-evolution dispute therefore belongs to the party with the cultural authority to establish the ground rules that govern the discourse. If creation is admitted as a serious possibility, Darwinism cannot win, and if it is excluded a priori Darwinism cannot lose.[5]
In this essay, Johnson discussed a 1987 Supreme Court Case regarding the teaching of Creation-Science in Louisiana
[Creation science is not science] because it fails to display the most basic characteristic of science: reliance upon naturalistic explanations. Instead, proponents of "creation- science" hold that the creation of the universe, the earth, living things, and man was accomplished through supernatural means inaccessible to human understanding.[6]
In essence, the NAS argued that the possibility of a supernatural creation can be ruled out because it lies outside the domain of science. This raises the question of whether the NAS has ever conducted an independent review that considers all potential options for the origin of life. Ruling out an option by a priori definition is not the same as ruling it out by careful consideration of all available evidence.
A debate about the proper relationship between science and religion has been going on for a long time. The NAS holds the view that science and religion are mutually exclusive domains. This is illustrated in an official 1984 statement from former NAS President Frank Press:
Mutual exclusion means no overlap can ever occur between science and religion. This means that science can never allow a supernatural explanation, since supernatural explanations belong in the realm of religion. While that sounds like a religiously neutral position for the NAS to take, it is not. If both science and religion seek absolute truth, it means that at most one realm can find it (since no overlap is ever permitted).
If only one realm can find the absolute truth, then which realm is it – science or religion? For example, consider an alleged historical event that is fundamental to the Christian faith – the resurrection of Christ. According to the Apostle Paul, Christianity would be useless without this central event.[8] Paul alleges that over 500 people observed the resurrected Christ, making the resurrection a claim based on observational evidence.[9]
How should science respond to an event like the resurrection of Christ? It is clear that science can offer no naturalistic explanation. Does this mean that science can declare that the resurrection of Christ never happened? Or does it mean that science is simply unable to explain supernatural events in terms of natural forces? The first choice claims: “I don’t know how, so it can’t be.” The second choice stops at “I don’t know how.”
The first choice represents a strict separation between the realms of science and religion. This is the position adopted by the NAS. The second choice represents true neutrality between science and religion. It allows the possibility that supernatural events can happen and admits that some events may be inexplicable in terms of natural forces. This is the position I advocate for in this book.
Allowing the possibility of supernatural events does not equate to admitting that supernatural events have happened. It simply allows evidence supporting supernatural events to be admissible to the discussion. This would have a great impact on the Evolution debate. Evidence for the alleged actions of a Judeo-Christian God or an unspecified Intelligent Designer could no longer be automatically excluded.
In recent years, advocates for Intelligent Design movement (which has no direct tie to the Genesis account) have been trying to admit evidence for an unidentified Intelligent Designer to the scientific discussion. This effort has led to a bitter struggle with the mainstream scientific community. In at least one instance, it has resulted in a career casualty, as this quote from the Answers in Genesis website indicates:
What happens when an editor of a technical biology journal decides, along with others, to publish the first peer-reviewed technical article that casts doubt on Darwin
In the case of Richard Sternberg, a Smithsonian research associate and former managing editor of the independent journal called the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, it meant being cast out of the prestigious Smithsonian Institution in Washington , D.C.
In August 2004, news agencies around the world reported on the controversy as Sternberg came under intense scrutiny and even persecution for publishing the article written by Stephen Meyer, a Discovery Institute fellow.
“I was singled out for harassment and threats on the basis that they think I’m a creationist,” Sternberg said in a Washington Times article (February 14, 2005).[10]
The staunch Evolutionist Richard Dawkins has stated, “Darwin Darwin
Many Americans find the evidence for the Fact of Evolution far less compelling than the NAS does. For example, two CBS Poll’s taken in 2004 and 2005 indicate that between 51% and 55% of Americans believe that God created human beings in their present form – i.e., they believe Evolution was not involved.[13] In essence, atheists seem to rate the evidence for Evolution as much stronger than non-atheistic Americans.
To classify Evolution as a scientific fact, the broad proposition of universal common descent must be supported with an unambiguous set of empirical evidence. However, much of the evidence commonly cited to support the Fact of Evolution is ambiguous. For example, consider this description of Darwin’s Finches from Galapagos Online:
The Galapagos Islands is home to 13 species of finch, belonging to 4 genera. These finches all evolved from a single species similar to the Blue-Black Grassquit Finch Volatina Jacarina commonly found along the Pacific Coast of South America. Once in the Galapagos Islands the finches adapted to their habitat and the size and shape of their bills reflect their specializations. Vegetarian Finch and Ground Finch all have crushing bills while Tree Finch have a grasping bill and Cactus Finch, Warbler Finch and Woodpecker Finch have probing bills.
All of Darwin's Finches are sparrow sized and similar in appearance with gray, brown, black or olive feathers. They have short rounded wings and a rounded tail that often appears cocked to one side. Most male finch mature to a solid black color, while the females mature to a drab grayish color. Exceptions are made for the Vegetarian and Tree Finches the males never become completely black rather they have a black head, neck and upper breast. Warbler, Woodpecker and Mangrove Finches have more of an olive color.[14]
Does conceding that Darwin
Thirteen species of finches live on the Galápagos, the famous island group visited by Charles Darwin in the 1830s. The finches have a variety of bill shapes and sizes, all suited to their varying diets and lifestyles. The explanation given by Darwin
Surprisingly to some, this is the explanation now held by most modern creationists. It would not need to be an ‘Evolutionary’ change at all, in the sense of giving any evidence for amoeba-to-man transformation. No new genetic information would have been introduced. If the parent population has sufficient created variability (genetic potential) to account for these varied features in its descendants, natural selection could take care of the resulting adaptation, as a simplistic example will show.
Say some finches ended up on islands in which there was a shortage of seeds, but many grubs were living under tree bark. In a population with much variation, some will have longer, some shorter, beaks than average. Those birds carrying more of the ‘long-beak’ information could survive on those grubs, and thus would be more likely to pass the information on to their descendants, while the others would die out. In this way, with selection acting on other characters as well, a ‘woodpecker finch’ could arise.[15]
Is the alternate explanation of Carl Wieland plausible? It does not deny that the thirteen species of Darwin Darwin Darwin
Wieland’s article goes onto to describe how artificial selection has been used to create pure breeds of dogs that have lost the genetic information present in the diverse (mongrel) population. In thousands of years of artificial breeding, a very wide variety of dog breeds have been produced.[16] But as Wieland points out, dogs are still dogs. The genetic information to make the different dog breeds has been there all along.
Isn’t it possible that the same process of lost genetic information that led to specialized dog breeds had led to different varieties (breeds) of finches? If so, the classical example of proof for the Fact of Evolution (Darwin Darwin
In our world of mass communication, it is very common for theories to become part of conventional wisdom without considering all the available alternatives. For example, this quote from Freakonomics (by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner) describes the various programs that were credited with producing a sharp drop in the juvenile crime rate:
These theories were not only logical; they were encouraging, for they attributed the crime drop to specific and recent human initiatives. If it was gun control and clever police strategies and better-paying jobs that quelled crime – well then, the power to stop criminals had been within our reach all along. As it would be next time, God forbid, that crime got so bad.
These theories made there way, seemingly without friction, from the experts’ mouths to journalists’ ears to the publics’ mind. In short course, they become the conventional wisdom.
Freakonomics presents its own alternate theory for the drop in the juvenile crime rate. According to Freakonomics, children born in adverse environments are more likely to become criminals. Freakonomics also states that these same children are more likely to be the target of an abortion. Hence, Freakonomics theorizes the legalization of abortion shrank the crime-rate because it shrank the number of likely criminals.[18]
The theory presented in Freakonomics seems plausible. However, Freakonomics notes that there was no discussion about this possibility in the media:
Now, as the crime-drop experts (the former crime doomsayers) spun their theories in the media, how many times did they cite legalized abortion as a cause?
The Freakonomics discussion about the cause for a drop in the juvenile crime rate provides a good example of a common logical fallacy – ignoring alternative possibilities to make premature conclusions. Very often, two factual statements can be incorrectly combined to reach a premature conclusion. Here is one example:
Fact 1: The car parked outside can drive very fast.
Fact 2: A Porsche is a car that can drive very fast.
Premature Conclusion: The car parked outside must be a Porsche.
Combining Facts 1 and 2 to conclude that the car parked outside must be a Porsche is different from concluding that car parked outside may be a Porsche. Additional pieces of evidence would be required to reach the must be conclusion. For example, evidence that the car parked outside has features unique to a Porsche would be required. Facts 1 and 2 don’t provide this evidence. Therefore, the conclusion is premature.
The multiple explanations suggested for the drop in juvenile crime rate all offer premature conclusions. This includes the Freakonomics explanation of legalized abortion being the reason the crime rate dropped. Without additional evidence, it is impossible to judge exactly what caused the drop in juvenile crime rate. Therefore, none of the suggested alternatives provides evidence indicating that they must be true.
Nevertheless, experts are often driven to promote premature conclusions as fact. For example, politicians often act as if they have all the answers. Seldom, if ever, will you hear a politician confess that they simply don’t know how to solve a perplexing problem. Hence, instead of an honest confession of ignorance, propaganda flows into the public domain. Often it is accepted without question.
Both the Evolutionary and Creationist hypothesis about Darwin Darwin
One argument this book makes is that all possibilities consistent with observable evidence should be included in the scientific discussion. This would amount to a religiously neutral form of science that is not restricted by a priori assumptions. Under a standard of religious neutrality, both the Evolutionist and the Creationist hypotheses would be admissible to the debate over the origin of Darwin
Reproductive isolation is not complete; species hybridize, rarely, and are capable of producing fertile hybrids that backcross to the parental species …[21]
… all six species of Darwin
In an Edge.org panel discussion, Freedom Dyson stated that environmental conditions can lead different species of finches to interbreed (hybridize) or separate on a year-to-year basis.[23] In The Beak of the Finch, Jonathan Weiner described how various features of Darwin Darwin
The specific song that a male finch learns to sing as a child plays an important role in attracting a mate.[25] Thus, the probability of two finches mating is impacted by a learned behavior. If human beings were classified based on minor differences in appearance and behavior, as finches are, perhaps cheerleaders and computer geeks would be placed in different species.
That may sound funny. But it points out that there is no clear definition of what constitutes a biological species. Dyson stated that he considers Darwin
In order to avoid premature conclusions about genetic relationships, scientists would need an in-depth understanding of how genetic changes create different physical characteristics. However, we still have very little knowledge about how physical bodies are put together through genetic instructions. This is made clear in this Jonathan Marks quote about comparing human and chimp DNA:
And yet when we compare their DNA, we are not comparing the genes for bipedalism, or hairlessness, or braininess, or rapid body growth during adolescence, or the deposition of body fat in the hips and breast of adult females, or beards in males, or prominent nasal regions. We’re comparing other genes, other DNA regions, which have either cryptic biochemical functions, or often, no known function at all.
It’s the “old bait and switch.” The genes we study are not the genes we are interested in. We have, sadly enough, exceedingly little knowledge about how a body is put together from genetic instructions. We construct genetic maps principally of its breakdown products – diseases – which are important, but which comprise a very different kind of genetic knowledge.[28]
Marks’ quote from What it means to be 98% chimpanzee indicates that the scientific knowledge about how genes control development is very limited. This would suggest that there is insufficient genetic evidence available to decide between these two hypotheses:
Evolutionist’s Hypothesis: Genetic mutations produced new beak features by adding new genetic information.
Creationist’s Hypothesis: The initial genetic information for producing a wide set of beak features was present in an ancestor species. Each species lost a subset of the initial genetic information, so the different species can no longer produce all the original beak varieties.
Everybody agrees that changing the chemical letters of a DNA stream will change the features of a living organism. Similarly, it is well known that if you change the digital bits of a computer program, you change the features of the program. Thus, an analogy exists between DNA-letters and computer programs. Bill Gates (of Microsoft fame) has said:
Evolution theorizes that errors in replicating the letters in DNA strings (called Genetic Mutations) create new varieties of living organisms. Everybody agrees that Genetic Mutations are a scientific fact. This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether Genetic Mutations working in conjunction with Natural Selection created DNA strings that are much more complex than modern day computer software.
A prime aim of this book is to encourage an honest discussion about the quality of evidence supporting the broad claim of the Fact of Evolution. If evidence exists that calls these claims into question, then the public has a right to hear it. Unfortunately, they often do not get this chance. Public documentaries in support of the Fact of Evolution tend to skip over controversial issues and leave the impression that no controversies exist.
For example, consider these words of Richard Hutton (executive producer of the PBS Evolution series) describing controversies related to the Fact of Evolution:
There are open questions and controversies, and the fights can be fierce. Just a few of them: The origin of life. There is no consensus at all here -- lots of theories, little science. That's one of the reasons we didn't cover it in the series. The evidence wasn't very good.[30]
Religion and science are not as different as some people proclaim. Both realms believe in the existence of an absolute truth and in the value of living according to it. In both science and religion, either truth has an absolute meaning, or it has no meaning at all. The broad claims of the Fact of Evolution are either unambiguously proven with observational evidence or they are not.
In American courts, witnesses traditionally swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Nevertheless, witnesses in American courts often distort the truth. A website that pokes fun at lawyers had this to say about telling the truth in court:
Since perjury is rarely prosecuted, telling the truth under oath has become more or less optional. The message is clear: if the truth hurts you in court, then don’t tell it.[31]
Telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is more than avoiding an outright lie. Richard Hutton stated that the evidence for the origin of life wasn’t very good. Yet, the PBS Evolution series he produced didn’t cover this issue at all, leaving the public ill informed. Suppressing this sort of knowledge doesn’t serve the cause of telling the public the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Nearly everybody who has visited a Natural History Museum has seen an exhibit where prehistoric life forms crawl out of a primordial sea. Similarly, the PBS documentary The Miracle of Life gives the impression that a naturalistic origin of life is a certainty:
Somewhere in this ancient ocean, the miracle of life began. The first organized form of primitive life was a tiny protozoan. Millions of protozoa populated the ancient seas.[32]
The Miracle of Life documentary gives a false impression about the certainty for a naturalistic origin of life. Below are some quotes from reputable origin-of-life researchers. I doubt that anybody reading them would walk away with a warm and fuzzy feeling about the certainty for a naturalistic-only origin of life.
From Stanley Miller[33], famous for the 1950´s Miller-Urey experiment[34] that created amino acids in a scientific laboratory:
The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.[35]
All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.[37]
From Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick[38], famous co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA-Molecule[39]:
Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts.[40]
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.[41]
From Professor Klaus Dose, Director of the Institute of Biochemistry at the University of Johannes Gutenberg
More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular Evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.[42]
From Leslie Orgel[43], Senior Fellow and Research Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, when asked by Klaus Dose where the first nucleic acid came from:
These prominent scientists are all firm believers in a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. However, their quotes indicate that current explanations for the naturalistic origin of life are highly speculative rather than factual. Furthermore, there are a number of competing theories for the origin-of-life. Because these competing theories are inconsistent with each other, at least some of them represent falsehoods rather than fact.
Nevertheless, such competing theories are often combined together under the broad heading of the Fact of Evolution. If at least some of these competing theories are false, then at least part of what falls under the Fact of Evolution is false. Promoting the Theory of Evolution as the Fact of Evolution does not make it a fact. Any set of inconsistent theories should never be classified as a fact.
Promoting the Theory of Evolution as the Fact of Evolution is simply a rhetorical attempt to exclude evidence for any other option. Many critics of religion like to point out the Catholic Churches attempted to suppress Galileo’s evidence that the earth revolved around the sun. They suggest that science is superior to religion because it relies on arguments based on observational evidence rather than arguments based on force.
However, the tables have turned in the modern world. The modern scientific community has used the force of the US
Stein asks a simple question: What if the universe began with an intelligent designer, a designer named God? He assembles a stable of academics -- experts all -- who dared to question Darwinist assumptions and found themselves "expelled" from intellectual discourse as a result. They include Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg (sandbagged at the Smithsonian), biology professor Caroline Crocker (drummed out of George Mason University ), and astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez (blackballed at Iowa State University
Silencing discussion of opposing opinions is not in the interest of seeking the whole truth. However, even in the Christian world, silencing a discussion of literal interpretations of Genesis has become commonplace. For example, consider this quote from Francis Collins, who headed the Human Genome Project:
For a good hour of discourse, goodwill filled the room. And then one church member asked the senior pastor whether he believed that the first chapter of Genesis was a literal, step-by-step, day-by-day, description of the origins of the earth and of humankind. In an instance, brows furrowed and jaws tightened. Harmony retreated to the far corners of the room. The pastor’s carefully worded response, worthy of the most deft politician, managed utterly to avoid the question. Most of the men looked relieved that the confrontation had been avoided, but the spell was broken.[48]
When a Pastor who is supposed to represent the truth of Christ is acclaimed for evading a straightforward yes or no question like the plague, the goal of seeking the truth is not being served. Political double speak is not the same as a simple yes or no answer requested by Christ.[49] If this Pastor felt the Biblical-case or the scientific-case against a step-by-step, day-by-day creation was so strong, why seek to evade the question?
Evidence that fits a literal interpretation of Genesis is often excluded from the discussion by people who don’t believe in a literal Biblical interpretation. For example, in Darwin on Trial, Johnson stated that he assumed young earth creationists were biased by Biblical fundamentalism and that he had little interest in discussing their arguments.[50] Similarly, a prominent rule of the 1992 Darwinism Symposium was:
The credibility (or plausibility) of Darwinism or Design may be freely questioned, but issues related to a literal Genesis (e.g., the age of the earth, or whether the rock strata were produced by a global flood) are not welcome.[51]
Even though it was excluded from the discussion at the Darwinism Symposium, a single extinction event caused by a recent global flood seems to explain these mysterious features of the fossil record cited by Johnson in Darwin on Trial:[52]
- Stasis (modern animals appear very similar to fossil counterparts)
- Sudden Appearance (fully formed animals with no ancestors)
- Sudden Extinction of Species (as if killed off by a catastrophe)
- Gaps (lack of the abundant transitional species suggested by Darwin)
John Morris is a Biblical Creationist who believes in a literal Genesis flood. In The Young Earth, Morris attempts to make the case that a catastrophic global flood fits the geological evidence much better than theories based on the slow processes of Uniformitarian geology.[53] However, an artificially induced separation of science and religion normally prevents the discussion of this evidence in the scientific community.
Two traditions of American society are that free speech should not be suppressed and that all religious opinions (pro or con) should be open to public discussion. This book advocates the same policy regarding the boundary between science and religion. In other words, it advocates for a religiously neutral science, which does not automatically exclude any evidence from the discussion.
However, many proponents of the Fact of Evolution hold an alternate view. They believe science is a game that must exclude any theory that invokes any supernatural force. For one example of this line of thought, consider this quote by Richard E. Dickerson, the director of the Molecular Biology Institute at UCLA:
Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule.
Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.[54]
Science that is based on Dickerson’s first rule is not necessarily science that is based on an unwavering search for the truth. In fact, if the truth happens to align with the possibility of a supernatural influence on the natural world, Dickerson’s first rule would exclude science from seeking the truth. This was pointed out by Michael Behe in Darwin’s Black Box:
In his essay, then, Dickerson does not say that scientific evidence has shown that the supernatural has never affected nature (for those concerned about the definition of supernatural, substitute “higher intelligence”). Rather, he argues that in principle, science should not invoke it. The clear implication is that it should not be invoked whether it is true or not.[55]
I believe that Dickerson is mistaken about the first rule of science. My belief is that the first rule of science is not to rely on naturalism. Rather, I believe that the first rule of science is to seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I believe this is consistent with the fundamental goal of religion. This would imply that science and religion share a common fundamental goal rather than being independent of each other.
As you read this book, keep in mind that the Fact of Evolution claims the universal descent of all life forms from a common ancestor. This is a very broad claim that would require an enormous amount of proof. In evaluating whether this broad claim is properly identified as a fact, I ask readers to seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Acknowledgments
Endnotes are contained in the following section. The following shorthand notation connects the numbered endnotes to permission statements:
N(x, y, z, …) indicates endnotes numbered ‘x’, ‘y’, ‘z’.
I gratefully acknowledge permission to reproduce quotes from the following copyrighted material:
N(1, 2, 7): Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1999), http://www.nap.edu/catalog/6024.html. Reprinted with permission from Science, Evolution, and Creationism, 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington , D.C.
N(5, 6): Phillip E. Johnston, “Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism”, Copyright © 1990 First Things. Reprinted by permission of First Things: http://www.firstthings.com/.
N(8, 9, 49): Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.
N(10, 42): Used with permission of Answers in Genesis – www.answersingenesis.org.
N(14): Used with permission of Galapagos Online – www.galapagosonline.com.
N(15): Used with permission of Creation Ministries International – www.creation.com.
N(22, 23, 24): John Brockman, ed., Life: What A Concept! (New York
N(28): Jonathan Marks, What It Means To Be 98% Chimpanzee: Apes, People, and Their Genes. (c) 2002 by the Regents of the University of California University of California University of California Press
N(47): Used with permission of the Tribune-Review Publishing Company.
N(51): Thomas Woodward, Doubts about Darwin , (Grand Rapids , MI
Notes and References
[1]. Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy
[2]. Science and Creationism: A View from the
[3]. “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism,” Discovery Institute, January 2010, http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660.
[4]. “Ranks of Scientists Doubting Darwin’s Theory on the Rise,” Discovery Institute, 8 February 2007, http://www.discovery.org/a/2732.
[5]. Phillip E. Johnson, “Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism,” Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1990, pp. 1-17, http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm. This article was originally published in the magazine: First Things, October 1990, http://www.firstthings.com/.
[6]. Phillip E. Johnson, “Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism,” Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1990, pp. 1-17, http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm. This article was originally published in the magazine: First Things, October 1990, http://www.firstthings.com/.
[7]. Science and Creationism: A View from the National
[8]. 1 Corinthians 15:14 (NIV) – And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. See BibleGateway.com: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:14&version=NIV.
[9]. 1 Corinthians 15:6 (NIV) – After that, he [Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. See BibleGateway.com: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:6&version=NIV.
[10]. Pam Sheppard, “The Smithsonian/Sternberg controversy,” 22 August 2005, http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0822sternberg.asp.
[11]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006), p. 10; Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), p. 6 from Chapter 1 “Explaining the very improbable.”
[12]. John G. West, “The Gospel according to
[13]. “Poll: Majority Reject Evolution," CBS News, 23 October 2005, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml.
[14]. “
[15]. Carl Wieland, “
[21]. Peter R. Grant and B. Rosemary Grant, “Genetics and the origin of bird species,” PNAS 94(15):7768-7775, 22 July 1997, p. 7769, http://www.pnas.org/content/94/15/7768.full.
[22]. Peter R. Grant and B. Rosemary Grant, “Genetics and the origin of bird species,” PNAS 94(15):7768-7775, 22 July 1997, p. 7770, http://www.pnas.org/content/94/15/7768.full.
[23]. John Brockman, ed., Life: What A Concept! (
[25]. Peter R. Grant and B. Rosemary Grant, “Genetics and the origin of bird species,” PNAS 94(15):7768-7775, 22 July 1997, pp. 7769-71, http://www.pnas.org/content/94/15/7768.full.
[26]. John Brockman, ed., Life: What A Concept! (
[27]. John Brockman, ed., Life: What A Concept! (
[28]. Jonathan Marks, What it means to be 98% chimpanzee (
[30]. “Evolution: The Series – Interview with Richard Hutton,” Washington Post, 26 September 2001, http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/01/evolution2_092601.htm.
[31]. This quote is from a website that is no longer available: “The Truth, The Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth”, http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/the_whole_truth.htm, accessed on 26 January 2009.
[32]. “Nova: The Miracle of Life,” PBS; 1983, http://www.shoppbs.org/sm-pbs-nova-the-miracle-of-life-dvd--pi-1402973.html. The quote takes place about 2 minutes into the film.
[35]. John Horgan, “Trends in Evolution: In the Beginning …,” Scientific American, February 1991, pp. 116-25, as quoted in the book: Lee Strobel, The Case For Faith (
[37]. Harold C. Urey, Christian Science Monitor, 4 January 1962, p. 4, as quoted from the website: “Origin of Life,” Truth and Science Ministries, http://www.truthandscience.net/originoflife.htm.
[38]. “Biography – Francis Crick,” Nobel Prize.Org, http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1962/crick-bio.html.
[39]. “What is DNA?” U.S. National Laboratory of Medicine, http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna.
[40]. Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon and Shuster, 1981), p. 153, as quoted in the book: Lee Strobel, The Case For Faith (
[41]. Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon and Shuster, 1981), p. 88, as quoted in the book: Lee Strobel, The Case For A Creator (
[42]. Klaus Dose, "The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 13(4), 1988, p. 348, as quoted from the website: “The Origin of Life: DVD Lesson Plan,” http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/study_guides/originOfLife_MR.pdf.
[44]. Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth (New York: Summit Books, 1986), p. 268.
[45]. Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), pp. 7-8.
[46]. “The Truth About The Dover Intelligent Design Trial,” Discovery Institute, 15 November 2007, http://www.discovery.org/a/2879.
[47]. L. Brent Bozell III, “Challenging the P.C. pundits,” Pittsburgh Tribune Review, 20 April 2008, http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_563326.html.
[49]. Matthew 5:37 (NIV) – Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. See BibleGateway.com: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:37&version=NIV.
[50]. Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), p. 14.
[52]. Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), pp. 45-62
[53]. John. D. Morris, The Young Earth, 13th printing (
[54]. Richard E. Dickerson, “The Game of Science,” Perspectives on Science and Faith 44, June 1992, pp.137-8, as quoted from the website: The American Scientific Affiliation, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1992/PSCF6-92Dickerson.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment