I wish to acknowledge my debt to the authors listed in the bibliography. Their writings have enabled me to gain a better understanding of this vast subject and have provided me with the source material for this book. From the point of view of both authority and accuracy I have quoted freely from their material, lest in presenting their ideas in my own words, I might inadvertently misrepresent their thought. Even quotations can misrepresent if used out of context so I have been careful to consider this when selecting the quoted material.

      My theological beliefs and training have provided a different perspective from which to view the subject and have enabled me to look at the issues from a critical viewpoint. As I am not writing from within the scientific community I have not had a particular position to defend yet I have felt a common purpose with the authors as they, like myself, are searching for ultimate truth. In publishing our ideas we each make a contribution to a common quest.

      If any readers should wonder how a theologian can write with any credibility on the subject of evolution it should be remembered that theology is defined as the science of religion and used to be called the queen of the sciences. All scientists are specialists in one or two fields of knowledge and are laymen in all other fields. No scientist is competent in all the many fields from which the theory of evolution draws its data.

      Scientists who write comprehensively on this subject submit those sections of their work in which they not an authority to experts in that particular field so that they can be checked and corrected. Theologians are therefore in a similar situation to all other scientists in respect to this vast subject. I have followed this traditional practice and submitted my manuscript to a number of experts, who have kindly read the material, and I am greatly indebted to them for their helpful comments, which have been incorporated into the text. This does not imply that they endorse any of my views or conclusions or that they are responsible for any errors that may still be found in the text. For these I accept personal responsibility.

      The following specialists kindly read earlier copies of the manuscript or sections that related to their particular discipline. They include Charles Pallaghy, senior lecturer, School of Biological Sciences, La Trobe University, Victoria; Brian Spicer, Emeritus professor of physics at The University of Melbourne; Paul Davies, formerly professor of theoretical physics at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and currently at the Department of Physics at The University of Adelaide, South Australia; Gareth Jones, Professor of Anatomy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand; Douglas Eddy, microbiologist; Dr Anwar Seedat (medicine); Dr Stuart Gamble (surgery); and Barry Sheppard, Senior Lecturer in English, Victoria College, Burwood, Victoria. Arthur Corner also read an early draft of the manuscript and made helpful suggestions.

      I would like to record my debt to Geoff Alves, whose meticulous editorial oversight added greatly to the quality of the text.

      I would also like to express my appreciation to Thelma Littlejohn, who transferred my draft copy to the computer, with the valued assistance of David and Rohan.

      Last, but not least, I wish to thank my wife, Connie, for her patience and understanding while I spent many hours in research, composition and correction, preparing for publication.

Arthur Pigdon      

      We share with many others a deep concern about certain trends in Australian society. This rich and beautiful land has no external enemies but is threatened by internal, destructive forces. There is a growing concern about the erosion of our soil, the depletion of our forests and the purity of our streams and oceans; but there is also an insidious erosion in our society that poses a greater threat to our quality of life than any of these. It is the erosion of our values; not property or monetary values, but moral and ethical values, such as honesty in business, loyalty in marriage, personal integrity, a sense of fair dealing that refuses to take another person down and a respect for the rights, the property, and the person of our fellow citizens. When these values are eroded social harmony and security are threatened and our quality of life is diminished.

      There are many forces contributing to this erosion of values, but there is one factor that is built into our educational system and permeates all our literature. It influences every growing child and exerts a powerful influence on their developing values. It is the theory of Darwinian evolution, which excludes the need for a personal creator and effectively, though not explicitly, denies the role of God in creation, thereby questioning his existence.

      Our educational systems do not deny the existence of God but in all the textbooks the assumption is made that life originated and developed spontaneously by natural, not supernatural means. It is this totally materialistic view of life that is one of the factors eroding the Christian values that were formerly accepted in our society. Evidence in support of this opinion is presented in chapter 1.

      In presenting this material there is one group that we particularly have in mind. It is the young people who have grown up in Christian surroundings and who have been taught by their parents, or their church, that God created the world and all living creatures. During the course of their education they

have also been taught that the world came into being by natural means, and that life originated and evolved also by natural means. Purely materialistic evolution has no place for God; in fact, the very nature of science and the scientific method excludes the concept of a Divine creator. Young people trust their parents but they also trust their teachers and their textbooks, and this places them in a difficult dilemma. They feel that if their teachers and text books are right their parents must be wrong and they have been taught religious myths. The truth is not as black and white as that, nor is it a choice of one or the other extreme position. It is our hope that the material in this book will update and expand their knowledge of this subject and help them to make an informed decision.

      This challenge to our youth is very important because the view they adopt will affect their future values and behaviour. Since this is a decision that every child passing through our education system must make, this subject has far-reaching effects on the whole of society. There is little doubt that the dramatically changed views about morality in recent decades are directly related to a decrease in belief in God as creator, and a rejection of the Christian system of values. There is a direct relationship between belief and behaviour. Belief in a totally materialistic theory of evolution can change a young person's whole value system.

      If the Darwinian theory of evolution is the whole story of the origin and development of life on our planet, there is not, and cannot be, any ultimate purpose or meaning in life, for in that case mankind is merely the end result of fortuitous chemical reactions that have been determined by natural laws. This affects our value system, our view of social responsibility and our personal behaviour. Our Western society is rapidly deteriorating at all levels; personal, family, community and international. Something has seriously eroded the forces of social cohesion. Is there any connection between the nihilism of today-the rejection of current beliefs and morals-and the theory of evolution? This question of the relationship of the theory of evolution to society and its effects on human behaviour deserves serious study.

      In addition to asking if evolution is true we should also ask: Does it work? What are the effects when we accept the evolutionary view of life and carry it through to its logical conclusion? We have to be pragmatists and look at its practical effects on personality and society. If the theory is found to he harmful and destructive in its effects on society it suggests that there is some fundamental flaw in the theory. Is it not strange that a theory that purports to account for the development of life from the very simple to the extremely complex on the principle that the factors best suited to survival are selected should now be a contributing force in the disintegration of the society it created?

      This is not a book about religion but about the theory of evolution. No attempt is made to defend the Bible or to reconcile Christianity and science. It is solely an attempt to examine the evidence relating to the theory to see whether it has been established beyond question or whether it can be seriously challenged by both facts and reason. Any references to a creator are not from an appeal to Biblical teaching but arise from what is felt to be a logical necessity to postulate an intelligent creator to account for the origin and complexity of living organisms. There is no need for me to present the case for evolution. It is taught in our schools and is well known by all who read. There is need, however, to define what is meant by the term "evolution". We will also explain the scientific method because this has an important bearing on the issue.

      The main chapters deal with the evaluation of the opposing concepts of chance and design. Is each separate species the result of chance and natural laws or is it the result of an intelligent design? This has always been the question that has been debated and is still the central issue between scientists and those who believe in divine creation.

      In the final chapters we will present an alternative Christian view of creation and also consider its effect on individual behaviour and on the values of society. Although we have a personal view on the subject, as in fact every writer does, we have attempted to be as objective as possible, presenting the current scientific views and examining them critically, often with the help of other scientists who are aware of the unsolved problems.

      We have attempted to simplify the issues and present them in understandable language for those not familiar with biological terms. AS new findings are published regularly, and research in many different fields is modifying or discarding former theories, we have only used books and articles published since 1970, except in a few instances. Since our purpose is to present a critique of the subject our material is eclectic, having been gathered from various scientific books and journals covering a wide range of disciplines. In many instances direct quotations are used but often only the author's thought is summarised, as accurately and objectively as possible.

      We hope that the material presented will make the issues clearer, helping readers to think their way through this issue and form their own personal view of life. We also hope that this will contribute to the harmony of society by dealing with our social problems at the philosophical level where they originate.

      The world is in the midst of a period of social crisis that is the result of many different interacting forces that have had devastating effects for society generally, and for each of us as individuals. In Australia there is a deeply felt, widespread concern at the high level of violence and lawlessness in the community.

      As we seek to find ways to control today's lawlessness we need to look for the cause instead of merely short-term solutions of containment. We will not cure it by increasing our police force and building more jails. Education about drugs has had little effect and reducing the number of guns in the community is hardly likely to stop armed robbery or murders. Issuing condoms is a desperate measure to try to control AIDS and unwanted pregnancies but it will not lessen promiscuity, homosexuality or extra-marital relationships, all of which are harmful socially and prevent the development of a satisfying emotional life. All these measures, and others like them, are band-aid solutions that do nothing to seek out and cure the causes. We must ask why people behave the way they do. When we look at personal philosophies-the way people see life and its meaning and the way they see themselves and their place in the web of society-we are at the place where the troubles of our society originate.

      There is something terribly wrong in the personal outlook of many people and because this malaise is so widespread there must be something that has affected the whole of society. There has been a major shift in the thinking of people at all levels of Australian life. We will doubtless find that there are many factors involved, such as the local and world economic scenario, the threat of total war, new theories of psychology, the liberation of women, the break-up of family life etc., but one of the major factors has been the loss of purpose and meaning in life.

      Our educational system prepares us for earning a living and teaches us specific skills but it does not tell us why we exist. Our education gives us skills but it does not give us ultimate meaning or absolute values. It does not give

us a clear knowledge of right and wrong; in fact it teaches us that right and wrong may be relative, changeable and subjective. The main guidelines are the laws of the land. These are generally based on expediency, not on ultimate unchangeable principles. Because of this there is no real respect for many of our laws or the authority they represent; they are defied and broken and so our society is drifting towards disintegration. This represents a major shift of thinking in the community.

      It used to be believed that some things were ultimately right or wrong; that there were absolute standards and unchangeable principles given to people by God. Because this was so, society had a clear-cut value system that was understood and accepted, even if not always observed. Because it was believed that the world and all living things had been created by God people felt that they had a heavenly father and this gave them a sense of belonging and identity. Although life was often hard and uncertain because of primitive conditions and limited medical knowledge there was the assurance that the creator had a purpose in life that continued beyond this present world. It is in this area of purpose and values that a major shift in thinking has occurred. This has come about gradually as our knowledge of the world has increased and science has developed an entirely new view of our origin.

      Around the middle of last century Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace developed the theory of natural selection to explain the origin of different life forms. This was immediately seen as a threat to the traditional Christian view of creation. It was believed that if this proved to be true the concept of a creator would no longer be necessary. It has not proved to be an either-or situation, as at first thought, and it has been necessary to review both Christian and early scientific theories in the light of new discoveries.

      There is another factor that probably contributed to the ready acceptance of this new radical idea. We have an instinctive resentment against any restriction on our freedom. We want to be totally free to do whatever pleases us, and God is an authority figure who places restrictions on us and demands a certain self-discipline. When the scientists told the public that it was possible that the various life forms had arisen from natural causes without the need for a creator they felt like schoolchildren who had just been told that the schoolmaster had died and there would be no more school-they were free to do whatever they liked. So, in the popular mind, evolution replaced God as the agent of creation.

      The social effect of this change of thinking concerning our origin has been radical and widespread. It is probably the greatest change that has occurred in the thinking of mankind. All races that have been discovered have had some religious beliefs, or a belief in supernatural beings who created the world and all living creatures. Therefore, for the first time in the history of

mankind, there is now a widespread belief that science has shown that there are no gods or supernatural beings who created the world and that all life is merely the result of the chance association of chemical atoms and molecules, which developed by purely natural laws into the diversified forms of life we know today.

      The implications of this are enormous. If it is so, life can have no purpose or meaning. Life cannot have any purpose if it came into being as a result of pure chance-a cosmic accident. If there is no meaning in existence it leaves an awful emptiness and aimlessness in our hearts. Everyone, sooner of later asks, 'Why am I here? What is life all about?" In the foreword of his book, The Intelligent Universe, Fred Hoyle says:

Everyone must wonder from time to time if there is any real purpose in life. Of course we all have immediate aims, lo succeed in our careers, to bring up our children, and still in many parts of the world simply to earn enough to cat. But what of a long-range purpose? For what reason do we live our lives at all? Biology, as it is presently taught, answers that the purpose is to produce the next generation. But many of us are impelled to persist in wondering if that can be all. If the purpose of each generation is merely to produce the next, does the overall end result achieved sometime in the distant future have any purpose? No, biology answers once more. There is nothing except continuity, no purpose except continued existence, now or in the future.¹

      The subject of evolution cannot be considered on a scientific basis alone. It raises ultimate questions that cannot be answered by science. It has inescapable philosophical implications. Theodosius Dobzhansky is one scientist who discusses this problem in his book, The Biology of Ultimate Concern.

      The philosophers--those who think deeply about the meaning of life--pondered this new outlook and sought to think through its implications. The German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-90), openly declared what the scientists had implied when he bluntly stated, "God is dead." The radical views of philosophers influence the thoughts of the public and soon some graffiti appeared (they had it last century too) on a public wall which read, "God is dead" (signed) Nietzsche." Before long, someone else scribbled beside it, "Nietzsche is dead--(signed) God." God always seems to survive those who question his existence.

      Nietzsche taught that since God, as we had understood him, no longer existed, religion was no longer meaningful and the traditional values of Christianity no longer applied. He believed that all human behaviour was motivated by the desire for power, both power over others and control of oneself. He conceived the idea of superior and inferior races and the concept

of supermen. This stimulated modern racism, which he saw as being the logical outcome of the theory of evolution. Was it not obvious from evolution theory that superior individuals and races should be encouraged to increase and inferior individuals and races should be expendable? So he redefined good and evil. He called strength and power good, and weakness and gentleness bad.² With God banished from the world people proceeded to change the values of society, with tragic consequences.

      Adolf Hitler actively promoted and practised racism against this philosophical background current at the time. He used this new outlook for his own ends and captured the youth of Germany with the attractive concepts of freedom, power and the super-race. Hitler might never have gained the popular support he did if the national outlook had not been undermined, and its values changed, by the new view of people and their origin that had permeated Germany as a result of the theory of evolution. The theory of materialistic evolution was one of the factors which helped to plunge the world into the horror of World War II.^2a

      Other philosophers of this century have continued to grapple with the problems that arise if there is no creator. Since there is no purpose in life they have concentrated on the nature of existence and a philosophy has arisen called existentialism. The existentialists have drawn attention to the fact that we all have to make decisions and choices but there is no objective value system to help us make our decisions. If there is no God there is no absolute right and wrong and so we all must decide what is right or wrong for ourselves. This means that we are free to decide our own behaviour, within the laws of the land, the only proviso being that we must take responsibility for our own actions. This view of life is conducive to social chaos and it is not surprising that existentialists tend to be pessimistic. They stress the ultimate futility and absurdity of life, and talk freely about suicide as a possible escape from life's emptiness. They are also aware that such an approach to values is very individualistic and tends towards alienation, making it very difficult to maintain harmonious and satisfactory relationships with other people. ³

      The French writer Albert Camus has commented on the way this view of life alienates a person from others and highlights the problem of living life without absolute moral standards. He considers life is an absurdity because it has no meaning or purpose. ⁴Such a view is destructive of both society and of individual fulfilment but is the inevitable consequence of materialistic evolution. Jean-Paul Sartre is another writer who spells out the implications of a world without a creator or meaning. He says that the very fact of existence horrifies him because there is not, and cannot be, any reason why anything should exist. He describes man as "a useless passion".⁵ In our view there is no doubt about the link between evolution and the changing values in the

      community. One of the things we appreciate about scientific writings is the honesty and fearless logic that drives those who search for truth. Jacques Monod was one such. A former director of the Pasteur Institute in Paris and Nobel prize winner for his work in genetics, Monod created widespread interest in 1970 with the publication of his book, Chance and Necessity. In the final chapter he spells out the implications of the scientific method, which he regards as the sole source of true knowledge. The scientific method rejects divine revelation, human philosophies such as Marxism and values based on historical personalities and traditions, all of which he calls the animist tradition. He deplores the fact that society is slow to accept the essential message of science, which is ". . . the defining of a new and unique source of truth, and the demand for a thorough revision of ethical premises, for a total break with the animist tradition, the definitive abandonment of the 'old' covenant', the necessity of forging a new one." He goes on to say: ". . . our societies are still trying to live by and to teach systems of values already blasted at the root by science itself."⁶

      He is very explicit about the significance of the changed view of truth that science espouses and the radical implications it has for society. He says: "By a single stroke it claimed to sweep away the tradition of a hundred thousand years, which had become one with human nature itself." He regards all other systems that claim to teach truth as fundamentally hostile to science which, he says, alone possesses "objective knowledge". He sees the conflict between science and traditional values as so radical that he says: "For the first time in history a civilization is trying to shape itself while clinging desperately to the animist tradition to justify its values, and at the same time abandoning it as the source of knowledge, of truth. For their moral bases the 'liberal' societies of the West still teach--or pay lip-service to--a disgusting farrago of Judeo-Christian religiosity, scientific progressism, belief in the "natural" rights of man, and utilitarian pragmatism."⁷

      Here is a scientist who has the courage to face the logical consequences of the scientific method. He sees objective knowledge as the only source of truth and with this new broom he sweeps away all religion and the traditional values of our western culture. What does he have to put in its place? He asks:

But henceforth who is to define crime? Who shall decide what is good and what is evil? All the traditional systems have placed ethics and values beyond man's reach. Values did not belong to him; he belonged to them. He now knows that they are his and his alone, and they no sooner come into his possession than lo! they seem to melt into the world's uncaring emptiness. It is then that modern man turns towards science, or rather against it, finally measuring its terrible capacity to destroy not only bodies but the soul itself.'

      So the scientific method, which recognises only objective knowledge, if taken to its logical conclusion destroys people's souls and the very soul of society itself. It has nothing to put in place of our traditional values. It even destroys hope, that precious final value that we cling to when all else is lost. It is no wonder Monod titled his final chapter "The Kingdom and the Darkness" or that he summarised the cold logic of his view by saying, "It wrote an end to the ancient animist covenant between man and nature, leaving nothing in place of that precious bond but an anxious quest in a frozen universe of solitude."⁶

      Here is a great scientist who has spelt out for all who are willing to hear the logical consequences of the application of the scientific method, which is the rationale of the theory of evolution. It leads to pessimism, cosmic loneliness and the death even of hope. The widespread acceptance of the view that life arose of itself and that there is no creator, who is also moral ruler and judge of mankind, has opened a Pandora's box of evil that has infected society and is causing much of the lawlessness and breakdown of traditional standards of decency that held society together and made life mutually supportive and trustworthy. In saying this we are not inferring that the social effects of evolution have any bearing on its truth or otherwise.

      But beliefs do affect behaviour. Is it possible to build a harmonious society on a nihilistic philosophy? We very much doubt it. If evolution, as presented by Monod and as generally understood, is true, it must have far reaching adverse effects on society. Meaning and purpose are essential elements of life; ultimate meaning should not be abandoned unless we have absolute proof that there is no meaning or purpose in existence. Some have suggested that Monod presents an extreme view, but there is an inexorable logic about his position that is undeniable. Without a creator life cannot have ultimate meaning.

      Lionel Milgrom is another writer who more recently expressed the same pessimistic views. Writing in New Scientist he says: "For I am slowly beginning to realise that there is nothing in the Western canon of scientific thought that offers a shred of comfort or has anything constructive to say about the big questions of life or death." He asks: "What are we here for?" Not finding an answer he says: "So it follows that what we do has no meaning (except to us, perhaps), whether we care for the environment or not. We are alone." He concludes by saying: "The point is that we have backed ourselves up an intellectual cul-de-sac where feelings and emotions are downgraded (thereby denying our totality as human beings), leaving us squarely on our own. Exciting as the scientific endeavour doubtlessly is, its vision of the universe is ultimately devoid of inner meaning. It lies in pieces at our feet and is, in essence, dead."⁸

      If the evolutionists are right, and it can be proved that life did arise Without the action of a designer and creator, then we shall have to accept that it is so and adapt accordingly, but, not only has it not been proved to be so, but many scientists, while agreeing that there has been great change over the centuries in living organisms, are not convinced that life arose and developed without some outside agency. Many believe that God brought life into being and has guided its development since, not as an architect who stands apart from his creation in proud and lofty splendour, but as the designer-builder who constantly works within the universe and in all living things and is the source, creator and sustainer of all life. Christians believe that the whole of creation, including all life on our earth, is an expression of God, for God is life.

      As the question of the origin of life and the evolution of the great variety of living forms extant today is still not settled one way or the other, we must all form our own opinion on this most important question. But we cannot come to an informed conclusion unless we know something of the incredible complexity of living organisms, as detailed in the following chapters.

      The theory of materialistic evolution stands or falls on the question of design. If its proponents can show how intricate living systems came into being by chance and natural selection alone, they have established their claim. If they cannot, all other supporting arguments are irrelevant, so most of what follows in this book is devoted to examining the question of whether this claim is true or false.

The Problem of Scientific Language

      One of the problems associated with evolution is that it is a scientific subject and all the books and articles that discuss the subject at depth are written in scientific language, which is often unintelligible to the average reader and also to students when first confronted with the subject in their studies. One needs to acquire a very specialised vocabulary in order to study the subject thoroughly.

      As a result, many people are content to accept the view of evolution presented in popular literature without critical examination. Advanced scientific textbooks discuss the differences in opinion and the gaps in our knowledge but the average person never hears about them.

      Here is a quotation taken at random from the book, Evolution, by Ayala, Dobzhansky, Stebbins and Valentine, which illustrates this language problem. It is an explanation of the symbiosis theory of the origin of the complex cells of plants and animals.

According to the theory, spirochetes became ingested and converted into the nuclear fibrils, centrioles and flagella of a primitive unicellular eukaryote. Blue-green algal cells became incorporated into the colourless unicellular eukaryote to form a simple green flagellate. Animals were derived from more highly evolved descendants of a colourless unicellular eukaryote or flagellated protozoan.¹

      So now we know how some scientists believe plant and animal cells came into being--or do we? just to make it even more difficult they present two other theories for the origin of complex cells: the invagination theory and the cluster clone theory, the first propounded by Raff and Mahler in 1972, the second by Bogorad in 1975.

      In this one quote we are confronted with two of the problems associated with the Darwinian theory of evolution: the problem of specialised language and the problem of conflicting theories. Many areas of the subject are still only hypothetical and lack reasonable certainty, despite what we have been led to believe. In this book we shall attempt to express the current state of thought on this subject in language that non-scientists can understand while at the same time maintaining the integrity of scientific thought and findings an almost impossible task, but unless it is attempted the subject will, for many, remain shrouded in mystery.

The Scientific Method

      Scientists follow a particular method in their efforts to discover truth. It is a universally accepted convention or rule that their research must be conducted by this method for their findings to be accepted as valid and for them to be published in recognised scientific journals. It is an attempt to establish what Monod called objective knowledge, which is the only source of knowledge recognised in scientific circles. The scientific method seeks to discover general principles from particular observations.

      Modern science really commenced in the 17th century when Francis Bacon and others began to increase their knowledge of the world by this line of reasoning. It follows four main steps: observation, which involves the collection of data on the subject being studied, prediction, in which an explanation is suggested for the behaviour observed (a hypothesis), testing of this hypothesis (not to see if it can be proved, but to see if it can be disproved-nothing is ever considered finally and totally proved in science but if a hypothesis cannot be disproved it is accepted as a working theory and treated as if it is correct, e. g. the theory of gravitation) and modification in the light of further knowledge (quantum theory has led to considerable modification of some theories previously considered to be virtually proved).

      We have no problems with the scientific method, as such. It has been the source of our ever-increasing knowledge of the world and has brought incalculable benefits to mankind. But we do have a problem with the claim that this is the only source of knowledge and the inability of the scientific community to admit the possibility that there might be a supernatural force or being that has been instrumental in the development of our universe and life on our planet. In the textbook, A Course in Biology, by Baker and Allen the following statement is made:

Despite its many contributions to human intellectual growth, health and general welfare, science does have severe limitations . . . By dealing only with sets of phenomena that can be experienced directly

- 10 -

or indirectly through the senses, science is necessarily excluded from other sets of phenomena. Such a qualification rules out any involvement of science in the supernatural. As the biologist George Gaylord Simpson puts it, "This is not to say that science necessarily denies the existence of immaterial or supernatural relationships, but only that, whether or not they exist, they are not the business of science."²

      So the concept of God as creator has been excluded from all scientific thought and literature. God cannot even be considered as a possible hypothesis by a scientist because he cannot be subjected to any empirical test. Although Simpson says that science does not necessarily deny God's existence it is silent about the possibility of his activity. He has been excluded from the arena of debate and scientists do not speak of him as a possible agent of creation for that would be contrary to the self-imposed scientific parameters. Baker and Allen sum up the scientific view in the following words. "The rationalist and nonrationalist views of the world are in fundamental conflict. The very methods of one are considered inapplicable by advocates of the other."³

      This statement, if read superficially, may be thought to imply that science and religion are, by their very nature, irreconcilable opposites that are mutually exclusive-one or the other must be right but both cannot be true. It is unlikely that this is what is meant. The authors have already stated that science operates only in the natural sphere but does not deny the existence of the supernatural. Science ignores the supernatural because it is outside the field of scientific research. It would be wrong to imply from this that science is atheistic. It is agnostic (it does not know) in respect to deity, but it is not atheistic, declaring that God does not exist.

      Dr Gareth Jones, Professor of Anatomy, Otago University, New Zealand, put the position clearly in a personal letter to the author. He wrote:

I think it is important that scientists are not seen as being opposed to, or antagonistic to, Christianity. After all, some of us are scientists and Christians. There is no essential antagonism between Christianity and science, although this often appears not to be the case in the evolutionary area . . . It has to be realised that science, by its very nature, is agnostic. This does not make it materialistic in a philosophical sense, or in any way anti-God. Indeed, this is what makes science so powerful in technical terms. All science is like this, including of course evolutionary science. The trouble in the evolutionary area is that the science per se (often very tenuous and highly speculative) is so readily transformed into a materialistic philosophy. However, I consider that evolutionary theory (as scientific

- 11 -

theory) should always be very carefully distinguished from materialistic evolutionism.⁴

      Because the material in this book is a critique of other published material it will be difficult to avoid giving the impression that we are critical of science and scientists but this is not intended. There is a fine line between evaluation and criticism. Charles Darwin was not criticising belief in a creator when he suggested a particular method of creation, nor are we criticising, in a wrong sense, when we point out the inadequacies that still exist in the modern form of his theory. There is nothing to be gained by polarising science and religion. We are in full agreement with Gareth Jones when he says:

Whatever position we take on the relation between science and Christianity, there will always be a great deal we do not know. This applies to science, but it also applies to Christianity (especially where a detailed Christian analysis in some contemporary area is being undertaken). Humility is needed on both sides, although I must admit this is frequently lacking on all sides.⁵

      Scientists may not agree with some of the terminology we have used or the way some ideas have been expressed but this does not at any time imply a conflict between science and religion. We believe that truth is a unity and although our search may follow different paths our progressive understanding of reality must mean that our paths will ultimately converge. We regret that for the present the possibility of a supernatural creator who is still actively engaged in the ongoing life of Earth is outside the scope of scientific research.

The Creation Science View

      The failure of neo-Darwinism to account for various aspects of the complexity of living organisms has led to some challenges from within the scientific world but a much more organised attack has come from conservative elements within the Christian church. Michael Denton, a molecular biologist, highlights the issue for us. He says:

According to Darwin, all the design, order and complexity of life and the eerie purposefulness of living systems were the result of a simple blind random process--natural selection. Before Darwin, men had believed a providential intelligence had imposed its mysterious design upon nature, but now chance ruled supreme. God's will was replaced by the capriciousness of a roulette wheel.⁶

      It was this confrontation with traditional religious belief that led to the formation of organisations to promote what is commonly called "Creation Science". We wrote to the Creation Science Foundation Ltd of Queensland

requesting an authoritative statement of their position and Robert Doolan, publications manager, sent us the following statement:

These organisations are composed of Christians who are scientists, academics and theologians, and others who maintain that the biblical statements about creation, the Fall and the Flood found in Genesis are literally true, were written to be understood as such, and are important to Christianity. Therefore, they teach that the earth is quite young, possibly not much more than 10,000 years, that Noah's Flood covered the whole earth, and that all living creatures, including man, were created fully functioning in six normal days. Present-day species and varieties are the descendants of these original created groups or kinds, exhibiting limited variation, adaptation and degenerative changes. Some of their adherents have sought to have the scientific evidence supporting this view presented side by side with scientific evidence for evolution in schools in America. Their views are opposed by the majority of scientists, and also by many Christians.⁷

      Robert Doolan has correctly noted that the Creation Science view is rejected by the majority of scientists and many Christians. It is based on the opposite premise to science. It is primarily dependent on faith in divine revelation; scientific evidence is used in a supportive role only. We are in sympathy with the purpose of this movement, but we question its dogma and its method. Most Christian scholars would see its understanding of the Genesis account of creation as unnecessarily literal. Genesis 1 can be understood in other ways that are consistent with the principles of interpretation and belief in the inspiration of the Bible.

      We have chosen not to use the method of challenging science by an appeal to the authority of scripture because it is impossible to have a debate that has any chance of resolving an issue if one side does not accept the authorities quoted by their opponents. The scientists, as scientists, cannot accept knowledge that the Christians say came by divine revelation to Moses. Each side is arguing from a different premise and it is impossible to conduct a rational discussion on this basis. This confrontation has generated a lot of heat on both sides but it can never, by its very nature, resolve this important issue. Some Christians are inclined to support Creation Science because it is the only organisation that is specifically defending God as creator and opposing a materialistic theory of evolution.

      But there is another way to challenge the Darwinian theory of evolution and that is to show weaknesses and inconsistencies in the arguments put forward by its advocates. The famous American barrister, Simon Greenleaf, pointed out that a lie never fits into the true facts but can be shown to be

a misfit, whereas truth is always in harmony with all the other known evidence. This is the basis on which truth is sought in our courts and the reason for cross examination of witnesses. If a witness's evidence coheres in a consistent manner with other evidence it is accepted as truth. If there are inconsistencies that refuse to fit the established facts they are regarded as lies. This is the only logical way for Christians, or anyone else, to test the theory of evolution. This is a method that scientists themselves use and that they respect and welcome.

      Creation Science writers are aware of this and seek to underpin their beliefs by scientific evidence, but because their beliefs, rightly or wrongly, are founded on scripture, they are considered to be beyond question. Scientific evidence that contradicts these beliefs is invariably challenged. Because of this feature of Creation Science writings we have chosen not to quote from any of their literature but we would encourage anyone who wishes to explore this subject fully to read it for themselves and form their own opinion.

      There is no common ground between dogma and science but surely both the scientific and the Christian explanations of the origin and diversification of living organisms must fit the known facts before they can be accepted as credible. Publication of scientific theories means that they are tested in the wider arena of others' findings and if they stand up to this searching examination any falsehoods are exposed and so truth is established. The Christian explanation must be judged in the same way. It must accord with the established facts. The logic is obvious. If we do not agree with the theory of evolution we must examine the theory itself to see if there are inconsistencies and points of conflict with known facts instead of challenging it with divine revelation. This is the line of argument we propose to use throughout this book.

      We tend to use words loosely, forgetting that words have specific meanings, modified only by the context in which they are used. If people would define their terms, and use words carefully and unambiguously, half the arguments would be settled before they begin. This is especially true of the evolution debate. What then is meant by the term "evolution"?

      Everyone associates evolution with Darwin's theory and assumes that the two are synonymous. While this is so in the public mind it is not always true for scientists, who use words more carefully. Evolution is a word that describes what has happened: life has evolved over the centuries. The Darwinian theory is an attempt to describe how this evolution occurred. So we must distinguish between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. In this book we are not disputing the fact; only questioning the theory. We will see how scientists claim that evolution is a fact. That claim does not necessarily establish the theory of neo-Darwinism. That is an entirely different issue. In our discussion of the subject we will sometimes use the term "evolution" in the popular sense, meaning the Darwinian theory, as scientists themselves often do, but the context should make the meaning clear.

      The theory of evolution states that a process of change has taken place beginning with the raw material of inorganic matter from which life emerged spontaneously and changed gradually into the many life forms that existed in the past and those that still exist on earth. Michael Archer of the University of New South Wales (1987) gives the following definition, which sums up the generally accepted understanding of the present form of the Darwinian theory:

      The origin of life from prebiotic substances and the subsequent differentiation through time of all species from pre-existing species, this ongoing process being the result of changes produced by natural selection and/or mutation in the genetic make-up of populations.¹

      This definition highlights the major features of the current theory of evolution:

• Life originated spontaneously from inorganic matter.
• There has been an unbroken line of development from the earliest life forms to the total number of life forms extant today.
• This change has come about through mutations (changes) in the genes and these changes are passed on to succeeding generations.
• Changes that are environmentally advantageous and reproductively superior, increasing a particular variant's progeny, tend to replace those forms that produce less progeny. This process is called natural selection.
• When changes occur in isolated populations the subsequent interbreeding tends to fix the changes and when different populations cannot interbreed they are classed as a new species.

      The inability to interbreed with other groups and significant differences in form and function are the criteria of species. The variations that occur within a species, such as different varieties of wheat, different types of finches, different races of people and different strains of influenza are not examples of evolution. They are examples of variation within a particular species. Scientists have been experimenting with Drosophila (fruit flies) and the bacterium Escherichia coli and have observed them through thousands of generations, including many variant forms, but they have not breached the species boundary; they have remained either fruit flies or bacteria. This kind of variation is not evolution in the strict sense.

      Within the broad lines of this definition there are many subtheories that seek to explain how the various changes have occurred; quite a number of these being in conflict with one another. For example, Eldredge and Gould opposed the theory of gradual change because it did not seem to be supported by the fossil record and they advocated a different theory that stated that evolution proceeded in spurts with long periods of no change between. It is called punctuated equilibria. Some speculate that birds developed from reptiles, and wings developed as they flapped their front feet trying to catch insects, while others think the reptiles climbed trees and tried to glide to earth, somehow, in the process, developing feathers. Some think tiny, progressive changes have occurred in the genes, others think that big gene changes in one generation have become a kind of gene pool for future generations, while yet others believe that the source of gene change is to be found in neutral mutations.

      While there is general agreement that evolution has occurred, there is certainly no agreement as to how it has occurred. R. J. Berry, commenting on this aspect says:

However, evolutionary biologists probably have a worse record for speculation than virtually any other scientists. Speculation is valid if it is used to form a hypothesis which can be tested, but far too much evolutionary speculation has remained at the level of guesswork.²

      Unfortunately, this is all too true, and the worst feature is that this speculation often becomes dogma and part of the accepted lore of the theory of evolution. The organelle theory of Lyn Margulis, the origin of life theory of "pre-biotic soup" by Oparin, and the "clay crystals" theory of life's origin by A. G. Cairns-Smith are all speculations without adequate evidence, but widely accepted because there is no better explanation. The unsureness that this speculation produces is illustrated by the writings of Richard Dawkins, who uses Oparin's "pre-biotic soup" theory as his basis for the origin of life in one of his books³ and Cairns-Smith's theory of clay crystals in his next book.⁴ He does not necessarily subscribe to either but seems to be having a bet each way.

      We have presented these instances to show that defining evolution is not a simple matter. The scientists agree that evolution has occurred according to the definition given earlier but they do not agree about how it has happened. They are prepared to consider any possible hypothesis except the action of a creator. That possibility is ruled out by the scientific method. The universe is regarded as a closed system and no suggestion of how life in its present forms has come about can be considered by scientists unless it is by natural and not supernatural means. That is the overwhelming impression given by most books on the subject. Some writers, however, suggest that evolution may have been the method God used. Michael Archer points out that many religious people believe this may be so, for the Genesis account does not say precisely how Cod created living creatures. If this possibility is allowed, most Christians would have no argument with the theory of evolution but, unfortunately, the textbooks in our schools do not generally include this as a possibility and, as a result, foster agnosticism rather than belief in God as the creator.

      The terms macroevolution and microevolution are sometimes used to distinguish between the evolution of new species and evolution within a species. Since the variations that occur within a species are not really evolution according to the generally accepted definition, the term microevolution is misleading. Even recognised textbooks do not always preserve this distinction, with resulting confusion. For example, the increase in the proportion of darker-coloured moths in the industrial are as of England, due to the soot-darkened bark on trees, is often cited as an instance of evolution. But the moths are all still classified as Biston betularia, only the percentage of coloured moths has changed. They are still moths and still the same species of moth.

      The change has come about because the lighter forms have been more easily seen by the birds and the darker ones have escaped detection. Because a small change has taken place this is called microevolution but because no new species has been created it should not be used as evidence supporting the Darwinian theory of evolution. When considering the theory of evolution we should be careful to confine the use of the word evolution to the major changes that are said to have produced humans from bacterial origins by the method that Michael Archer has summarised for us. We need to learn to distinguish the different ways in which writers use the term evolution and in particular their use of the term for either the fact of evolution or the theory of evolution.

      The American geneticist, R. C. Lewontin, states clearly and emphatically that evolution is a fact. When we examine the evidence that he cites in support of this claim we find that it is a recital of data that clearly shows progressive development. It is this development that he says is a fact. He is not saying that the theory of evolution is a fact even though he accepts neo-Darwinism. This distinction should not be overlooked. Here is a summary of seven facts that he believes have been established beyond question.

      Fact 1. The earth is more than 3.6 billion years old.

      Fact 2. Cellular life has existed for at least half this period.

      Fact 3. Multicellular life has existed for 800 million ears.

      Fact 4. Present major life forms have not always existed.

      Fact 5. Birds and mammals did not exist prior to 250 million years ago.

      Fact 6. The major past life forms are no longer living.

      Fact 7. All present life forms arose from ancestral forms which were different.

      He says, "No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."⁵ It might help to clarify our thinking in respect to the claim that evolution is a fact if we summarise the seven facts listed above into two major areas.

The Geological Column

      This is the name given to the layers of different rocks and fossils arranged in order of age. The bottom layers are the oldest strata and the top layers the youngest, except where upheavals, subsidence or water action has mixed the various strata. This natural sequence is not found in any one place but data from all continents has enabled geologists to establish an accurate age-scale of rocks and the fossils they contain. There are three methods of radiometric dating that are commonly used to determine the percentage of radioactive isotopes in rocks

and fossils. They are rubidium-strontium, potassium-argon, and uranium-lead. More than one method is used as a crosscheck. R. J. Berry says:

Radiometric dating has now been in use for long enough to conclude that the degree of consistency both between the results obtained by different methods applied to the same material and between radiometric dates and a geological time-scale based on criteria of another sort are too high to be dismissed.⁶

      This ability to date the rocks has enabled scientists to date the fossils found in them. Alan Hayward says: "A complete list of all these layers is called 'the geological column', and it is as fundamental to geology as the multiplication table is to arithmetic."⁷

      This widely recognised time-scale enables scientists to place fossils in their correct time sequence, and when we do this we discover a significant fact, namely, that the earliest forms of life were extremely tiny and comparatively simple in structure and that life forms diversified and became more complex with time. The earliest fossils are of bacteria, which are believed to be 3.5 billion years old. No new life forms are found for the next two billion years and it is not until we come to the 600-million-year-old strata that we see real diversity appearing. Around 570 million years ago (mya) a great number of diverse organisms appeared, all living in a water habitat. We use their fossils today for blackboard chalk and reflective road markers.

      No fossil plants are found until about 450 mya. Fish fossils commence about 450 mya and fossils of forest trees become abundant around the 300-mya strata. Insect and reptile fossils appear for the first time about this period. Dinosaurs and mammals are first found in strata at about 200 mya and flowering plants with pollen and seeds are not found until about the 100 mya strata. Modern birds first appear in the fossil record about 70 mya. Primates do not appear until about 50 mya and hominids are only found in strata from about 5 mya.

      The genus Homo does not appear until about 2 mya and those classified as Homo sapiens (humans) are variously dated from 500,000 years ago to 40,000 years ago. Nobody is quite sure when fully human beings first appeared. The Neanderthals, which are not generally considered to be fully human, inhabited Europe about 70,000 years ago but perhaps the fossils classified as Cro-Magnon were the first fully human beings. Their oldest fossils are dated around 40,000 years ago.

      This geological column of life appears to be so well authenticated that the order in which the various life forms appeared is regarded as an established fact even though there may be doubt about some dating. Creation Science writers do not accept the geological column of life as an established fact, challenging it on the basis of overthrusts and polystrate fossils, but for the

purpose of this critique we have accepted such claims where there is a general consensus of scientific opinion. This is the first broad area of data which scientists have in mind when they say that evolution is a fact.

The Common Features of Organisms

      The second area of data that scientists have in mind when they assert that evolution is a fact is the similarity of structure and function of organisms. Because these structures and functions are either identical or similar, and because all present life forms are descended from earlier life forms, it is said to be a fact that all life is related and can be traced back to a common origin. Several examples will illustrate what is meant by this.

      First, when we examine the cells of bacteria, fungi, plants, animals or humans, we find that the information code that is contained in the cell and that determines the nature of the particular organism, is similar in all cases. The genes and chromosomes are composed of the same materials and are constructed in very similar ways. The method of replication using enzymes and ribonucleic acid (RNA) is identical in all nucleated cells. All have the same method of obtaining energy and all use the same membrane structure. The very specific structure (the 9 + 2 arrangement of tubes) of the flagella in bacteria is also used in human bodies. The skeletal structure of birds, bats, animals and humans is strikingly similar.

      This almost universal use of organic structures and functions indicates a relationship that implies descent in all living organisms. So the common features of organisms is a fact. This is the second broad area of data that scientists have in mind when they say that evolution is a fact. These two areas of facts, namely, the geological column and the common features of organisms, are the basis on which the theory of evolution is built.

      Most Christians can accept these claims without any conflict of belief. It could be confusing to many people to say that evolution is a fact for they might take this to mean that the theory of evolution is no longer theory but is now a proved fact. Development of life forms is a fact; the Darwinian theory of evolution is a theory about how this development came about. The terms theory and fact are mutually exclusive. Evolution cannot be both. Ambiguous terms produce muddled thinking. We are not playing semantics here. This distinction is very important. To clarify our definition of evolution even further we will explore three different ways in which the term is used.

Intraspecies or Microevolution

      This is variation within a species, such as the variation that Darwin noticed in the finches of the Galapagos Islands, the variation in the dark- and light-coloured

      moth, Biston betularia, the Drosophila (fruit flies) of the Hawaiian islands and the adaptation of bacteria and influenza viruses to changing conditions. It would help clarify the subject considerably if these were called "variations" and not classed as evolution.

Interspecies or Macroevolution

      This is the major change that is claimed to take place by which the form is changed so radically that it is classified as a different species, class or phyla. It is claimed that bacteria developed into the complex eukaryotic cells that are the units of life of all plants and animals, that sea creatures became land-dwelling insects, birds and mammals and that human beings, with their superior brain, upright stance, language facility and moral qualities, developed from the primates.

Materialistic Evolution

      This is a philosophical, not a scientific, use of the term evolution. It refers to total evolution by natural causes and goes beyond interspecies evolution by suggesting that the origin of life and all the changes that have occurred from bacteria to humans are due entirely to physical causes such as the nature of matter and the chance association of atoms and molecules in their interaction with the environment.

      We must learn to read, and listen carefully, to know in which sense the writer or speaker is using the term evolution. Some scientists who are Christians see no conflict between the first two definitions of evolution and belief in God and the Bible, but they reject materialistic evolution. There are many unsolved issues and debate is continuing within the scientific community about many aspects and details of interspecies evolution but there is general agreement among scientists that the main basis of this type of evolution has been established. The main issue for Christians is whether this is due entirely to mutation and natural selection in interaction with the environment or whether the creative activity of a supernatural power is an essential element in the creative process.

      Can such a view of creation be reconciled with the Biblical account in Genesis? As far back as 1857 Philip Gosse posed an interesting question when he asked whether Adam had had a navel or not.⁸ Did he have a mother or was he created an adult by divine fiat? He applied the same question to the plant kingdom asking if trees were created fully grown. Were the mighty sequoia and mountain ash trees created 60 m tall in Eden, and did mature animals graze on the newly created grass and birds feed on the newly created fruits? The questions that come to mind are endless. Since our purpose is not

to reconcile the Bible with evolution but to challenge the materialistic concept of the theory of evolution we will not make any attempt to answer these questions, but they serve to show that special creation also has unanswered problems.

      If interspecies evolution is a fact it does not make the role of a creator unnecessary. By adding the concept of an intelligent force at work in evolution we would solve all the presently unsolved problems. One wonders why such people as Jacques Monod refuse to consider this simple and complete solution when they acknowledge the inability of chance to solve them. Monod writes:

The development of the metabolic system, which, as the primordial soup thinned, must have "learned" to mobilise chemical potential and to synthesise the cellular components, poses Herculean problems. So also does the emergence of the selectively permeable membrane without which there can be no viable cell. But the major problem is the origin of the genetic code and of its translation mechanism. Indeed, instead of a problem it ought rather to be called a riddle.⁹

      When a scientist adds belief in God to the unsolvable biological equation the problems are solved. Of course this understanding of creation means a reinterpretation of the traditional understanding of Genesis. There are books and commentaries that deal with this aspect and for those who wish to follow this up a good book with which to start would be God and Evolution by R. J. Berry. Dr Berry says: "There is no scriptural reason for disbelieving that God worked through biologically understood mechanisms of evolution by natural selection to produce the world as we see it today."¹⁰

      The more that scientists discover about living organisms, both plants and animals, the more they realise how incredibly complex they are, and how perfectly formed the various organs are for the functions they perform. Many people find it hard to believe that this remarkable degree of order and organisation originated in the chance association of chemical elements and random changes in the genes. It seems necessary to postulate an intelligence that designed such an amazing creature as a living, reproducing organism. When we discover how intricate and complex living organisms are, the logic of this reasoning seems to be overwhelming. The question which 1, and many others, want answered is: Are living organisms the result of chance or design? Scientists also see this as the central issue and have declared that there are only two possibilities: evolution from natural causes such as neo-Darwinism postulates or by the action of a supernatural being.

      Richard Dawkins's book, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), is one of many scientific works devoted to answering this question in support of the neo-Darwinian

theory of evolution. Other scientists disagree. Gordon Rattray Taylor's book, The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), Michael Denton's book, Evolution-A Theory in Crisis (1985), L. R. Croft's book How Life Began (1988), Alan Hayward's book, Creation and Evolution (1985), and F. Hitching's book, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982) are some recent publications that show the inadequacy of the theory of evolution to explain the origin of life and the great number of functionally perfect life forms.

      We are aware of the arguments that scientists give in support of the Darwinian theory of evolution but we do not find them adequate. There are considerable gaps in information at points that are really essential to the theory. Whole lines of argument are based on unproved speculation and some arguments are circular, proving nothing. There are so many unanswered questions that in the opinion of many scientists and mathematicians the claims made by the supporters of the neo-Darwinian theory have not been established beyond reasonable doubt. There is a danger that both supporters and opponents of the theory of evolution will elevate their views to the level of dogma, which they are willing to defend against all comers. Entrenched dogmatists, whether Christian or scientific, are a hindrance to those who genuinely want to know the truth.

      In order to make an informed decision it is necessary to have some knowledge of the facts. We are now ready to look at living organisms in some detail and see the issues and their associated problems.

      The most widely accepted current theory of the origin of the universe is called the "big bang" theory. It says that the universe did have a beginning and that it commenced with a massive explosion. This explosion did not occur at one central point but was simultaneous throughout space with every particle being thrust away from every other particle in a sudden, all pervasive, expansion. It is not known how or why this happened. Weinberg in his book, The First Three Minutes, says that it has been calculated that at the end of the first three minutes the temperature was one thousand million degrees and most of the universe was in the form of light, neutrinos and antineutrinos. If this is so, the first evidence that the universe had come into being was the existence of light. Light existed before the sun was formed.

      The Australian scientist, Macfarlane Burnet, says that our knowledge of matter and energy strongly supports the big bang concept. This event was, of course, the most significant event of history, but its cause remains a mystery. Another mystery that puzzles scientists is the remarkable properties of, and the laws that govern, matter. How did the various elements, and the laws they are governed by, come to exist out of "the structureless plasma of the first moments of creation"? Burnet asks.

      He goes on to say:

It is hard to see any reason other than an intrinsic necessity for the evolution of life for the physical qualities of matter and energy being primarily what they are. If they had been significantly different from what we observe we should not be here to wonder about the nature of the universe . . . It is as if the universe has been designed to have all the properties that would ensure that, once initiated, complexity and meaning would arise and life emerge.¹

      John Polkinghorne, in his book Science and Creation, discusses this kind of reasoning, which is called the anthropic principle. The delicate balance required at the very beginning of the universe made it possible for beings as complex as humans to come into existence. He says:

For example, we know that there has to have been a very close balance between the competing effects of explosive expansion and gravitational contraction which . . . would have corresponded to the incredible degree of accuracy represented by a deviation in their ratio from unity of only one part in 10⁶⁰. [Written out that would read 1 followed by 60 zeros.] Had that balance tilted a little more in the direction of expansion, then matter would have flown apart so fast that a world would have resulted too dilute for anything interesting to happen in it. On the other hand, had the balance tilted a little more in the direction of contraction then the world would have collapsed in again upon itself before we had time to appear upon its scene.²

      Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist, attributes this fine tuning to some influence beyond the cosmos itself. He says: ". . . the two forces have to be tuned to each other with the astonishing accuracy of one part in ten thousand billion billion billion billion." He adds:

It is hard to resist the impression of something-some influence . . . possessing an over-view of the entire cosmos at the instant of its creation, and manipulating all the causally disconnected parts to go bang with almost exactly the same vigour at the same time, and yet not so exactly co-ordinated as to preclude the small scale, slight irregularities that eventually formed the galaxies and us. ³

      We have already noted that the central mystery of existence is related to the alternatives of chance or purpose. This is the fundamental problem at the heart of physics as well as biology. Paul Davies believes that this problem will not be solved by the traditional approach. In an article in New Scientist, he discusses a possible new approach. He says: "Most people accept without question that the physical world is coherent and harmonious. Yet according to the traditional scientific picture, the universe is just a random collection of particles with blind forces acting upon them. There is, then, a deep mystery as to how a seemingly directionless assembly of passive entities conspire to produce the elaborate structure and complex organisation found in nature."⁴ He draws attention to the fact that the complexity of the cosmos increases with time and that the creative activity of nature is a continuous process.

      Davies's quest is to discover the source of this creative power. He has not suggested that this is a supernatural power but can that possibility be ruled out? This creative power of matter and its capacity for self-organisation is universal and is a mystery that applies to astronomy, chemistry and biology. All branches of science are seeking to discover the source of this creative, organising force. There have been major changes this century in the understanding

      of physical science, so much so that it is now called the New Physics. Physicists now regard matter as dynamic. Without reading too much into the word, they regard the universe as "intelligent". Matter contains a creative principle within itself. We will deal with this more fully in chapter 13.

      Charles Birch comments on this view in his book, On Purpose. He quotes Charles Hartshorne's statement that: "The only positive explanation of order is the existence of an orderer."⁵ Fred Hoyle says, "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."⁶ The earlier materialistic view of matter is giving way to the idea of a super-intelligence that created matter with its amazing potential for life. This suggestion, that there is need for intelligent design from the very moment of the origin of matter, supports 'the concept of a creator. We are reminded of the matter-of-fact simplicity of the opening words of the Bible: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

      Taylor in his book, The Great Evolution Mystery, expresses the same thought. He says, "Is this, then, the secret of life: that it is a necessary consequence of the structure of matter?"⁷ Why do crystals and snowflakes form the way they do? They follow some inbuilt law. When we ask how such laws and order arose out of primeval chaos we cannot find an answer and even when we accept the Bible statement that God designed and created our universe we still have the unanswered question that most children ask: "Who made God?" We have to be honest and say that that is a mystery we hope some day to understand but for the present we do not know.

      In all chemical formulas, as in a cooking recipe, the correct ingredients have to be present in the correct proportions and have to be assembled in the correct sequence to produce the desired result. Formulas and recipes have to be very specific. Randomly mixing any ingredients in any proportion would never produce a consistent or worthwhile result. By the same logic, it could hardly be coincidence, that just the right elements needed for life are present on earth with the ability to combine in the right way to produce living organisms. We may not be able to prove or disprove the existence of an intelligent being who existed before the world began, but in view of the specific nature of matter it is a suggestion that appears to be more consistent with the facts than the concept of chance and coincidence.

      There is a mysterious quality of the cosmos that is as yet an unresolved riddle. The complexity and organisation of the cosmos is increasing with time. There is a continuous creative force at work in nature. The galaxies, which began as featureless gas clouds, have become organised heavenly bodies. The biosphere (the region where life exists) has developed from inorganic chemical molecules into extremely complex and diversified life forms. Paul Davies

says: "According to the second law [of thermodynamics], the universe is inexorably degenerating, sliding irreversibly towards a state of maximum entropy, or chaos. Yet the facts flatly contradict this image of a dying universe."⁸ Complexity has increased with time. Karl Popper regards this creativity within nature as "the greatest riddle of cosmology."⁹ How did it acquire its incredible potential for complexity and diversity? It is not surprising that some leading scientists and astronomers think that the universe is the product of intelligence. It seems that however far we push back the frontiers of knowledge mystery still remains-in fact it deepens as knowledge increases.

      The origin of life is the greatest mystery of all. Scientists suggest two main possibilities: either life arose on earth or it came to the earth from outer space. The astronomer, Fred Hoyle, considers that it is virtually impossible for life to have arisen on earth of itself, and therefore he believes that earth must have been seeded with life from outer space. There are some conditions that he feels make this a possibility but only a few scientists have supported this view. Even if it were so, it does not solve the problem of life's origin--it only pushes it one step further back.

      One of the major motivations for landing a satellite on Mars was to see if life existed there, and considerable expense was devoted to this project. To the great disappointment of scientists, the Mars probe did not establish that there were living organisms there. There is no definite evidence of life any-where in the universe.

      In searching for life's origin on earth some scientists have noted the close similarity of some non-living substances and living organisms so that the distinction between inorganic and organic forms seems indistinct, but this similarity is only an apparent one. When they are examined under the electron microscope and other methods of analysis, the difference is quite definite.

      For an organism to be alive it must be able to repair and replicate itself. To do this it must possess information that directs the formation of molecules and cells, controls the growth and pattern of the organism, and generates an energy source to fuel the process. The whole process must be automatic. The key factor is the information within the cell that directs and controls this process of replication. Where did this information come from? How did the extremely complicated molecule of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) that contains this information arise? We will look at this in more detail in the next chapter.

      The generally accepted theory of the origin of life is that a mixture of some particular chemicals gathered in solution in the ocean or, more probably, in

shallow freshwater ponds, commonly called the pre-biotic soup, where they were changed by lightning strikes or ultraviolet rays into amino acids and other molecules that are the raw material of the more complex molecules of living organisms. This has already been achieved in laboratory experiments.

      In 1953 Stanley Miller and Harold Urey set up an experiment in which they subjected a mixture of methane, ammonia and hydrogen gases, plus water vapour, to an electrical discharge to simulate lightning, and they were able to produce some amino acid molecules, which are the building blocks of proteins, one of the components of living cells.¹ Living organisms only use twenty of the available amino acids for the construction of proteins. In the experiment other amino acids were produced besides those used in protein construction. Some selecting principle was at work in choosing twenty specific amino acids only for use in living cells.

      Also, the molecules that are used in living cells have a unique characteristic, they are all "left handed." Molecules come in two forms, one being a mirror image of the other. The amino acids produced in the experiment were a mixture of both kinds. We do not know why only left-handed molecules are used in living cells but this is so. Here, then, is a second selection process operating at the very foundation of life. It seems that there is intelligence operating at this very fundamental level.

      Many scientists no longer consider the Oparin-Haldane "pre-biotic soup" theory to be correct. Miller assumed that the primitive atmosphere had come from the solar nebula and therefore consisted of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapour.

      Geologists now doubt this because recent evidence supports the idea that earth's primitive atmosphere came from the interior of the earth and consisted of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, water vapour and a little hydrogen, but no methane or ammonia. Methane would have been necessary for the synthesis of amino acids. Because hydrogen escapes from the atmosphere, Robert Shapiro says that it is unlikely that the correct balance with carbon dioxide would have been achieved for the synthesis of amino acids. Even if methane and ammonia had existed they would have been destroyed by sunlight in a short time. The geologist, Lars Sillen, calls it, "The myth of the pre-biotic soup".²

      Shapiro is equally sceptical. In his book, Origins, he says:

The very best Miller-Urey chemistry, as we have seen, does not take us very far along the path to a living organism. A mixture of simple chemicals, even one enriched in a few amino acids, no more resembles a bacterium than a small pile of real and nonsense words, each written on an individual scrap of paper, resembles the complete works of Shakespeare.³

      Carl Woese summed up the opinion of a number of his colleagues when he wrote:

The Oparin thesis has long ceased to be a productive paradigm: It no longer generates novel approaches to the problem; more often than not it requires modification to account for new facts; and its overall effect now is to stultify and generate disinterest in the problem of life's origin. These symptoms suggest a paradigm whose course is run, one that is no longer a valid model of the true state of affairs.⁴

      Despite these rather devastating opinions of scientists involved in this area of research our school textbooks continue to teach the "organic soup" theory of the origin of life as if it were an established fact.

      Gene Bylinsky admits that no scientist has yet been able to perform an experiment that will show how DNA can arise from random chemical molecules. He points out that the problem is that nucleic acids (DNA) cannot reproduce themselves without enzymes, and enzymes cannot be made without the instruction contained in nucleic acids, so scientists are forced to the conclusion that both must have been made at the same time.⁵ Such a chance coincidence is improbable almost to the point of impossibility.

      The problem is similar to the internal combustion engine with its two independent systems of fuel and electricity. The fuel system is useless without the spark and the spark is useless without the fuel. Also, they must not only be combined, they must be co-ordinated perfectly for the engine to function. This is only possible because an intelligent person combined and co-ordinated them.

      A similar problem is posed by construction of the membrane that encloses the cell and makes living cells possible. Membranes are made of proteins and lipids that are made from instructions encoded in DNA. But these can only be made with in a cell, so where did the first membrane come from? Simpson says that the question of how DNA acquired its extremely complex information, which is literally a blueprint for living tissues and organs, is the fundamental problem of evolution.

      In a textbook used by biology classes, reference is made to the ability of chemical units to form molecules of amino acids that are the building blocks of proteins, and it is suggested that each particle may be able to break up and grow. It is then suggested that this may take place when DNA is present, but no explanation is given of how DNA came to be there. Then, on the basis of this hypothetical situation, it is said that these original replicating particles gave rise to cellular forms. No evidence is presented except the theory of the formation of the building blocks of amino acids; the rest is argument built on speculation.⁶

      We found this kind of speculation presented as evidence in many of the books supporting the theory of evolution. It throws considerable doubt on the validity of the theory when, on the critical points where facts are needed to support it, we find only arguments based on assumptions that are treated as if they were established facts. It is perfectly acceptable to propose possible models and hypotheses where reasonable certainty cannot be established, but the reader needs to learn to distinguish between a proposition based on facts and one based entirely on speculation.

      Since the intricate process of cell division was discovered it appears that something organises the molecules and directs their activities; but how did this organisation within the cell originate? It is generally acknowledged that this is the most difficult problem for the chemosynthetic theory of the origin of life. Oparin believes that the origin of life was neither a random process, nor a miracle, but the inevitable result of the exceptionally appropriate properties of matter. He considers that the biggest problem is the origin of enzymes, those remarkable proteins which are the catalysts making possible the specific steps needed in the functioning of a cell. Enzymes only have significance and a use if they are part of the whole system, so the whole system must have come into existence at the same time for it to exist at all.

      P. B. and J. S. Medawar in their book, The Life Science, explain how enzymes are the catalysts that make possible the duplication, decoding, editing and translating of the instructions contained in DNA, plus the manufacture of the energy required to make this possible. They work in assembly-line-type sequences to produce sequential changes of great complexity. They are the body's robots producing accurately made body parts.⁷ How did they come to exist? It is inconceivable that such specificity could be the result of chance.

      The origin of both DNA and enzymes cannot be satisfactorily explained by the evolutionary concepts of mutation and natural selection, for these cannot come into operation until after replicating life exists.

      The book, Seven Clues to the Origin of Life, by A.G. Cairns-Smith, is a very thorough treatment of this subject. Cairns-Smith notes that all organisms have the same biochemistry, which strongly suggests that all have a single source or ancestor, and because this single path to life has been chosen out of many other possibilities he thinks that the very nature of the raw materials is not the result of chance but of planning. He points out that while chemical molecules abound, the particular molecules that are required for a living cell, the nucleotides and lipids, are so complicated that it is absurd to imagine them coming into being by chance; they appear to be made for a particular purpose.

      Cairns-Smith considers it reasonable to think that simple amino acids, the chemical building blocks out of which proteins are made, existed before living

      organisms; but, he says, to imagine that primed nucleotides (genes) could have preceded living cells is like imagining a tossed coin falling heads 1,000 times in a row. He believes that fourteen steps would be necessary to make the first primed nucleotide of DNA and an average of ten unit operations would be required for each step, i.  e. 140 events in the correct sequence. He calculates that the possibilities are about 10¹⁰⁶ which he naturally regards as impossible odds. He concludes that there must have been earlier organisms that did not use the nucleotides of DNA.

      The scientific convention denies that there is any intelligence or purpose in evolution so a purely natural cause has to be postulated. He turns to clay crystals, which form spontaneously, to seek an answer. He notes that there is a physical similarity between the crystals of clay and the structure of the chloroplasts in plant cells. He speculates that inert clay may have somehow formed itself into the intricate patterns of RNA and developed the ability to reproduce itself. His conclusion is that "somehow, well-organised RNA-like molecules came to help amino acids to join up into chains".⁸ He does not explain where the "well-organised RNA-like molecules" came from, he simply pulls them out of the magician's hat of his imagination. "Somehow" is a very unscientific explanation for the origin of life. It is a rather weak conclusion to a very thoughtful book, which carefully explored the possibilities.

      In any case, as Shapiro has pointed out, this hypothesis is suggesting a mineral basis for life, whereas living organisms are always based on carbon chemistry. Despite this, Cairns-Smith's views have been treated seriously by the scientific world. They are quoted by J. M. Valentine as one of the likely solutions to the origin of life but he comments that the scenario is "highly speculative". Valentine does not consider the possibility of an intelligent creator because, as a scientist, he cannot, even though the possibility seems to have occurred to him. He adds, "Falsification of the creation hypothesis, or creationism, is impossible, therefore the whole idea lies beyond the purview of science."⁹

      Richard Dawkins, in his book The Blind Watchmaker, also takes Cairns-Smith's clay crystals theory of the origin of life seriously. He devotes ten pages of his book to expounding it, with his own embellishments. He suggests that DNA developed from flaws in the clay that were improved by cumulative selection until they finally developed the intricate code specifying a living organism. He imagines ". . . each one 'inheriting' its 'parents' pattern of flaws."¹⁰ This is not science; it is more like science fiction. It illustrates the considerable amount of purely imaginative speculation that is intermixed with the more serious hypotheses of the theory of evolution. Theodosius Dobzhansky shows the fallacy of this kind of reasoning in his book, The Biology of Ultimate Concern. He says: "The existing accounts of the origin of life leave one uncomfortable,

and this is not so much because the information available is incomplete, but rather because they involve a curious form of the logical error known as petitio principii." In this instance the error concerns natural selection. He says, "How and when natural selection arose is precisely the crux of the problem of the origin of life. Natural selection is differential reproduction; when two forms of life reproduce at ratios different from unity natural selection is operating but for natural selection to operate there must be reproduction, and reproduction is the key property of life."¹¹

      Therefore natural selection cannot be a cause of life because it cannot operate until life already exists and is reproducing itself. So it is a fallacy to suggest, as the "pre-biotic soup" and the "clay crystals" theories do, that natural selection was a directive force in the origin of life. One has to understand the complexity of the DNA code and its highly intelligent message to appreciate the absurdity of it arising from flaws in clay crystals. It is like saying that the blueprints for a jet fighter developed by chance and natural selection from flaws in clay crystals.

      Dawkins seems to realise how absurd the idea is when he admits that it will probably sound "far-fetched" or "wildly improbable" to his readers. He acknowledges that at times he feels that only a miracle could have produced a self-replicating molecule. But his concept of a miracle is a series of minute developments over vast periods of time so that they are not observable, only the finished product emerging as though a miracle had produced it.

      But to be fair to Dawkins we should note that he is wrestling with the ultimate problem of the origin of intelligence. He says: "To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer."¹² He is quite right, of course. The Jewish, Christian and Islamic belief that a personal intelligence, called God, designed life and brought it into being does not explain God's existence. The difference between the agnostic and those who believe in God as a creator is that the agnostic seeks to explain the origin of intelligent design by natural processes, whereas the theists do not try to discover the ultimate origin of intelligence, but start with the existence of God, believing that his origin is beyond human knowledge. These conflicting views of the origin of life have far-reaching social implications, as we shall see later.

      Fred Hoyle in his book, The Intelligent Universe, is quite definite in his view that life could not, and did not, originate on earth. He believes that it would have been impossible for life to have evolved by chance. He estimates that getting the right sequence for the composition and assembly of the 2,000 enzymes necessary for life would be odds of 1 followed by forty pages of zeros. As there are 200,000 proteins the odds would be 100 times greater for proteins.

      He says, "In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth."¹³ Hoyle calls such speculation "unsubstantiated fantasies".

      He notes that Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, is also doubtful that life could have originated spontaneously from the organic soup of the primitive earth. In fact, Crick is so convinced of the improbability of life having arisen spontaneously on earth that he has written a book, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, to support the hypothesis that life was sent to this earth in space capsules from some other civilization. Such completely unfounded speculation by leading scientists only highlights the insuperable problem the origin of life presents to the scientific community. Because of the complexity of even tiny bacteria Hoyle believes that life could only have been initiated by an intelligence. He thinks that it is probable that earth was seeded with life from space in the form of bacteria or some such primitive life form. He draws attention to the remarkable balance between carbon and oxygen that is essential in living systems, and also the delicate balance between protons, electrons and neutrons in the atom, without which the whole universe would collapse. He questions whether these things are "happy accidents" or designed by an intelligence. There are so many features of the universe and of matter that are "Just right", yet, without these qualities, life could not exist.

      Hoyle concludes that the only possible explanation for such coincidences is that an intelligence has brought them into being. He does not say this to imply a belief in God, he simply feels the necessity to postulate an intelligence to account for the existence of life. He regards the view of scientists that life arose from non-living matter as ". . . more dogmatic than scientific". He points out that God is a forbidden word in science, and while he does not subscribe to the concept of God in the traditional sense, he sees the necessity of postulating an intelligence that produced both matter and life. He considers that even the Darwinian evolutionists make the tacit assumption that the environment is intelligent.¹⁴

      Robert Shapiro also suggests that ". . . someone has arranged the laws of chemistry so that they operate for our benefit". He goes on to say: "An unstated, essentially religious assumption is made: the Creator has arranged things that way. This assumption, of course, lies outside of science. Perhaps, if all other explanations should fail, in the end we will have no option but to accept the idea of supernatural forces. Until we reach that point, however, we must look for rational ways of accounting for the data.¹⁵

      And so the search goes on. We have noted that it is highly unlikely that life arose by chance. The properties of matter and the purposeful organisation of DNA in the living cell point to the work of an intelligence. In what

form would this intelligence be? Can intelligence exist apart from personality? Personality is composed of the attributes of thinking, feeling and willing; it implies a person; a being. If such a person exists what is the person like? Some may call this being God, others without a religious faith may not be sure; but it is a question that every thinking person will ponder.

      The process of photosynthesis is essential for the support of all life on earth but nobody really knows how it originated. Grzimek's Encyclopedia of Evolution offers no explanation of its origin but simply says that the earliest life forms used solar energy to power photosynthesis, and that it probably took 2.5 billion years for the process to develop.¹ Exponents of the theory of evolution seem to have a naive faith in great periods of time to achieve almost anything, especially to solve problems for which they have no adequate explanation.

      G. R. Taylor discusses the origin of blue-green algae, one of the earliest forms of life that had the capacity to photosynthesise, and says he cannot conceive how this complicated process could have developed by chance. He says: "Unless there was some inner necessity, some built-in, primordial disposition to consolidate into such a pattern, it is past belief that anything so intricate and idiosyncratic should appear."²

      Valentine says: "We have no idea just when in the history of the protocell the use of radiant energy to promote biochemical reactions first developed." He also says: "At some point one or more lineages developed the ability to utilise solar energy, reducing the requirements for organic materials, and eventually leading to the complex process of photosynthesis that freed plants from reliance on organic compounds."³

      Photosynthesis is a chemical process by which light uses air and water to produce such carbon compounds as carbohydrates, sugars and starches. All life is dependent on carbon and the source of carbon is photosynthesis. All animals are dependent on photosynthesis for their food so it must have originated prior to animal life. Although earlier organisms, such as halobacteria, are simpler, and later ones are more highly developed and complicated, there is nothing simple about any process of photosynthesis.

      The key unit in the process in eukaryotic plants is the chloroplast, which is an extremely complex organelle containing chlorophyll, which gives every indication of having been designed. Chlorophyll is a light-absorbing pigment that is tuned to receive the electromagnetic energy of a limited band of the

light spectrum. Its electrons are stimulated by light and function in the same way as a photoelectric cell. The absorbed energy is gathered by light-absorbing antenna, which are arranged in a network that channels the electron energy to a central point where it is used to drive a proton pump, which produces adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the fuel that is used by all living organisms.

      The chlorophyll molecules are embedded in the membranes of enclosed units called thylakoids, which, in turn, are arranged in orderly stacks called grana. A double membrane encloses the whole unit called the chloroplast There are many chloroplasts in each cell in the leaves of plants. The structure of the chloroplast is so specific and highly organised that it is generally accepted in the scientific community that this could not have been the original form of life.⁴

      The fact that there are no known earlier forms of life than the photosynthetic algae and bacteria poses a problem. Life appears to have arrived fully developed. The forms of life that use photosynthesis are called autotrophs. Simpson says:

Autotrophy requires more complex organisation and metabolism than heterotrophy [the process that uses living organisms for food]. It strains the scientific imagination too far to think that the very first organisms can have been so complex, and no one has succeeded in visualising in convincing detail how such organisms could originate from molecular forerunners.⁵

      So plants, with their highly complex organisation, should not be thought of as primitive, or necessarily an early stage of the evolutionary process.

      The transformation of light into the energy of ATP and NADPH is only the first phase of the function of chloroplasts. This is called the light phase. The second function performed by chloroplasts utilises this stored energy to extract carbon from the atmosphere and make it available to the plant for the building of new living tissue. Because this process does not require light it is called the dark phase, and continues both day and night. This is made possible by a particular sugar molecule, and various enzymes, in a carefully orchestrated sequence of events, and it is impossible to imagine how this process could have originated without intelligent design.

      A chloroplast is a remarkable machine that is fully automated, totally silent, continuous and absolutely essential for the support of all life on earth. Whether we eat plants or animals we are sustained by the products of photosynthesis. We cannot help but marvel at its complexity and wonder about the origin of this process that we take so much for granted. All the combined wisdom of present-day science has not been able to devise a process by which light can be transformed into living tissue. It seems to us that it would be impossible for such specificity of components, plus the orderly arrangements of those

components, and the correct sequence of the processes, to be the result of chance mutation and natural selection alone. The theory of evolution does not provide an adequate explanation of this most fundamental of all life processes.

      We are now ready to explore the remarkable microscopic world of the living cell, which can be likened to a miniature civilisation with its own government, office staff, assembly plant, tool-making section, workers, power plants, transport system, repair department and, most remarkable of all, the capacity to duplicate itself within the organism and to combine with elements of another cell to build a separate new organism. G. G. Simpson describes the cell as the most intricate system in existence, more complicated and elaborate than the most advanced electronic computers or automated factories made by people. Evolution theory says that this complex, co-ordinated system came into being spontaneously by the chance association of atoms and by a gradual natural process. We discussed its origin in chapter 5 and showed how natural selection cannot operate until a process of replication exists.

      This complexity of the earliest cells poses a problem. The simplest cells known, the bacteria, are scarcely less complex than human cells. Simpson notes this problem, saying that bacteria are extremely complex in their molecular composition and structure and do not differ fundamentally from the cells of higher plants and man.¹ Bacteria and mycoplasma are the smallest living things known. Michael Denton has pointed out that the component design of the synthetic machinery of all cells is practically the same, so we cannot regard any cells as primitive and ancestral to any other cells, as there is no evidence for an evolutionary sequence between bacterial cells and human cells. Some had hoped that the recent discoveries in the realm of molecular biology would have given evidence of intermediate forms linking them but this has not happened.²

      To describe the complex organisation of a cell scientists use the analogy of a factory. The DNA on which the genes are imprinted is the blueprint (it is more dynamic than this word implies) that contains all the instructions for building the cell and for its reproduction, including the design of its component parts, plus the design of all the different types of cells and proteins needed in the organism, plus the design of the whole organism, determining

whether it will be a plant, an insect, a fish, a bird or a human being. This information is in code form and can be regarded as a language in the same way as Morse code or digital information is language. It is read in units of three and has signals for start and stop just as we use punctuation. In humans there are about five billion units of coded instructions which would fill a thousand 600-page books if printed.³

      When the control mechanism of the cell requires a particular part made, it first takes a copy of the required section of the DNA blueprint, using a chemical process of duplication. An enzyme then edits this, cutting out the parts not required for the particular protein, and splices it just as a film editor splices film. The duplicated blueprint portion is then transported outside the nucleus into the working area of the cell. Here it is fed through a translating machine, which reads it and translates it from the four-letter language of DNA into the twenty-letter language of the amino acids used to manufacture proteins. As it is fed through the reading and translating apparatus the correct amino acid identified by the code is brought to this complex protein machine (the ribosome) by an enzyme (t-RNA) and attached to the growing chain of protein until the complete protein molecule is made. Robert Shapiro's description of this part of the process is worth quoting:

A group of molecules exist . . . we will call them the interpreters. They are special enzymes, best visualised as two-handed molecules. Each of them is capable of recognising and selecting a single amino acid out of the set of twenty, using one "hand". With the other "hand" it seizes the appropriate small RNA molecule (a transfer RNA) from the mixture present in the cell. The enzyme then joins the two together.⁴

      These enzymes are the equivalent of assembly line workers adding components to make a fully functioning machine, in this instance a protein. The completed proteins then go to a processing unit where they are sorted. Those to be exported outside the cell are packaged in envelopes and moved by the transport system out through the cell membrane. All this activity requires energy, which is supplied by a number of oxygen-driven power-generating units within the cell, the mitochondria. Each cell also has an elaborate defence system to protect itself from invasion by harmful pathogens. We will deal with this in detail in chapter 8. This division of labour and specific activity of various interdependent units within the cell indicates the presence of some co-ordinating factor and an element of purpose directing the activity towards a specific end. The evolution theory rejects the idea of a teleological (purposeful) explanation, but if a factory has purpose, so does a living cell, because in both every component and function contributes in some essential way to the manufacture of an end product.

      The high degree of organisation in the cell is even more evident in the remarkable processes by which the cell duplicates itself and manufactures either egg or sperm for the making of a new organism. These two processes, called mitosis and meiosis, are activated by control hormones. When the hormone switch is turned on the DNA forms itself into sections called chromosomes, which are then duplicated and held together by a small unit called a centromere. The centromeres line the paired chromosomes up around the equator of the cell, then divide. Each half tows its chromosome towards opposite poles that have developed in the cell. A new nuclear membrane is then built to enclose each group, after which the cell divides producing two daughter cells.⁵

      When egg or sperm cells are required an additional process takes place whereby only unpaired chromosomes are produced, so that when the sperm and egg combine the new cell created will still have the usual forty-six chromosomes of a human cell, with half the distinctive characteristics from each parent, so creating variety, and making each individual distinct.⁶ The genes that contain these distinctive characteristics are only a tiny part of the chromosome, being only about 10 to 100 millimicrons in diameter. A millimicron is 0.000001 mm.

      It is hard for the mind to grasp how such highly specialised information, and such specifically controlled processes, can exist in such a miniaturised state and operate totally automatically. Surely such specificity and co-ordination must be the product of intelligence. Simpson says that it is impossible that anything so complicated as a human being could arise by chance, but must be the product of some set program, and this is the fundamental problem of evolution.⁷ He believes that the program is inherent in the nature of matter, and its interaction with the environment, but many believe that this cannot explain the apparent purpose that cells demonstrate.

      If there is intelligence and purpose, where did it originate and where does it reside? Not in the brain, because the brain is only a physical organ composed of cells that have been built from the instruction contained in DNA. The brain is simply a computer of incredible complexity, as we shall see in chapter 9. Since the brain was built by instructions from DNA, is DNA the source of intelligence? This cannot be so either, because DNA is simply an instruction tape three million base pairs long.

      So we come back to one of the fundamental questions of evolution. Is the DNA a product of random chemical combinations or is it the result of intelligent and purposive design? Readers must decide this question for themselves. Until scientists can come up with a satisfactory explanation of the origin of DNA many people will feel unable to accept the evolutionary theory of the spontaneous origin of this highly organised and apparently purposeful

      process. Following the experiments of Louis Pasteur we thought that the scientific world had accepted the axiom that living organisms cannot be spontaneously generated-life only comes from pre-existing life-but the theory of evolution has had to retain belief in the spontaneous generation of the initial living cell for it to be a complete coherent explanation.

      We think it is more reasonable to suggest that we can trace our ancestry back to a superior intelligence behind all life, and to believe that we are made in the image of God, than to believe that our ancestry began spontaneously and fortuitously in a chemical solution, with our first ancestors being algal slime or bacteria. Psychologists affirm that a feeling of self-worth and identity is important for us all. It is difficult to achieve this self-worth when we see ourselves as the product of mere chance chemical events that took place in this way, but we can accept this humble beginning and Process if we see ourselves as created for a purpose by a very wise and good Being who, after many millennia, brought the living organisms he had created to such a level of development that they could be said to be in the image and likeness of the creator himself.

      Before we leave the discussion about the role of DNA in forming both our bodies and our characters there is an ethical question that needs to be raised. If human beings are merely programmed by the DNA, what implication does this have for behaviour? Are we just robots and not really to blame for the things we do? It would be a nice cop-out if this were so but the facts of life and the laws of society suggest otherwise. We know that we are continually confronted with alternatives and that we make decisions and choices. Freedom to choose what we do in life is the basic freedom for which wars are fought, families break up and young people argue with their parents. We know that we are free to choose and we consider that this is our inalienable right.

      This freedom indicates that there is something in humans that is more than our physical brains or genes. There is a third attribute that is neither instinct nor reason; it is that feature of our personality that makes decisions. Society holds us responsible for our decisions and punishes us for making wrong choices. So there is another quality in us that is neither the brain nor DNA. Animals and insects do not have this quality. Bees and ants in their social life are programmed by what we call instinct. Spiders build webs and birds build nests because they are programmed to do this.

      Humans are not programmed; they are free; they make choices and decisions. They have the power to override their instincts and inherited characteristics. We speak of this faculty as the will, and it is associated with our conscience and feelings of guilt or self-approval. We call this quality moral consciousness. It is not due to our body cells, or DNA, or our brain, or heart,

      or any other physical organ. How did this quality arise? It could not arise from mutations in our genes or from natural selection. Often it is an altruistic quality that militates against the well-being of people rather than contributing to their survival. It is of the very essence of a human being yet the theory of evolution cannot explain nor account for its existence. Scientists are aware of the problem this poses and they have developed theories to explain how altruistic behaviour is compatible with natural selection but we do not find the arguments convincing.

      The automatic immune system of the body is more highly organised and effective than the most efficient defence force in the world. Its normal effectiveness has been shown very clearly by AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome), which is caused by a virus that attacks and destroys the immune mechanism of the body. The patient does not die of AIDS per se, but of other diseases that invade the body and from which it can no longer defend itself. We can present only a brief summary of the intricate processes of the body's immune system. For a fuller discussion of this fascinating subject we recommend the sources listed in the references at the back of the book or other material to which you may have access.

      Our bodies are continually being invaded by minute organisms that have a normally useful function in the environment but are harmful if they enter animals or humans. Bacteria and fungi fulfil an important role in breaking down the cells of a dead organism for recycling but these pathogens must be prevented from harming the cells of living organisms and this is why plants and animals have a mechanism for destroying them when they invade the body. The best defence against disease is a healthy body whose immune system is functioning correctly.

      The human immune system is considered to be one of nature's most complex creations. It is not controlled by the brain but is a self-regulating system ready for immediate response to any threat to the body. Two trillion white blood cells, including the specialised T and B cells, patrol the blood and lymph streams as guard cells. They are divided into a number of different specialised forms, each designed to act in a specific way and to co-ordinate with each other in what can only be described as a purposeful response. Each of the hundred trillion cells in a human body is marked with the same individualistic marker that indicates it is a "self' cell. Every organism from bacteria to humans has its own distinctive cell marker, a kind of cell fingerprint. This enables the body cells to recognise any foreign or "non-self" cells that invade it.

      The burly guard cells, the macrophages that patrol the bloodstream, recognise the invaders and respond in several ways. They first destroy an invading antigen and display its distinctive markers on their surface so that other body cells will be alerted to the invasion and be able to identify the foreign cell. Next, they send out a chemical signal that activates a back-up system of great complexity that develops in a given sequence of responses. As in a declaration of war the immune system mobilises stand-by troops, enlists new soldiers, deploys the forces and manufactures munitions, which it places under the control of the helper T cell command. Next, the immune system turns the body's thermostat up to raise body temperature, which slows down the growth of invading organisms. It also enlarges the blood vessels near the infection site to give the defenders better access, just as police clear the roads for an ambulance, and constricts blood vessels near the skin surface to minimise heat loss. Having rallied the defence troops of white lymphatic cells, the macrophages multiply themselves and continue to destroy the invading pathogens.

      Both bacteria and virus cells multiply rapidly, the virus using the apparatus of the body cells to manufacture its own genetic code so every infected body cell must be destroyed also. Specialised cells are produced to do this with each kind of cell performing a specific function. The infected cells have to be distinguished from healthy body cells and to do this plasma cells are turned into factories capable of manufacturing 2,000 antibody markers a second. These antibodies are negatives of the invader's markers and they attach themselves to them, just as a key fits a lock. They are released into the blood stream and they bind to every infected cell marking it for destruction by the killer cells.

      The specialised killer cells work singly or in groups comprising about 20 proteins that work as a team to make holes in the infected cell's outer membrane, causing it to leak and die. The individual killer cells are equipped with protein bullets. They grasp the infected cell and shoot it with a battery of protein pellets, destroying its membrane. To make the kill total they transmit a signal that causes the viral DNA to disintegrate. This is like destroying the seeds of a plant as well as the plant itself. The scavenging phagocyte cells clean up the scraps until finally no trace of the infection is left.

      All this activity places a heavy drain on the body's energy resources and this is why we feel so weary when the body is fighting an infection. Our best course is to rest as much as possible so that our immune system can devote all the body's resources to fighting the infection.

      There are two final steps in the defence program. Two further specialised cells, the suppressor cells and the memory cells are then manufactured. When the invaders have been destroyed the suppressor cells send messages that close down the production of fighting cells and return the body's system to normal.

      The thermostat is lowered, blood vessels are reduced to normal, the antibody factories are shut down and the lymphatic T and B cell production is lowered to normal.

      One important job remains and this is handled by the special memory cells, which maintain a library of pathogen "fingerprints" of all the different diseases that have invaded that person's body. Once an infection has occurred a copy of that particular disease marker is kept in the body's library and this enables an immediate response in the event of another infection. When this happens the body can react immediately and the invaders are destroyed quickly so that the body is virtually immune from that disease. This mechanism enables us to be given immunity by means of vaccines that provide the body's library with copies of diseases that have not yet attacked it. It is also why diseases like measles and mumps do not harm us if we are reinfected at some later date. When a second infection occurs the body is able to respond quickly and effectively.

      The reason for describing the human body's immune system in some detail is to show how perfectly every different type of cell is equipped for the job it has to do. Surely such functional perfection and co-ordination cannot possibly be the result of mindless random mutations. It strongly suggests that an intelligent mind must have planned this remarkable coherent system and, this, in turn, implies purpose. Scientists never consider the possibility of intelligence and purpose in the origin of any living organ because these concepts are not permitted by the scientific method. The self-imposed "terms of reference" under which science operates limit the normal application of logic for the solution of this problem. Scientists have to postulate that this remarkable defence mechanism came into being by some unknown natural process. Scientists do not know how living organisms began in the first place; they do not know how the DNA specification for these specialised cells originated; they do not know how the first enzymes and ribosomes that manufacture the cells of this remarkable defence force originated.

      In each of these instances, tentative hypotheses link the fabric of the evolution theory together into a belief system-for that is what the theory of evolution is-that is adhered to tenaciously because science can only deal with the natural and the physical world; it cannot explore or discuss philosophical, metaphysical and supernatural concepts. Yet these are important areas of human experience as the universal existence of religion and philosophy testify. Science alone is unlikely to solve the mysteries of living organisms. If we are to solve the mystery of our existence there must be no limitations to our terms of reference, every possibility must be available for consideration. The accomplishments of science have given it an unwarranted authority in the minds of the public. When the consensus of scientific opinion is that life

in all its complexity has arisen by a purely naturalistic process few scientists are willing to risk ostracism by challenging it, and the public, in their comparative ignorance of scientific affairs, can do no other than trust the pronouncements of people of learning.

      We find the explanation of the origin of the immune system from purely materialistic causes unacceptable. We find some encouragement in the fact that a number of scientists and philosophers are questioning the adequacy of the neo-Darwin ian theory of evolution to account for the complexity of life's processes and are considering the possibility of an intelligence working in and through the natural processes of evolution. There is a widespread feeling of disquiet among many scientists about the unanswered questions of certain aspects of evolution. We consider this changing attitude more fully in chapter 13. Mutation and natural selection are being seen as quite inadequate answers to the mysteries of life. They certainly seem to be inadequate explanations for the origin of the body's automatic immune system.

      In this chapter we look at the detailed design of some bodily organs and question how this design could have been achieved by purely natural causes. Design is interpreted by many as a strong argument for an intelligent purpose at work in creation. From a scientific point of view this is not considered a valid line of reasoning. Richard Dawkins calls it the "Argument from Personal Incredulity".¹ It is discredited in a scientist's eyes because it is based on reason and not on objective data, but from the point of view of reason and logic it is a strong argument. Everything that exists has a cause and many thoughtful people are not convinced that the natural processes of evolution provides an adequate cause for the design, variety, complexity and functional perfection of the organs of plants and animals. To them it is obvious that they are designed for the functions they perform: the question is whether this design is the result of adaptation or of purpose. Few believe in a flat earth today because the evidence that our earth is a sphere is based on convincing objective data; and few believe that the sun revolves around the earth. Yet the majority of people still believe in a creator, even though many of them do not regard themselves as religious people. Why has belief in a creator persisted when the previously held views on the other two issues have been reversed? It is probably because the other two issues were decided on objective facts alone, whereas the theory of evolution is a mixture of facts and theory, with a considerable element of speculation included. Most people still believe that highly complex organs were designed for their particular function.

      In Modern Physics, D. E. Caro, J. A. McDonell and B. M. Spicer remind us that scientists believe in things they cannot see. They say:

Nobody has ever seen, or is ever likely to see an atom, if by "seeing" we mean the usual methods of visual observation, assisted perhaps by optical magnification. But if "seeing" atoms is taken to mean the observation of effects which can readily be explained in terms

- 48 -

of an atomic theory of matter and are difficult to account for any other way, then seeing atoms and subatomic particles has become a commonplace experience for a great many people.²

      If we may adapt their reasoning we can say that "seeing" God is taken to mean the observation of effects that can readily be explained in terms of a God theory of life and that are difficult to account for in any other way. In sharp contrast to this, Jacques Monod stated the logical conclusion of the Darwinian theory of evolution when he concluded his book with this sentence: "The ancient covenant is in pieces; man knows at last that he is alone in the universe's unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance."³

      In this chapter we want to look at some highly specialised organs of plants and animals to show the improbability of these complex organs having arisen by chance and adaptation.

The Rotary Motor of Bacteria

      Bacteria are the earliest known form of life on our planet and therefore, according to evolution theory, we would expect them to be extremely simple. Bacteria, which are said to have existed over 3 billion years ago, are called prokaryotes. These tiny, primitive life forms, no larger that one thousandth of a millimetre, have a very simple cell structure but many have a unique feature. They propel themselves around their watery environment by means of a proton-powered rotary motor, which gives them a speed of twenty body lengths a second, which is far in excess of human capability. They are able to do this by means of one or several protein fibres called flagella, which are several times the bacteria's body length and extend from one end of the cell. Flagellum is Latin for whip. The flagella are composed of a central core that rotates inside a protective sleeve. We are able to give this detailed explanation because, although we would have expected them to be changed by mutation over the millennia, they still exist today in their original primitive form, which poses a problem for the mutation theory of change.

      The rotary motion is imparted to the flagellum by means of a proton pump that is driven by excited electrons that derive their energy from either organic material or, in the case of photosynthetic bacteria, from light. Torque is generated by a flow of ions between the free end ring of the flagellum and a charged fixed ring on the cell wall. The pump produces a cyclic sequence that imparts a continuous motion to the core of the flagellum. This imparts a whip like motion to the flagellum and creates forward thrust in the same way that a propeller does.⁴ The operation of the motor is quite complicated but this description is sufficient to show that it would require a remarkable degree of chance for this function to have arisen in the earliest form of life.

      Somehow the correct materials had to be present to convert light to energy to synthesise organic materials, the correct coupled channels had to exist in the membrane, the correct design for the rotating shaft with its fixed ring and its rotating ring and, in addition, all had to work and function as an integrated unit. Yet according to the theory of evolution this complex function is supposed to be purely accidental with no earlier known organism from which it could have evolved. This is why science has failed to convince a great number of people that complicated life forms arose by chance. The facts seem to demand the action of an intelligent creator.

The Respiratory Organs

The Gills of Fish

      The gill is more efficient than all other respiratory systems. It needs to be because water contains only about 10 mL of oxygen per litre, whereas air contains about 210 mL of oxygen per litre. It is interesting that fish, which are said to have evolved before air-breathing mammals, should have a more efficient respiratory system. The mouth and gills are so arranged that it is possible to maintain a continuous flow of water over the gills. Fish do not have to breathe in and out as animals do so they have an uninterrupted intake of oxygen. The gills are composed of layers of filaments which project into the water parallel to the water flow. The blood circulates in the opposite direction. It is this countercurrent flow of water and blood in juxtaposition that gives the gills their high efficiency.

      Oxygen will only diffuse from the water into the blood if there is a higher concentration of oxygen in the water; there must be a pressure gradient for the oxygen to transfer. When the blood enters the back of the gill it has a low concentration of oxygen and here it meets the water that has already had much of its oxygen removed but the blood can still extract some oxygen. The water has 100 per cent oxygen saturation when it first contacts the blood vessels but this progressively reduces as it gives up oxygen to the blood, which steadily increases its concentration of oxygen. Because the water and blood flows are in opposite directions the blood is able to absorb oxygen for the full length of its contact with the water due to the maintenance of a fairly constant higher gradient of oxygen in the water. If both flows were in the same direction it would only be possible for the blood to absorb oxygen for half the distance they were in contact. This reverse flow design enables fish to extract as much as 85 per cent of the available oxygen, but if the flow had been in the same direction it would not have been possible to extract more than 50 per cent, when the concentrations of water and blood were equalised.⁵ Could this be just a fortunate coincidence?

The Lungs of Birds

      When we examine the lungs of birds and discover that they also use a countercurrent flow of blood and air it looks more and more like deliberate design, for chance events are unlikely to be exactly repeated under different circumstances. Birds also have a one-way air flow so that the lungs are able to absorb oxygen continuously. This is more efficient than mammalian lungs, where no oxygen is being absorbed while the used air is breathed out. So we find that fish, birds, and mammals all have quite differently structured respiratory organs that are extremely efficient in their particular environment.⁶ These different designs could not have arisen only as a response to their particular environments, for evolution does not operate that way, but must have originated as random changes in the DNA blueprint of each particular species.

      Natural selection can only act as a sieve to filter out the less-efficient models and preserve the more efficient ones; it cannot create or introduce new structures. The logic of the situation suggests that the respiratory organs are the result of intelligent design with a particular purpose in view; a mind has been at work.

The Amazing Eye

      Gordon Rattray Taylor, in his book, The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), repeatedly refers to the inadequacy of the theory of evolution to explain the complicated organs of living creatures. He is supported in this by the highly respected Karl Popper, whom he quotes as saying: "Neither Darwin, nor any Darwinian, has so far given an actual causal explanation of the adaptive evolution of any single organism or any single organ."⁷ Taylor cites the eyes of trilobites as an example. He finds it strains his credibility too far to believe that they are the result of mere chance. Trilobites were plentiful in the sea around 500 million years ago and were one of the first highly organised animals to appear. Despite their early appearance in evolutionary time they had a remarkable eye, which indicated very sophisticated design and a knowledge of chemistry. Trilobites belong to the Arthropod phylum, many of which share the same type of eye. Their eye is quite different in design from the eye of animals. It consists of hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of tiny columns, each of which has a lens and a light-sensitive core surrounded by a screen of pigment cells. Each column's image is separate. The columns are not quite parallel, but are fanned out slightly so that each one points at a different adjacent spot and records its own tiny image. These individual images are conveyed by nerves to the brain where they form a mosaic image of the field of vision. That takes extremely accurate alignment of the columns

at precise angles and with corresponding tapering to produce an image that will neither overlap nor leave gaps.

      But that is not all. Taylor reports that in 1973 Kenneth Towe of the Smithsonian Institute examined the lenses of eyes from fossil trilobites and found that they consisted of calcite crystals. He mounted some on the microscope and they produced a sharp image at distances from a few millimetres to infinity without focusing. Calcite crystals transmit light with maximum transparency only if they are exactly aligned with the beam of light entering them. Taylor asks: "By what mechanism did these 'primitive' creatures discover how to incorporate calcite crystals, align them precisely and protect them with a cornea?"

      But there is more mystery still. Dr Clarkson, of Edinburgh, also examined the trilobite eye under the scanning electron microscope and found that the lens was, in fact, a doublet with an upper part composed of calcite and a lower half composed of chitin, separated, not by a straight line, but by a wavy one. This kind of construction is used for spherically corrected, aplanatic lenses. Not surprisingly, Gordon Taylor wonders how those primitive trilobites, the first highly organised animals, knew that the only material in the universe that had the required optical properties was calcite, and wonders also how they managed to construct a spherically corrected lens that took account of the laws of refraction and the optics of crystals.⁸

      Is it any wonder that the more we learn about the structure and function of living organisms the less credible the theory of evolution becomes? There are no ancestral forms of eyes known from which the trilobite eye might have developed. The only earlier types of eyes are so inferior that we cannot assume that the trilobite eye is a gradual development from them. Another fact that needs explanation is that many arthropods, including flies, crabs and grasshoppers, still use the same type of eye. Raven and Johnson mention one particular desert insect, Cataglyphis, which has a specialised eye that uses the pattern of polarised light from the sky as a compass, enabling the insect to get a bearing on the sun in featureless sand country and find its way about.⁹

      The eyes of animals and humans are entirely different in structure and function and are more sophisticated and efficient in their operation. They are designed--we cannot think of any other adequate word to describe their structure--to produce a visual picture using the electromagnetic energy of light. The iris regulates the amount of light that enters the eye by automatically opening wider in low light and closing to a small aperture in strong light, just as a camera aperture does. The thickness and curvature of the lens is automatically adjusted as it focuses on near or distant objects, and this, together with the curved surface of the eye, bends the light rays to focus them sharply on the retina.

      Behind the retina lie the photoreceptor cells. These are of two types, rods and cones, which are a marvel of miniaturisation. There are estimated to be three million cones and 100 million rods in the human eye. Each of these rods contains some 2,000 tiny discs containing the protein molecule rhodopsin, which absorbs the light and sets in motion a chain of reactions that send nerve signals to the brain.

      The cones are of three different types that absorb red, blue, and green light respectively. These three colours may be mixed in varying proportions to produce every shade of colour, enabling us to see images in full colour. The images we see are made up of tiny points of light and the process is very similar to that employed in television cameras and receivers. The tube of a TV set has hundreds of thousands of tiny colour spots that are activated by the electrical impulses transmitted by the TV camera: only the colour that corresponds to the scene before the camera is activated, giving the same colour on e screen.

      But while TV uses only a few hundred thousand spots to compose the picture, the human eye has 103,000,000. The eye perceives the picture before it, not as in a mirror, as we might suppose, but only as electromagnetic impulses, and the brain has to convert these impulses into the image which we actually see.¹⁰

      The human eye is far more complicated than this brief description but perhaps we have said enough to demonstrate why we find it difficult to believe that the detailed structure of the eye and the sequence of functions it performs, is the result of errors that occurred in the DNA blueprint, or of changes that occurred at random by the shuffling of the cell's genes. Nobody believes that television cameras and receivers are fortunate accidents that came into being by chance so why should anyone believe that the eye, and the process of seeing in beautiful colour, is the result of blind chance and natural selection?

      Biology textbooks and special scientific articles on the eye describe in detail the structure and functions of the eye, but nowhere, absolutely nowhere, do they give a credible explanation of how this perfectly functioning organ came into existence. They make the vague statement that it evolved from earlier less-complicated types of eye but this is a statement of belief, a scientific guess, and nothing more. In fact this idea has now been abandoned by some scientists.

      Raven and Johnson state that it has been found impossible to trace any lines of descent between the different types of eyes. They say: "Zoologists, analysing these differences, have calculated that eyes have evolved independently, and through intermediate stages, at least thirty-eight different times in various groups of animals."¹¹

The Human Ear

      To provide a contrast to our assumption that these highly specialised organs are the result of intelligent design we will give neo-Darwinists an opportunity to present their version of the origin of the human ear. This explanation is by two well-known biologists of this century, George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck, and is taken from their book, Life: An Introduction to Biology.

The present-day mammalian ear is a patchwork of ducts, bones and membranes that in earlier vertebrate history were variously employed in surprisingly diverse functions, many of which had nothing to do with sound reception. The Eustachian tube was originally part of a gill slit serving the respiratory needs of our fish ancestors. The three bones that transmit vibrations from the eardrum to our inner ear also had a history just as incidental to their present function. One of them (the stapes) was at different times in its career a skeletal element in the throat and later a convenient prop to the jaw apparatus of the first biting vertebrates. The other two bones (incus and malleus) were part of the reptilian jaw of 200 million years ago. The present function of all three ear bones is due to a fortuitous combination of circumstances. First, their earlier roles happened, quite incidentally, to bring them into close proximity to a pressure-sensitive organ (the future inner car) in the brain case. While functioning in their former capacity of jaw components, the bones happened, willy-nilly, to transmit sound (pressure) waves to this organ. Second, successive adaptive improvements in the vertebrate jaw structure made all three bones nonessential in their initial functions. Released in this way from one kind of selection, their future was determined by the ever-present premium on efficient sense organs and the natural selection this creates; they became exclusively devoted to a function that was previously incidental and of minor importance.¹²

      They conclude by saying, "By the time we have traced an adaptation like the human ear, our feeling that it must have been purposefully created is gone. Formerly regarded as an architectural masterpiece, it now seems more like one of those improvisations with pulleys, tilting buckets, and string-tied joints that imaginative cartoonists delight in drawing."

      Is this fact or fantasy? It is a very definite statement and is presented as the actual history of the origin of the car bones. No evidence is given in support of the claim nor is any explanation given as to how the bones were modified in shape, size and position. The changes are said to have been achieved

"fortuitously" and "willy-nilly". The only basis for such a claim is that bones, similar to ear bones, have been found in fossils of various animals. A more recent article by the zoologist Michael Archer gives more details of these supposed antecedents of the bones of the human ear.¹³ But there is no way of proving these conjectures to be either true or false and if a hypothesis is incapable of being disproved it does not come within the convention of the scientific method. Therefore such claims are not science but mere speculation. We suggest that it would be an interesting exercise for our readers to look up the design and function of the ear in a good encyclopedia to discover for themselves if it seems like a chance improvisation or an architectural masterpiece. This is a typical example of many of the claims made by advocates of the theory of evolution.

Echolocation in Animals

      When Donald Griffin told a conference of zoologists in 1940 that he and his colleagues had discovered that bats used echolocation to navigate and catch insects in the dark they found it hard to believe that an animal could use such a sophisticated system that had only recently been invented by scientists and was still in an early stage of development. In fact bats are not the only animals that use sonar, shrews use it in their underground tunnels, also dolphins and whales and some birds such as swifts and other birds.

      The idea of "seeing" in the dark by means of sonar is very new to us but apparently it has always been an ability possessed by bats. Bat fossils have been found in a cave in Quercy in France dating from the Eocene Epoch, about 35 million years ago. Skeletons of five families of modern bats, including the still-common horseshoe bat Rhinolophus, were found. Another bat fossil has been found in early Eocene deposits in Wyoming, USA, which is considered to be 50 million years old. In reporting it Yalden and Morris say: "Nevertheless it is clearly a fully formed bat and, despite its antiquity, does not serve as a 'missing link' between the bats and some other older group."¹⁴ Apparently bats have always possessed their remarkable sonic ability. Zoologists are unable to link them to any particular ancestral line. They are unique. If they did evolve by slow stages we should be able to find at least some fossils of their intermediate ancestors, but none have ever been found.

      It is worth pausing a moment to consider the extremely sophisticated nature of the bat's sonic system. It is based on echoes. Bats emit a high-pitched note that is above the level of the human hearing range. Sound waves are measured in cycles per second, or hertz (abbreviated as Hz, therefore kHz denotes 1,000 cycles per second). Humans cannot hear above 20 kHz but bats have a range of up to 130 kHz. Also the high pitch of the bat's sending signal,

sometimes referred to as a click, must be very loud in order to produce an audible echo. Bats can produce a sound level of 100 decibels, which is louder than a jet plane. For greater efficiency the unusual and rather ugly snout of the bat acts as a megaphone to concentrate the beam of sound.

      But this very loud click that the bat emits could damage its ears, which need to be extremely sensitive to pick up the tiny echo from an insect's body. The bat could be temporarily deafened by its own voice. The inventors of sonar also had this problem and they solved it by devising a mechanism to switch the receiving antennas off for the brief instant of the sending pulse.¹⁵ It is not surprising therefore to discover that the bats solved the problem in the same way 50 million years ago. They have two muscles attached to the ear bones that operate like a clutch; they are synchronised to contract and briefly switch off, or desensitise, the ears for the two thousandths of a second of the sending signal's duration.¹⁶ Bats increase their cruising signal rate of 10 pulses per second up to 200 pulses per second when they are homing in on a target and this demands perfect synchronisation at very high speed of the on-off control. This must be considered a remarkable achievement.

      But this is only the beginning of their technical expertise. They also use frequency modulation (FM) just as we do in radio.¹⁷ The frequency of the sending pulse is varied, with the result that echoes coming from further away that take longer to return will be recognisable because of their different note. Thus by varying the pitch of the sending pulse they are able to sort out echoes from objects located at various distances and obtain a three-dimensional picture of their surroundings in the same way that a doctor using modern ultrasound equipment is able to obtain a three-dimensional image of the fetus in the womb.¹⁸ Bats "see" images with their ears in the same way as we "see" images with our eyes, and their picture is probably just as sharp and clear as ours.

      Yet another aspect of the bat's unique ability is its understanding and use of what we call the Doppler effect. This is the change in pitch we hear when, for example, we hear a train whistle approaching or receding. The whistle itself is at a constant pitch but our hearing of it changes due to the train's movement towards or away from us. This is called the Doppler effect and is the principle used in police radar devices to determine the speed of approaching cars. The radar device sends out a pulse of constant pitch signals to provide echoes from approaching vehicles. The closer a car comes the shorter will be the time required for the echo to return and the higher will be the frequency or pitch of the sound. This enables the radar's computer to do some rapid calculations and estimate the speed of the car's approach. In the same way the bat acts the role of the police and uses its radar to estimate the speed of approaching insect traffic with a view to interception and capture?¹⁹

      We should by now be beginning to view with admiration the quality and efficiency of the bat's on-board computer. How did all this knowledge and computing capability come to be in the pearl-sized brain of this small, brown, furry creature, so lowly in our human estimation? Richard Dawkins has summed up these remarkable animals in the following statement:

These bats are like miniature spy planes, bristling with sophisticated instrumentation. Their brains are delicately tuned packages of miniaturised electronic wizardry, programmed with the elaborate software necessary to decode a world of echoes in real time. Their faces are often distorted into gargoyle shapes that appear hideous to us until we see them for what they are, exquisitely fashioned instruments for beaming ultrasound in desired directions."²⁰

      Despite his admiration for these remarkable creatures Dawkins continues to believe that their ability is simply the result of errors that occurred in the genes of their ancestors plus the retention of any fortunate improvements enabling superior progeny to survive in greater numbers. The origin of the bat's unusual faculties must remain a source of speculation for us all, for they are beyond proof. But to attribute to chance and natural processes the specific shape of the nose and ears, the synchronisation apparatus, the knowledge and use of frequency modulation and the Doppler effect plus the computerised brain that operates the faculties seems to be asking too much of mere chance and Mother Nature. It took the most intelligent beings on earth thousands of years to invent sonar: how did these creatures of instinct, lacking any creative ability, acquire these faculties?

The Human Brain

      There are a number of different types of brain ranging from little more that an enlarged nerve cord in the primitive chordates to more complex brain structures in the fish, amphibians, birds and mammals. In discussing the origin of the human brain Raven and Johnson explore the possible causes, including a supernatural Creator and natural evolution. They state that because they are writing a scientific book they only deal with the natural forces that could have produced improved brain types but they do not exclude the possibility that "a divine agency might have acted via evolution".²¹

      When we compare the so-called brain of some primitive organisms to the human brain, it seems inconceivable that the human brain could have been developed from these primitive nervous systems without guided and creative development. We have not found any biology book that explains in a detailed and credible way how this development could have taken place; most simply

      describe the brain's various parts and functions and make the simple and unsupported statement that the human brain evolved. That claim is not supported by evidence and so is not a true scientific statement and should be disregarded.

      The brain should be considered together with the whole nervous system of which it is the controlling and co-ordinating centre. The human brain is composed of about 100 billion nerve cells that are compartmentalised so that each section of the brain deals with a particular bodily function. Sensory messages from all parts of the body are relayed to the brain by one set of nerves, and commands to muscles are sent through another set of channels. We have not yet unravelled the mystery of how the brain retains information through memory or creates new original concepts through association of images and ideas.

      One of the brain's important functions is to maintain the body's automatic functions such as breathing, heartbeat, constant body temperature etc. It also processes the information received from the eyes and ears in the form of electrical impulses and produces three-dimensional coloured images of our surroundings. The body manufactures its own electricity, which is used by the brain and nervous system. These constant electrical waves can be monitored by an electroencephalogram (EEG), which uses pens driven by this electricity to record information on a graph. But how the brain works is still not known. We do not know how the brain makes mathematical calculations nor how it makes judgments and decisions.

      One of the major differences between humans and animals is the human facility of speech. A well-known anthropologist, David Pilbeam, in commenting on this difference between humans and primates, stated that the brain of primates is not "wired" for language. The necessary structure simply does not exist in the brains of animals. How did it develop in humans? Small children just naturally seem to understand grammar and syntax. Little children develop speech naturally, even though it needs refinement and an ever enlarging vocabulary. We have only to give some thought to the intricate telephone systems of our cities and observe how much careful thought and co-ordination has to go into their establishment and smooth functioning to get some small idea of the complexity of the brain.

      Accepting that the human brain came into being as a result of chance mutations and changes in primate DNA is as difficult as accepting that the modern telephone system is the result of a series of lucky accidents. Remember that natural selection cannot create or initiate new structures, it can only act as a filter to weed out the inefficient and promote the organisms most suited to the environment. New and improved organs must originate from chance mutations, as Monod, Dawkins and Mayr have emphasised.

      We have chosen only a few special organs for detailed consideration. This list could be extended to cover literally millions of highly specialised organs and functions, for example the intriguingly different and apparently purposeful ways plants distribute their seed, the pollination devices of orchids, the highly programmed social life of bees, ants and termites etc.

      The neo-Darwinian answer to this problem of complex and specialised organs is not single-step natural selection but cumulative natural selection and feedback processes. But because acquired characteristics cannot be transmitted to progeny cumulative selection is still dependent on unpredictable errors arising in the genes as mutations. These must be transmitted to progeny through heredity by the process of replication. This highlights another problem.

      Richard Dawkins says: "But cumulative selection cannot work unless there is some minimal machinery of replication and replicator power, and the only machinery of replication that we know seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection."²²

      He believes that this apparently insoluble dilemma can be solved by a mixture of luck and probability. Until the neo-Darwinists can get their sums right a lot of logical thinking people are going to continue to believe that the design, everywhere evident in nature, is the work of an intelligent and purposeful Creator.

      Fossils are important for determining the history of life on earth. They provide the only direct evidence of major sequential changes in living organisms. Steven Stanley says: It is doubtful whether, in the absence of fossils, the idea of evolution would represent anything more than an outrageous hypothesis."¹ Michael Denton is equally emphatic. He says: "Without intermediates or transitional forms to bridge the enormous gaps which separate existing species and groups of organisms, the concept of evolution could never be taken seriously as a scientific hypothesis."²

      Charles Darwin acknowledged that the lack of any intermediate stages between species in the fossil record was one of the strongest arguments against his theory, but he believed that this was due to the incompleteness of the record and the fragmentary nature of the fossils then available. He expected that as new fossils were found intermediate ones would come to light bridging the gaps between the species. In the last 130 years the search for fossils has been intensified, motivated by the desire to find these transitional forms, so that, today, fossils of around one hundred thousand species have been recovered, but instead of confirming the theory of gradual evolution, this wealth of fossil evidence has generally contradicted it.

      The big question that scientists seek to answer is: How did the vast variety of living organisms of today's fungal, plant and animal kingdoms arise? A related problem is: Why have many of these species remained unchanged since they first appeared in the fossil record? If mutation, recombination, and natural selection are always at work producing new types of organisms why do most species and classes remain virtually unchanged for millions of years? The earth is considered to be about 4.5 billion years old. The earliest fossil bacteria are thought to be about 3.5 billion years old. The use of radiometric dating, based on the decay of naturally occurring radioactive isotopes of such substances as carbon and potassium, has enabled scientists to calculate the age of particular rocks and fossils. The only fossils found before the Cambrian period, which began about 600 million years ago, are different forms of

bacteria. If the accepted dating is correct, the only fossils for the first two billion years of life on earth are of single-celled bacteria (prokaryotes) of which the largest are about one thousandth of a millimetre in diameter.

      A little over one billion years ago a new, more complex cell appeared. It possessed a nucleus and additional organs capable of very sophisticated functions. It was called a eukaryote cell, meaning one possessing a nucleus. This is the same kind of cell found in fungi, plants and animals today. We do not know, and will never know, how these new and extremely complex cells developed because all the changes occurred in the soft interiors of the cells that are not fossilised. Although these were single celled at first, a major change occurred about 600 million years ago when cells began to function in specialised and co-ordinated ways to form the first primitive animals. Once this stage had been reached diversity and complexity became increasingly progressive in the fossil record. Around 570 million years ago so many new forms of life arose that this has been called the Cambrian explosion of life. Gould highlighted the importance of this dramatic upsurge of life when he said, ". . . the entire system of life arose during about 10 per cent of its history surrounding the Cambrian explosion some 600 million years ago." He added, "The world of life was quiet before and it has been relatively quiet ever since."³

      Simpson also comments on the sudden change in the fossil content of rocks of that period. Prior to that time fossils were rare but in rocks around 570 million years old they suddenly became numerous and diversified. He acknowledges that this poses a serious question for neo-Darwinism, which is based on gradual change. He points out that this is a problem that applies to the whole of the fossil record, where the absence of transitional forms is everywhere noticeable.⁴ In all the orders of mammals the absence of transitional forms is so great that there is uncertainty as to the real origin of mammals. When a new genus is found in the fossil record it is generally quite distinct from previously known forms. Michael Denton says: "The virtual complete absence of intermediate and ancestral forms from the fossil record is today recognised widely by many leading palaeontologists as one of its most striking characteristics . . ."⁵

      Darwin contended that nature does not make jumps or radical changes, but that evolution proceeds by small, gradual and continuous changes. As late as 1972 Dobzhansky was still supporting the theory that new species arose by gradual divergence from existing species and he claimed that this was the commonly held view at that time.⁶ But the palaeontologists could no longer ignore the fossil evidence and some concluded that the gradual theory, commonly accepted since Darwin's day, was no longer tenable.

      In 1972, Eldredge and Gould put forward a new theory more consistent with the fossil record. They drew attention to the fact that most species have

been found to remain virtually unchanged during the whole of the life-span of the species. New species appear suddenly and fully developed in the fossil chain and show very little change until they become extinct. Some species are particularly striking in this regard and are referred to as living fossils. Fossil beetles from the ice age 1.5 million years ago are almost identical to today's living species. Stanley says that the bowfin fishes of North America have remained unchanged for 100 million years and some lungfishes today are almost identical to 300-million-year-old fossils.⁷ Alligators, snapping turtles, horseshoe crabs, tapirs and frogs are just a few of the species that have remained virtually unchanged since they first appeared in the fossil record. For example, the North American crab, Limulus, is almost identical to 200 million-year-old fossils.

      Most of the species of mammals now living have been found as fossils in ice age sediments approximately 1.5 million years old. Steven Stanley says:

I have analysed information on the apparent ancestries of the living mammal species of Europe. It turns out that, as we trace the populations of extant species backward through time, we find that more than half of the apparent lineages display such slow change that their million-year-old populations are grouped in the same species as their living populations.⁸

      Mark Ridley confirms this lack of change in species. He says:

It has been known for over a century that fossil lineages generally appear suddenly in the fossil record, persist for a few million years, and then disappear abruptly without merging into any later lineages . . . No-one, then or now, doubts that there are gaps in the fossil record. It is riddled with them.⁹

      But it should not be overlooked that although transitional fossils in particular lineages are missing, the sequence of species supports the view of progressive development. Fish precede amphibians, amphibians precede reptiles and reptiles precede mammals in the geological strata. However, this sequence may not necessarily be due to the causes postulated by the theory of evolution.

      Ernst Mayr was one of the first to suggest that new species may develop quite rapidly in small isolated populations but it was not until Eldredge and Gould coined the term, "punctuated equilibria", that a new view of how species develop gained acceptance and began to replace the gradualistic model. They pointed out that after a new species appears in the fossil record it does not continue to change but reaches a state of equilibrium, which generally continues until its fossils no longer appear, indicating that it has become extinct. But from time to time this state of equilibrium is punctuated by rapid change and an entirely new species arises. Hence the term, "punctuated

equilibria", as distinct from the former "gradualistic" view of species development. This view does not say how the new species arise; it simply recognises that they arise abruptly and not gradually.

      There are, of course, suggestions about how this happens. As supporting evidence for rapid speciation, sometimes called quantum speciation, Stanley instances the cichlid fishes of Lake Victoria in Uganda, the banana moths of Hawaii and the pupfishes of Death Valley, but these are all changes at the species level. We need evidence showing how new families, orders and phyla arise. Stanley is aware that this is inadequate evidence. He asks: "But where do we turn for a genetic understanding of rapid transformation within small populations? We have no simple answer."¹⁰

      One widely accepted view is that inbreeding in small isolated populations creates new species and fixes change, but this does not account for the radical change that is required, for instance, between fish and birds, or apes and humans or for the highly developed organs and faculties of the higher animals and humans. It has been suggested that whole species are also units in the natural selection process, just as individuals are units of selection within a species.

      Stephen Gould is critical of those palaeontologists who still cling to the gradual view of change. He says:

. . . palaeontologists have relied on the extreme inadequacy of the fossil record-all the intermediate stages are missing in a record that preserves only a few words of the few lines of the few pages left in our geological book.¹¹

      Although Gould accepts the main concepts of evolution he is concerned about some of the speculative theories that are used to support it. After Tom Bethell had written that Darwin's theory of natural selection had been abandoned by many and that Darwinian evolution was on the verge of collapse, Gould commented that this was due to the failure of some scientists to ensure that their hypotheses were logically sound. Gould wrote:

Much of what passes for evolutionary theory is as vacuous as Bethell claims. Many great theories are held together by chains of dubious metaphor and analogy. Bethell has correctly identified the hogwash surrounding evolutionary theory.¹²

      Strong criticism indeed of his fellow scientists, but it is this internal evaluation of scientific writings that helps maintain the integrity and credibility of scientific disciplines. A typical instance of the dubious metaphor and analogy that Gould condemns is found in the wild speculations about how feathers and flight developed. Gerhard Heilman, in his Origin of Birds, envisages a reptile climbing trees and leaping from branch to branch. He speculates that "by the friction of the air, the outer edges of scales become frayed, the frayings

gradually changing into still longer horny processes, which in the course of time become more and more feather like until the perfect feather is produced."¹³

      John Ostrom questions this scenario because he doubts if birds are descended from tree climbing ancestors. He suggests that flight originated from the ground so he envisages a reptile leaping around on its hind legs chasing flying insects and trying to catch them with its front paws. He speculates that this practice could have led to the development of feathers thus increasing the surface area of the hand thereby making it more effective in catching insects. He says, "Continued selection for larger feather size could have converted the entire forelimb into a large, light-weight 'insect net'.¹⁴ One would have thought these guesses were too far fetched to be taken seriously, but in the absence of any better suggestions for the origin of feathers they have been repeated in reputable scientific publications. Michael Archer (1987), and Raven and Johnson (1986), both offer these ideas as serious possibilities. Raven and Johnson, commenting on Archaeopteryx, which is considered to be the first fossil bird, say, "Its ancestor must have been a dinosaur that ran on its hind legs and used its front legs for grasping."¹⁵ No evidence is presented, just the very unscientific phrase "must have been".

      Michael Archer uses a sketch of a hypothetical dinosaur/bird chasing insects and suggests that feathers may have developed from scales as the dinosaur chased and snatched at the insects with its arms.¹⁶ This is nothing more than imaginative speculation. Certainly there were some small dinosaurs but the very thought of dinosaurs reduced to having an evening meal of insects, and getting airborne in the process, conjures up the image of a very tired and still hungry dinosaur. Such scientific flights of imagination explain why Bethell and Gould made such uncomplimentary remarks about some scientific theories. Barbara Stahl faces the issue more realistically when she comments on the problem of the origin of feathers. She says: ". . . how they arose initially, presumably from reptile scales, defies analysis."¹⁷

      A great deal has been made of the fossils of Archaeopteryx (meaning "old wing"), which is believed to be a bird that lived 150 million years ago, but on closer examination it appears to be more like a chimera than an intermediate between dinosaurs and birds.¹⁸ It is so unusual that some scientists have questioned its genuineness but a careful examination was made of the British Museum specimen in 1987, which confirmed that it had not been tampered with. Only six specimens have been found plus a single additional feather. They were all found in the Solnhofen limestone region of Bavaria.

      The Archaeopteryx skeletal structure is so similar to reptiles and dinosaurs that several were first placed in that category and only much later reclassified as Archaeopteryx. Their only avian characteristics are feathers and an undersized

wishbone. It is not certain that they had true wings or that the brain cavity was large enough to be considered avian. They had claws on the forelimbs, reptilian teeth and solid bones, none of which are avian features. They lacked the characteristic avian keeled sternum of birds to which the strong flight muscles are attached and, in addition, they had the long tail of a reptile. To be fully functional as a bird, in addition to its feathers, Archaeopteryx needed a different type of lung, a differently structured heart, a different bone structure, stereoscopic vision, a constant body temperature and a redesigned egg. All these changes would have to originate in the genes as chance mutations or recombinations at about the same time for them to function as a living unit. This seems to be asking too much of chance, coincidence or natural selection.

      The feathers are its most significant feature and although Archaeopteryx is considered to be transitional, its feathers are not, they are identical to present-day feathers. Peter Wellnhofer, a curator of the Bavarian State Collection for Palaeontology in Munich, presented an evaluation of the six extant specimens in the May 1990 issue of Scientific American. He illustrated his article with a photograph of the imprint of one of the feathers, which is identical to a modern feather. The caption said: "Single feather from Archaeopteryx, which was unearthed in 1860, is virtually identical to the feathers of modern birds. These similarities extend even to the microscopic level."¹⁹ In the text of the article he says: "The imprints of the feathers are especially rich in details because the entire structure of the feathers, down to the interlocking barbs, is visible."²⁰

      So the distinguishing avian feature of these skeletons, the oldest known feathers, are not transitional at all, they are identical to today's feathers and throw no light on the origin of the feather. Furthermore, Wellnhofer points out that it is not possible to be certain that Archaeopteryx was the ancestor from which modern birds descended. He says that the fossils of birds of the Cretaceous period, about 85 million years ago, were so different that they are not considered to have descended from Archaeopteryx, which many regard as an evolutionary dead end with no living descendants today." We need more direct evidence than Archaeopteryx provides before we can say that birds descended from dinosaurs and feathers evolved from the scales of reptiles.

      The fossils that have been the focus of greatest interest are those that are said to link humans to the apes. There are many similarities between humans and apes but there are also very great differences. Palaeontologists have spent vast sums of money and whole lifetimes in their search for missing links between apes and humans. Roger Lewin's book, Bones of Contention, is fascinating reading for anyone interested in this subject. In a detailed account of recent palaeontological discoveries he discusses the differences of opinion

between leading palaeoanthropologists in the classification and dating of various specimens. Fossils do not come out of the ground with labels on them, they have to be dated, identified and interpreted, so there is considerable room for uncertainty and disagreement. Lewin points out that scientists are never truly objective in their judgments but all their opinions are coloured by their own preconceptions. He says, "And scientists, contrary to the myth that they themselves publicly promulgate, are emotional human beings who carry a generous dose of subjectivity with them into the supposedly 'objective search for The Truth'."²¹ He quotes John Napier's statement: "Practically all palaeontological discoveries can be described as bones of contention."²²

      The various "missing links" that are presented to the public are not as well established and universally accepted as we are led to believe. In fact, Zuckerman considers the problem of accurately identifying fossils so difficult that he doubts if it should be classified as a science.

      The number of early human, or immediately pre-human fossils, is very small indeed. It has been said that there are only enough to cover a good sized table or to fill a single coffin. However, one thing is certain, humans have been only a comparatively short time on earth. The earliest date for our species, Homo sapiens (meaning "the wise one"), has not been established with certainty. "Homo" means man, but not all fossils labelled Homo are human; it is an ambiguous word because it is used to classify apes also.

      The Australopithicines, which are classified as hominids, are dated from one to four million years ago but they are not regarded as human by palaeontologists; their fossils have many ape-like features and their brain was only one-third the size of a human brain. The well-known specimen called Lucy belongs to this group. It is considered that the use of tools and fire are marks of humanness so the first primate fossils associated with tools are classified Homo habilis. They are dated about 1.5 million years ago. The next most recent primate fossils are classified as Homo erectus. They are dated 1.5 to 0.3 million years ago but they are still not considered truly human. Java man, Peking man, and Heidelberg man belong to this group. Note the misleading use of the term "man" for this group, even though palaeontologists do not consider these primates to be truly human.

      Neanderthal man is more recent still and is dated from 200,000 to 30,000 years ago, but palaeontologists have held widely differing views about the nature of the fossils. Neanderthal man's thick skull bones, very prominent browridges, robust limbs and bowed legs, together with a human-sized brain cavity, has led to some interesting speculations. One scientist suggested that the bones were of a Cossack from a Russian regiment that pursued Napoleon's army, his bowed legs being the result of his life as a horseman. Another speculated that the person had suffered from rickets. Another thought that

the skeleton's stooped posture was the result of arthritis. Although the brain cavity was as large as a human skull the small frontal lobes were thought to indicate low intelligence. By the 1970s it was generally thought that the Neanderthal fossils were of a subspecies that died out about 32,000 years ago. As he considers these conflicting views of the specialists, Lewin comments: "Such is the weight of authority in any science, but particularly so in palaeoanthropology, a science that is often short on data and long on opinion."²³ We can sum the matter up by saying that the Neanderthals are not now considered directly ancestral to humans.

      The last group of fossils considered intermediate between apes and humans are the Cro-Magnons. They date from about 40,000 years ago and are distinguished by a more human-like skull, their use of tools and their practice of cave painting. No one is really sure when true human beings first appeared. Archer says: "Because erectus-type morphology grades into sapiens-type morphology, it is difficult to say precisely when H. sapiens made its first appearance in the fossil record."²⁴

      Lewin regards the identification and evaluation of fossils as highly coloured by our own beliefs and prejudices. He says:

Exactly where brute nature ends, however, and humanity begins is not a question for molecular or comparative biology. It is a question of the fourth dimension: a question of self-image. Here there are no lines accurately to be drawn, no hypotheses to be tested, for humanity's view of itself is constantly shifting, depending on the experience of the moment."²⁵

      We must also keep in mind that no complete human fossils have been found from these early periods. Most of the artist's drawings of early hominids owe more to the artist's imagination than they do to the few fragments of fossils that inspired them. A broken fragment of a skull, part of a jawbone or a few teeth are often all that exists of one of the so-called missing links. The artist's imagination supplies the rest of the picture so that it conforms to pre-conceived ideas.

      In summary, there are two salient features that need to be noted in the fossil record. The first is the reality of the geological column. If we make a timechart of all fossils discovered we find that we have a progressive picture of the development and diversification of life on earth. All forms of life did not begin at the same time. Beginning with extremely small and simple life forms, new organisms arose, persisted for a time and then vanished forever. Some early forms of life have persisted to the present day. As time progressed complexity increased and living organisms became increasingly diverse, filling every ecological niche of water, air and land. This fossil timechart is a recognised fact of history by the scientific community.

      The second salient feature is the problem that this presents to us: How did this come about? The theory of evolution claims to have discovered the "How" but, at the critical stages, the theory's answer is uncertain and unsatisfactory. Palaeontologists lack sufficient data to make a confident assessment. They compare bones, skulls, jaws and teeth but have no access to the "software" of the creatures they examine. They cannot tell us how the human nervous system and its chief component, the human brain, developed, how language and speech became possible or how our capacity for creative thought, moral values and religious instincts arose. Fossils have nothing to contribute at this critical point of the origin of our humanness. The fossils do not supply the answer we hoped they would.

      This attempt to discover our origin from the fossil record is really the search for our complete genealogy; our search for our true identity. We are orphans in this vast universe. We want to know who our ancestors were and how the human race began. We want to know why we are here and why the universe exists. The "How?" and the "Why?" about life on earth are inseparably connected. These questions are the source of much of our perennial interest in the sciences, philosophy and religion.

      As we ponder the "How" and 'Why" of life we find ourselves on the threshold of mystery. The fossils have taught us much about the history of life on earth but they can tell us nothing about how the changes in life forms came about. They have given us limited roots but they have not given us reasons.

      The importance of mutations to the theory of evolution is recognised by all writers on the subject. William Keeton says: "Ultimately, of course, all new genes arise by mutation."¹ Mayr says: "Mutation is the primary source of all genetic variation."² Dawkins says:

Evolution by natural selection could not be faster than the mutation rate, for mutation is, ultimately, the only way in which new variation enters the species. All that natural selection can do is accept certain new variations, and reject others.³

      Note these statements by leading writers on the subject: a realisation of this fact will help to clarify a lot of confused thinking.

      What are mutations? A Dictionary of Biology by Abercrombie, Hickman and Johnson says mutations are "sudden changes in chromosomal DNA."⁴ P. and J. Medawar, in the glossary of their book, The Life Science, give the definition of mutation as: "The rare molecular accident by which new genetic information comes into being . . ."⁵ This highlights the fact that mutations are rare and they are accidents. In their book they speak of them as ". . . random perturbations in the genetic material that change the character of the information they convey."⁶ The unusual word "perturbations" is apparently carefully chosen to give the exact scientific description of what they do. It means "to throw into (physical) confusion". Burnet and Hoyle and others refer to mutations as errors. They are errors that occasionally arise in the DNA blueprint of an organism. There are other processes that take place during cell division in which chromosomes exchange material as they randomly divide and are recombined in meiosis. These processes are said to provide an inexhaustible source of genetic diversity on which natural selection acts. This recombination of existing alleles is not mutation. It uses already existing material and does not create new, unique structures and functions. The Medawars use the analogies of language and music, where the twenty-six letters of the English alphabet and the diatonic scale are combined in an infinite number of ways to produce books or music. This sounds a reasonable analogy, but on closer

      examination we find that an essential element needed for the analogy to be valid has been ignored. In the case of books and music it is the application of intelligence to the alphabet and the music scale that produces new material. The letters of the alphabet and the notes of music are only passive instruments; the creative element comes from the intelligence that uses these instruments. But scientists deny that there is any intelligence at work in living organisms, only chance. It is said that natural selection takes the place of intelligence and has the ability to bring about radical changes in the genetic make-up of a population.

      It is true that natural selection does produce changes in the genetic makeup of a population, but natural selection has no original creative quality itself, it can only select from the changes that are presented to it by mutation and recombination. These gene changes would need to supply the blueprint for different enzymes, proteins and control mechanisms required for new assembly processes. We must remember that all mutations are errors and they have to be lucky errors that will co-ordinate with other lucky errors to produce such phenomena as the radar of bats, the complex life cycle of butterflies or the unique properties of an egg or seed that will faithfully reproduce its own species.

      According to the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, these seeming miracles are not miracles at all, they are the result of a series of lucky accidents in the genes from which natural selection has eliminated the changes that were not useful. It is said that the development from a bacterium to a human being had its origin in a series of lucky changes in the DNA. Accidents do not normally produce order and complex organisation, only intelligence does.

      A better analogy would be the erection of a building. The piles of building material that are dumped on a building site-heaps of sand, screenings, timber, bricks, tiles etc.--are just a jumble of useable material. However, none of this material came there by accident, it was carefully chosen in correct quantities according to the specifications of the architect's plan. Intelligence was required to choose the right materials in the right quantities and intelligence will be required to transform those materials into a functional building.

      If a house could be designed by chance, and built to the specifications of lucky accidents, yet turn out to be fully functional, there might be some truth in what the evolution theory is saying, but we all know that is absurd. The only thing that is usually built by chance is a pile of rubbish. Furthermore, to complete the analogy we would also have to assume that the changes in architectural design between the houses of last century and our present day houses are the result of mistakes made by copying plans.

      This is reasoning from the everyday level of cause and effect, which is not the scientific method, so it is not valid argument in scientific circles, but it is the kind of logical reasoning lay persons use, and they need answers to the problems as they see them. Recent research has shown that in some circumstances order can develop from apparent randomness so perhaps we are beginning to find answers. Ilya Prigogine, in the book, Order out of Chaos that he co-authored with Isabelle Stengers, raises this question. They say:

Our scientific heritage includes two basic questions to which till now no answer was provided. One is the relation between disorder and order. The famous law of increase of entropy describes the world as evolving from order to disorder; still, biological or social evolution shows us the complex emerging from the simple. How is this possible? How can structure arise from disorder? Recent progress has been made in respect to this question. We know now that nonequilibrium, the flow of matter and energy, may be a source of order.⁷

      This concept of order arising from disorder is still in the research stage. We consider this aspect in more detail in chapter 13. Whatever the result of this research may be it will certainly reveal the exceedingly complex nature of matter and its intrinsic quality of orderliness. It contributes further to the concept of an intelligent universe and supports belief in the existence of an exceedingly wise and intelligent creator. Apparently even the scientists wonder sometimes. The Medawars say that they ". . . wonder whether the whole story has been told and whether there may not be some other hitherto unrecognised source of variation."⁸ They are not suggesting a supernatural source but the possibility is there.

      Mutations have a number of characteristics that have to be considered as we evaluate their possible role in evolution:

• Mutations are very rare. A Dictionary of Biology by Abercrombie, Hickman and Johnson says, "Mutation is normally a very rare event." All biologists agree with this statement.
• All mutations are random. Errors are generally the result of radiation or chemical damage. There is no force directing them towards a purposeful end.
• Most mutations are harmful. The word commonly used is "deleterious" meaning harmful of destructive. William, Keeton says that because mutational changes are random it is understandable that the vast majority of new mutations are deleterious".
• Some mutations are neutral. They do not seem to have any effect on the progeny. Nevertheless, because the case for beneficial mutations is so weak, there is a school of thought initiated by Motoo Kimura that

  - 71 -

  
  suggests that an accumulation of neutral mutations could produce changes in organisms. This idea has not received general acceptance.
• Many mutations are recessive. This means that although the potential exists in the genes they are not expressed in the structure of the organism because they are heterozygous, that is they only exist in one parent. Because they are not expressed in progeny there is no opportunity for them to be selected by natural selection and hence they cannot influence the future development of the species. For this to happen the same mutation must appear in both parents, which lengthens the chances of this happening considerably. Since nearly all mutations are deleterious it is most likely that, if they are expressed in the progeny, they will be eliminated by natural selection.

      Because of these characteristics the chances of mutations introducing improvements to a species are very poor. Berry acknowledges that most mutations are harmful but still believes that sufficient favourable mutations arise to make the steady improvement of the species possible.⁹ However, neither he, nor anyone else, gives examples of such favourable mutations. There are many diseases, e. g. sickle cell anaemia and some forms of cancer, that are known to be the result of genetic errors, but where are the examples of improved function from this cause? No one seems to have specific instances to cite; it is everywhere assumed that this is the case.

      The change that took place in the colour of the peppered moth, Biston betularia, in England as a result of industrial pollution is often cited as an example of evolution due to mutation but it is doubtful if it is evolution at all. We explained this in chapter 3. There is no proof that the dark variety did not exist prior to 1950, when they were first observed, in fact it is admitted that they did exist but were rare. The dark variety is therefore not the result of mutation at all. All that happened as a result of the changed colour of the bark is that the proportion of the light ones was reduced and the proportion of the dark moths increased. Both always were, and still are, Biston betularia, or the peppered moth. Many evolutionists now admit that this is not a good example, but it is still cited in a number of books as an example of evolution in action. It shows how poor the evidence for evolution by mutation is when this is the best example available.

      Drosophila (fruit flies) have also been cited as an example of evolution. They are a fast-breeding species and have large, easily observed chromosomes, so they have provided opportunity to observe speciation through mutation. To hasten the process scientists have used radiation to induce mutations artificially. Some weird changes have been observed, such as legs growing where antennas normally grow, but despite the many generations of Drosophila that have been observed, and the many variants, all are still Drosophila

      The same has proved true of bacteria. It is believed that bacteria have existed for 3.5 billion years, and their life cycle is very short-a mere 20 minutes-but despite the trillions of generations of bacteria that have existed in that time, and their capacity to modify themselves to adjust to their environment, there is no proven instance of a bacterium becoming anything else.

      If mutations and natural selection have the major influence on organisms that the theory of evolution claims, we would expect the sharp distinctions between species to be broken down by so many variations that species would merge into one another. But this is not so; the universal law that all living creatures only reproduce their own kind still applies. Species have not changed during historical time, except for the minor variations that occur within all species. These variations within a particular species are obvious to all but this variation does not contribute to the development of new genera and so does not provide an argument for the theory of evolution. A clear distinction must be made between variation and speciation. In fact, species retain their integrity and distinct characteristics with remarkable fidelity. The Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Pre-History (Tattersall, Delson and Van Couvering) points out that the theory of punctuated equilibria and the work of Chiselin and Hull, support the pre-Darwinian concept of species as real entities in the fullest sense. They draw the obvious conclusion that: If species are real entities in this sense, the history of life cannot be reduced simply to a Darwinian story of origin and modifications of organic adaptations.¹⁰

      Natural selection is the citadel of the Darwinian theory of evolution. It is regarded as the process that directs evolution and that has produced every form of life that exists. It has replaced God as the creative agent. It is claimed that, using the raw material of mutation and genetic recombination, it has shaped every living organism so that it is perfectly adapted to its environment and it has produced every organ of the body by adaptation so that it fulfils a particular function and co-ordinate s with the other bodily organs to form a perfectly functioning individual. What is the evidence for these claims? Is natural selection capable of having created the several million different forms of life on our earth plus the complex and co-ordinated organs of the plants and animals?

      There is a selection process operating in nature to some degree. The question is whether it can account for the major differences between genera, families and even classes, or whether it only accounts for variations within a limited range of species and genera. Berry recognises the importance of natural selection in the evolutionary process but he also recognises its limitations. He says:

However, there is much less certainty about whether the well-understood processes that produce differences between populations within a species also lead to the formation of new species, and whether "higher" taxa (genera, families, classes etc.) are the result of the same processes again.¹

      G. L. Stebbins says that the three main processes essential for evolutionary change are mutation, genetic recombination and natural selection, and while it is widely acknowledged that these processes bring about changes at the subspecific (subspecies) level he observes that "some doubt the ability of these processes, by themselves, to give rise to genera, families or any groups of organisms having new characteristics."²

      Theodosius Dobzhansky expresses this reservation even more strongly. He says, "Hardly any competent biologist doubts that natural selection is an

important directing and controlling agency in evolution. Yet one current issue hotly debated is whether a majority or only a small minority of evolutionary changes are induced by selection."³

      Francis Hitching discusses the validity of the concept of natural selection in his book, The Neck of the Giraffe. He points out that some scientists regard the natural selection theory as simply the statement of a truism and therefore a circular argument. Is it in essence merely saying that those individuals best adapted to survive, survive? Does it really tell us anything new? Hitching says that Thomas Huxley acknowledged that Darwin did not prove that natural selection actually produced new species and Ernst Mayr and George Simpson both acknowledged that Darwin's book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, failed to answer the problem stated by the title. Darwin demonstrated that species could be modified but did not show how they could be multiplied.⁴

      Hitching quotes from a statement that Conrad Waddington of Edinburgh University made at the Wistar symposium on evolution, when mathematicians strongly disagreed with aspects of the neo-Darwinian theory. He said:

      The theory of neo-Darwinism is a theory of the evolution of the changing of the population in respect to leaving offspring and not in respect to anything else. Nothing else is mentioned in the mathematical theory of neo-Darwinism. It is smuggled in and everybody has in the back of his mind that the animals that leave the largest number of offspring are going to be those best adapted also for eating peculiar vegetation, or something of this sort; but this is not explicit in the theory. All that is explicit in the theory is that they will leave more offspring.

      There, you do come to what is, in effect, a vacuous statement: natural selection is that some things leave more offspring than others; and you ask, which leave more offspring than others; and it is those that leave more offspring; and there is nothing more to it than that.⁵

      Hitching comments: "To put it at its mildest, one may question an evolutionary theory so beset by doubts among even those who teach it. If Darwinism is truly the great unifying principle of biology, it encompasses extraordinarily large areas of ignorance.⁶

      Most scientists still support the natural selection hypothesis but despite a very careful search of the recognised authorities we failed to find any hard evidence that natural selection has produced all of the incredibly diverse life forms on Earth. There is abundant evidence of variation within recognised genera with apparently almost unlimited capacity in the gene pool of particular species for infinite variation of individual organisms. The extrapolation of

this fact of subspecific variation to support intraspecific novelty and the creation of new genera was the only supporting "evidence" we found.

      Extrapolation is a logically weak base on which to build so comprehensive and radical a theory as Darwinian evolution.

      Mark Ridley discusses specific aspects of natural selection in his book, The Problems of Evolution. He cites the variations in the peppered moth, Biston betularia, and in the solitary wasp, Sphex ichneumoneus, and the clutch sizes of swifts in support of the view that adaptations are the result of natural selection.⁷

      There is no problem here. It is only when this kind of natural variation within a species is extrapolated to apply to the origin of widely diverse genera and very complex organs that natural selection seems to be inadequate. For example: the human eye is said to have developed by means of natural selection through gradual changes beginning with the light sensitive cells of leeches and worms, progressing through the pin-hole eye stage of molluscs to the more advanced eyes of octopuses, until finally the remarkable human eye was achieved.⁸

      It is worth noting that all these animals with their differently structured eyes are still living and these different types of eyes are contemporary with each other today. If natural selection operates against the less efficient and favours the superior organs one would have thought that the animals with less complex eyes would have died out but few creatures are more numerous than squid and molluscs in the sea and worms on land. Michael Denton observes that there should be evidence of a sequence of various stages of eyes from the simplest photosensitive spot to the camera-type eye of mammals but "no such series exists in any known lineage."⁹

      Can we really trace our ancestry back through the octopuses and molluscs to the leeches and worms? Is it possible that from this humble origin, and lacking any predetermined end, natural selection has developed a being with the memory and co-ordination of a concert pianist, the wisdom to build and fly spacecraft and the intelligence to probe the mystery of existence as we are doing as we study this subject? Could such a result be attributed to errors that occurred in the DNA of worms and their adaptation to their environment? A molecular biologist, Michael Denton, is one who thinks not. He says:

While it is easy to accept that a random search might hit on mutational routes leading to relatively trivial sorts of adaptive ends, such as the best coloration for a stoat . . . But as to whether the same blind undirected search mechanism could have discovered the mutational routes to very complex and ingenious adaptations such as the vertebrate camera eye, the feather, the organ of corti [the auditory receptor in the ear] or the mammalian kidney is altogether

- 76 -

another question. To common sense it seems incredible to attribute such ends to random search mechanisms, known by experience to be incapable, at least in finite time, of achieving even the simplest of ends.¹⁰

      Other instances of evolution by natural selection that are given are the acclimatisation of the grass Agrostis tenuis on metal slag heaps, certain varieties having become tolerant to metal residues, and the acquired ability of bacteria to digest oil and of aphids to become immune to poisons.¹¹ In none of these instances has any major change occurred or a new genera developed. New varieties of grass, bacteria and aphids have arisen by adaptation to the changed environments but despite these adaptations they are still grass, bacteria and aphids. Natural selection and adaptation are facts of everyday life but they only operate within limited and restricted fields. Microevolution of this kind is an established fact and we do not question it. But speculation and extrapolation are employed to claim greater powers for natural selection than the actual evidence warrants.

      It is true that recent research has shown that there is a considerable amount of potential variability in the genes of most species and this is why there is a capability to respond rapidly to changed environments but this potential exists in quite stable populations that show only minor variations. There is no evidence that it results in the creation of totally new species. It is now generally accepted that natural selection works towards maintaining the integrity of a species, rather than towards change, when there is normal mingling in a population. Ernst Mayr's view is that a population will remain stable as a result of the normal effects of gene exchange but that inbreeding in small isolated populations has potential for larger change.

      Others disagree. Some advocate that changes are due to the exchange of genes and others think that they are due to adaptation or natural selection. In this connection Mark Ridley says: ". . . speciation is rich in problems but poor in solutions." But these statements refer only to the methods of speciation. He believes that species do change into other species and concludes by saying: ". . . speciation, like most evolutionary processes, is probably powered by natural selection."¹² So his conclusion that the evolutionary process is powered by natural selection is qualified by the word "probably". This is why we say that if the public would read the writings of qualified scientists they would find that the whole subject is not as cut-and-dried as the popular press implies. Scientists, like all of us, have their prejudices, but they honestly report their findings, both favourable and adverse; they have to because other scientists would soon pull an over-prejudiced case to pieces. One has the feeling that some writers are really struggling when they search for convincing evidence to prove that the whole range of living species in the world has arisen as a

result of natural selection. There are no living examples of the rise of totally new genera, so we can only speculate as to what happened in the distant past where no evidence, except fossil evidence, can ever be available.

      At the close of a chapter on the positive aspect of natural selection, Richard Dawkins acknowledges that it was a difficult chapter to write but he says that he had to write it lest his readers should think that natural selection was only a weeding out process. In the next chapter he introduces the concept of positive feedback and supports his views with analogies and illustrations but he is aware of the danger of pushing analogies too far and he warns his readers at both the beginning and the end of the chapter against doing this."¹³ The evidence is not convincing enough to show that each different kingdom, phyla, class, order, family, genus and species has come into being as a result of natural selection. It only shows that natural selection produces variety within recognised species and genera.

      Paul Ehrlich has pointed out that there are perhaps 30 million different kinds of organisms and he asks: "What can explain this enormous diversity?" He suggests that the great diversity of conditions on earth gave rise to the many different types of organisms. He does not give any instances of how different species, genera or families arose but he cites several cases of variation within a species or genus. He says that speciation is difficult to observe because it takes hundreds or thousands of generations. He considers that the best evidence that speciation occurs is the observable diversity within species at the present time. He says, ". . . nature today presents a 'snapshot' of an ongoing process that conforms precisely to the notion that differentiation of geographically isolated populations is the common mechanism of speciation."¹⁴ His belief that natural selection produces new species is based entirely on extrapolating the small variations observable within any species. This is only speculation. In our opinion it is a very insecure foundation on which to base the central principle of the theory of evolution. At this critical core of the neo-Darwinian hypothesis there is a surprising lack of solid evidence.

      Michael Denton has pointed out that Darwin's breeding experiments with pigeons show that considerable variation is possible within a species but he says:

. . . they also revealed distinct limits in nearly every case beyond which no further change could ever be produced. Here then was a very well-established fact, known for centuries, which seemed to run counter to his whole case, threatening not only his special theory-that one species could evolve into another-but also the plausibility of the extrapolation from micro- to macroevolution . . . If this change was always strictly limited then the validity of the extrapolation was obviously seriously threatened.¹⁵

      Although the concept of macroevolution has been generally accepted in America, a considerable number of European scientists have not been convinced that the fact of microevolution can be extended to prove macroevolution; nor is there any other mechanism for interspecies development that they endorse. The origin of the various families of creatures on earth is still an open question.

      Mark Ridley acknowledges that the origin of widely different organisms is one of the major problems of evolution and he has devoted a chapter of his book, The Problems of Evolution, to discuss it.¹⁶ He calls it macroevolution, or speciation. Unless proponents of the neo-Darwinian theory can prove that natural selection has produced new species, genera, families, orders, classes, phyla and kingdoms of organisms, the theory of evolution will remain speculation and not fact, as claimed.

      Here is the evidence which Ridley cites for the view that natural selection produces new species and classes:

• Mammals tend to increase in size with time. This is called Cope's rule. It is based on the fossil record but it has exceptions and is not true, for example, in the case of bats. Mark Ridley observes that: "Cope's 'rule' may not in fact be a real rule. Its supporters may have selected the cases that conform to it from a mass of cases that point in all directions."¹⁷ In any case, it only refers to size and so has no bearing on changes of form.
• Williston's law observes that segmented organisms, such as ants and spiders, tend to become more differentiated over time. There are also exceptions to this so-called "law". It simply records an observation of fact and has no bearing on the validity of the method of natural selection that is under discussion here.
• Whole species, rather than individual units, are the basis of selection. This could occur due to greater size, longevity or fecundity of the particular species. It is pointed out that species selection would be extremely slow, probably millions of times slower than natural selection on the basis of individuals. In any case, it would only apply to differences such as size, longevity and fecundity. None of these changes is due to adaptation, which is considered important in the development of species. Eldredge and Gould suggested this idea thinking that it might be connected to their concept of punctuated equilibria but Ridley does not think that this is so. The fossil record provides evidence of the rise and fall of whole groups of species. It is assumed that this is due to some advantage the latter type had over the one it replaced but, according to Ridley, many biologists have been reluctant to adopt this view.

- 79 -

• The possibility that random chance may be the cause of new species is also considered. Various models are suggested in support of this view but the results have been inconclusive. Ridley says: "By juggling with the exact values of the probabilities of speciation, extinction and transitions between different states, it is possible to simulate almost any pattern of evolution."¹⁸ He is not impressed with this argument. He concludes his book by acknowledging that speciation is one of the unsolved problems of evolution. He says: 'Nor do we know the cause of the grand patterns of rise, fall and replacement of groups."¹⁹

      This is the kind of scientific honesty we need and which makes it clear that the issue is by no means settled. The question of the origin of species is no nearer to a satisfactory solution today than it was when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. It seems that the arguments put forward have little real bearing on the question of the ability of natural selection to be a positive force leading to the creation of entirely new and novel forms of life. Berry's comment is very relevant. He says:

Such apparent anomalies obviously need examining on their merits, but it is worth emphasising again that the strength of the neo-Darwinian understanding is its proven mechanism rather than any accumulation of evidence. Indeed, one of the more serious complaints about neo-Darwinism is that it explains so much that it has become dogma rather than science, and should be rejected on that ground.²⁰

      The proven mechanism of natural selection does not appear to extend beyond the species, it is a limited proven mechanism, and there's the rub.

      The various sciences are currently undergoing quite revolutionary challenges to previously accepted concepts. In respect to evolution it is not just the methodology that is being challenged but the very concepts on which the theory is based are under question. A new paradigm is emerging. A paradigm is a pattern of thought or a way of looking at a subject using a particular set of ideas. A good example is the difference between the piston engine and the jet engine. The inventors of the jet engine moved to a new paradigm using a quite different principle to develop a power unit for aeroplanes.

      Isaac Newton's discovery of the laws of physics introduced the idea of a deterministic universe in which everything followed a predetermined course governed by the laws of nature. Descartes developed this mechanistic view of nature and his influence was such that it has been the prevailing paradigm of the sciences ever since. Living organisms were seen as merely the product of the natural laws of chemistry. Even human beings were considered to be completely determined in their form and character by their heredity and environment. Inorganic matter and living organisms were both considered to be reducible to their constituent elements of molecules and atoms, the building blocks of the universe. A man and a mountain were both considered to be merely the sum of their constituent parts and nothing more. This view of nature is referred to as reductionism and the system in which it applies is called a linear system. In the light of recent discoveries this view is seen to have limited application. Paul Davies says: "Complete reductionism is nothing more than a vague promise founded on the outdated and now discredited concept of determinism." He adds: It should be clear, however, from what has gone before, that strict determinism no longer has any place in science."¹

      Charles Birch, in his book, On Purpose, says:

The picture of the universe as a gigantic contrivance and ourselves as small contrivances or machines is now beleaguered on several

- 81 -

fronts. It is challenged by modern physics, modern biology and by frontier thinking in theology and philosophy. But the news has not yet reached the headlines.²

      He points out that the idea of a mechanistic universe became the dominant world-view after the rise of science in the seventeenth century.³ Descartes claimed that God had constructed the universe like a vast machine and that he had ordained the immutable laws by which all things were governed. God was also seen as one who intervened when necessary to guide nature along its predetermined course. Scientists and theologians spoke of God as the God of the gaps. His miraculous powers were invoked to bridge the gaps in our human knowledge, which seemed to require a miracle to explain the origin of the universe, life itself and human consciousness. The Christian church also allied itself with this concept.⁴ This paradigm of a linear, mechanistic universe has been the foundation on which the Darwinian theory of evolution has been built. Recent discoveries have shown that these concepts have valid but limited application. Einstein wrote: "Science did not succeed in carrying out the mechanical program convincingly and today no physicist believes in the possibility of its fulfilment."⁵

      It used to be thought that atomic and subatomic entities were the building blocks from which all things were made, but recent discoveries show that we can no longer think in these concrete terms. The quantum theory has revolutionised our view of matter and although its effects are generally limited to the world of molecules and subatomic particles it has shattered our view of a world composed of solid matter and made many previously held views obsolete. It is now thought that the fundamental quality of all matter is to be found in "fields" rather than in substance. David Bohm tells us that elementary particles are only an abstraction. They do not really exist. He says:

What is needed . . . is to give up altogether the notion that the world is constituted of basic objects or "building blocks". Rather, one has to view the world in terms of universal flux of events and processes.⁶

      In the microscopic world the important element is the "field", the relationship and interaction of the different forces. They possess a freedom to act and to adjust to the field of surrounding influence. Charles Birch draws on the writings of Stapp and McDaniel to support this view and comments:

This means that submicroscopic events are themselves "acts of decision" by which certain possibilities for behaviour are actualised and others are cut out . . . The new proposal which Stapp develops is that submicroscopic matter is partly life-like. "Submicroscopic actualities, whatever they are, seem to be able to take into account external influences (the root meaning of sentience) and actualise possible responses (the root meaning of creativity)."⁷

      In their book The New Biology, Angros and Stancui say:

With atomic materialism matter was the source of all action and mind was a passive by-product. The new physics reverses this perspective: matter is passive, potential and incomplete while mind is a source of action.⁸

      This is a revolutionary discovery indeed. It means that the subatomic world is in some way aware of its environment and capable of a creative response. It suggests that what we have regarded as inert matter is in some sense active and capable of "feeling" and responding. It is now thought that the chance chemical associations from which life is supposed to have originated, and the chance mutations that evolution considers to be the basis of novelty for life-forms, are not really random at all. Paul Davies says:

Complex structures in biology are unlikely to have come about as a result of purely random accidents, a mechanism which fails completely to explain the evolutionary arrow of time. Far more likely, it seems, is that complexity in biology has arisen as part of the same general principle that governs the appearance of complexity in physics and chemistry, namely, the very non-random abrupt transitions to new states of greater organisational complexity that occur when systems are forced away from equilibrium and encounter "critical points".⁹

      Davies draws attention to Daniel Bohm's view that quantum processes are not random and summarises the matter by saying: "But if quantum processes are not random, then the whole basis of neo-Darwinism is undermined."¹⁰

      One of the major lines of research has concerned non-linear systems and non-equilibrium states. Knowledge of the results obtained has a significant bearing on our subject so, ignoring any unfamiliar terms, let us focus on the findings. For many years scientists have been puzzled by the fact that organisation and complexity have arisen from primitive, featureless chaos, and that the universe grows increasingly complex with time. The problem is how can order emerge from chaos? When an open system is driven far from equilibrium it reaches a critical stage at which it changes abruptly into a new, unpredictable state of greater organisational complexity in which the new form is more than just the sum of its parts. Something entirely new has been created and it is not reversible. A permanent new entity has come into being.

      This has been demonstrated in physics and chemistry and is now being applied to biology also. So, while in some ways the universe behaves like a machine, it also has the capacity for continuous creativity. Paul Davies says:

It seems clear that it is this tendency, rather than random mutation and natural selection, that is the essential mode of biological evolution.¹¹

      This is a major challenge to the modus operandi of classical evolution theory. If mutation and natural selection are discredited then Darwinism, in its present form, is finished as a viable theory. This new paradigm is not just concerned with the mutation and natural selection theory of neo-Darwinism; it implies that the mechanism of evolution involves the whole universe, which is interrelated and acts as a single integrated unit. Fritjof Capra's statement is an example of this new outlook. He says:

In modern physics, the image of the universe as a machine has been transcended by a view of it as one indivisible, dynamic whole whose parts are essentially interrelated and can be understood only as patterns of a cosmic process.¹²

      This is described as the ecological or holistic view. Davies says:

The new paradigm amounts to turning three hundred years of entrenched philosophy on its head . . . It is, in short, nothing less than a brand-new start in the description of nature.¹³

      Nevertheless, these new discoveries do not deny the reality of the reductionist paradigm within certain limits; they are complementary to it. It might at first appear that this new approach leaves God out of the picture as completely as the Darwinian theory. In fact some have suggested that this creativity of dissipative structures has taken over the role of God. But this is not so. The fact that we understand more of the method by which creative activity operates in the world does not deny the need for a divine orderer. Davies says:

I believe that science is in principle able to explain the existence of complexity and organisation at all levels, including human consciousness, though only by embracing the "higher level" laws. Such a belief might be regarded as denying a god, or a purpose in this wonderful creative universe we inhabit. I do not see it that way. The very fact that the universe is creative, and that the laws have permitted complex structures to emerge and develop to the point of consciousness-in other words, that the universe has organised its own self-awareness--is for me powerful evidence that there is "something going on" behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming. Science may explain all the processes whereby the universe evolves its own destiny, but that still leaves room for there to be a meaning behind existence.¹⁴

      John Houghton, Director General of Meteorology at Bracknell, UK, and formerly Professor of Atmospheric Physics at Oxford, is another leading scientist who sees no conflict between science and belief in a creator. Rather, he believes that the very nature of the universe demands belief in God. In his book, Does God Play Dice? he says:

Many scientists, including myself, feel that, even though no logical argument can be provided leading from the universe to a designer, the evidence tends strongly to demand the existence of an intelligent being behind it all.

      He explicitly declares his own belief in the existence of God, who is not only the creator but also the sustainer of the universe. He goes on to say:

In which case, if there is a "great designer", he must have provided for self-maintenance. I believe, however, it makes more sense to think of God not only as the great designer but as the source of that which keeps the universe in existence. God is then the great sustainer through whose continued moment-by-moment activity the whole show of the universe continues.¹⁵

      So we come to the question of purpose in living organisms. Because science has limited its area of investigation to things that can be observed, weighed and measured etc. it does not concern itself with the question of purpose. The literature on evolution therefore either denies that there is purpose in the universe or declines to discuss the question. Neo-Darwinists generally regard the apparent purpose of various organs as a consequence of the evolutionary process instead of the reason for their existence. But it is so obvious that every organ of a living creature is perfectly fitted for the function it performs that many scientists agree that this is a major problem that requires an explanation. The thoroughgoing materialist, Jacques Monod, says: "Objectivity nevertheless obliges us to recognise the telenomic [purposeful] character of living organisms, to admit that in their structure and performance they act projectively--realise and pursue a purpose".¹⁶ Paul Davies says: "Perhaps the most baffling thing about biological organisms is their teleological quality (or telenomic to use the preferred modern term) . . . Although final causation is anathema to scientists, the teleological flavour of biological systems is undeniable."¹⁷ Angros and Stancui say: "In acknowledging purpose and mind biology can free itself from the tyranny of mechanistic explanations."¹⁸ In his book, On Purpose, Charles Birch says:

The central symbol of ecological thinking in this book is purpose. It has become the central problem for contemporary thought . . . Either we and the rest of the creation have no permanent value or else we may say that there is a cosmic life, a divine life, able to appropriate and retain as experience in its life our lesser lives and that of other individuals of creation. Either we and the rest live for what transcends ourselves or we live without ultimate meaning and ultimate purpose.¹⁹

      He calls on his fellow scientists to give purpose a prime place and a causal role in the new emerging paradigm.²⁰

      Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the French Jesuit priest, palaeontologist and philosopher, developed a system of thought in which he sought to integrate scientific knowledge and Christian beliefs into a unified world view that recognised God as the creative power and evolution the method by which he chose to create. He broadened the traditional creator/father concept of God and presented a less personal view of the creator as the source of all existence and the guiding power within evolution. His views were not widely accepted by either scientists or theologians but they are now receiving confirmation from the new view of reality called the systems view of life.²¹

      The systems view of life sees living organisms, not as machines built of atoms, molecules and organs, but as living entities, composed of interdependent and integrated systems whose structure is determined by their organisation, not their component parts. Individual organisms are also parts of a larger living system, e. g. a colony of ants or bees or our human society. These larger systems are again part of the whole ecological system of the biosphere, which, in the Gaia theory, is considered to be a single living entity.²² The whole earth is regarded as a single living system that functions like a self-regulating organism. This underlies the modern emphasis on the importance of the total ecology. Fritjof Capra says:

The creative unfolding of life toward forms of ever-increasing complexity remained an unsolved mystery for more than a century after Darwin, but recent study has outlined the contours of a theory of evolution that promises to shed light on this striking characteristic of living organisms. This is a systems theory that focuses on the dynamics of self-transcendence and is based on the work of a number of scientists from various disciplines.²³

      This systems view of evolution differs fundamentally from the neo-Darwinian theory based on mutation and natural selection. The systems view of life does not rule out a spiritual factor in the origin and development of life and can accommodate the concept of a personal creator.

      G. Bateson and E. Jantsch are two frontier thinkers who have applied this new knowledge to the phenomena of mind and consciousness. Mind and matter appear to be two aspects of the same dynamic process, which operates in both living and non-living systems to produce organisation. just as individual minds together constitute the collective mind of a community or nation so the total dynamic process of organisation in living systems is now seen as an expression of ". . . some kind of universal or cosmic mind." Capra says: "The conceptual framework of the new systems approach is in no way restricted by associating this cosmic mind with the traditional idea of God. In the words of Jantsch, 'God is not the creator, but the mind of the universe'." Capra adds: "In this view the deity is, of course, neither male nor female, nor manifest

in any personal form, but represents nothing less than the self-organising dynamics of the entire COSMOS."²⁴

      This terminology is a far cry from traditional theological language but it is also dramatically different from the atheism and nihilism of Jacques Monod and the materialists. It not only allows the spiritual agency of a creative deity, it virtually demands it. Fritjof Capra shows the radical change that has taken place in recent scientific thought when he comments that biological structures (bodies) are merely an expression of mind. He says:

Extending this way of thinking to the universe as a whole, it is not too far-fetched to assume that all its structures-from subatomic particles to galaxies and from bacteria to human beings-are manifestations of the universe's self-organising dynamics, which we have identified with the cosmic mind.²⁵

      Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's view of God as the source of all being is not significantly different from the latest scientific views expressed by Fritjof Capra and Erich Jantsch when they equate God with the mind of the universe. The purely materialistic theory of evolution presented in most textbooks and commonly taught in our schools has not kept pace with the latest scientific thought. When we consider the many major unsolved problems of the traditional Darwinian theory and the inadequacies of the mutation/natural selection model in the light of these newer insights it is obvious that we have to rethink evolution.

      The new outlook emerging from the thought and research of Alfred Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne, Ilya Prigogine, Paul Davies, Charles Birch, Conrad Waddington, Paul Weiss, Erich Jantsch, Fritjof Capra and others who are involved in the new physics and the postmodern world view, is mounting the most serious challenge yet to traditional Darwinism and it is unlikely that it will emerge without being modified and possibly with some of its long-cherished theories discarded. It is also unlikely that traditional Christian views of God and his relationship to the world will remain unaltered. Christian thinkers need to give as much serious thought to the things scientists are discovering about our world as scientists themselves do. In the past Christians have often confused their own ideas about the world with what God has revealed; it has taken time and been a painful process to sort one from the other and to discard purely human assumptions without affecting their essential belief in God and his revelation. Christians must rethink their ideas about a purely transcendent God who exists apart from the material universe and give serious thought to how far God is immanent, permanently pervading the universe and participating in the moment-by-moment life processes of the world.

      R. J. Berry of University College, London, is a highly respected geneticist and also a Christian who believes in the creative activity of God through

evolution. He believes that God is immanent in the world and always at work controlling and guiding his creation. He says:

Science can speak only of a mechanistic causality, while the Bible speaks of a purposive one; the intellectual climate of modern mankind makes a God active in his world necessary both scientifically and theologically . . . the evolutionary controversy has forced us to recognise that any religion worth serious consideration must be one where the God is in constant control of everyday events.²⁶

      Those familiar with John's gospel will recall that Jesus said, "My Father is working still."²⁷ The creator may have rested on the seventh day but he obviously did not cease his involvement in the life of the world. Jesus says he is still working. The book of Colossians in the New Testament says of Christ: "He is before all things and in him all things hold together."²⁸ The word translated "hold together" is an interesting Greek word that is remarkably consistent with the latest scientific findings. It means "to put together as a whole, to compose, create, form, to unite, to band together, to be involved and implicated in something". In Christ, as in God, all things have their existence. It is more than possible that the long-standing conflict between science and religion is due more to an inadequate understanding of both the world and the Bible than to any intrinsic discrepancies between the two.

      The question of whether people were created by a Supreme Being or are the product of blind materialistic forces is not an academic question for discussion in laboratories, classrooms and private conversation only. Beliefs have a profound effect on behaviour. What we believe about our origin and nature influences what happens in the marketplace of life and affects personal happiness, family life and social harmony.

      If we are the product of purely materialistic forces and chemical processes then it is obvious that life has no ultimate meaning or purpose. There is no reason for existence and no purpose in living, except the short-term goals we set ourselves. It is understandable that people will want to make the most of their limited lifetime so they tend to become selfish, making pleasure and possessions their reason for living. John Haught begins his book, The Cosmic Adventure, by highlighting this question of purpose in life. He writes:

The central issue in science and religion today is whether nature in its evolution has any purpose or ultimate meaning. All the other questions that cluster around the topic of science and religion converge on that of nature and purpose . . . Thus the problem of nature and purpose is not merely an academic one; it flows from our deepest and most personal concerns as to whether we really belong to the universe, or rather must awaken to our utter solitude, our "fundamental isolation".¹

      We all instinctively seek a meaning for life. Macfarlane Burnet stated that he had been seeking some meaning for human existence throughout the whole of his life. He wrote:

Somehow the deep imperative within me and the drive that gave me a worthwhile career in science and a certain limited fame the irresistible urge to look for the meaning of things--came into being and in itself calls for an interpretation.²

      Fred Hoyle also raised this question and pointed out that biology, with its Darwinian theory, provided no purpose except to produce the next generation.

      He found this inadequate and pointed out that many persist in thinking that life ought to have some deeper purpose. He considered that without this purpose there is no basis for morality except survival and so he concluded that the evolution theory opened the door to cheating, murder and any behaviour that will contribute to survival. He says, "Frankly, I am haunted by a conviction that the nihilistic philosophy which so-called educated opinion chose to adopt following the publication of The Origin of Species committed mankind to a course of automatic self-destruction."³

      Theodosius Dobzhansky is another leading scientist who poses the question, "Why life?" He says that ever since the first philosophers began speculating about life, the meaning and purpose of life has been the principal subject of discussion. He comments:

And yet modern man, this enlightened sceptic and agnostic, cannot refrain from at least secretly wondering about the old questions: Does my life have some meaning and purpose over and above keeping myself alive and continuing the chain of living? Does the universe in which 1 live have some meaning, or is everything just a "devil's vaudeville"?⁴

      In a radio interview in August 1990, the Australian historian, Manning Clark, mentioned that he had spent most of his life wondering if God exists, and he said that he still wonders. His comment about God's existence seemed to be not so much a religious question as the ultimate question of whether there is a creator or whether life is aimless and meaningless. Apparently he was not convinced that the theory of materialistic evolution tells the whole story. He declared himself to be passionately attached to a religious view of the world.⁵

      We all wonder at times why we are here. Just as food exists to satisfy the feelings of hunger in our bodies it would be strange indeed if a universal hunger for meaning existed in us that could never be satisfied. The fact that we feel life ought to have meaning is a good indication that it probably does, but, if life arose merely by chance, it cannot have meaning.

      Any theory of evolution that is entirely materialistic and denies the uniqueness of human beings destroys the special sacredness we feel about human life. If there is no difference in kind between humans and other animals why cannot humans be shot if they become too plentiful, just as other animals are? The same logic applies to euthanasia. If we "put down" old and sick animals why not human animals?

      Neo-Darwinism cannot provide any logical reason why this should not happen. There is some moral quality in us that cannot be the product of the evolutionary process. Why should we feel compassion when millions are starving or homeless through drought or floods? If we eat animal flesh why is it

wrong to eat human flesh? Yet we instinctively feel that this is wrong. Why do we feel this way?

      When Adolf Hitler and the Nazis decided to exterminate people they regarded as inferior their action was condemned by humanists and Christians alike but there was nothing in their philosophy that stood against this terrible policy. They regarded the Germanic people as a superior race and, influenced by the evolutionary and nihilistic philosophy of Nietzsche and others they saw nothing improper in the superior Germanic people surviving and those they considered inferior being destroyed. They did not consider their actions immoral. They merely hastened what they considered to be an inevitable part of the evolutionary process.

      Charles Birch comments on the philosophy behind the holocaust. He refers to Jacob Bronowski's television series, The Ascent of Man, in which Bronowski shows a pond at Auschwitz concentration camp that contained the ashes of four million victims of the Nazi philosophy. Birch says: "That was not done by gas. It was done by dogma; the dogma holds that certain people are mere objects."⁶

      If there is no Supreme Being then there is no authoritative code of morality beyond people themselves. Right and wrong are not absolute but are relative and changeable. Much of the moral confusion and corruption of our modern society is directly attributable to the rejection of belief in a creator and the adoption of a philosophy based on the theory of evolution. Michael Denton says:

Chance and design are antithetical concepts, and the decline in religious belief can probably be attributed more to the propagation and advocacy by the intellectual and scientific community of the Darwinian version of evolution than to any other single factor.⁷

      Richard Leakey says that humans are just a different kind of ape; therefore humans are just intelligent animals. Once we classify our fellow humans as animals only, it is quite proper to treat them as animals. According to the Darwinian theory survival is the only thing that matters, and since the fittest must survive to promote the development of evolution, it is possible to justify almost any behaviour in its most ruthless form. Jacques Monod says that society is justified in its fear that the theory of evolution will radically change moral standards. He writes:

The fear is the fear of sacrilege: of outrage to values. A wholly justified fear. It is perfectly true that science outrages values. Not directly, since science is no judge of them and must ignore them; but it subverts every one of the mythical or philosophical ontogenies [beliefs about the origin and development of the individual being] upon which the animist tradition, from the Australian Aborigines

- 91 -

to the dialectical materialists, has made all ethics rest: values, duties, rights, prohibitions.⁸

      The Darwinian theory of evolution does not provide any philosophical basis for human co-operation. It is based on competition and although recent evolution theory recognises a role for co-operation this is not generally appreciated by the general public. Therefore it encourages selfishness and the forces of division and disintegration in society. The philosophy of life that is the natural outcome of the theory of evolution knows nothing of altruistic love but only the so-called love of passion and the selfish love of possessions.

      The theory has provided a philosophical basis for existentialism, which sees no ultimate meaning in life, and says that everyone should choose their own way of living and live for the present moment. It encourages hedonism (living for pleasure) and materialism (making the acquisition of possessions the aim of life). These selfish and often anti-social twins, pleasure and possessions, instead of occupying a proper and balanced role tend to become the chief goals in life. Both of these can become divisive forces that are destructive of family life and social cohesion.

      If natural selection is to work as the agent of improvement it must be allowed to function without regard to compassion or its effect on society. Its competitive principle operates against the harmony and cohesion of society, promoting the survival of the individuals best adapted to the environment. The Darwinian theory of evolution provides a basis for genocide, ruthless capitalism and wars of conquest and is inimical to the increasingly urgent dream of world peace.

      The real battleground of life is in the realm of ideas. Some wars are fought for conquest or survival but many are the clash of conflicting ideologies. Two conflicting ideologies cannot co-exist indefinitely. If we do not counter the agnostic and materialistic view of life encouraged by the theory of evolution it will ultimately permeate and dominate our society with its attendant destructive values and lifestyle. This is a battle that cannot be fought with weapons; it is a battle of the mind and can only be fought in the realm of ideas. These nihilistic ideas have invaded our schools and libraries and it is in these arenas where they must be challenged. If the totally materialistic view of life based on the theory of evolution is not true it will not fit the facts of life and will finally be shown to be false. Whatever the truth is it will ultimately triumph.

      There are signs that the theory is beginning to fall apart, but this exposure of its inconsistencies is vigorously opposed by those who are committed to it as dogma, and by popular science writers who do not want to step out of line. If there is a creator who brought all things into being and who is still continuously active in creation, the growth of knowledge should increasingly point in that direction.

      But the more we know about the universe and our planet Earth the deeper the mysteries become. At the present time it is not the answers but the mysteries that are increasing. Instead of being proud of our knowledge, and angrily defending our viewpoint, whether in the realm of science or religion, we should sit together humbly in the presence of the mystery of life and try to help each other by sharing our insights as we seek to find meaning and direction in our brief stay on this earth.

      Up to this point we have not put forward an alternative to Darwinism; we have only pointed out the inadequacy of the mutation/natural-selection model to explain the origin of life and its diversity. It would be wrong to present only negative criticism when people want answers to the riddle of life on earth. There is a credible alternative to Darwinism that is consistent with both the data of science and belief in a supernatural creator. It has been mentioned already in some of the quotations in chapter 13. We will now isolate these ideas and, in order to distinguish them from other models, we will call this emerging model "progressive creation". We have coined the name only, not he concept behind it; that has come from some prominent scientists who believe that the best explanation for the diversity of life forms is that the creative power we call God is constantly at work shaping and sustaining life on our earth.

      In presenting this view we do not say that this is the correct view of creation or that this is the answer we have all been seeking. We are only saying that this is a possible explanation being offered by some scientists and that it is consistent with both science and Christian belief. There is no doubt that future discoveries will add to our understanding and modify presently held views but it is encouraging to those who have held to belief in God as the creator to know that science has not made such belief obsolete but, on the contrary, has made a personal creator credible and, in the view of some, necessary.

      First, we will review the statements that say that the universe is intelligent and purposive. True science is totally materialistic and can only present models that rely on the dynamic interaction of material forces; yet some scientists are saying that we must face the fact that the universe manifests both intelligence and purpose. In chapter 13 we noted that Augros and Stancui say, "In acknowledging purpose and mind biology can free itself from the tyranny of

mechanistic explanations." Jantsch speaks of a "cosmic mind". When he says that "God is not the creator, but the mind of the universe" he is suggesting that God's creative activity was not spent in a single act of creation when life began but God's activity in creation is a continuous process. Neither Jantsch nor Capra think of God in personal terms but the fact that they see the need for a "cosmic mind" continuously at work in a creative way is significant.

      Paul Davies is another leading scientist who considers that the continuous creativity of living systems points to a creative God at work. We noted that he said, "The very fact that the universe is creative . . . is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all." Two brief extracts from the quoted statements by Professor R. J. Berry and John Houghton are even more explicit. Houghton says, "God is then the great sustainer through whose continued moment-by-moment activity the whole show of the universe continues." Berry says, "Any religion worth serious consideration must be one where the God is in constant control of everyday events."

      All these statements speak of the continuous creativity of nature and attribute it to either the "cosmic mind" or to a personal God. These scientists are acknowledging that the Darwinian model of creation which is based on a materialistic view of the world no longer fits the data and a new model is emerging to account for the creativeness of living systems. The data points to an intelligence continuously operating within the universe and living organisms.

      In principle, this is the same as the traditional Christian belief that God's Spirit is always at work in the lives of those who love and serve him, guiding and channelling their actions into activities that fulfil his purposes for the world. In humans he can only do this in people whose wills are surrendered to the divine will. In non-human forms of life there is no hindrance to the operation of the divine will; he can mould and direct their life forms and behaviour as he choses. This view of God as one who is continually active in both the material and spiritual spheres of life seems to fit the concept of a living God better than that of a God who created everything in six days ten thousand years ago and has done nothing in the material sphere since that time.

      Let us now summarise the four most common solutions to the mystery of life and consider more fully this new hypothesis, which is consistent with the latest scientific thinking. We regard the first three hypotheses as unsatisfactory. They are:

Darwinian Evolution

      This assumes that the origin, complexity and diversification of life is due to chance and the operation of natural laws, and rejects the possibility that intelligence, purpose and the supernatural could be causative factors. We believe that the evidence does not sustain this claim. A number of leading scientists also reject this view.

Theistic Evolution

      This view accepts evolution by purely natural laws as the method by which life forms have diversified but recognises the role of God as the originator of life and also that there is purpose and God-given values in life. It accepts the current view of the Darwinian theory that mutation and natural selection are the driving forces behind evolution and the source of all design and diversity. We do not believe that the facts are adequate to sustain this claim.

Instant Creation

      We have chosen this term to represent the view that God created the world and all living creatures in one week, approximately 10,000 years ago. It states that there has been variation within species but no new kinds of organisms have arisen since the first week of creation. We believe that astronomy, geology, palaeontology and biology all provide convincing proof that both the universe and the earth are very old, and that life has diversified from tiny, one-celled organisms, into the great variety and complexity of our present-day

species. We therefore feel compelled to reject the view of creation as presented by Creation Science and other organisations with similar views.

Progressive Creation

      We have used this term to contrast this view with instant creation, while still retaining the view that life in all its forms has been created by God. Progressive creation fits all the known facts and removes the many unsolved problems of science which are inherent in the two evolutionary positions. Here are some of the reasons in support of this view:

• It is in harmony with the opinion expressed by a number of scientists that the nature and behaviour of matter is so perfectly fitted to the creation of life that, as Macfarlane Burnet says, it is "as if" it had been designed so that life would be able to arise.
• It is consistent with the fact that both the cosmos and living organisms increase in complexity with time, so that, as Paul Davies says, ". . . the creative activity of nature is a continuous process."¹ If we accept the view that the creative power of God was not only at work in the beginning, but has always been necessary for the development, diversification and maintenance of life, then the "creativity of nature", which Karl Popper calls "the greatest riddle of cosmology", ceases to be a problem.²
• Progressive creation introduces the concept of purpose in creation. Science writers frequently find themselves forced to refer to organs as if they were designed for the function they perform, but, because the idea of purpose does not come within the scope of science, the apparent purpose of organs is said to be the result of evolution, not the cause. It is more natural and logical to think of eyes, gills, feathers or the sonic organs of bats as designed for the function the organs perform, than to attribute their origin to chance mutations, natural selection or interaction with the environment.
• Another strong reason in support of progressive creation is that a number of leading scientists consider that, in some way, there is an intelligence at work in the universe. Some see this intelligence as a personal God, others do not, but the idea that the complexity and perfection of living organisms is the product of purpose and deliberate design rather than the caprice of the roulette wheel of chance, commends itself to our orderly minds. When we add the concept of God as a creative intelligence, to the equation of life the unsolved problems are immediately resolved.
• Progressive creation is the only really satisfactory solution to the many problems involved in the development of each new species. The fossil record has shown that species remain practically unchanged during the period of their existence and that new species generally appear in the

  - 95 -

  
  fossil record fully developed as a new group. Chance mutation is not a satisfactory basis for such large changes in a comparatively short time-span. It is now generally agreed that cells are programmed more towards maintaining their integrity than they are towards change. This accounts for the stability of species during most of the time-span that they exist. Most of the major changes to new species involve such radical new forms and functions that scientists find it difficult to envision a process by which the changes might have been possible, especially as so few intermediate forms are found among the fossils.

      The following list covers a number of the radical changes that have taken place in living organisms during the progressive development of today's life forms. The fact of these changes is acknowledged; the method by which they arose is the issue in question.

• The change from the simple bacterial cell without a nucleus to the eukaryotic (nucleated) cell containing specialised organelles and capable of advanced functions, without which the plant and animal kingdoms could not have developed.
• The development of chlorophyll and the process of photosynthesis.
• The change from single-celled to multicelled organisms having an overall control mechanism that made possible the development of specialised organs in the body.
• The change of respiratory organs from the gills of fish to air-breathing lungs.
• The development of the skeletal structure of vertebrates, which differs so radically from the exterior skeleton of the arthropods (insects, crabs, spiders etc.). This also involved a redesigned heart, lungs and nervous system. The origin of the amniotic egg with its hard shell, fluid sac etc., which made reproduction on land possible.
• The development of the placenta in mammals, enabling the embryo to develop within the body instead of in a vulnerable exterior egg.
• The change from cold-blooded to warm-blooded animals, which made maximum function possible at all times and higher efficiency in bodies able to maintain a constant temperature.
• The origin of feathers and their co-ordination with a differently designed skeleton, heart and respiratory system, making flight possible.
• The development of plants with flowers and seeds (the angiosperms) instead of propagation by spores, making propagation in dry conditions possible.
• The origin of the human brain, with its unique creative capacity, its faculty for language, its moral dimension and the search for meaning which has universally been expressed in some form of religion.

      None of these major changes is supported by an adequate range of intermediate forms linking it sequentially to earlier forms of life. We do not positively know why or how these new forms developed. Scientists have sometimes resorted to almost absurd speculations to fill this knowledge gap. They picture venturesome fish at the water's edge developing lungs as they gasp for oxygen, or reptiles chasing insects until their scales frayed and became feathers. Both these quite serious speculations ignore the fact that acquired characteristics cannot be passed on to progeny. Changes in form can only arise as changes in the genes and this can only come about by chance mutations.

      We would expect to find fossils of a number of imperfect intermediate forms but these imperfect intermediate forms have not been found. Considering the limited power of mutations and natural selection we think these two factors are inadequate causes for the major changes. The idea of progressive creation by an intelligent creator who permanently pervades the universe and operates through the laws of nature is not acceptable to scientists because it is outside the self-imposed parameters of science but it fits the data perfectly. We are not suggesting deism or pantheism, but traditional theism, which sees God as immanent as well as transcendent, as an adequate solution for the origin, development and diversity of life.

      The Bible says that God made man from the dust of the earth but it does not say how he did this.³ Did he make a full-size clay figure of an adult man and instantly turn the clay into bones, flesh, nerves and brain, plus a fully functioning heart, lungs and other bodily organs? Or did he use what might be described as the seed method, by which he began life with a tiny seed-like bacterium, guiding its development over millions of years until it reached its full maturity in the many diverse forms of life, including human beings?. We do not know the answer but the second method is as possible as the first. For the present we are content to accept the biblical statement that God made man from the dust of the earth, leaving the method he used as an open question.

      Scientists agree that all life comes from pre-existing life, except for the original life form. If we accept the possibility of a creator we need not exclude the original life form from this universal principle. Christianity teaches that God is a living God and prior to the creation of life on earth, God was the only living being in the cosmos. It would be consistent with Christian belief to say that the very life of God was imparted, in some way, to the first forms of life on Earth and that all life, from bacteria to human, shares in a very real way in the life of God. Jesus was not merely using a figure of speech when he taught us to call God our Father. Jesus shared in the life of God in a unique way. He said, "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself."⁴ The apostle John said, "In him was life, and

the life was the light of men."⁵ If we are prepared to accept God as the source and imparter of life, we no longer have need of the other highly speculative theories of the origin of life. Of course, this solution is no more provable than the theories proposed by scientists but surely it has the right to be given equal consideration. It fits the facts perfectly and it provides a solution to the presently unsolved mysteries of biology. In this view, the intelligent factor in the universe and the biosphere that scientists vaguely comprehend becomes the personal God of the book of Genesis but he still remains an abstruse, distant, faceless Being. It is only in Jesus Christ that we at last come face to face with our creator. He said: "I and the Father are one."⁶ "He who has seen me has seen the Father."⁷ The apostle John wrote: "No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is the same as God and is at the Father's side, he has made him known."⁸ In Jesus we see the compassionate, caring, creator, who is indignant that oppression, injustice and greed are destroying the quality of life of his children. In Jesus, God enters the stream of human life and suffers with, and for, his suffering children; he is personified as pure love. This is the historic belief of all Christendom.

      John Houghton, a leading scientist who has designed and built scientific equipment for satellites, is one who appreciates the importance of Jesus' role in our understanding of the creator.⁹ He says:

Thinking of God as a great and clever Force of some kind may give us a mildly comfortable feeling but does not really represent a lot of progress . . . So far, in describing the relation of God to the universe, we have done little more than imagine the greatest conceivable engineer, who has devised a highly complex machine. God, if he is to be the greatest in all respects, must also possess personal qualities-qualities of self-awareness and the potential to form relationships with other beings . . . But we can really get to know another person only if he communicates his personality to us through the variety of means of expression with which we as human beings are familiar. It follows that we can discover about God's personality only if he chooses to communicate with us. At the centre of the Christian faith is the belief that God has done just that, not in a way outside our normal experience . . . but in the person of a unique human being, Jesus.¹⁰

      We question the validity of the Darwinian theory of evolution because it has not been shown to provide an adequate explanation of the manifold phenomena of life.

      We question the theistic evolution view that regards God merely as the initiator of the universe and of life but that denies his continuing involvement in the creation process,

      We question instant creation because we believe that it is in conflict with established facts.

      On the present evidence we favour the concept of continuous and progressive creation by an intelligent, loving, just and good creator, who alone has the right to decide good and evil and who has a purpose for the whole of his creation.

      Our concern with the subject of evolution is essentially a social concern. If it were merely a matter of deciding how life began and developed it would be a subject of curiosity only and therefore of little real importance. But when it is a question of determining what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil, of whether life has ultimate meaning or is totally meaningless, then it is of paramount importance.

      If what we believe about this subject influences whether a person lives a caring, constructive and happy life or, whether out of a feeling of aimlessness, they choose to live selfishly, seeking power, money and pleasure, not caring how their lifestyle affects others, or whether it involves criminal behaviour, then it is a subject about which we feel passionately.

      It is no longer a subject of academic interest; it is a matter of immediate practical concern for society and particularly for parents and their children. It is an issue that we cannot afford to leave to the scientists to decide for us on the basis of their hypothetical speculations. Scientists are restricted to working within the very limited parameters of the scientific method. They, as scientists, cannot make any pronouncements in the area of philosophy and morals. We must not allow a philosophy of life based on the tentative hypotheses of science to determine our life values or our beliefs.

      We hope that our brief summary of this vast subject has contributed to the reader's knowledge of the subject of evolution and shown something of its social importance. If the issues we have raised and the facts and ideas we have presented have helped our readers to form their own philosophy of life, enabling them to see life as purposeful and essentially good, and to see history and present-day events as moving steadily towards the pre-planned climax of the Kingdom of God, we shall feel that the time spent in researching and compiling this material has been worthwhile and its own reward.

      For the sake of readers not familiar with the Latin abbreviations generally used in references we have used English words that are readily understood. For full details of the reference refer to the Bibliography. The date identifies the book being quoted.

1: Examining the Issue
      1. Hoyle (1983), p. 6
      2. Soll, "Nietzsche", in The World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 14, p. 323
      2a. S. J. Gould (1991), Bully for Brontosaurus, pp. 423-426.
      3. Soll, "Existentialism", in The World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 6, p. 337
      4. Soll, "Camus", in The World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 3, p. 85
      5. Soll, "Sartre", in The World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 17, p. 113
      6. Monod (1972), pp. 170-1
      7. Monod (1972), p. 173
      8. Milgrom (1989), p. 48

2: Some Preliminary Considerations
      1. Stebbins, in Dobzhansky, Ayala, Stebbins and Valentine (1977), p. 384
      2. Baker and Allen (1979), p. 18
      3. Baker and Allen (1979), p. 43
      4. Jones (personal correspondence)
      5. Jones (personal correspondence)
      6. Denton (1985), p. 15
      7. Doolan (letter to author, 19 March 1990)

3: What Do We Mean by Evolution?
      1. Archer, in Selkirk and Burrows (1987), p. 19
      2. Berry (1982), p. 58
      3. Dawkins (1976), pp. 15-19
      4. Dawkins (1986), pp. 148-58

4: The Origin of Matter
      1. Polkinghorne (1988), pp. 22-23
      2. Davies (1982), pp. 107-9, quoted in Hayward (1985), p. 61
      3. Davies, (1982), p. 95, quoted in Hayward (1985), p. 60
      4. Davies (1987), p. 41
      5. Hartshorne, quoted in Birch (1990), p. 42
      6. Hoyle, quoted by Hayward (1985), p. 63
      7. Taylor (1983), p. 202
      8. Davies (1987), pp. 41-42
      9. Popper, quoted in Davies (1987), p. 42

5: Theories of the Origin of Life
      1. Raven and Johnson (1986), pp. 39-41
      2. Shapiro (1986), pp. 111-12
      3. Shapiro (1986), p. 116
      4. Woese, quoted in Shapiro (1986), p. 114
      5. Bylinsky (1981), chapter 3
      6. Johnson, DeLanney, Cole and Brooks (1972), p. 444
      7. Medawar and Medawar (1978), p. 84
      8. Cairns-Smith (1985), pp. 37-46 and 112
      9. Valentine, in Dobzhansky, Ayala, Stebbins and Valentine (1977), pp. 360 and 349
      10. Dawkins (1986), p. 153
      11. Dobzhansky (1967), pp. 47 and 48
      12. Dawkins (1986), p. 141
      13. Hoyle (1983), p. 23
      14. Hoyle (1983), pp. 242 and 248
      15. Shapiro (1986), p. 200

6: The Origin of Photosynthesis
      1. Grzimek (1976), p. 106
      2. Taylor (1983), p. 207
      3. Valentine, in Dobzhansky, Ayala, Stebbins and Valentine (1977), p. 362

7: The Amazing Living Cell
      1. Simpson and Beck (1965), pp. 194 and 511
      2. Denton (1985), p. 250
      3. Wallace (1969), p. 19
      4. Shapiro, (1986), pp. 283-84
      5. Raven and Johnson (1986), pp 142-8
      6. Raven and Johnson (1986), pp. 264-5
      7. Simpson and Beck (1965), p. 146

8: The Automatic Immune System
      Resources consulted:
      Eisen (1980), pp. 371-81
      Raven and Johnson (1986), Appendix C, "The Immune System
      Burnet (1968), chapters 14-16 Wallace (1986), pp. 66-72
      Tonegawa (1985), pp. 104-13
      Gordon and Nossal (1987), pp. 50-7

9: The Wonders of Special Organs
      1. Dawkins (1986), p. 38
      2. Caro, McDonell and Spicer (1978), Introduction
      3. Monod (1971), p. 180
      4. Raven and Johnson (1986), p. 124, and Denton (1985), p. 224
      5. Raven and Johnson (1986), pp. 946-7
      6. Raven and Johnson (1986), p. 950
      7. Popper, in Taylor (1983), p. 4
      8. Taylor (1983), p. 96
      9. Raven and Johnson (1986), p. 778
      10. Raven and Johnson (1986), pp. 1021-7, and Simpson and Beck (1965), pp. 361-66
      11. Raven and Johnson (1986), p. 450
      12. Simpson and Beck (1965), p. 463
      13. Archer, in Selkirk and Burrows (1987), pp. 89-92
      14. Yalden and Morris (1975), D. 20, and Eldredge (1987), p. 187
      15. Dawkins (1986), pp. 27-8
      16. Yalden and Morris (1975), p. 165
      17. Yalden and Morris (1975), pp. 145-52, and Dawkins (1986), pp. 28-29
      18. Raven and Johnson (1985), pp. 1020-1

10: The Facts about Fossils
      1. Stanley (1981), p. 72
      2. Denton (1985), p. 158
      3. Gould (1977), p. 118
      4. Simpson and Beck (1965), p. 760
      5. Denton (1985), p. 165
      6. Dobzhansky (1972), pp. 664-9, quoted in Stanley (1981), p. 69
      7. Stanley (1981), pp. 83-4
      8. Stanley (1981), p. 98
      9. Ridley (1985), p. 124
      10. Stanley (1981), pp. 111-19 and 126
      11. Gould (1977), p. 271
      12. Gould (1977), pp. 39-40
      13. Heilman (1926), pp. 200-1, quoted in Denton (1985), pp. 204
      14. Ostrom (1979), p. 55, quoted in Denton (1985), p. 208
      15. Raven and Johnson (1986), p. 457
      16. Archer, in Selkirk and Burrows (1987), pp. 113-14
      17. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution (1974), p. 349, quoted in Denton (1985), p. 209
      18. Raven and Johnson (1986), pp. 457-8, and Archer, in Selkirk and Burrows (1987), pp. 79-80
      19. Wellnhofer (1990), p. 45
      20. Wellnhofer (1990), p. 49
      21. Lewin (1987), p. 18
      22. Napier, Roots of Mankind (1971), quoted in Lewin (1987), p. 19
      23. Lewin (1987), p. 64
      24. Archer, in Selkirk and Burrows (1987), p. 98
      25. Lewin (1987), p. 319

11: The Mutation Enigma
      1. Keeton (1980), p. 752
      2. Mayr (1982), p. 56
      3. Dawkins (1986), p. 125
      4. Abercrombie, Hickman and Johnson (1973), p. 185
      5. Medawar and Medawar (1978), Glossary
      6. Medawar and Medawar (1978), p. 43

12: Natural Selection's Limitations
      1. Berry (1982), p. 47
      2. Stebbins, in Dobzhansky, Ayala, Stebbins and Valentine (1977), p. 5
      3. Dobzhansky, in Dobzhansky, Ayala, Stebbins and Valentine (1977), p. 130
      4. Hitching (1987), pp. 84-6
      5. Waddington, quoted in Hitching (1987), p. 86
      6. Hitching (1987), p. 86
      7. Ridley (1985), pp. 49-54
      8. Ridley (1985), p. 36-7
      9. Denton (1985), p. 60
      10. Denton (1985), p. 61
      11. Ridley (1985), pp. 97-101
      12. Ridley (1985), p. 120
      13. Dawkins (1986), pp. 193, 195 and 220
      14. Ehrlich (1986), p. 77
      15. Denton (1985), pp. 64-5
      16. Ridley (1985), pp. 134-148
      17. Ridley (1985), p. 135
      18. Ridley (1985), p. 148
      19. Ridley (1985), p. 148
      20. Berry (1982), p. 56

13: Recent Challenges to Darwinism
      1. Davies (1988), pp. 140 and 143
      2. Birch (1990), Introduction, p. x
      3. Birch (1990), p. 58
      4. Birch (1990), p. 64
      5. Einstein, quoted in Angros and Stancui (1988), p. 10
      6. Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, (1980), p. 9, quoted in Birch (1990), p. 79
      7. McDaniel, Environmental Ethics 5 (1983), p. 300-2, quoted in Birch (1990), pp. 78-9
      8. Angros and Stancui (1988), p. 15
      9. Davies (1988), p. 114
      10. Davies (1988), p. 156

14: The Social Effects of Evolution
      1. Haught (1984), p. 7
      2. Burnet (1979), p. 37
      3. Hoyle (1983), pp. 8-9
      4. Dobzhansky (1967), p. 98
      5. Manning Clark, Interview with Doug Aiton, ABC radio, 3LO, 30 September 1990
      6. Birch (1990), p. 9
      7. Denton (1985), p. 66
      8. Monod (1972), p. 172

15: Progressive Creation: A Possible Alternative
      1. Davies (1987), p. 41
      2. Popper, in Davies (1987), p. 42
      3. Genesis 2:7 (RSV)
      4. John 5:26 (RSV)
      5. John 1:4 (RSV)
      6. John 10:30 (RSV)
      7. John 14: 9 (RSV)
      8. John 1: 18 (GNB)
      9. Houghton (1988), p. 44
      10. Houghton (1988), pp. 73-4

A
Abercrombie, M., 68, 70
Aborigines, 90
Adam, 20
adaptation, 48
adenosine triphosphate, 36, 105
agnosticism, 16, 32, 91
Agrostis tenuis, 76
AIDS, 1, 43
algae, 35, 36, 105
Allen, G., 9, 10
alligators, 61
altruistic behaviour, 42
amino acids, 28, 29, 39, 105
ammonia, 28
amnion, 105
amniotic egg, 95
amphibians, 56
angiosperms, 95
Angros, R., 82, 84
animals, 19, 20, 41, 60, 62
anthropic principle, 23
antibodies, 44, 105
antigen, 105
ants, 41
apes, 62, 64, 65
aphids, 76
archaeopteryx, 63, 64
Archer, Michael, 14, 16, 17, 54, 63, 66
argument from personal incredulity, 47
arthropods, 50, 51, 95, 105
atheism, 86
atomic materialism, 82
ATP, 36, 105
Auschwitz, 90
Australian Aborigines, 90
Australopithicines, 65
automatic functions of body, 57
autotrophs, 36, 105

B
B cells, 43, 45
Bacon, Francis, 9
bacteria adaptation, 20, 72, 76
      earliest life form, 18, 33, 36, 48, 59
      Escherichia coli, 15
      evolution, 20, 38, 41, 95, 96
      nature of, 19, 33, 35, 38, 43, 44, 48, 72, 76
      photosynthetic, 48
      rotary motor of, 48
Baker J., 9, 10
banana moths, 62
Bateson, G., 85
bats, 19, 54, 55, 56
Beck, William, 53
bees, 41

- 114-

beetles, 61
behaviour, 41, 88
Berry, R. J., 15, 18, 21, 71, 73, 79, 86
Bethell, Tom, 62, 63
Bible, 12, 16, 20, 21, 25, 87, 96, 97
big bang theory, 23
biosphere, 85, 105
Birch, Charles, 25, 80, 81, 84, 86
birds, 18, 19, 41, 50, 56, 62, 63, 64
Biston betularia, 16, 20, 71, 75
Bogorad, L., 8
Bohm, David, 81
bowfin fish, 61
brain, 56, 57, 67, 95
British Museum, 63
Bronowski, Jacob, 90
Burnet, Macfarlane, 23, 68, 88, 94
butterflies, 69
Bylinsky, Gene, 29

C
Cairns-Smith, A. G., 16, 30, 31
calcite crystals, 51
Cambrian period, 59, 60
Camus, Albert, 4
cancer, 71
capitalism, 91
Capra, Fritjof, 83, 85, 86
carbon dioxide, 28
Caro, D. E., 47
cataglyphis, 51
cause and effect, 70
cell, photoelectric, 36
cells
      amino acids, 28
      bacteria, 38, 44
      blood, 43
      chloroplasts, 31, 36
      chromosomes, 40
      complexity, 38, 40, 60
      defence system, 39, 43, 44, 45

- 115-

cells (continued)
      division, 30, 68
      DNA, 27, 33, 38, 39, 40, 45
      eukaryotic, 20, 60
      evolution, 20, 29, 38, 41, 60, 93, 95
      eye, 50, 52
      left-handed molecules, 28
      lymphatic, 44, 45
      macrophages, 44
      meiosis, 40
      memory, 44
      mitochondria, 39
      mitosis, 40
      nerve, 57
      origin, 8, 30, 31, 35
      phagocyte, 44
      prokaryote, 60
      proteins, 28, 39
      purpose, 40, 43
      replication, 38, 40
      structure, 19, 29, 30, 38, 39, 43, 48
      suppressor, 44
      virus, 44
centriole, 105
centromeres, 40, 105
chance in cause of new species, 79
      in mutations, 64, 82, 94, 95, 96
      in natural selection, 38
      in origin of life, 3, 20, 32, 82, 93
      versus design, 7, 11, 21, 24, 25, 30, 40, 50, 69, 90, 94
chaos, 26
chemosynthetic theory, 30
chitin, 51, 105
chlorophyll, 35, 36, 95, 106
chloroplasts, 31, 35, 36
Christ, 87, 97
Christianity, 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 22, 32, 81, 85, 86, 90, 93, 96, 97

- 116-

chromosomes, 19, 40, 68, 106
cichlid fish, 62
Clark, Manning, 89
clay, 32
clay crystals theory, 16, 31, 32
clones, 106
cluster clone theory, 8
Colossians, 87
Cope's rule, 78
cosmic mind, 85, 86
cosmology, 26
crabs, 51, 61, 95
creation
      and science, 21, 31
      design evident in, 47
      Genesis account of, 12, 16, 20, 25
      instant, 93, 98
      progressive, 94, 96, 98
Creation Science, 11, 12, 13, 18, 94
creator
      and evolution, 21
      belief in, 2, 25, 47, 49, 58, 70, 83, 84, 89
      God as, 7, 10, 12, 16, 32, 33, 85, 96, 97, 98
      no belief in, 6, 31, 90
      scientific view of, 11, 16, 56
Cretaceous period, 64
Crick, Francis, 33
Cro-Magnon man, 18, 66
Croft, L. R., 22
crustaceans, 105
cumulative selection, 58

D
Darwin, Charles, 2, 11, 19, 50, 59, 60, 62, 74, 77, 79, 85
Darwinism
      evolution, 14, 19, 85, 86
      natural selection, 73
      definition of, 14, 93
      problems, 9, 11, 12, 22, 46, 50, 60, 62, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 86, 89, 91, 97
Davies, Paul, 24, 25, 80, 82, 83, 84, 86, 94
Dawkins, Richard, 16, 21, 31, 32, 47, 56, 57, 58, 68, 77
Death Valley, 62
deism, 96
Delson, L., 72
Denton, Michael, 22, 38, 59, 60, 75, 77, 90
deoxyribonucleic acid, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 50, 57, 68, 69, 75, 106
Descartes, Rene, 80, 81
design
      and chance, 21, 90, 94
      and creation, 47
      and the theory of evolution, 7, 47, 93
      intelligent, 25, 32, 33, 36, 50
      of bodily organs, 47
designer evidence for, 84
      God as, 7, 84
      origin of, 32
determinism, 80
dinosaurs, 18, 63, 64
diseases, 45, 71
disorder, 70
diversity, 77
DNA, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 50, 57, 68, 69, 75, 106
Dobzhansky, Theodosius, 3, 31, 60, 73, 89
dogma, 79, 90, 91
Doolan, Robert, 12
Doppler effect, 55, 56
drosophila, 15, 20, 71

- 117-

E
ears, 53, 55
echolocation, 54, 55
ecological view, 83
Eden, 20
education, 1
Ehrlich, Paul, 77
Einstein, Albert, 81, 108
Eldredge, Niles, 15, 60, 61, 78
electromagnetic energy, 51
entropy, 70, 106
enzymes, 19, 29, 30, 32, 36, 39, 69, 106
Eocene epoch, 54
equilibrium, 82, 106
Escherichia coli, 15
eukaryotic cells, 8, 20, 60, 95, 106
Eustachian tube, 53
euthanasia, 89
evidence, scientific, 13
evolution
      and altruism, 42
      and Bible, 21
      and Christianity, 16
      and creation, 2
      and Creation Science, 12
      and design, 7
      and God, 16, 85
      and intelligence, 2
      and meaning, 4
      and mutations, 68, 70, 71, 72, 82
      and natural selection, 73, 74, 76
      and philosophy, 90
      and punctuated equilibria, 15
      and racism, 4
      and science, 6, 10, 13, 31, 45
      and speculation, 16, 30, 31, 47, 62, 78
      and values, 4, 90
      and variation, 72, 77
      defining, 16
      fact of, 14, 17, 19
      God and, 87
      materialistic, 20, 9
      objections to, 3, 8, 9, 12
      problems with, 22, 29, 37, 40, 46, 47, 51, 67, 72, 74, 78, 79, 83, 91, 97
      social effects of, 88
      systems view of, 85
      theistic, 93, 97
      theory of, 14, 15, 17, 19
      uncritical view of, 8
existentialism, 4, 91
extinctions, 61, 79
extrapolation, 75, 76, 77
eyes, 50, 51, 52, 75

F
feathers
      Archaeopteryx, 63, 64
      development, 62, 63, 64
      oldest known, 64
      origins, 63, 96
fields, 81
fish, 49, 56, 61, 62, 95, 96
fish fossils, 18
flagella, 8, 48, 106
flies, 51
flood, 12
FM, 55, 56
fossils
      and theory of evolution, 59
      animal, 18
      dating of, 18, 59, 65
      earliest, 18, 59
      human, 66
      identifying, 65, 66

- 118-

fossils (continued)
      importance of, 59, 67, 78, 94
      in geological column, 17, 66
      plant, 18
      primate, 65, 66
      radioactive isotopes in, 18
frequency modulation, 55, 56
frogs, 61
fruit flies, 15, 20, 71
fungi, 19, 43, 60, 105

G
Gaia, 85
Galapagos Islands, 19
genes, 15, 19, 21, 31, 38, 41, 58, 69, 76, 106
Genesis, 12, 16, 20, 21, 97
genetic code, 21
genetic recombination, 73
genocide, 91
geological column, 17, 18, 19, 66
gills, 49, 95
God
      and evolution, 16, 20, 21
      and Nietzsche, 3
      and science, 10, 21, 33, 83
      and values, 2, 4, 93
      as creator, 2, 7, 10, 12, 16, 25, 32, 81, 84, 85, 86, 93, 94
      Christian view of, 96, 97
      views of, 86, 87, 89, 94, 96, 97
golgi body, 106
Gosse, Philip, 20
Gould, Stephen, 15, 60, 61, 62, 63, 78
grana, 36
grasses, 76
grasshoppers, 51
gravity, 9
Greenleaf, Simon, 12
Griffin, Donald, 54
Grzimek, H. C. B., 35

H
halobacteria, 35
Hartshorne, Charles, 25, 86
Haught, John, 88
Hawaii, 20, 62
Hayward, Alan, 18, 22
hedonism, 91
Heidelberg man, 65
Heilman, Gerhard, 62
helper T cells, 44
heterotrophs, 106
heterotrophy, 36
heterozygotes, 71
Hickman, C. J., 68, 70
Hitching, Francis, 22, 74
Hitler, Adolf, 4, 90
holistic view, 83
holocaust, 90
hominids, 18, 65, 66, 106
Homo erectus, 65, 66
Homo habilis, 65
Homo sapiens, 18, 65, 66, 106
hormones, 106
horseshoe bat, 54
horseshoe crabs, 61
Houghton, John, 83, 97
Hoyle, Fred, 3, 25, 27, 32, 33, 68, 88
human behaviour, 3
humans, 18, 19, 20, 57, 62, 64, 66, 67, 106
Huxley, Thomas, 74
hydrogen, 28

I
ice age, 61
ideology, 91
immanence of God, 86, 87, 96, 107
immune system, 43, 44, 45, 46
infection, 45

- 119-

influenza viruses, 20
insects, 41, 51, 63, 95, 96
instant creation, 93, 98
instinct, 41
integrity of species, 76
intermediate forms, 38, 54, 59, 64, 65, 66, 95, 96
interspecies evolution, 20, 21
intraspecies evolution, 19
invagination theory, 8
Islam, 32

J
Jantsch, Erich, 85, 86
Java man, 65
Jesus, 87, 96, 97
John (Apostle), 96, 97
John, Gospel of, 87
Johnson, G. B., 51, 52, 56, 63
Johnson, M. L., 68, 70
Jones, Gareth, 10, 11
Judaism, 5, 32

K
Keeton, William, 68, 70
Kimura, Motoo, 70
knowledge, objective, 5, 6, 9

L
Lake Victoria, 62
language, 9, 57, 67, 95
laws of nature, 96
laws of physics, 80
laws of thermodynamics, 26, 109
Leakey, Richard, 90
leeches, 75
left-handed molecules, 28
Lewin, Roger K., 64, 66
Lewontin, R. C., 17
lichens, 105
life, origin of, 14, 27
light, 23, 51
limulus, 61
lipids, 29, 30, 107
lucky errors, 69
Lucy, 65
lungfish, 61
lungs, 50, 95

M
macroevolution, 16, 20, 78
macrophages, 44
Mahler, P. H., 8
mammals, 18, 56, 95
Margulis, Lyn, 16
Mars, 27
Marxism, 5
materialism, 10, 25, 89, 91
materialistic evolution, 4, 7, 20
Mayr, Ernst, 57, 61, 68, 74, 76
McDaniel, J., 81
McDonell, J. A., 47
meaning, 1, 3, 4, 6
mechanistic view, 80, 81, 84
Medawar, J. S., 30, 68, 70
Medawar, P. B., 30, 68, 70
meiosis, 40, 68, 107
memory cells, 44
methane, 28
microevolution, 16, 19, 76, 78
microtubules, 107
Milgrom, Lionel, 6
Miller, Stanley, 28
miracles, 81
missing links, 38, 54, 59, 64, 65, 66, 95, 96
mitochondria, 39, 107
mitosis, 40, 107
molecules, 28
molluscs, 75
Monod, Jacques, 5, 6, 9, 21, 48, 57, 84, 86, 90

- 120-

morality, 89, 95
Morris, P. A., 54
Morse code, 39
Moses, 12
moths, 16, 20, 62, 71, 75
multicelled organisms, 95
mutations
      and gene change, 15, 58, 68
      and theory of evolution, 14, 15, 68, 71, 72, 93
      artificial, 71
      characteristics, 70
      definition, 68, 107
mycoplasma, 38

N
NADPH, 36
Napier, John, 65
Napoleon, 65
natural selection
      and Darwin, 2, 11
      and God, 21
      and theistic evolution, 93
      and theory of evolution, 14, 69, 73
      cumulative, 58
      definition, 15, 107
      examples of, 75, 76
      limitations of, 73
      problems with, 32, 46, 57, 59, 68, 69, 74, 75, 83, 91
      support for, 78
Nazis, 4, 90
Neanderthal man, 18, 65
neo-Darwinism
      and evolution, 14, 19, 85, 86
      and natural selection, 73
      challenges to, 80
      definition, 14
      problems, 9, 11, 12, 22, 46, 50, 60, 62, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 82, 86, 89, 91, 93, 97
nervous system, 56
new physics, 25, 82
Newton, Isaac, 80
Nietzsche, Friedrich, 3, 90
nihilism, 6, 86, 90, 91, 108
nitrogen, 28
Noah, 12
non-equilibrium states, 82
non-linear systems, 82
nucleic acids, 29, 108
nucleotides, 30, 31, 108

O
objective knowledge, 5, 6, 9
octopuses, 75
On the Origin of Species, 74, 79
Oparin, 16, 28, 29, 30
optics, 51
order, 69, 70, 82
organelles, 95, 108
organic soup, 29
organisms, common features of, 19
origin of life, 14, 27, 33
Ostrom, John, 63

P
palaeoanthropology, 66
palaeontology, 60, 62, 64, 67, 108
pantheism, 96
Pasteur Institute, 5
Pasteur, Louis, 41
pathogens, 39, 45, 108
Peking man, 65
peppered moth, 16, 20, 71, 75
perturbations, 68
petitio principii, 32
philosophy
      and science, 45, 98
      and theory of evolution, 3, 46, 90, 91
      existentialism, 4, 91

- 121-

      Hitler, 4, 90
      Marxism, 5
      materialism, 10
      materialistic evolution, 20
      Nietzsche, 3, 90
      nihilism, 6, 90
      personal, 1, 98
photoelectric cell, 36
photosynthesis, 35, 36, 95, 108
photosynthetic bacteria, 48
physics, laws of, 80
pigeons, 77
Pilbeam, David, 57
placenta, 95
plants, 18, 19, 20, 60
point mutation, 108
Polkinghorne, John, 23
Popper, Karl, 26, 50, 94
positive feedback, 77
pre-biotic soup, 16, 28, 32
prejudice, 76
Prigogine, Ilya, 70, 86
primates, 18, 20, 57
primordial soup, 21
progressive creation, 94, 96, 98
prokaryotes, 48, 60, 108
protein, 44, 48
protein machine, 39
proteins, 28, 29, 30, 32, 38, 39, 69
proton pump, 36, 48, 108
psychology, 1, 41
punctuated equilibria, 15, 61, 72, 78, 108
pupfish, 62
purpose
      and science, 45, 47, 84, 88
      and the theory of evolution, 39, 47, 84
      in creation, 94
      in living, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 88
      in living organisms, 84
      of existence, 24, 84, 89
      of God, 41, 58, 98

Q
quantum speciation, 62
quantum theory, 9, 81, 82, 108
Quercy, 54

R
racism, 4
radar, 55
radiometric dating, 17, 18, 59
Raff, R. A., 8
Raven, P. H., 51, 52, 56, 63
recessive mutations, 71
recombination, 73
reductionism, 80, 83, 109
religion, 5, 45, 87, 88, 95
replication, 27, 58, 109
reptiles, 18, 63, 64, 96
respiratory organs, 49
rhinolophus, 54
rhodopsin, 52
ribonucleic acid, 19, 31, 39, 109
ribosome, 39, 109
Ridley, Mark, 61, 75, 76, 78
RNA, 19, 31, 39, 109
rocks, 17, 60
rotary motor of bacteria, 48

S
Sartre, Jean-Paul, 4
science
      and Christianity, 10, 11
      and religion, 87, 88
      and the theory of evolution, 3
      hostility to, 5
      limitations of, 10
      widespread belief in, 3
scientific agnosticism, 10
scientific evidence, 13
scientific language, 8
scientific method, 5, 6, 9, 16
Shakespeare, William, 28
Shapiro, Robert, 28, 31, 33, 39
sickle cell anaemia, 71
Sillen, Lars, 28
Simpson, George, 74
Simpson, George Gaylord, 10, 29, 36, 38, 40, 53, 60
skeleton, 95
snapping turtles, 61
society, 1, 2, 6
solitary wasp, 75
Solnhofen, 63
sonar, 54, 55, 56
speciation, 76, 77, 78, 79
species, 14, 15, 16
speculation, 16, 47, 76, 77
speech, 57, 67
Sphex ichneumoneus, 75
Spicer, B. M., 47
spiders, 41, 95
spontaneous generation, 41
Stahl, Barbara, 63
Stancui, G., 82, 84
Stanley, Steven, 59, 61, 62
Stapp, H. P., 81
Stebbins, G. L., 73
Stengers, Isabelle, 70
subjectivity, 65
supernatural
      and science, 3, 10
      and the theory of evolution, 21, 93
suppressor cells, 44
swifts, 75
symbiosis, 8, 109
synthesis, 28, 109
systems view of life, 85

T
T cells, 43, 44, 45, 109
t-RNA, 39
tapirs, 61
Tattersall, 72
taxonomy, 109
Taylor, Gordon Rattray, 22, 25, 35, 50, 51
Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre, 85, 86
telenomy, 84
teleology, 39, 84, 109
theism, 96
theistic evolution, 93, 97
theology, 81, 85
theory of evolution--see "evolution"
theory of gradual change, 15
thermodynamics, laws of, 26, 109
thylakoids, 36
Towe, Kenneth, 51
transcendence of God, 86, 96, 109
transitional forms, 60
translation, 109
trilobites, 50, 51
TV, 52

U
Uganda, 62
ultimate meaning, 88
universe
      creative, 83, 86
      deterministic, 80
      intelligent, 25, 26, 70, 94
      mechanistic, 81
      origin of, 23
Urey, Harold, 28

V
Valentine, J. W., 31, 35
values, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 90, 98
Van Couvering, J., 72

- 122-

variation, 74
variation within a species, 12, 15, 16, 19, 68, 70, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 93
vesicles, 109
Victoria, Lake, 62
viruses, 44
vocabulary, 8

W
Waddington, Conrad, 74,86
Wallace, Alfred, 2
war, 91
wasps, 75
Weinberg, Stephen, 23
Weiss, Paul, 86
Wellnhofer, Peter, 64
Whitehead, Alfred, 86
Williston's law, 78
Wistar symposium, 74
Woese, Carl, 29
World War 11, 4
worms, 75
Wyoming, 54

Y
Yalden, D. W., 54