Creationists Sound Off!

s promised, this is the rather long paper which I wrote a few years ago when I was still an Intelligent Designer of sorts. Don't worry, there never was any 'part 2' that got put into any coherent format so this is all there is. Anybody who has read any of my evolution posts will instantly recognize that I don't think the arguments I present here hold any water, and as such I will spend a few posts critiquing my own former arguements.

The Evolutionary Theory: Part 1

In a debate recently held at Stanford University between Phillip Johnson, professor of Law at UC Berkeley, and William Provine, professor of Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University (1), the three most prominent philosophical positions held regarding Darwinism were staked out. Toward the end of the discussion Dr. Provine decided to take a vote with the audience to see what the general opinion was as to each view. “On the count of three I want everybody who feels that the earth was created about 10,000 years ago and that the theory of evolution is a complete fraud to make noise. 1-2-3!” There came a generous amount of cheers from the crowd. He then repeated the scenario with respect to a God-guided version of Evolution, which was followed by a scanty number in the audience applauding. “Evolutionary Theists are few and far between,” Provine chuckled to himself. “Now, who believes that evolution is the most logical explanation for life and that God had little, if anything, to do with it?” As with the creationists, there arose a loud roar from the audience. And there I was, still awaiting other possibilities for which I could cheer. My personal beliefs, as those of many Latter Day Saints, do not conform unequivocally to any of these positions.

The 10,000-year theory has various versions, some, in my opinion, more plagued with unnecessary leaps of faith than others. One of the oldest, and currently least accepted is the idea that God created the earth and the universe exactly one week before Adam’s creation more or less 4,000 years before the advent of Christ. Many have humored themselves at the notion of God waking up early the fourth day, after getting a good rest from his third day endeavors, and giving a great stretch accompanied by a loud yawn. He gives a few cracks to his knuckles and then says “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky!” snaps his fingers and POOF! A cloud goes up and as the dust clears the sun, moon and all the stars are magically in place. He sees this it is good and continues resting until the next days work. A rather extreme and quite ridiculous theory indeed.

Another, more accepted description of the creation is the idea that since 1,000 years to man is but one day to the Lord (2) the creation of the earth, complete with a fossil record, was commenced more or less 7,000 years before the creation of Adam. This, however still leaves us with the same humorous story, because although the process was extended a few thousand years according to us, it too, seemingly leaves God with not much to do in that week of creation, aside from long naps occasionally interrupted by the quick snaps of the fingers. Why was all of that intermediate waiting necessary? What was happening during this time? While there are answers proposed for most of these questions and other versions of this theory, which will be discussed later, one grasps the basic underlying idea.

The possibility of a God-guided evolution has its strong and weak points as well. While it does explain how chance was able to overcome huge odds and produce a wide diversity of life forms, it seems to raise more questions than it answers. Is man a God-guided product of evolution from primates or rather set apart descendants of Adam, a being created expressly in the image of deity? If the former is true, why is he so special in God’s plan? If the latter holds valid, what was the point of the billions of years preparatory to Adam’s coming? If life can be explained away by evolutionary methods, just how involved is God in our lives?

Provine gave a fairly accurate description of the “unavoidable implications” of a naturalistic evolution in his presentation, which he summed up as follows:

1) No gods or purposive forces
2) No life after death
3) No ultimate foundation for ethics
4) No ultimate meaning in life
5) No free will

Not only does this outlook on life leave one feeling utterly empty, but it also discredits virtually all of the evidence and studies that have been performed that provide convincing evidence in favor of the existence of some type of divine being. Furthermore, it is also not very hard to see that the fact (assuming the theory to be true) of evolution among species does not directly lead to any one of Provine’s concluding points.

While the atheistic setting is not as humorous as the satires derived from a creatio ex-nihilo (creation from nothing) it does make for a fascinating paradox when the scientist, who has renounced anything concerning religion, dedicates many hours to writing books and giving lectures on “Science and Religion.” Hugh Nibley pointed out this popular train of logic followed by altogether too many scientists:

1) The secret of the Scientist's superiority and success is that he pays strict attention to the problem at hand; limiting himself to the laboratory situation, he rejects all else as extraneous and irrelevant.
2) This means that the problem at hand is everything that counts.
3) If that is so, nothing else counts—Science is all in all.
4) Therefore Science alone can give the answers to the ultimate problems of life.
5) But the ultimate problems of life are exactly what Science must renounce in order to be Science! (3)

While I am not at all opposed to science (I am in fact fascinated by it), I do not hold people who twist the facts in order to force their atheism upon others in high-esteem. This, however, is not anything new to the world. Nibley has noted in an essay, which I would recommend to any Latter Day Saint interested in the subject of evolution, that
Long before the time of Christ the ancient Sophists, supplanting religion by naturalism, came up with a scenario very close indeed to what we think of as evolution. And so we get at an early time … the sight of an apostate religion squaring off against an always-inadequate science. And the issue is never the merits of the evidence but always the jealous rivalry of the contestants to see which would be the official light unto the world. (4)

The Book of Mormon gives an example of an anti-Christ named Korihor preaching a doctrine similar to that of a naturalistic survival of the fittest:
“Ye cannot know of things which ye do not see (5)…these things which ye call prophecies…are foolish traditions of your fathers…it is the effect of a frenzied mind…every man fares in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospers according to his genius, and…every man conquers according to his strength; and whatsoever a man does is no crime…when a man is dead, that is the end thereof…I do not believe that there is a God; and I say also, that ye do not know that there is a God.” (6)

Evidence supports the supposition that Korihor himself might very well have been a scientist, or at minimum well acquainted with science, by the way that he was apparently able to carelessly explain away phenomena such as “the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form.” (7) He did not consider these prodigies to be evidence of God, but rather as natural occurrences. This dogmatic assertion of not believing in things one cannot see was, ironically, what eventually led the ancient Americans into false scientific convictions. (8)

Today we coexist with many people who, similarly to Korihor, are bent on badgering the uninformed into accepting, for moral reasons, the very principles that destroy moral standards. Perhaps the most ardent advocate of Atheistic Darwinism is Richard Dawkins who has written that
It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that). (9)

With acclaimed scholars unleashing ultimatums of this caliber it would be very comforting to most of the religious masses to hear an intellectual put forth some line of secular defense in their favor. Fortunately, such statements are not hard to find at all. No less an educated man than Sir Fred Hoyle, an avowed atheist and therefore uninfluenced by religious bias, has been very open in speaking out against orthodox Darwinian Evolution
Statements one frequently hears, to the effect that the Darwinian theory is as obvious as the Earth going around the Sun (another quote from Dawkins (10) are either expressions of almost incredible naiveté or they are deceptions. (11)

Clearly the argument is far from as settled as many would have us believe.

Worth mentioning is the fact that there are indeed fossils that have been found. They are not few in number, and these animals, whose remains are being unearthed, must have existed at one time or another. One theory that accounts for such discoveries is that since the earth was made from fragments of other earths (12), the animals must have existed on other earths and their remains were preserved. This theory rests on no less than two assumptions. First, it requires that some God, at one time or another was not able to resurrect some of His living creations and has, as a result, left remains from his failed kingdom. And second, when the fragments were reused in the creation of this earth, it was in a manner sufficiently gentle in order to preserve these fragile remains, and sophisticated enough to leave the remarkably ordered fossil record that we find today.

When dealing with the creation of the world one should exercise a fair amount of care not to jump to premature conclusions. Very little has been revealed with respect to the time, place, manner, and the characters involved in the creation of the earth. And if these obstacles were not enough, we cannot be totally sure how literal or allegorically we are meant to interpret the revelations that we currently possess. (13) This, unfortunately, has been the greatest downfall for Christians of all ages. Too many have declared that their own interpretation of what the prophets have reported God to say to them (the prophets), a second hand account at very best, to be the infallible and final word on the subject. For this very reason a number of astronomers were imprisoned and persecuted for teaching that the earth was not, in fact the center of the universe. (14) And again, for this reason many scientific intellects have criticized the Pope for having discouraged the study of what might have happened before the Big Bang. (15)
Whenever I start talking about this creation business, people fly apart like glass. They can't stand the fire. They will stick to their old traditions. I can't even bring it up. They want to string me up to the nearest tree if I start talking about that because their prejudices are so deep and so established. (16)

He believed that the world “was made by a natural process, and the almighty knew exactly how to do it.” (17) All things considered, our traditional interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis is likely to be quite erroneous.

In order to help us understand matters such as the creation of the earth, the Lord revealed through Joseph Smith the following:
Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand; Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass. (18)

Related to this verse, the prophet also taught, “one of the grand fundamental principles of "Mormonism" is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” (19) Of all things researched, most Christians would agree that the study of things in and under the world have resulted most vexing to their faith.

Does the existence of dinosaurs (20) automatically imply the non-existence of a supreme being? By no means. Joseph has taught that there have existed (on this earth if the 130th section is to hold true (21) many animals of which the saints of his day had no concept.
John saw beings…of a thousand forms…strange beasts of which we have no conception… John learned that God glorified Himself by saving all that His hands had made, whether beasts, fowls, fishes or men… We are not told where they came from, and I do not know; but they were seen and heard by John. (22)

But, on the other hand, does the existence of dinosaurs automatically imply the existence of Darwinian Evolution? Again, not necessarily. As we shall see, the theory of evolution has many problems.

First of all, what is natural selection? It is a tautology and nothing else. This point alone has subjected Darwinists to quite a helping of criticism. It is basically saying that “If among the varieties of species there is one that survives better in the environment than the others, then the variety that survives best is the one that best survives.” (23) How much information does that sentence really convey to a reader? What else can be said as a fact in the field of evolution, aside from the obvious? Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at British Natural History Museum said in a lecture:
Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing… that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got then was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, “I do know one thing- it ought not to be taught in high school”. (24)

Very little is known with a certainty about evolution, especially with regard to past life forms.

This creates a dilemma for our friends the scientists. Even if they were to unearth a stunningly complete record of fossils equipped with all the transitional forms they could ever hope to amass in their favor (which they have not), the hardheaded creationist could still claim that each form was a different creation from God, and the scientist could never really prove otherwise. Short of building a time machine to go back and watch it happen, there is virtually no way for the theory of common descant to be proven 100% true. Campbell, formerly of UCLA, has made this point clearly:
We know that we can never do more than present hypotheses on the basis of the presently available evidence. As time-bound creatures, no ultimate truth about the origin and evolution of mankind can ever be known to us. (25)

This truth should not be bothersome to anybody, for this is the very definition of a theory. Take, for example, Newton’s theory of gravity. It was accepted as true for centuries until Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity were conceived. Stephen Hawking acknowledged this line of reasoning as follows:
Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis. You can never prove it. No matter how many times the result of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. (26)

Even if we saw new species popping up at the same rate at which species are going extinct (27) (which they are not), I imagine that some would still reject the idea of common descent out of faith that the counterevidence would still come.

And so it is, Darwinism can never be thoroughly proved (though staggering amount of evidence can be amounted in its favor) yet may be quickly refuted. With this in mind, one becomes deeply suspicious of those proclaiming the case to be closed when a Distinguished University Professor of Biology at the University of Massachusetts, Lynn Margulis, declares, “History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as “a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology.” (28) What is it that is causing many renowned scientists to reject the current theory of evolution? (29)

It is my intent to present a range of current arguments used against the Neo-Darwinian interpretation of earth’s past. Although in the future some might eventually come to naught, as noted, only one solid contradiction is needed to at minimum force revision of the current theory.

Life Is Unique

Perhaps the greatest challenge to the idea of utterly random mutations is the question as to how life began on earth in the first place. On one hand, in order for natural selection, or nature for that matter, to have existed, a self-replicating organism of some kind was needed. On the other hand, for something as complex as a self-replicating organism to have come about without inherited mutations would be nothing short of a miracle.
The old school said that rabbits had been created by God using methods too wonderful for us to comprehend. The new school said that rabbits had been created from sludge, by methods too complex for us to calculate and by methods likely enough involving improbable happenings. Improbable happenings replaced miracles and sludge replaced God, with believers both old and new seeking to cover up their ignorance in clouds of words, but different words. (30)
Either scenario seems to me like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

In 1953 Stanley Miller, a graduate student at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment where he took the materials thought at the time would have been present in the primeval earths atmosphere and subjected his apparatus to a simulated lightning storm for a few days. Soon a reddish slime developed on the edge of the flask and, upon analysis, was revealed to contain amino acids, the building blocks of life. Many scientists had a heyday publishing the obvious implication: life was nothing but a haphazard accident in chemical reactions.

Not all informed researchers, however, were so thrilled.
Miller and Urey’s experiment only works as long as oxygen is absent and certain critical ratios of hydrogen and carbon dioxide are maintained… Scientists are now learning that the atmosphere of the early earth probably was not of the strongly reducing nature required by the Miller-Urey apparatus. Oxygen was likely present in the early earth atmosphere. (31)

To assume that there was no oxygen in the earths atmosphere is indeed a bold claim since "solar effects on the earths water may provide our primary supply of oxygen, and not photosynthesis (the synthesis of oxygen from carbon dioxide by plants) as is generally believed." (32) But why would they assume that oxygen was not present on the earth? The answer, obviously, was that that was the only way it could happen. (33)
In the presence of oxygen any organic compounds formed on the early Earth would be rapidly oxidized and degraded. For this reason many authorities have advocated an oxygen-free atmosphere for hundreds of millions of years following the formation of the Earth’s crust. (34)

The proposal of an absence of oxygen, while avoiding a few problems, only creates others. Without oxygen in the atmosphere there would exist no ozone layer. Any sort of organism miraculously assembled in the prebiotic soup would be subjected to a lethal dose of ultraviolet radiation in approximately .3 seconds. (35) Alternative methods of producing life have been purposed, but
the big problem is that each nucleotide “building block” is itself built up from several components, and the processes that form the components are chemically incompatible. (36)

In short, the production of amino acids is remotely improbable.

But there is yet another problem. Amino acids are not life! They must combine in a highly complex pattern in order to form a single protein. Well, how probable is that?
Joining many amino acids together to form a protein with a useful biological activity is a much more difficult chemical problem than forming amino acids in the first place… Because water is so abundant on the earth, and because amino acids dissolve readily in water, origin of life researchers have been forced to propose unusual scenarios to get around the water problem.(37)

To firmly believe that such was the beginning of life requires more faith than Job ever could muster. (38) When one denounces others for exercising faith in unseen things while maintaining such improbabilities in their own heart one begins to question that person’s motives. (39)

Particularly unhappy with the situation have been the mathematicians. They have compared the odds of any form of life emerging from the chaotic blob of stuff to the possibility of an army of monkeys strumming away on their typewriters over an indefinite length of time and actually producing one of Shakespeare’s sonnets.
No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning… There are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2000=1040,000 (40) an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social belief or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court. (41)

In other words, if the whole universe were made of monkeys, and if they had billions of years to accomplish the feat, those monkeys could still never produce anything comparable to the complex and intricate organization of life. In case the odds of life some how forming out of indiscriminate coincidences in the four billion years that the earth has been calculated to exist (or the 15 billion years of the universe) (42) were not in itself a stretch of common credulity, consider the powerful evidence which suggests that life appeared only one to three hundred million years after water (which is necessary for life to exist) formed on the earths surface. Where time was once considered to be “the hero of the plot” (43), it has now become the villain. Such a setting has forced many to speculate about the possibility of transplantation of life from other planets. (44) But, as Elder Talmage has pointed out,
To explain the origin of a rose-bush in our own garden by saying that it was transplanted as an offshoot from a rose-tree growing elsewhere, is no answer to the question concerning the origin of roses. (45)

But surely there must be some evidence in support of a primordial soup. Even if it’s existence does not concur with theoretical logic, perhaps there is a clue to be found in the fossil record, else why the insistence upon it’s existence?
If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere in this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compound, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like, alternatively in much meta-morphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes (graphite-like nitrogen-containing materials). In fact, no such materials have been found anywhere in earth. (46)

Why then, in direct violation of Ockham’s Razor (47), do scientists persist in declaring that there must have been some organic mess lingering around? The answer is simple. Naturalistic philosophy and uniformitarianism are assumed and, some might argue, required in all science. Such logic, however useful for producing theories and relative predictions, is insufficient for conclusive proof in matters with such weighty ethical consequences.

Unlikely Evolution Of Irreducibly Complex Systems

In Darwin’s writing of “The Origin of Species” he provided a number of hypotheses as to how certain traits, organs, and characteristics of a variety of species could have evolved. So important was this point to his theory that he admitted,
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. (48)

This bold statement requires an immense amount of supportive research, which he readily attempted to supply. He did remarkably well at explaining away many derivations of organs, considering his 19th century knowledge.

We, however, do not live in the 19th century. Since the time of Darwin many scientific advances have been made in various fields, particularly that of molecular biology (which was nonexistent at his time).
Molecular Biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10^-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world… The recently revealed world of molecular machinery, of coding systems, of informational molecules, of catalytic devices and feed back control, is in its design and complexity quite unique to living systems. (49)

With the discovery of proteins, their building blocks amino acids, and their building blocks nucleotides, much skepticism has been centered on whether Darwin’s criterion for failure has been met.

Michael Behe in his award winning book “Darwin’s Black Box” has addressed this very problem by mentioning a number of irreducibly complex systems that, he feels, could not have been produced by a non-directed evolutionary process.
A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning, cannot be produced directly by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. (50)

Nearly identical to the concept of spontaneous generation of life, this is the notion of a spontaneous generation of functional organs.

There are many illustrations of this principle in the biological world around us. Take for example the bat with its echolocation. To have it, many things must evolve in a simultaneous manner. Bats need a specialized apparatus to make sounds, specialized ears to hear echoes, specialized brains to interpret the sounds, and specialized bodies to dive and swoop and catch insects. If all these things don’t evolve simultaneously, there is no advantage (51). If there were no advantage then why would natural selection not discard the unnecessary baggage?

In the microscopic world, probably the most classic example of a complex organ presenting a challenge to the evolutionary theory is that of the eye. Darwin addressed this organ in “The Origin of Species”, showing that our highly intricate sense of sight, complete with color vision, could have evolved from less complicated versions of the same thing. He gave examples of many animals that have colorless vision, to a not-solid lens vision, ultimately to a light sensitive spot, which some animals have. That was very convincing logic for a world that knew nothing of what made an eye. But,
The arguments… fail because they never discuss what is contained in the systems over which they are arguing. Not only is the eye exceedingly complex, but the “light-sensitive spot”… is itself a multi-celled organ, each of whose cells makes the complexity of a motorcycle or television set look paltry in comparison. (52)

The question of how the light-sensitive spot came to be is rarely mentioned for lack of explanation.

The molecule of DNA, the most famous of the nucleic acids, is made up of four kinds of nucleotides: A, C, G, and T. When the “A” nucleotide is not connected to a polymer, in can take on several forms: ADP, ATP, and the first form synthesized in the cell and an essential ingredient in metabolism, AMP. The metabolic system, and AMP in specific, is very far from simple, and a suitable idea for their evolutionary pathway that might have been taken in their formation has not been conceived. Nearly all of the current theoretical explanations involve the scientist drawing
A figure, in which arrows point from the words abiotic syntheses to the letters A, B, C, and D. But, breaking new ground, he has arrows pointing from A, B, C, and D to M, N, S, T, and W, and from there to P, O, Q, R, and U. Besides each of the arrows he has written Cat (as an abbreviation for “catalyst”) to show how the letters originated, but that is no explanation: the only “evidence” for the scheme is the figure! Nowhere does he or any other researcher attach names of real chemicals to the mythical letters…No one has a clue how the AMP pathway developed. (53)

Another example of an elaborate system found within organisms that presents a problem to the unsystematic development of life is the immune system. Various characteristics had to be acquired in this system in a synchronized and timely fashion so as to save many species from certain doom before the first disease (or in other words, a need for it) had evolved. Recognition of foreign and potentially hazardous bacterium, destruction of the danger while tolerating the harmless and helpful, reproduction, and diversity (54), to name only a few, must all be synthesized in order for the system to be of use. “Whichever way we turn, a gradualistic account of the immune system is blocked by multiple interwoven requirements… The complexity of the system dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustration.” (55)

Another bodily system that presents a formidable challenge to Darwin’s ultimatum is the coagulatory system. Russell Doolittle from the Center for Molecular Genetics at the University of California, San Diego, has said,
Blood clotting is a delicately balanced phenomenon involving proteases, antiproteases, and protease substrates… How in the world did this complex and delicately balanced process evolve? … The paradox was, if each protein depended on activation by another, how could the system ever have arisen? Of what use would any part of the scheme be without the whole ensemble? (56)

Even such a simple routine as blood clotting requires many proteins and enzymes in order to form clots, limit the clotting before dangerous lumps form in the blood stream, strengthen them and remove them. Where as in other systems, difficulties or lack of one of its components will only yield the scheme unprofitable, in the case of the coagulation cascade such obstacles result in serious health problems or death from a stroke or blood loss. (57)

Other examples could be given, such as the cilium (the waiving tail found on many cells which help sperm swim and push mucus up to the throat), which requires microtubules to slide, connectors to convert sliding to bending, and motors to move it. Or take into account the vesicular transport system, which entails six interacting components (58). There are many, but where “Richard Dawkins can simplify to his heart’s content, because he wants to convince his readers that Darwinian evolution is “a breeze”, in order to understand the barriers of evolution” (59) one has to elaborate more than space here is available.

Complex Animals Appeared Suddenly

In an outright onslaught of attacks to creationism, one of the scientists did manage to acknowledge this imperfection in the conventional theory of evolution.
Darwin predicted that the fossil record should show a reasonably smooth continuum of ancestor-descendent pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups. Darwin even went so far as to say that if these were not found in the fossil record, his general theory of evolution would be in serious jeopardy. Such smooth transitions were not found in Darwin’s time, and re-explained this in part on the basis of an incomplete geologic record and in part on the lack of study of the record. We are now more than a hundred years after Darwin and the situation is little changed… We actually may have fewer examples of smooth transitions than we had in Darwin’s time, because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail. (60)

This is basically the argument that animals changed too fast, which, though it seems to be, is not a contradiction of the following point, that animals changed too slow. The two arguments are two forms of evidence against the uniform, gradual, series of mutations predicted by evolutionists.

Perhaps the most often used evidence from the fossil record by anti-Darwinists is the Cambrian explosion. Until relatively recent times the evolutionists have assumed (and logically so by their own theory) mutations and natural selection to be slow and gradual processes. But “The most thorough study yet of species formation in the fossil record confirms that new species appear with a most un-Darwinian abruptness after long periods of stability.” (61) Where the previous conception of the earths past was more or less that of an evolutionary tree, steadily branching a little by little, scientists are now confronted with more of an evolutionary bush, a burst of diversity followed by very slight changes. At the beginning of the Cambrian era, a mere 530 million years ago, the record gives strong evidence to this eruption of life.
The fossil evidence that challenges this classic concept of evolution has been found worldwide: in western Canada, near Chengjiang in southern China, in Africa, Greenland, and Sweden. The Cambrian explosion of life encompassed the globe. Jointed legs, food-gathering appendages, intestinal structures, notochord, gills, and eyes with optically perfect lenses- all these “evolved” simultaneously. Sponges, rotifers, annelids, arthropods, primitive fish, and all the other body plans represented in the thirty-four animal phyla extant today appear as a single burst in the fossil record. And it happened 530 million years ago. Those are the data. No one disputes them. (62)

There are no intermediates. There are no “missing links” coming forth. It is not even a question of the missing link, because nearly all of them are missing. Alan Cheetham, after his excursion to amend this lack of evidence “came reluctantly to the conclusion that (he) wasn’t finding evidence for gradualism.” (63) He was not just speaking of the Cambrian era, but everywhere. There are very few intermediates being found anywhere at all.
In such an absence of supporting proof many have turned to inventing common ancestors between different species and presenting them as fact (64). If I were to accurately draw the fossil record as the data suggests, I would not draw a tree, or a bush, but rather a number of reeds sticking out of the ground. This just goes to show, as Geerat Vermei of University of California Davis has admitted, “Those who have looked hard, and that’s not a large number, have tended to find punctuation.” (65)

Change In The Past Has Been Limited

With such giant jumps found between species in the fossil record it is not unreasonable to suppose that there exist many instances of small skips from one life form to the other that could be considered a mutated form of a former species. And yet, as reasonable as that assumption may be, if evolution has in fact occurred to all of the estimated 50 billion species that have existed on this planet, it has proven to be false. The famous biologist, Lynn Margulis,
At one of her many public talks asks the molecular biologists in the audience to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge goes unmet. (66)

While some life forms, which Darwinists are always quick to label “intermediate forms”, have been uncovered, there is absolutely no reason why these could not be a unique species in and of themselves. Just because the do not fit into the traditional “Kings Play Cards On Fat Green Stools” (67) labeling system that we have created is no definite reason to suspect mutation. Even in the case of these examples, which scientists love to through in any unsuspecting creationists face, all but one of the links in the connecting chain between species is missing.
This goes directly against what has been taught to every high school student for the past few generations. Where most biologists are afraid to mention such difficulties, with their theory (mostly out of fear of giving the creationist ammunition) (68), it is comforting to know that some die-hard evolutionists are willing to fess up.
A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the over simplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found -Yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into the textbook. (69)

In summary, the fossil record is replete with various explosions of life forms, which seemingly come out of nowhere. No intermediate species have been found, and therefore no satisfactory explanation has been provided for such bursts. Also noted in the remnants, is the fact that between these break outs of new species, there are few examples of change either. The animals were always either mutating too fast to be considered indiscriminate mutations in a game of survival of the fittest, or they were mutating too slowly too account for any major change between species.
No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collection up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change- over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution. (70)

Change In The Present Is Limited

On our planet there are currently 50 million species of plants and animals. This represents one part in a thousand of the species estimated to have lived here. Thus 99.9 percent of all the species that have ever lived on earth have become extinct, an average of about 1 species every three or four days. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to see that, assuming the theory of evolution to be true, new species could be expected to be popping up at about the same rate to maintain a relatively stable equilibrium. Over the past six thousand years of recorded history surely man must have observed at least one new species come into existence. And yet,
In spite of the intense pressure generated by artificial selection (eliminating any parent not answering the criteria of choice) over whole millennia, no new species are born… This is not a matter of opinion or subjective classification, but a measurable reality. (71)

Artificial selection was Darwin’s favorite source of evidence in support of his theory. From pigeons to dogs, his Origin of Species is filled with examples of mutations induced upon domesticated animals. He pointed out, and rightly so, that the animals always adapted to certain situations in a rather effective way. This is microevolution, the small mutations found in the same species under different environments. In all fairness, it should be stated that microevolution is, without a doubt, true to a great extent. To ignore the fact that a fish will grow in proportion to the size of its container would be comparable to an ostrich thinking an enemy disappears because he sticks his head in the sand.

Domesticated animals, dogs for instance, have been subjected to severe conditions in hopes of producing the extremes, a Chihuahua or a Saint Bernard. While a great variety has been developed certain plateaus (72) of change have been met. And even so, after such variations have been accomplished, the end product is still a dog.
From all this it is quite clear that dogs selected and kept by man in a domesticated state remain within the boundaries of species. Tame animals that have reverted to the wild state lose the characteristics produced by mutations and fairly quickly resume the original wild type… This demonstrates, as we knew before, that artificial and natural selection do not work in the same way. (73)

In other words, at least halt of Darwin’s book is irrelevant. Not only are there no solid examples of evolution in the past, there are none in the present.

Chance Cannot Account For The Highly Complex Ecosystem

Recently, much research has been performed at the Santa Fe Institute regarding a complexity theory. One of the main problems they have attempted to tackle, and unsuccessfully at that (74), is how such an extremely complicated system as the world’s ecosystem could have evolved by chance. While many have accused their “science” of being more mathematical that biological, the question they raise is significant. One author, who supports the theory said,
Think of the interaction of life forms on the planet to make an ecosystem. That’s even more complex than a single animal. All the arrangements are very complicated. Like the yucca plant… The yucca plant depends on a particular moth, which gathers pollen into a ball, and carries the ball to a different plant- not a different flower on the same plant- where it rubs the ball on the plant, fertilizing it. Only then does the moth lay its eggs. The yucca plant can’t survive without the moth. The moth can’t survive without the plant. (75)

Or consider the similar interactions between flowers and bees. The whole “circle of life” is a huge community of interrelated elements (76). How could such intimate interactions, and there are many, have come to be? “A balance of species in a community cannot be produced and maintained by competition alone.” (77)

Some have wondered how many advantages, which natural selection is claimed to have “forced” (does that sound like a mindless haphazard word to you?) upon species, could have arisen at all. To have any real effect or give any real advantage the mutations would have to be freakishly large by our standards. Think of that, how many freakish mutations have really helped a person to survive? Though, there may be some, the odds are quite low as to whether a mutation would help at all.
"Rare favorable mutations…cannot free themselves from the more frequent unfavorable ones, because an offspring to whom a rare favorable mutation occurs is inevitably saddled with all the unfavorable mutations which have afflicted its parental line." (78)
"When genes are tied to each other, as they are when reproduction from generation to generation follows an asexual binary fission model or a budding model, there can be no positive evolution. Rare advantageous mutations are swamped by more frequent deleterious mutations. The best that natural selection can do subject to a specified environment is to hold the deleterious mutations in check." (79)

With such relations full of twists and turns one can reasonable argue, as did perhaps the most intelligent scientist ever that, “To compare and adjust all these things together in so great a variety of bodies argues the Cause to be not blind and fortuitous, but very well skilled” (80) in the sciences.

Naturalistic Interpretations Of Genetic Molecules Cannot Account For The Information Contained Therein

With the discovery of the double-helix-shape of the DNA molecule by Francis Crick and his associates, many scientists became quite excited. At last, solid information of how evolution works and the history thereof could be studied. Their excitement was not, however, justified. It soon became apparent that not all the DNA molecule was used, and the majority of it was evidently neutral.
The result of the last 20 years of research on the genetic basis of adaptation has led us to a great Darwinian paradox. Those (genes) that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those (genes) that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many, if not most, major adaptive changes apparently are not variable within natural populations. (Emphasis not added) (81)

Biochemistry has revealed that although they can now study genetic codes directly, they tell little about how that species evolved. Perhaps the most mysterious riddle is (as we have already discussed briefly) how the very structure of the helix and the information within was formed.
The sequence of bases that spell out a message in the DNA molecule is chemically arbitrary. There is nothing intrinsic in the chemistry of any base sequences that makes it carry a particular meaning. In fact, there are many base sequences possible besides the ones actually used in the cell-all of them equally probable in terms of chemical forces. By merely examining the physical structure, you could not detect any difference between these useless base sequences and those necessary for life. There is nothing in their physical make up that distinguishes the two sets of molecules. Out of a vast number of possible base sequences, somehow only a few carry meaning. (82)

Those who have studied the molecular structure of DNA have not had the foggiest idea where the shape came from, nor why it is produced. Equally vague is why that particular structure should contain such a vast quantity of information and, some might argue, intelligence. As one author has described the intelligence of the microbiological system,
A single fertilized egg has a hundred thousand genes, which act in a coordinated way, switching on and off at specific times, to transform that single cell into a complete living creature. That one cell starts to divide, but the subsequent cells are different. They specialize. Some are nerve. Some are gut. Some are limb. Each set of cells begins to follow its own program, developing, interacting. Eventually there are two hundred and fifty different kinds of cells, all developing together, at exactly the right time. Just when the organism needs a circulatory system, the heart starts pumping. Just when hormones are needed, the adrenals start to make them. Week after week, this unimaginably complex development proceeds perfectly- perfectly. (Probably M. Crichton)

Science has shown that life is made up of the same stuff as “the dust of the ground” (83) but it has had a relatively difficult time defining the difference between living and inanimate matter. They have not been able to figure out how something that is metabolic, self-reproducing and eventually capable of rational thought (a process still not fully understood) could come into being time and time again from merely chemical reactions that arose spontaneously. Where does the information for this unparalleled process come from? How can inert matter contain such information? There appears to be no explanation.

I sincerely hope that in my showing the errors and holes found in the theory of evolution I have not portrayed the scientists as evil villains who spread nothing but rubbish and devious doctrine. Such has not been my intent. I very much approve of scientists and hope myself to become one in the future. It is my belief that God himself is nothing short of a scientist. It is, however, important to remember that the current theories in science are just that, theories.
The scientist readily admits that he was wrong yesterday, but dogmatically insists that he is right today. We can believe him when he says he was wrong, but can we believe him when he says he is right today? He said that yesterday, too. (84)

I feel that the current evolutionary theory is a remarkably intelligent theory and has been reached a great deal of correct conclusions. It has been shown that life forms on this planet have become gradually more and more complex through out time. It has shown that species are very interrelated and have a remarkable ability to adapt to their environment. It might have even shown how life has developed its huge range of diversity. But, it must be admitted that other sciences have provided quite convincing evidence against a blind, naturalistic, and utterly haphazard version of this theory. I do not disapprove of the theory of evolution being taught in school, for it is the most descriptive and apparently accurate model that science has to offer. The evidence against the theory is, nonetheless, just as scientific as the evidence in favor of it, and should be presented as well. The ad hominem argument (85) of labeling all dissention as superfanatical, religious ranting will never help anybody learn the absolute truth.

I do approve of the naturalistic interpretation of scientific evidence, but there are limits, which should not be crossed in such analyses. When one assumes that what has been observed is all there is to work with, this is logical and much truth can be discovered by this method. When such a method is used to develop a theory, I do not believe that the theory should be used to prove that there is no more than what is observed. That is a circular argument from which there is neither escape nor progress. On the flip side, “God did it and that is that,” offers little forward advancement as an explanation.

So, the question that should be on every person’s mind is how did it happen. Were there a snap of the fingers and a poof of smoke on each of the seven creative days? That is just the question.


1 Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy? On VHS video cassette by Phillip Johnson
2 (Abr. 3:2-4; Facsimile 2 Fig. 1, 4; 2 Peter 3:8; Psalms 90:4)
3 Hugh Nibley, Of All Things! Classic Quotations from Hugh Nibley, page 244
4 Hugh Nibley, Old Testament and Related Studies, pages 49 – 50
5 It is interesting to note that though many claim that it is foolishness to believe in things that one cannot see, that is exactly what scientists are beginning to claim in regards to astronomy. In the January 2002 edition of Discovery the author points out that astronomers are sure that there is matter that cannot be seen, and this in order to account for gravity holding galaxies together with so little visible matter.
6 Alma 30:14-18, 48
7 Alma 30: 40-44
8 Many sources, both canonical and non-scriptural, indicate that the ancient Americans and Easterners at one time knew that “surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun” (Helaman 12:13-15), a belief which eventually was abolished and ultimately loathed by the church and state. We see in an ancient account of Mark 16:3 reads “In the third hour of the day there came darkness throughout all the globe of the earth.” Clement of Alexandria, a second century Christian, wrote, “the ocean is impassable to men; and there are worlds which are on the other side of it, which are governed by these same arrangements of the ruling God.” In Mesoamerica, the entire Mayan city of Teotiuacan is, to a remarkable degree of accuracy, a scale model of the solar system. See “Mysteries of the Mexican Pyramids pg. 215, 221, and 266-9.
9 Richard Dawkins has written many books, The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable for example, with the sole purpose in mind of destroying creationism.
10 Dawkins 1989 New York Times, April 9, 1989 sec. 7 p. 34
11 Fred Hoyle in “The Mathematics of Evolution” page 30
12 Joseph Smith, Jan. 5, 1841, Words of Joseph Smith pg. 60 “This earth was organized or formed out of other planets which were broken up and remodeled and made into the one on which we live.” Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses 1:275 “When the elements in an organized form do not fill the end of their creation, they are thrown back… to be made over again.” Hugh Nibley taught, “How fascinating to realize that the surface of our planet must be strewn with matter from other solar systems." Well, the more recent report here is that our earth is almost totally made up of matter brought to it by comets. That's Parley P. Pratt's old theory. Remember, he used to defend that…. "So the cosmic debris streams out from galaxies and begins to form a bridge between them [we actually have a photograph of that going on]. This matter [that is brought by comets] tears down and builds up all objects, providing new raw materials for new creation. This metabolism resembles the metabolic process of organic life, a new combination, a new creation." Oh, what a shocking thing to say! How unchristian. Haven't I heard the expression, "We have a new world, like unto the other worlds that were created." Hugh Nibley, Ancient Documents and the Pearl of Great Price, page 5
13 Elder Bruce R. Mc Conkie has written, “We do not know how the fall was accomplished anymore than we know how the Lord caused the earth to come into being and to spin through the heavens in its paradisiacal state.” A New Witness for the Articles of Faith pg. 85-86.
14 Copernicus was sentenced to a kind of house arrest for his “preposterous” theory, which many felt went in outright opposition to the written Word, that the earth was not at the center of the universe. Carl Sagan spoke very cynically of examples such as these in his book Pale Blue Dot. He thought that such instances in history some how prove that there was no God (A conclusion which I emphatically disagree with) and that we humans should get off of our high horse, humble ourselves, and study things out (conclusions which I whole-heartedly endorse).
15 Stephen Hawking in “A Brief History of Time”
16 As quoted in Hugh Nibley, Ancient Documents and the Pearl of Great Price, page 2
17 As quoted by Franklin Richards in Timeless Questions, Gospel Insights lecture 1 by Truman G. Madsen.
18 Doctrine and Covenants 88:77-80
19 Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 313.
20 One wonders if Abraham knew of dinosaurs judging by figure 16 in Facsimile number 2.
21 Doctrine and Covenants 130:5
22 Joseph Smith commenting on the Book of Revelation, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page. 291
23 Fred Hoyle in “the Mathematics of Evolution” pg. 2
24 As quoted in “Darwin on Trial” page 10 by Phillip Johnson from UC Berkeley
25 Campbell, Bernard Conceptual Progress in Physical Anthropology: Fossil Man,” Annual Review of Anthropology 6:27
26 Hawking in “A Brief History of Time”
27 Estimates have it that over the history of the earth an average of one species has gone extinct every day. This in itself is strong evidence against evolution since science has yet to record the creation of a separate, and distinct species. If evolution is so slow, why are there so many species in existence now?
28 Lynn Margulis as quoted by Mann, C. in 1991, Science 252, 378-381
29 It should be noted that while many scholars are rejecting Neo-Darwinism, this does not imply that they are necessarily leaning toward creationism. Many, in fact, still believe in the mutation of species, but realize that random mutations and natural selection alone are not enough to give us the current biological situation observed today. Other theories to account for this are Complexity Theory (which is studied very thoroughly at the Santa Fe Institute), Symbiosis, Gaia and others.
30 Hoyle in “The Mathematics of Evolution”
31 A Case Against Evolution pg. 41 by Overman
32 G.R. Carruthers and Thornton Page Science 177:788 Carruthers afterwards calculated that approximately 1% of the primitive earths atmosphere was oxygen. In “The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories pg. 79-80 the estimate is that the earths atmosphere was about 25% of the amount observed today.
33 This line of reasoning is made painfully clear by the circular argument: “The very fact that life sprang up on earth constitutes conclusive proof of a primary reducing environment since the latter is a necessary prerequisite for chemical evolution and spontaneous origin of life.” Manfred Schidlowsky quoted by Shapiro pg. 112
34 Denton pg. 261
35 C. Sagan in “Ultraviolet Selection Pressure on the Earliest Organisms” in the Journal of Theoretical Biology 39:197
36 Behe 171
37 Michael Behe in Darwin’s Black Box pg. 169-70
38 “In so far as chance plays a central role the probability that even a very short protein, not withstanding a genome, could emerge from a primordial soup, if it ever existed, even with the help of a deus ex machina, for 10^9 years is so small that the faith of Job is required to believe it.” The Journal of T. Reil by H. Yockey pg. 91,14
39 Believing in the improbable is not frowned on in my train of thought but rather the intolerance of others to do so. Reporting beyond the facts with the intent of discrediting a Creator is, lamentably, an all too common occurrence. “I now admit… That in the earlier editions of my Origin of Species I probably attributed too much to the action of natural selection or survival of the fittest… I had two distinct objects in view, firstly, to show that species had not been separately created… If I have erred in giving to natural selection great power… I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.” The Descent of Man by Charles Darwin
40 To understand how remotely minute this chance is, consider the fact that you have a 1 in 1060 chance of shooting at random a 1 inch target from 20,000,000,000 light years away! There are only an estimated 1080 atoms in the known universe!
41 Hoyle and Wickramasingle in “Evolution From Space” pg. 148, 24, 150, 30, 31
42 “Can we really form a biological cell by waiting for chance combinations of organic compounds? Harold Morowitz, in his book “Energy Flow and Biology,” computed that merely to create a bacterium would require more time than the Universe might ever see if chance combinations of its molecules were the only driving force.” Scientific American special publication 1979
43 G. Wald wrote in his article “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, August 1954 the following: “However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. And for life as we know it… once may be enough. Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time the “impossible” becomes the possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.” In a 1979 Scientific American special publication C. Folsome said regarding this statement, “Although stimulating, this article probably represents one of the very few times in his professional life when Wald has been wrong. Examine his main thesis and see.”
44 Francis Crick, Nobel Laureate, wrote, “Given the weakness of all theories of terrestrial genesis, directed panspermia should still be considered a serious possibility” Scientific American February 1992.
45 Talmage in “Articles of Faith” page 31
46 J. Brooks and G. Shaw in “Origin and Development of Living Systems” pg. 73 or consider this statement “Rocks of great antiquity have been examined over the past two decades and in none of them has any trace of abiotically produced organic compounds been found.”
Denton (1985) pg. 261
47 “When a proposition comes out true for things, if two things suffice for its truth, it is superfluous to assume a third.” Interestingly enough, Carl Sagan quotes it differently in his novel “Contact” as an argument against God: “All things considered, the simplest explanation tends to be the most correct… Which is more likely? There is a magical god who created us in his own image but decided to leave us without a shred of proof, or that we made him up in our minds to comfort us.” It seems to me that though the second description sounds simpler, the first scenario is less complicated.
48 Charles Darwin in Origin of Species page 154
49 Michael Denton in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis pg. 250,71
50 Behe page 39
51 Michael Crichton in the Lost World pg. 207-9 though this is a science fiction novel, the ideas presented there in are an excellent non-fictional sources of counterarguments against Darwinism. The book contains a number of illustrations of an irreducibly complex system.
52 Behe pg. 46
53 Ibid 152,9
54 If the FBI only had two fingerprints on file, how much help would that provide?
55 Ibid 139
56 Doolittle in the journal “Thrombosis and Haemostasis” 70, 24-28
57 Behe pg. 88-89
58 Ibid 110
59 Ibid 48
60 Raup in Scientist Confront Creationism by Godfrey pg. 156
61 Science 267:1421-22
62 G. Schroeder in The Science of God pg. 88-9
63 Alan Cheetham of American Museum of nation History
64 Take for example the “Hard Facts Wall” as it has become known in San Francisco where, not only are there invented fossil records presented, but the time line has been skewed as well so as to beguile any non-suspecting spectator. See “Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy”.
65 Geerat Vermeij of UC Davis Science 262:1421-2
66 Darwin’s Black Box pg. 26
67 Kind, Phyla, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species
68 Behe 30
69 David Raup in Science 213 pg. 289
70 Eldredge, N. in Reinventing Darwin, pg. 95
71 French Zoologist Pierre Grasse
72 Many anti-Darwinists would call them limits, while the Darwinists will throw up their hands and scream, “Who says that’s the limit? Who says that we have gone as far as we can?” Whether or not we have reached the absolute limit, it is apparent that there are no dogs the bulk of elephants, nor the size of a baby rat.
73 Pierre Grasse in Evolution of Living Organisms pg. 124
74 Stuart Kauffman, the main pioneer in the project, has been accussed by his old mentor, Maynard Smith, of practicing “fact-free science”. “Life at the Edge of Chaos?” New York Review, March 2, 1995 pg.28-30
75 Michael Crichton in the Lost World pg. 309-11
76 Worth noting here is the coincidence that a representation of this perfect system is found in the second Facsimile of the Book of Abraham, Figure 6, which depicts a leaf, a herbivore, and a carnivore. See Hugh Nibley in “Facsimile 2 Figure 6”.
77 D. Boberg in Evolution and Reason- Beyond Darwin pg.88
78 Pg 10
79 Hoyle in the Mathematics of Evolution pg. 135-6
80 Issac Newton, in a letter to Dr. Bentley 1692
81 Mac Donald, J. “The Molecular Basis of Adaptation,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematic 14,93
82 M. Greene “Knowing and Being” pg. 241
83 Genesis 2:7
84 Hugh Nibley, Of All Things! Classic Quotations from Hugh Nibley, 244
85 An ad hominem argument is one that attacks the person presenting an idea rather than the idea itself. Accepting a scientists argument while rejecting the very same point given by a layman is illogical and inconsistent. It is appealing to prejudice rather than reason in an argument.


This covers a lot of ground, Jeffrey, including many topics that haven't been touched on here (such as abiogenesis and the fact that gradualism is very rarely observed.)

It will be interesting to hear the things that changed your mind. 

Posted by Christian Y. Cardall

5/28/2005 11:32:00 AM  



<< Home