The
Scientific Case Against Evolution
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included,
Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief
passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any
observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one
distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly
documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists
admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that
evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened
in the past, and could never happen at all.
Evolution Is Not
Happening Now
First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from
the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process,
evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many
"transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course,
is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many
varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently --
unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are
many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or
"cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these
minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are
not true "vertical" evolution.
Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit
flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping
they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to
accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced,
let alone a new "basic kind."
A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor
of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged
that:
. . . it was and still is the
case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of
fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been
observed.1
The scientific method traditionally has required
experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as
distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it
from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living
evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that
evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an
"historical science" for which "laws and experiments are
inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One
can never actually see evolution in action.
Evolution Never
Happened in the Past
Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by
claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They
used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of
the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a
single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the
process of evolving.
Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a
continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record
should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the
more evolved.3
Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a
considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind"
to evolve into another more complex kind. There
ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures
preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional
structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures
such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales),
they are not there.
Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with
so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves
facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record,
with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil
species.4
The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from
non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of
man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all
missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.
With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in
this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids
could have arisen without the other, concludes:
And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that
life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5
Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel
cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA
may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:
The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . .
investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of
them is fragmentary at best.6
Translation:
"There is no known way by which life could have arisen
naturalistically." Unfortunately, two generations of students have been
taught that Stanley Miller's famous experiment on a gaseous mixture,
practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!
Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric
charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex
molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave
a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life.
Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within
reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not
progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour
aftertaste from the primordial soup.7
Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms
of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex
multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist
Gould admits that:
The Cambrian explosion was the
most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8
Equally puzzling, however, is how
some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard
parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that
is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside.
Yet the transition from spineless
invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and
many theories abound.9
Other gaps are
abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. Paleontologist, Niles
Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of
evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!
It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members
of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their
durations. . . .10
So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees
from fossils of organisms which didn't change during their durations?
Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct
simple evolutionary trees -- fossils from key periods are often not intermediates,
but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . .
Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or
progressive manner -- new features are often "cut and pasted" on
different groups at different times.11
As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is
true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many
years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.
All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100
years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have
used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with
molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent
going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees
diverged from a common ancestor.12
Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary
fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from
living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But
this genetic evidence really doesn't help much either, for it contradicts
fossil evidence. Lewin notes that:
The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no
means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics
of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics,
including the fact that different genes tell different stories.13
Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author
concludes, rather pessimistically:
Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the
processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be
achieved only by creative imagination.14
Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is
occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude
that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even
science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal
naturalism.
Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at
the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in
fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins.
Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between
created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind,
in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without
becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any "vertical
changes" in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by
definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and
evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for
creation.
The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics
Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for
evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial
evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of
organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact. A
number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for
evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used
that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common
evolutionary ancestry.
Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why
the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on
DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and
creation, not evolution.
The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the
human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than
90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however,
considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees.
Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA
differences between men and spiders?
Similarities -- whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development,
or anything else -- are better explained in terms of creation by a common
Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between
organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism
has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same
ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any
natural process?
The apparently small differences between human and
chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective
anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and
human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or
observable sense.
Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become
disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the
ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting
DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted above
by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record,
but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions
just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation
to more traditional Darwinian "proofs."
The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the
order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true
elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses.
The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . .
kangaroos and koalas.15
There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this
approach.
The abundance of so-called "junk DNA" in the
genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution,
especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes
called "pseudogenes."16 However, evidence is
accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually
perform useful functions.
Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic
midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being
transmitted into scientific code.17
It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled
"pseudogenes," have no function. That is merely an admission of
ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled
"vestigial organs" in man, once considered as evidence of evolution
but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most
probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses
have yet been discovered by scientists.
At the very best this type of evidence is strictly
circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation
supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the
creation model.
The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any
observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the
past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of
real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist.
A good question to ask is: Why are all observable
evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution)
or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found
in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics.
Evolution Could Never Happen at All
The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for
evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination
of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of
nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second
law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to
go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased
complexity.
This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most
universal, best proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and
chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in
all systems, without exception.
No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever
been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first
law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of
models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that
matter is composed of interacting particles.18
The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics,
but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of
models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are
reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist"
forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in
terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also
must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all
biologists acknowledge this.
Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a
fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an
"open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain
evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of
all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary
entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent
Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes'
ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw"
in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of
thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?
Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system
cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without
the actions of an intelligent agent.19
This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary
dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system
if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those
conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun
says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased
complexity in any system, open or closed.
The fact is that the best known and most fundamental
equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system
will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of
decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding
program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.
Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not
"organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second
law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never
beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural
selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the
disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order,
but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that
evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems
to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it
actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the
basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or
present.
From the statements
of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real
scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of
very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.
Evolution is Religion
-- Not Science
In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution
meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such
evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of
the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any
significant scale.
Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but
they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists.
Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific
debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.
Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more
harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.20
The question is, just why do they need to counter the
creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?
The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want
to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without
a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion.
Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists
place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the
same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to
eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and
all its components, including man.
The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism -- the
proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal
dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human
beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the
philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more
adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts
are complementary and inseparable.21
Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science
or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the
universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but
atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even
doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot
be proved to be true.
Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.22
Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a
religion.
The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but
insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for
example, says that:
Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.23
A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State
University says:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such
a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.24
It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world
today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward
Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and
numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific
philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged
that evolution is their religion!
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere
science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a
full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . .
Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is
true of evolution still today.25
Another way of saying "religion" is
"worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies
not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In
the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further
from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of
evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical
speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.
Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical
reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.26
They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all
the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following
remarkable statement.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of
its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for
unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori
adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of
concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no
matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is
absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.27
The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard.
Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its
validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks.
But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by
another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:
We cannot identify ancestors or
"missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain
how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the
popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the
birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct,
and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven
by prejudices and preconceptions.28
A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates
the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking
of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college
professors, he says:
And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . .
our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without
demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce
arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit
or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.29
Creationist students in scientific courses taught by
evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that
statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious
atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another
scientist who frankly acknowledges this.
As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes
atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with
evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.30
Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science,
evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview,
nothing more.
(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A
theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no
real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that
anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental
evidence is minimal.31
Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental
evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not
"minimal." It is nonexistent!
The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new.
In my book, The Long War Against God,32 I documented the fact
that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every
anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes
all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as
Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in
even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).
As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading
evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect
of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without
revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a
later book, he said:
Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most
comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.33
Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change
"our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an
evolution-centered pattern."34 Then he went on to say
that: "The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral
burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must
construct something to take its place."35
That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism,
and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.
In closing this
survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation),
the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from
doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements
by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes,
have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.
References
- Jeffrey
H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins (New York, John Wiley, 1999), p. 300.
- Ernst
Mayr, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific
American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83.
- Jeffrey
H. Schwartz, op. cit., p.89.
- Ibid.
- Leslie
E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American
(vol. 271, October 1994), p. 78.
- Ibid.,
p. 83.
- Massimo
Pigliucci, "Where Do We Come From?" Skeptical Inquirer (vol. 23,
September/October 1999), p. 24.
- Stephen
Jay Gould, "The Evolution of Life," chapter 1 in Evolution:
Facts and Fallacies, ed. by J. William Schopf (San Diego, CA., Academic
Press, 1999), p. 9.
- J. O.
Long, The Rise of Fishes (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1995),
p. 30.
- Niles
Eldredge, The Pattern of Evolution (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co.,
1998), p. 157.
- Neil
Shubin, "Evolutionary Cut and Paste," Nature (vol. 349, July 2,
1998), p.12.
- Colin
Tudge, "Human Origins Revisited," New Scientist (vol. 146, May
20, 1995), p. 24.
- Roger
Lewin, "Family Feud," New Scientist (vol. 157, January 24,
1998), p. 39.
- N. A.
Takahata, "Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of
Humans," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics (vol. 26, 1995), p.
343.
- Lewin,
op. cit., p. 36.
- Rachel
Nowak, "Mining Treasures from `Junk DNA'," Science (vol. 263,
February 4, 1994), p. 608.
- Ibid.
- E. H.
Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law
of Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32.
- Norman
A. Johnson, "Design Flaw," American Scientist (vol. 88. May/June
2000), p. 274.
- Scott,
Eugenie, "Fighting Talk," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22,
2000), p.47. Dr. Scott is director of the anti-creationist organization
euphemistically named, The National Center for Science Education.
- Ericson,
Edward L., "Reclaiming the Higher Ground," The Humanist (vol.
60, September/October 2000), p. 30.
- Dawkins,
Richard, replying to a critique of his faith in the liberal journal,
Science and Christian Belief (vol. 7, 1994), p. 47.
- Mayr,
Ernst, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific
American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83.
- Todd,
Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature
(vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423.
- Ruse,
Michael, "Saving Darwinism fron the Darwinians," National Post
(May 13, 2000), p. B-3.
- Rifkin,
Jeremy, "Reinventing Nature," The Humanist (vol. 58, March/April
1998), p. 24.
- Lewontin,
Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York
Review of Books, January 9, 1997.
- Bowler,
Peter J., Review In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999),
American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
- Singham,
Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June
2000), p. 54.
- Provine,
Will, "No Free Will," in Catching Up with the Vision, ed. by
Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p.
S123.
- Appleyard,
Bryan, "You Asked for It," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22,
2000), p. 45.
- Henry
M. Morris, The Long War Against God (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book
House, 1989), 344 pp.
- Julian
Huxley, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), p. 125.
- Ibid.,
p. 222.
- Ibid.
