Tumgik
#codiscoverer
fobh6lvyj07u · 1 year
Text
Two sexy black bitches get their asses fucked by two black studs Curvy brunette Melissa Rocha gets horny in her room then hunk comes in to fuck her twinks sucking on cam Big ass chubby babe in stockings foots a cock, sucks and fucks it in bed Young hunk Billy Rubens fucking ass after blowjob para la chica de omegle de santiago Hot milf admits watching step mom and son porn Nathalia Fontes fodendo a solteira apertadinha Tia atrapalhando a foda da sobrinha tocando a campainha White milif take BBC From uk Birmingham
0 notes
fxouiqldhxe · 1 year
Text
loira safada no bola gato seattle area indian casinos Live Sex Chat : Nilou Achtland and Benny Fake snapgirl get dicks Gay twink hot hollywood actor movieture and teen emo boy big penis Tunni takes bath for soap massage his cock by girls Fuckin my gf wet pussy Busty stepmom and her petite daughter having lesbian sex See our Pinup models send anniversary greetings with their big titties BARBI SINCLAIR LOVES FELLING BIG BLACK COCK ON HER SOFT PRETTY FEET
0 notes
sight-decoding · 2 years
Text
Tumblr media
In most versions of the Sophia mythos the fall of the Goddess is intimately linked to the activity of another Aeon, Christos, also named for its flow-signature, "anointing power." In cosmic terms anointing is the capacity of an Aeon to morph from a porous, foamlike state into a fluidic, dewlike state. Foam is not dew, but imagine foam turning to dew. That is anointing in the Pleromic domain. The product of anointing, chrism, is the love sweat of the gods. In the ecstasy of their dancing the Aeons break into a fragrant sweat, a bright, dewy eruption. This is anointing at the cosmic level.
Tumblr media
Astrophysicists now accept the presence of "molecular dew" in the galactic arms though not yet at the galactic core, and they are reticent to assume it can have biological properties. Theorists of steady-state plasma cosmology may be approaching a recognition of the foamlike, high-density, low-mass porosity of Aeonic currents. Plasma cosmology is currently the best alternative to the big bang fantasia. In Tantric and Gnostic cosmology alike there is far more foreplay than hard-core, orgasmic sex. This certainly applies to the orgiastic cavorting of the Aeons in the Pleroma.
Tumblr media
The hieros gamos (sacred mating) of Sophia and Christos in the core region of our galaxy signals the opening event of the Sophia mythos. Between them they shape or configure the singularity offered by the Originator. The Greek word anthropos means "humanity," or more precisely, "the human template."  Anthropos is gender-neutral, distinct from the gender-specific words andros, "male" and gyne, "female." Anthropos is the Gnostic name for the cosmic matrix of the human species, the preterrestrial human genome. The Sophia mythos assumes a version of "directed panspermia," the theory introduced by Nobel Prize-winning Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius around 1900 and accepted, in various forms, by astronomer Fred Hoyle, Nobel biologist Francis Crick (codiscoverer with James Watson of the structure of DNA), Lynn Margulis, and many other leading minds of our time.
Tumblr media
Coming together to encode or configure the Anthropos, Sophia and Christos act in a manner consistent with cosmic law, "for it is the will of the Originator not to allow anything to happen in the Pleroma apart from a syzygy" (A Valentinian Exposition 36.25-30). Syzygy is an odd Greek word used by astronomers to denote the conjunction of celestial bodies. The Originator wills that all activity in the Pleroma be accomplished by paired Aeons, coupled gods, but this is not a rigid rule, and it is not enforced. In the case of the Sophia-Christos syzygy that encodes the Anthropos, the will of the Originator is observed. Once it has been configured by the ritual dance of the coupled Aeons, the singulariry is ready to be projected into manifestation in the cosmos at large.
Tumblr media
What next occurs in the Pleroma is a collective act, the collaboration of all the Aeons, not just Sophia and Christos acting as a distinct pair. In episode 3, the entire company of Pleromic gods unites in a choral dance to project the encoded singularity into manifesration. They seed it in the outer cosmos, the galactic limbs turning like a vast carousel around the Pleromic hub. The singularity nests in a nebular cloud. Although the language here is mythic, or mythopoetic, the description can be read as applying to the inner dynamics of the Galaxy. The myth clearly suggests astrophysical processes yet unknown ro science, but perhaps beginning to be glimpsed in plasma physics, complexity theory, and the new vision of emergence.
Tumblr media
Pleroma means "fullness," "plenum," "plenitude." The galactic vortices are all variations of a chalice form, a flattened torus with a central core (the galactic bulge) and a surrounding disc (the spiral arms). The hub of a galaxy, its Pleroma, is counterbalanced by the flat carousel structure, the spinning armature, called the Kenoma, "deficiency," "formless realm." The Pleroma is a fullness, infinite potential that outpours itself into the realm of "deficiency," finite potential. In the Pleroma all possibility is complete, all is fulfilled, evolved ro its fullest potential. Pleromic gods like Sophia can only give of themselves, selflessly, without affecting what they emanate or imposing themselves upon the conditions they set up in the Kenoma. The selfless outpouring of the Pleromic gods is a key theme of Sophianic cosmology. It is also the model of human generosity.
Tumblr media
The Kenoma, the carousel armature of a galaxy, is the realm of chaos where finite, bounded potential develops. It is composed of dark elementary matter arrays (dema), atomic and subatomic fields, including organic elements, grains or spores of life. Suns are born in the galactic arms and planetary systems emerge there. On some of the planets organic life unfolds, but the origin of life cannot, it seems, be located on the planet where it arises. Nobel laureare Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of the structure of DNA, argues that, owing to its overwhelming complexity, life on Earth must have been seeded from elsewhere in the cosmos. Lynn Margulis, coauthor of the Gaia hypothesis, also accepts the possibility that microscopic life-forms (propagules) can migrate freely through interstellar space. The universe is a dusty place, and some of the dust is organic residue. That emergent life on planets in the carousel arms of a galaxy originates in the center of the galaxy, as described in episode 3, is not yet recognized by science. This theory will be unacceptable as long as scientists cannot imagine that the core of a galaxy is a vortex of superorganic forces, alive and aware, but this is the Gnostic vision of the Pleromas.
Tumblr media
In Tantric cosmology, the composition of the Kenoma is called adrista, "residue." It is, as science tells us, stardust that remains from previous cycles of evolution, cycles without a beginning or end.
"Now the Eternity (which is absolute Truth) has no shadow outside it, for it is a limitless light where all is within and nothing is without. But at its exterior is shadow, which has been called darkness. From the darkness arises a force without form. This is the shadow realm of limitless chaos. From this realm, every kind of divine emanation emerges, including the world we inhabit, for whatever happens in chaos is previously implanted there by what produces it" (On the Origin of the World 98.20-30).
Here the language of the Mystery experience plays into the cosmological scenario. The galactic core is a spinning vortex of Organic Light, a radiant substance that might be compared to soft, luminous nougat. It casts no shadow. Darkness belongs to the exterior regions of the galactic mill wheel, the Kenoma. The residue of previous worlds is continually recycled and reprocessed in the massive armature of the spinning carousel. Whatever develops in the Kenoma was implanted there by Pleromic emanation-including humanity itself, or various strains of humanity, and other species.
Tumblr media
A striking parallel to the stalk of light in the Gnostic narrative occurs in the Japanese myth of creation where paired sky gods, or Kami, project a "Jewel-Sky-Spear" from the cosmic center into the waters of primordial chaos.' The image of cosmic fertilization in the galactic limbs occurs in Egyptian mythology where the sky goddess Nut, curved into an oval, carries the constellations of the zodiac encoded on her body. Cosmic embryonic imagery occurs in almost all high-culture cosmologies and universally in indigenous or "primitive" lore.
Tumblr media
The text called On the Origin of the World (NHC II, 5) describes the boundary of the Pleromic core, called menix, hymen, stauros, or horos. Remaining in the core, Aeons can emanate into the arms, the realm of formless chaos, but they do not pass over into those regions. The opalescent stalk of light projected by the collectivity of Aeons may be compared to a klieg light shining through the wall of a white canvas tent. The beam of light passes through the walls, but the source of the beam remains inside the tent. Gnostics texts explain that these two primary conditions, Aeonic pairing and bounded emanation, are set by the Originator. They are cosmic laws but they are not enforced, so exceptions are possible.
Sophia is one of those exceptions.
20 notes · View notes
Text
Game: Codiscoverer of this pancreatic hormone, Ontario's Frederick Banting won a 1923 Nobel prize.
Hunk, buzzing in: Pancreatic hormone, huh? Yeah, sure.
Options: Oxytocin, Adrenaline, Insulin.
Hunk, selecting: Pancreatic hormone? Does your pancreas make adrenaline?
Lance: Wrong!
Pidge: Nope.
Hunk: Adrenal gland does, doesn't it?
Pidge: Yep.
Keith: It's right in the name.
Hunk: Well, you know...
3 notes · View notes
mary-crawleys · 6 years
Photo
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
endless list of favorite characters ; stephen maturin (aubrey-maturin series) “Naval discipline doesn’t operate out here, Mr. Blakeney. I must find a cormorant. And should it indeed prove flightless, you can join me at the Royal Society dinner as codiscoverer.”
86 notes · View notes
whyshouldeye · 3 years
Quote
Although Darwin insisted that human intelligence could be fully explained by the theory of evolution, the codiscoverer of natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, claimed that abstract intelligence was of no use to ancestral humans and could only be explained by intelligent design. Wallace's apparent paradox can be dissolved with two hypotheses about human cognition. One is that intelligence is an adaptation to a knowledge-using, socially interdependent lifestyle, the “cognitive niche.” This embraces the ability to overcome the evolutionary fixed defenses of plants and animals by applications of reasoning, including weapons, traps, coordinated driving of game, and detoxification of plants. Such reasoning exploits intuitive theories about different aspects of the world, such as objects, forces, paths, places, states, substances, and other people's beliefs and desires. The theory explains many zoologically unusual traits in Homo sapiens, including our complex toolkit, wide range of habitats and diets, extended childhoods and long lives, hypersociality, complex mating, division into cultures, and language (which multiplies the benefit of knowledge because know-how is useful not only for its practical benefits but as a trade good with others, enhancing the evolution of cooperation). The second hypothesis is that humans possess an ability of metaphorical abstraction, which allows them to coopt faculties that originally evolved for physical problem-solving and social coordination, apply them to abstract subject matter, and combine them productively. These abilities can help explain the emergence of abstract cognition without supernatural or exotic evolutionary forces and are in principle testable by analyses of statistical signs of selection in the human genome.
Pinker (2010) The cognitive niche: Coevolution of intelligence, sociality, and language | PNAS
0 notes
encephalonfatigue · 3 years
Text
advent reflection #4: advent and apocalypse
the fourth and final reflection for Advent 2020. in this reflection, i’m exploring the apocalyptic nature of the climate catastrophe that we face ahead of us, in light of the current global pandemic and past 19th century famines that devastated colonized populations of the Third World. with these apocalyptic shadows, i’m also thinking about authority, power, and an ‘eschatological’ future in which all are humanized and live lives of dignity. these are links to previous first, second, and third reflections i made this Advent.
Tumblr media
Photo by Fraser Miller of Jesus and the moneychangers at Tingstäde kyrka, a medieval ‘asylum’ church on the Swedish island of Gotland where those awaiting trial could find sanctuary. You can find more of Fraser’s photography here.
What the coronavirus pandemic has fore-fronted this past year for me is that the human species in no way exists outside the realm of ‘nature’ despite all that humans do to sustain such an illusion. The laws of nature continue to function despite the degree to which humanity has deluded itself into believing otherwise. And while human exceptionalism has proven somewhat hazardous during this past year, I sometimes suspect the coming climate catastrophe will be far more protracted and painful, especially for the poorest of the world – the ‘wretched of the earth’ as opening lines of The Internationale put it.
History has shown the mass scale of death that occurs when ‘natural disasters’ intersect with a destructive political order. Mike Davis in his book “Late Victorian Holocausts” explores how the climate phenomenon known as the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) coalesced with European colonialism to create some of the largest human catastrophes in recorded history – famines of enormous scale that brought about incalculable human suffering and preventable premature death.
Strangely and sometimes unexpectedly, these types of apocalyptic tragedies are what the Advent season compels its observers to think through: death and judgement. Mike Davis in “Late Victorian Holocausts” points out the etymological connection between Advent and this phenomenon that is now known as the El Nino:
“The “El Niño” aspect of ENSO results from the subsequent warming of the Pacific off Ecuador and Peru due to the cessation of trade-wind-driven upwelling. Usually observed by fishermen near Christmas, hence El Niño or “Christ child.” The central tropical Indian Ocean also catches a fever, which affects the strength and path of the monsoons. In big events, the normal geography of aridity and rainfall in the equatorial Pacific is reversed as thunderstorms flood the hyper-arid deserts of coastal Peru, while drought parches the usually humid jungles of Kalimantan and Papua. The monsoons fail to nourish agriculture in western India and southern Africa, while further afield drought holds northern China and northeast Brazil in its grip.”
This December we are witnessing a flip to the La Nina end of this climate phenomenon. La Nina is the colder counterpart to the El Nino, where the heat moves back to the west end of the Pacific Ocean and coastal Peru returns to its normal arid state. For western Canada, it typically means colder weather. In the areas around Toronto, it will often mean more snow, which is maybe why we’ve woken up to a beautifully white Christmas. Yet the ENSO phenomenon and the colonial policy of the 19th century worked together to produce some of recorded history’s most terrible suffering. Davis’s book cites something the climatologist John Hidore wrote about one of these El Nino induced famines that wreaked havoc throughout British colonies:
“The failure of the monsoons through the years from 1876 to 1879 resulted in an unusually severe drought over much of Asia. The impact of the drought on the agricultural society of the time was immense. So far as is known, the famine that ravished the region is the worst ever to afflict the human species.”
Mike Davis goes on to comment on a series of famines that would ravage the planet and the way certain imperial forces used such crises to their advantage:
“But the great drought of 1876–79 was only the first of three global subsistence crises in the second half of Victoria’s reign. In 1889–91 dry years again brought famine to India, Korea, Brazil and Russia, although the worst suffering was in Ethiopia and the Sudan, where perhaps one-third of the population died. Then in 1896–1902, the monsoons again repeatedly failed across the tropics and in northern China. Hugely destructive epidemics of malaria, bubonic plague, dysentery, smallpox and cholera culled millions of victims from the ranks of the famine-weakened. The European empires, together with Japan and the United States, rapaciously exploited the opportunity to wrest new colonies, expropriate communal lands, and tap novel sources of plantation and mine labor… The total human toll of these three waves of drought, famine and disease could not have been less than 30 million victims. Fifty million dead might not be unrealistic…
…the Radical journalist William Digby, principal chronicler of the 1876 Madras famine, prophesized on the eve of Queen Victoria’s death that when “the part played by the British Empire in the nineteenth century is regarded by the historian fifty years hence, the unnecessary deaths of millions of Indians would be its principal and most notorious monument.” A most eminent Victorian, the famed naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, the codiscoverer with Darwin of the theory of natural selection, passionately agreed. Like Digby, he viewed mass starvation as avoidable political tragedy, not “natural” disaster. In a famous balance-sheet of the Victorian era, published in 1898, he characterized the famines in India and China, together with the slum poverty of the industrial cities, as “the most terrible failures of the century.””
I think of how exploitative socio-political orders can mingle with the great tragedies of the ‘natural world’ to create these moments of terrible grief and suffering. I think today, during this global pandemic, of economic systems all over the world that have evicted poor people from their homes when they need such shelters more than ever. I think of the rapid spread of COVID throughout migrant worker dormitories and within prison complexes, largely filled with racialized communities who have been most exploited in this world. I think of an economy that cannot provide safe working conditions and wages during such a time, leaving countless people to survive on non-existent savings that have been decimated from decades of wage suppression and the corrosion of labour rights. Economies that cannot create jobs facilitating adequate contact tracing while so many are left jobless and looking for work. Societies that cannot provide paid sick leave to ensure desperate people who are exhibiting symptoms of an extremely contagious virus cannot afford to stay home. Wealthy societies where levels of testing and testing capacity have remained far below an adequate level to properly contain the spread of this virus.
And to think of many developing countries that were coerced into the global capitalist economy by institutions like the IMF, becoming overly dependent on producing for the over-consumptive habits of the more affluent stratum of our planet. These poorer countries now being thrown under the bus. Take for example the enormous suffering in a place like Bangladesh, that was taught according to the theology of ‘competitive advantage’ to focus on their specialty: garment production. But who helps all the workers when the garment industry shutters because it is no longer thought of as essential? How much labour during these past decades have been coercively directed into ‘non-essential’ activity by neoliberal policy to cater to the whims of the richest strata of the global population who can afford to throw away perfectly good clothes each year because they are no longer in fashion? Some within affluent societies can console themselves by believing they are donating clothes to poorer people when in reality the large majority of used clothing donations end up in landfills.
And suddenly, when garment demand collapses, who bears the brunt of all that economic risk? The poorest of the world, who are always the people who must bear the risks taken in such a capitalist economy, where the greatest mathematical minds of our time are used for the purposes not of better ensuring the well-being of the people in the world that most need relief and help, but preoccupied with shifting risk away from investors with deep pockets and externalize it onto the poorest of the world. Such is the crisis of the coming climate catastrophe. It is places like Bangladesh where enormous climate displacement will also occur and who will pay for all these millions of people to move from flooded regions? I get the feeling they will be left to fend for themselves, or else they will be simply another investment opportunity to turn more profit.
Foreign creditors of the 19th century took advantage of similar moments of extreme desperation, and it is within such similar moments in which millenarian movements sprung up during the devastating famines of the 19th century. Mike Davis’s book “Late Victorian Holocausts” also delves into a number of these:
“Drought and famine gave foreign creditors, allied with indigenous moneylenders and compradores, new opportunities to tighten control over local rural economies through debt or outright expropriation. Pauperized countrysides likewise provided rich harvests of cheap plantation labor as well as missionary converts and orphans to be raised in the faith. And where native states retained their independence, the widespread subsistence crises in Asia and Africa invited a new wave of colonial expansion that was resisted in many cases by indigenous millenarianism. El Niño was thus followed by gunboats and messiahs as well as by famine and disease.”
Davis emphasizes the religious millenarianism of many anticolonialist movements throughout the globe:
“Throughout monsoon Asia, drought and crop failure interacted with increasing disease mortality, especially malaria in its most virulent strain. Rinderpest, as in Africa, ruined tens of thousands of small cultivators in southeast Asia whose major capital was their bullock or ox. Where small peasants and sharecroppers were conscripted into export commodity circuits, the world depression of 1893 had left a legacy of crushing debt, aggravated by the implacable revenue demands of the state. Everywhere, anticolonialism arrived as a watershed between religious millenarianism and modern nationalism. In some cases, like Korea and the Philippines, local messianism and revolutionary nationalism became complexly intertwined. So were environmental crisis and colonial exploitation.”
I think it’s important to note how often Davis raises the issue of debt, which was a very important mechanism of control used by colonizers throughout the Third World. One can see how this plays out in North American cities like my own, where working-class families barely able to live paycheck to paycheck, who lost their jobs, are now being served rent arrears demanding for the full repayment of all rent during this pandemic time, or else being evicted from their homes.
Jodi Magness, in her book “Masada”, highlights how debt was also a central issue during the revolutionary events unfolding during the time of Jesus. It is fascinating to read in her text about one of the events of the revolt being the burning down of Agrippa II’s palace mainly because it housed tax and loan records. David Graeber in his history of debt mentioned that this is a common starting point for revolts, writing:
“By the same token, for the last five thousand years, with remarkable regularity, popular insurrections have begun the same way: with the ritual destruction of the debt records—tablets, papyri, ledgers, whatever form they might have taken in any particular time and place. (After that, rebels usually go after the records of landholding and tax assessments.) As the great classicist Moses Finley often liked to say, in the ancient world, all revolutionary movements had a single program: ‘Cancel the debts and redistribute the land.’”
Unsurprisingly then, Advent is inevitably about that mission proclamation Jesus claimed for himself from Isaiah 61:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
Messiah means ‘anointed’ which was the ritual done to royalty at the time. Yet the mission of Jesus was that his cadre would rule with him. There are numerous points in the so-called New Testament where figures belonging to the movement of Jesus claiming that all their masses would receive a crown and reign together with him. There is no more master and slave at the foot of the cross – we rule together. This is ironically the fear at the heart of conservative evangelical critiques of ‘critical race theory’ levelled by people like John Piper – an anxiety that people can think of themselves as ‘gods’ in an age where ‘God’ has been ‘displaced’. Yet does Piper fail to see that is precisely the emancipatory direction of the movement Jesus undertook where he quotes Pslam 82 in John’s gospel:
“It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God.” Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law,[d] ‘I said, you are gods’? If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled— can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?”
The mandate of Jesus was that found in the old prophetic tradition: liberation. The year of the Lord’s favour – Jubilee – the cancellation of all debts. Those landlord corporations with hard hearts and tight fists know nothing of the spirit of Advent. They are serving rent arrear notices even on Christmas Eve demanding repayment. They do not understand the radical levelling of Advent, where it is not merely about pulling rulers (or landlords) from their thrones, but raising everyone to the level of the throne so that all may exercise power and not simply a handful of people.
Davis also gives a fascinating account of Brazilian millenarianism that took on many different forms:
“Brazil’s nineteenth century ended in a bloody sunset of drought, famine and genocidal state violence. Across widening regional and racial divides, the positivist Republic, established by coup in 1889 and dominated by Paulista elites, conducted a ruthless crusade against poor, drought-stricken but pious sertanejos in the Nordeste. The 1897 War of Canudos, which culminated in the destruction of the holy city of Canudos in the Bahian sertão and the massacre of tens of thousands of humble followers of Antonio Conselheiro, is one of the defining events in Brazil’s modern history – the subject of Euclydes da Cunha’s epic Os Sertões [1902]. Another famous backlands utopia led by a religious folk hero, Father Cícero Romão’s city of Joãseiro in Ceará’s Carirí Valley, narrowly escaped the fate of Canudos: it survived into the twentieth century only through shrewd compromises with local elites. If eschatological imminence (with the oligarchic Republic as the Anti-Christ) suffused both communities, each was also a pragmatic and successful adaptation to continuing environmental crisis and economic decline in the Nordeste. The roots of both movements, moreover, go back to the Grande Seca of 1876–78.
The sertão had long been a religious volcano. “Sebastianism,” based on mystical belief in the return of the Portuguese monarch who had vanished fighting the Moors in 1578, was particularly widespread. The first massacre of millenarists occurred at Serra do Rodeador in the sertão of Pernambuco in 1819–20. “A prophet gathered together a group of followers to await King Sebastian, who was expected back at any moment to lead them on a crusade for the liberation of Jerusalem.” Their roughshod utopia was instead destroyed by a nervous government who viewed the utopian-apocalyptic strand in folk Catholicism with the deepest suspicion.41 The great droughts of the late nineteenth century, however, only further entrenched Sebastianist eschatology in popular culture. From the ranks of barefoot beatos and beatas, the famines of 1877 and 1889 mobilized fierce new visions of cataclysm followed by Christ’s thousand-year kingdom.
Yet millenarianism in the sertão was also a practical social framework for coping with environmental instability. When foreign priests and missionaries fled the scorched sertão in the spring of 1877, the former-schoolteacher-turned-beato Conselheiro and the ordained priest Cícero stayed behind with their flocks, sermonizing apocalypse but practicing energetic self-help. The first acquired his reputation for holiness by repairing local churches and graveyards, while the second became locally famous for resettling starving drought refugees in the undeveloped but fertile lands of the Araripe Mountains.”
Davis spends quite a bit of time referring to the Taiping insurrection throughout his book also where a failed Chinese bureaucrat became convinced he was the brother of Jesus and led an insurrection against the Qing government that resulted in what is considered to be the bloodiest civil war in recorded human history. He also discusses Southeast Asian millenarians like Estrella Bangotbanwa, Clara Tarrosa, and Dios Buhawi:
“By the late 1880s, thousands of peasants and aborigines in both Panay and Negros (in a movement strikingly analogous to the millenarian refuges of Joãseiro and Canudos in contemporary northeast Brazil) had withdrawn into autonomous armed communities in the mountains led by prominent babaylans like Panay’s Clara Tarrosa, “an eighty-year-old woman … who claimed to be the ‘Virgin Mary,’ ” or Negros’s Ponciano Elopre, a transvestite [sic] miracle-worker known as Dios Buhawi (the Waterspout God) for his/her skill in rainmaking. Despite brutal retaliations, including massacres and summary executions, Spanish power essentially collapsed in the island interiors, leaving the babaylons and their followers to confront the more ruthless, usurper colonialism of the Americans a decade later.”
“In Vietnam the coincidence of drought-famine and cholera was a bellows that fanned the embers of peasant anti-colonial resistance into millenarian revolt. With the killing in 1872 of Tran van Thanh, the leader of the populist Dao Lanh sect, the French believed they had pacified their new colony. “Unfortunately,” as Reynaldo Ileto points out, “they had not reckoned on the popular belief in reincarnation.” As the threat of famine spread panic through the countryside in 1877, another Dao Lanh apostle, Nam Thiep, announced that he was Tran’s incarnation and “that the time had come to expel the French” (widely believed to be responsible for this conjugation of disasters). “Nam Thiep was able to unify the Dao Lanh groups and mount a rebellion in 1878. He announced that the Low Era was ending, and that the reign of the Emperor of Light … was being established. Peasants armed with bamboo spears and amulets attacked French garrisons, only to be driven back decisively by rifle fire. But this did not faze Nam Thiep, who in 1879 proclaimed himself a living Buddha and built a new community on Elephant Mountain, in the region of the Seven Mountains.”
It’s important to remember that Advent is also rooted in a millenarian movement. Jesus was claimed by his followers as a Messiah that would overthrow the yoke of the Roman Empire. The millenarian revolts that Mike Davis describes throughout Third World anticolonial movements were also present throughout Europe, and like some anticolonial movements the European ones were often inspired by the Christian tradition. One can think of the great German Peasant Revolt that unfolded in Germany, which attracted great attention from revolutionary writers like Engels.
Much of Reformation history focuses on Magisterial Protestant reformers like Luther. These figures of the reformation accepted that secular rulers had a right to authority within the church, just as the church should be able to rely on secular rulers to “enforce discipline, suppress heresy, or maintain order” (as Alister McGrath put it in his text “Historical Theology”). Beyond such Magisterial Protestant reformers like Luther were those of the Radical Reformation who rejected the authority of secular rulers over the church. Among the most recognizable of these Radical reformers was Thomas Muntzer who led the 1525 Peasant Uprising in Germany. While Muntzer early on fought alongside Luther against papal power, they became radical opponents when it came to the demands of Germany’s impoverished peasants. Luther, with unflinching brutality, called for secular rulers to crush the Peasant Revolt by any means necessary.
This splinter between Magisterial and Radical Protestant reformers serves as an interesting way in to Advent reflections for 2020. Firstly, there is an old problem that Christmas poses as a state-sanctioned holiday within the Anglosphere, and to what degree the separation of church and state actually exists in practice. People of what faith ultimately have decided these issues here on Turtle Island? There is the hegemony of the so-called ‘holiday season’ that can never fully or satisfactorily manage to shed its religious connotations for many. And for others, it has shed far too much in its accommodation to some imagined ‘war on Christmas’.
Then there is a novel issue as we enter into Advent this year: the global pandemic and the stay-at-home orders that governments have mandated at the recommendation of public health scientists. Something curious has happened at many churches, especially in the U.S., but also in Canada. It is Christian defiance at government orders to curtail public gatherings at church buildings. For example, the prominent evangelical John MacArthur and his elders at Grace Community Church in Los Angeles issued a statement asserting “Christ, not Caesar, Is Head of the Church.” Even the church my parents attend (now virtually) are very unhappy about the lockdown measures in Ontario and explicitly said defying the state is not off the table in the future. While John MacArthur has on prior occasions denounced the notion of a “war on Christmas” as a waste of time, many of his fellow evangelicals have seen no irony in their fight for keeping Christmas decorations in government buildings. Now that state power has followed the advice of public health epidemiologists, it pays no respect to such state authorities despite on other occasions feeling no difficulty citing Romans 13 when politically convenient:
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”
Yet it is always important to underscore how this bible verse has been weaponized throughout history by the most reactionary of governments, including the Nazi regime. It is not an easy passage to deal with. Yet what many evangelicals have shown is that they are willing to defy the state, but over what issues? Many Christians did not defy the Nazi regime but used Romans 13 to persuade their congregants to obey the state of that time. It is a sad mark among many that has stained Christian history.
The issue I believe is not whether we should obey authorities or not. In my view, people who flout norms of COVID precautions are not wrong because they disobey the political authorities but because they disregard basic natural laws that have been revealed by empirical study and basic consideration regarding the risks particular actions impose on vulnerable communities. Bakunin, in his text “What is Authority?” asks:
“What is authority? Is it the inevitable power of the natural laws which manifest themselves in the necessary linking and succession of phenomena in the physical and social worlds? Indeed, against these laws revolt is not only forbidden - it is even impossible. We may misunderstand them or not know them at all, but we cannot disobey them; because they constitute the basis and the fundamental conditions of our existence; they envelop us, penetrate us, regulate all our movements. thoughts and acts; even when we believe that we disobey them, we only show their omnipotence. Yes, we are absolutely the slaves of these laws. But in such slavery there is no humiliation, or, rather, it is not slavery at all. For slavery supposes an external master, a legislator outside of him whom he commands, while these laws are not outside of us; they are inherent in us; they constitute our being, our whole being, physically, intellectually, and morally; we live, we breathe, we act, we think, we wish only through these laws. Without them we are nothing, we are not. Whence, then, could we derive the power and the wish to rebel against them?”
Bakunin was not against all forms of authority, but conceded to authority that justified itself. He recognized the finitude of the individual and that collective human knowledge was distributed across collective humanity:
“Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure…
I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed on me by my own reason. I am conscious of my own inability to grasp, in all its detail, and positive development, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labour. I receive and I give - such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination.”
Yet what Bakunin’s comments do not adequately address in our present circumstance is when there is a discrepancy between conceptions of risk and certain individuals do not voluntarily ‘subordinate’ themselves to justified knowledge and in doing so subject others to unjustifiable risks. He does not account for the fact that knowledge exists in a field of endless contestation, and human beings do not come to conclusions in a purely rational manner. A properly functioning society does require a certain level of coherence and coordination. This is the point that Engels mentions in his brief text “On Authority” when speaking about the demands of modern production:
“Furthermore, keeping the machines going requires an engineer to look after the steam engine, mechanics to make the current repairs, and many other labourers whose business it is to transfer the products from one room to another, and so forth. All these workers, men, women and children, are obliged to begin and finish their work at the hours fixed by the authority of the steam, which cares nothing for individual autonomy. The workers must, therefore, first come to an understanding on the hours of work; and these hours, once they are fixed, must be observed by all, without any exception… If man, by dint of his knowledge and inventive genius, has subdued the forces of nature, the latter avenge themselves upon him by subjecting him, in so far as he employs them, to a veritable despotism independent of all social organisation. Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself, to destroy the power loom in order to return to the spinning wheel.”
Returning to the spinning wheel is precisely what some like Ghandi and E.F. Schumacher proposed. However, I think if one is to be politically consistent, such a position requires a retreat from the modern world. If one really believes a world without modern industry is better, one is required in some sense to live without all that it produces. While that is admirable and is lived out to some degree by certain Anabaptists that were birthed forth from the Radical Reformation that Muntzer was involved in, I do think the degree to which modern industry has the capacity to improve lives for those not blessed with the same access to land as Anabaptists and the same historical latitude to preserve their culture, do yearn for access to the same benefits of modern industry that more affluent sectors of society have enjoyed. The issues involve what it would take to carry out modern industry in an ecologically sustainable way, in a way that distributes the burden of labour and responsibility evenly across the population, in a way that distributes benefits evenly across society, and in a way that minimizes the need for hierarchy and coercion. Yet what Engels and Bakunin both agreed upon was the ideal of a future stateless society, but Engels makes an important point about what it would take to reach such a possibility:
“All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed.”
Engels makes the point that certain social conditions must be destroyed before the state could be abolished. What I think COVID has done is made this insight tremendously obvious. One could not simply abolish authority overnight. It seems the type of values that have been fostered under the past decades of neoliberal capitalism are not conducive to the type of unified action of mutual concern, care, and consideration that would be necessary for a stateless society to function. The reckless behaviour that has occurred during the ongoing public health emergency makes Engel’s point obvious. One cannot rely on voluntary action in a society in which selfishness has been made the primary driver and virtue for decades. It is naïve to believe the immediate abolition of authority would render such a state possible. A type of radical consciousness-raising would be required. This is the troubling humanist dimension of Marxism that is at issue. Marxism like Christianity was very preoccupied with the idea of creating a ‘new man’, yet it’s sometimes difficult to determine how the causality is supposed to work. Oscar Wilde referred to this as ‘The Soul of Man Under Socialism’. One would assume the idea is that a certain transitional phase, often referred to as ‘socialism’ in Marxian theory, would be required where a state would help formulate the type of society that would produce this ‘new human’. Afterwards, this ‘new human’ would be required for a future communist society to properly function. Yet would a state be required to create a ‘new human’ or could it be done from below?
This type of Marxist-humanist tendency is similar to Christian notions of sanctification and glorification. Both Christianity and communism recognize some sort of notion of ‘original sin’. Although a Marxist anthropology believes such ‘original sin’ is not so much intrinsic to humanity as much as it is an imprint of a capitalist society that fosters particularly destructive habits and qualities within human behaviour. Societies and communities shape people, as people also shape societies and communities.
This is also the case for ecosystems and our planet. We have discovered that humans do shape the functioning of our planet to a horrifying degree. That we as such a small species could radically alter the temperature of our planet is rather astonishing, maybe terrifying when one gets into all the details of what that would mean in the future. In her book “The Mushroom at the End of the World” Anna Tsing explores some of these ways in which humans along with all other species transform the world and impact each other:
“Making worlds is not limited to humans. We know that beavers reshape streams as they make dams, canals, and lodges; in fact, all organisms make ecological living places, altering earth, air, and water. Without the ability to make workable living arrangements, species would die out. In the process, each organism changes everyone’s world. Bacteria made our oxygen atmosphere, and plants help maintain it. Plants live on land because fungi made soil by digesting rocks. As these examples suggest, world-making projects can overlap, allowing room for more than one species. Humans, too, have always been involved in multispecies world making. Fire was a tool for early humans not just to cook but also to burn the landscape, encouraging edible bulbs and grasses that attracted animals for hunting. Humans shape multispecies worlds when our living arrangements make room for other species. This is not just a matter of crops, livestock, and pets. Pines, with their associated fungal partners, often flourish in landscapes burned by humans; pines and fungi work together to take advantage of bright open spaces and exposed mineral soils. Humans, pines, and fungi make living arrangements simultaneously for themselves and for others: multispecies worlds.”
“Pines have made alliances with animals as well as fungi. Some pines are completely dependent on birds to spread their seeds—just as some birds are completely dependent on pine seeds for their food.”
Yet this interdependency is not isolated from ‘destructive’ human practices. Tsing points out that human deforestation also benefits pine trees in certain circumstances:
“Humans spread pines in two different ways: by planting them, and by creating the kinds of disturbances in which they take hold. The latter generally occurs without any conscious intent; pines like some of the kinds of messes humans make without trying. Pines colonize abandoned fields and eroded hillsides. When humans cut down the other trees, pines move in. Sometimes planting and disturbance go together. People plant pines to remediate the disturbances they have created. Alternatively, they may keep things radically disturbed to advantage pine. This last alternative has been the strategy of industrial growers, whether they plant or merely manage self-seeded pine: clear-cutting and soil breaking are justified as strategies to promote pine.”
The reason Tsing is fascinated by species like pine that can persist in the wastelands of human destructiveness is because she believes the task before us is not averting catastrophe but how to live within the ruins that capitalism will inevitably produce. It is a sobering almost defeatist attitude, but maybe a realistic one.
Some leftist critiques of the term ‘anthropocene’ come from the fact that humans are not all equally responsible for the climate catastrophe. It is far more so the responsibility of capitalism and its ruling class that has generated such planet-altering conditions. And so for these leftists the clumsy term ‘capitalocene’ is more appropriate. Anna Tsing and Donna Haraway sometimes use the term ‘plantationocene’ because they locate such destructive practices to the colonial slave plantations that created the scale of production on which not only modern industrial agriculture rests, but modern industry more broadly. Think of how cotton slave plantations in the United States generated the need for enormous textile mills in Manchester, of which Engels so memorably described in The Conditions of The Working Class in England.
Anna Tsing opens her book Mushroom with a quote that she attributes to a ‘radical pamphlet’. I had to read it a few times before I understood it to be a very critical and nihilistic angle on radical soteriology. This is the quote in its fuller context from Desert:
“The spectre that many try not to see is a simple realization — the world will not be ‘saved’. Global anarchist revolution is not going to happen. Global climate change is now unstoppable. We are not going to see the worldwide end to civilisation/captalism/patriarchy/authority. It’s not going to happen any time soon. It’s unlikely to happen ever. The world will not be ‘saved’. Not by activists, not by mass movements, not by charities and not by an insurgent global proletariat. The world will not be ‘saved’. This realization hurts people. They don’t want it to be true! But it probably is… if we don’t believe in a global revolutionary future, we must live (as we in fact always had to) in the present. Shelves overflow with histories of past struggles and hallucinations of the post-revolutionary future whilst surprisingly little has been written about anarchist life under, not after, capitalism.”
The pamphlet’s writer goes onto quote Gustav Landeur:
“The state is not something which can be destroyed by a revolution, but is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a mode of human behaviour; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently.”
I had first come across ‘green nihilism’ (and this pamphlet I believe) in a link to Toronto’s Anarchist Reading Group shared on a Harvest Noon social media page, back when that little spot was still serving affordable vegan fare on the U of T campus. ‘Green nihilism’ did not sound very appealing to me then. I am a person of faith. I believe another world is possible. Yet this radical disbelief, this infinite resignation is precisely the prerequisite required for a Kierkegaardian double movement of faith — the dirty existentialist task of living in the ‘now’. As the unattributed Fredric Jameson cliche goes: it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. And I think this text takes a very realistic and painfully honest take on the deep unlikelihood of global revolution, the end of capitalism, and the cessation of climate catastrophe. It claims that this brutal reality should not alter the radical fostering of community that anarchists and communists perform every day. But these things should be done because they make life better now, regardless of the outcome. The memorable line from the text goes:
“As Raoul Vaneigem said, for many, ‘the greatest kept state secret is the misery of everyday life.’ Our lives can be better, freer, and wilder than this and as anarchists we do our utmost to make them so, not in the ever-after of post-revolutionary heaven, but now.”
And near the end of the text, the author(s) of Desert admit(s):
“I can already hear the accusations from my own camp; accusations of deserting the cause of Revolution, deserting the struggle for Another World. Such accusations are correct. I would rejoin that such millenarian and progressive myths are at the very core of the expansion of power. We can be more anarchic than that.”
As I have mentioned before, I do not share the same view as the anonymous writer(s) of the Desert pamphlet, but I do think they set the stage for what real faith entails. They mark the total impossibility of the task before us. That is why ‘another world is possible’ is a theological statement. It requires faith of unimaginable magnitude. Yet occasionally one does see glimmers of such a future lived out in the present. The word ‘apocalypse’ means ‘revelation’. It connotes a gesture of revealing something previously hidden. That is part of the task we face today. Revealing a world of radical love and mutual care.
I think about the book of Revelation, often called the Apocalypse of John. It speaks of nations accommodating a hegemon that I cannot help but understand in the light of American imperialism. Take some of these excerpts from Revelation 18:
“For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have grown rich from the power of her luxury.”
“And the kings of the earth, who committed fornication and lived in luxury with her, will weep and wail over her when they see the smoke of her burning; they will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, “Alas, alas, the great city, Babylon, the mighty city! For in one hour your judgment has come.” And the merchants of the earth weep and mourn for her, since no one buys their cargo anymore, cargo of gold, silver, jewels and pearls, fine linen, purple, silk and scarlet, all kinds of scented wood, all articles of ivory, all articles of costly wood, bronze, iron, and marble, cinnamon, spice, incense, myrrh, frankincense, wine, olive oil, choice flour and wheat, cattle and sheep, horses and chariots, slaves—and human lives.”
The commodities especially the commodification of human life will be brought to an end. 
“The merchants of these wares, who gained wealth from her, will stand far off, in fear of her torment, weeping and mourning aloud:
“Alas, alas, the great city, clothed in fine linen, in purple and scarlet, adorned with gold, with jewels, and with pearls! For in one hour all this wealth has been laid waste!”
Rejoice over her, O heaven, you saints and apostles and prophets! For God has given judgment for you against her. Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, “With such violence Babylon the great city will be thrown down, and will be found no more;
...for your merchants were the magnates of the earth, and all nations were deceived by your sorcery. And in you was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slaughtered on earth.”
These passages of judgement are what I have in mind this Advent. It is this very chapter in Revelation that Bertolt Brecht alludes to when he writes:
“So it is: The burghers have been bound to the millstones. Those who never saw the day have gone out into the light. So it is: The ebony poor boxes are being broken up; the noble sesban wood is cut up into beds. Behold, the capital city has collapsed in an hour. Behold, the poor of the land have become rich.”
Sometimes love and judgement are often conceived of in binary ways, but I really think what loving your enemy (especially when your enemy is the oppressor) means exposing their actions to them and demanding that they stop.
I want to conclude with some things Paulo Freire wrote in Pedagogy of the Oppressed that summarizes so much of what I’ve been contemplating this Advent, about eschatology, liberation, and the spiritual transformation that is required for ‘another world’ to be made possible.
“Dehumanization, which marks not only those whose humanity has been stolen, but also (though in a different way) those who have stolen it, is a distortion of the vocation of becoming more fully human. This distortion occurs within history; but it is not an historical vocation. Indeed, to admit of dehumanization as an historical vocation would lead either to cynicism or total despair. The struggle for humanization, for the emancipation of labor, for the overcoming of alienation, for the affirmation of men and women as persons would be meaningless. This struggle is possible only because dehumanization, although a concrete historical fact, is not a given destiny but the result of an unjust order that engenders violence in the oppressors, which in turn dehumanizes the oppressed.”
“Because it is a distortion of being more fully human, sooner or later being less human leads the oppressed to struggle against those who made them so. In order for this struggle to have meaning, the oppressed must not, in seeking to regain their humanity (which is a way to create it), become in turn oppressors of the oppressors, but rather restorers of the humanity of both. This, then, is the great humanistic and historical task of the oppressed: to liberate themselves and their oppressors as well. The oppressors, who oppress, exploit, and rape by virtue of their power, cannot find in this power the strength to liberate either the oppressed or themselves. Only power that springs from the weakness of the oppressed will be sufficiently strong to free both. Any attempt to "soften" the power of the oppressor in deference to the weakness of the oppressed almost always manifests itself in the form of false generosity; indeed, the attempt never goes beyond this. In order to have the continued opportunity to express their "generosity," the oppressors must perpetuate injustice as well. An unjust social order is the permanent fount of this "generosity," which is nourished by death, despair, and poverty. That is why the dispensers of false generosity become desperate at the slightest threat to its source. True generosity consists precisely in fighting to destroy the causes which nourish false charity.”
False charity and generosity is often so much a part of this season. Loving oppressors involves not demanding that they be more generous but demanding that they cease their oppression. If Christians believe Jesus exemplified a life of love then is not his flipping of tables in the temple and chasing the moneychangers out with a whip of cords an act of love and judgement simultaneously?
This is the task of humanizing all: oppressor and oppressed such that their mutually constitutive roles wither away. When James 1 speaks of the rich withering away I believe he is speaking about this relationship of domination that Freire talks about. The rich withering away is the process of them becoming human. This has implications from the inequality that has filled our prisons to the debt that oppresses the working masses of our planet. Yet Jesus came to set the captives free and declare Jubilee, the year of the Lord’s favour. We have nothing to lose but our chains.
One can recognize the impossibility of such a world. How naïve and utopic it really is, and in that recognition confess that holding onto such a hope is an act of immense faith. That, I am convicted, is the task of Advent. Thy kindom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
0 notes
inkyphalangies · 7 years
Photo
Tumblr media
A young James Watson (b. 1928), codiscoverer of DNA.
1 note · View note
Text
Evolution Quotes by Scientists
"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species."(Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum) 
"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long- deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." (Dr. Albert Fleischmann, University of Erlangen) 
"By the late 1970s, debates on university campuses throughout the free world were being held on the subject of origins with increasing frequency. Hundreds of scientists, who once accepted the theory of evolution as fact, were abandoning ship and claiming that the scientific evidence was in total support of the theory of creation. Well-known evolutionists, such as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould, were stating that, since the creationist scientists had won all of the more than one hundred debates, the evolutionists should not debate them." (Luther Sunderland, "Darwin's Enigma", p.10) 
"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion... The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational." (Dr. L.T. More)
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program... (Dr. Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of science, called by Nobel Prize-winner Peter Medawar, "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived.") 
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..." (Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species") 
"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle... (Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, codiscoverer of DNA) 
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God."  "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious." "I don't know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The 'others' are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles... It is quite otherwise, however, with the modern miracle workers, who are always to be found living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics." (Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, co-authors of "Evolution from Space," after acknowledging that they had been atheists all their lives)
"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..."  "The extreme rarity of transitional forms (missing links) in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontologists,...we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study". Natural History, Vol. 86. "The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has know that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species, most species, don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress." Gould is still an evolutionist, he just rejects much of Darwin's theory. (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard Professor of Paleontology) 
"I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've got a problem." (Dr. Niles Eldridge, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum) 
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest." Ernst Chain, who helped develop penicillin, in 1972, has called the theory of evolution, "a very feeble attempt to understand the development of life." He is also on record as saying "I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation (as Darwinian evolution)". Ernst Chain. Quoted in  Ronald W. Clark, "The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond", Weidenfeld & Nicholson: London, 1985 p:147-148 (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner) 
"Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, 'special creation,' is clearly impossible." (D.M.S. Watson, Professor of Zoology, London University)   Mark Ridley, another evolutionist from Oxford University said in The New Scientist magazine in June 1981 p 831, "a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. ...In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationalist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Because the fossils simply do not support many small changes between kinds over a long period of time, many evolutionists have at least been honest enough to admit this and have come up with a new theory called, "punctuated equilibrium" or the "hopeful monster theory". From the fossil record, they know that change didn't take place in small gradual steps, so they assume that the change took place in quick "quantum leaps" over long periods of time. In Darwin's theory, the changes were so slow and gradual that science cannot observe the evolution. The new theory says the change takes place so quickly it that too cannot be observed. Unobservable science? What a contradiction!  “Darwin's strongest critics were scientists, and the theologians who criticized him objected mainly to his philosophical insistence on natural causes and his denial of design--which Princeton's Charles Hodge regarded as ‘tantamount to atheism.’ Even today, many critics of Darwinism are not religious fundamentalists, and a growing number of critics are credentialed scientists” (Jonathan Wells, “The Problem of Evidence,” Forbes, Feb. 5, 2009). 
“A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp ... moreover, for the most part these ‘experts’ have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully” (Wolfgang Smith, cited from Ian Taylor, Origins Answer Book, p. 107). 
“Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism, They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels” (William Fix, The Bone Peddlers, p. 180). Michael Behe, Ph.D. in biology from the University of Pennsylvania, is a theistic evolutionist who does not believe that Darwinian evolution can explain the origin of life. In Darwin’s Black Box and Signature of the Cell, Behe presents the case that at the micro level life is “irreducibly complex” and thus points to “intelligent design.”  Behe delves into the amazing mysteries of DNA and the other biological machinery of the living cell and refutes naturalistic explanations for the origin of life. He deals with current origin of life theories, including RNA first. “It was once expected that the basis of life would be exceedingly simple. That expectation has been smashed. ... the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the molecular level have paralyzed science’s attempt to explain their origins. ... Many scientists have gamely asserted that explanations are already in hand, or will be sooner or later, but no support for such assertions can be found in the professional science literature. ... “Over the past four decades modern biochemistry has uncovered the secrets of the cell. The progress has been hard won. It has required tens of thousands of people to dedicate the better parts of their lives to the tedious work of the laboratory. ... The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell--to investigate life at the molecular level--is a loud, clear, piercing cry of ‘design!’ The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. ... “This triumph of science should evoke cries of ‘Eureka!’ from ten thousands of throats, should occasion much hand-slapping and high-fiving, and perhaps even ben an excuse to take a day off. But no bottles have been uncorked, no hands slapped. Instead, a curious, embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. When the subject comes up in public, feet start to shuffle, and breathing gets a bit labored. In private people are a bit more relaxed; many explicitly admit the obvious but then stare at the ground, shake their heads, and let it go at that” (Darwin’s Black Box, preface, chapter 11). Behe concludes that “just as biology had to be reinterpreted after the complexity of microscopic life was discovered, neo-Darwinism must be reconsidered in light of advances in biochemistry.” He documents the fact that “over the past 130 years Darwinism, although secularly entrenched, has met a steady stream of dissent both from within the scientific community and from without it.” He makes this bold statement: “Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature--in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books--that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred.” Behe sites “a raft of evolutionary biologists [who] examining whole organisms wonder just how Darwinism can account for their observations.” For example, he quotes Paleontologist Niles Eldredge: “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. ... Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else.” He quotes biologists Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders: “... the success of the [neo-Darwinian synthesis] are limited to the minutiae of evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of moths; while it has remarkably little to say on the questions which interest us most, such as how there came to be moths in the first place.” He quotes biologist Jerry Coyne: “We conclude--unexpectedly--that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” He quotes geneticist John Endler: “Although much is known about mutation, it is still largely a ‘black box’ relative to evolution. Novel biochemical functions seem to be rare in evolution, and the basis for their origin is virtually unknown.” He quotes Klaus Dose: “More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.” Behe examines biology textbooks and how they deal with evolution and concludes: “Many students learn from their textbooks how to view the world through an evolutionary lens. However, they do not learn how Darwinian evolution might have produced any of the remarkably intricate biochemical systems that those texts describe.” Behe gives six reasons why he believes that intelligent design is science: (1) The case for ID is based on empirical evidence. (2) Advocates of ID use established scientific methods. (3) ID is a testable theory. (4) The case for ID exemplifies historical scientific reasoning. (5) ID addresses a specific question in evolutionary biology (e.g., origin of life theories). (6) ID is supported by peer-reviewed scientific literature. Behe is not a biblical creationist. He believes that the earth is billions of years old and accepts some form of evolutionary common descent. “For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world” (Darwin’s Black Box, chapter 1, “Lilliputian Biology”).
In spite of this deep sympathy and personal identity with evolutionary thinking, Behe has been treated like a moron and an apostate by the evolutionary establishment because he has had the audacity to suggest that Darwinism can’t explain life itself. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist who worked at the Max-Planck Institute until his retirement. Though he has written four books on the subject of evolution, he has infuriated evolutionists everywhere by daring to challenge Neo-Darwinism on scientific grounds. He told the Diplomacy Post in March 2014: ‘A scientific hypothesis should be potentially falsifiable.... However,’ he added, ‘the idea of slow evolution by 'infinitesimally small inherited variations' etc. has been falsified by the findings of palaeontology... as well [as] genetics. Yet its adherents principally reject any scientific proof against Neo-Darwinism,’ he said, ‘so that, in fact, their theory has become a non-falsifiable worldview, to which people stick in spite of all contrary evidence.’ Scientists continue to support evolution despite the evidence that actually falsified evolution because ‘without Darwinism, philosophic materialism has lost its battle against an intelligent origin of the world.’ But Wolf had more to say. ‘According to Neo-Darwinism, all important problems of the origin of species are, at least in principle, solved. Further questions on the validity of evolutionary theory are thus basically superfluous. However, such a dogmatic attitude stops further investigations and hinders fruitful research in science.’ Though Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig has stopped short of giving recognition to God as the Intelligent Designer, we applaud his work for showing that evolution doesn't even deserve to be called scientific” (CreationMoments.com, Mar. 25, 2015). 
David Berlinski (b. 1942) has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was a post-doctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics and has taught philosophy, mathematics, and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the University of Paris, and elsewhere. He is a “secular Jew and an agnostic.” In The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Scientific Pretensions, Berlinski exposes the weakness of Darwinism and reproves the dogmatism and censorship of the Darwinian establishment. One reviewer says:“This book is so well written that superlatives seem inadequate. Berlinski begins by stating that he is not religious and has no particular religious axe to grind. He is a mathematician and scientist. Yet he skewers science in general, and Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and Harris in particular with well-reasoned argument, simple yet cogent analysis, and more humor than I would have thought possible for this subject. Berlinksi makes it clear that he in no way means to disparage or belittle Science. He is only trying to show how Science has been twisted by The Four Horsemen in an attempt to prove an anti-religious point of view, and how that twisting promises so much and delivers so little.” Following are some quotes: “If science stands opposed to religion, it is not because of anything contained in either the premises or the conclusions of the great scientific theories. ... We know better than we did what we do not know and have not grasped. We do not know how the universe began. We do not know why it is there. Charles Darwin talked speculatively of life emerging form a ‘warm little pond.’ The pond is gone. We have little idea how life emerged, and cannot with assurance say that it did. We cannot reconcile our understanding of the human mind with any trivial theory about the manner in which the brain functions. Beyond the trivial, we have no other theories. We can say nothing of interest about the human soul. We do not know what impels us to right conduct or where the form of the good is found” (David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion, pp. xiv, xv). 
“The hypothesis that we are nothing more than cosmic accidents has been widely accepted by the scientific community. Figures as diverse as Bertrand Russell, Jacques Monod, Steven Weinberg, and Richard Dawkins have said it is so. It is an article of their faith, one advanced with the confidence of men convinced that nature has equipped them to face realities the rest of us cannot bear to contemplate. There is not the slightest reason to think this is so” (Berlinski, p. xvi). “The Landscape has, after all, been brought into existence by assumption. It cannot be observed. It embodies an article of faith ... There are by now thousands of professional papers about the Landscape, and reading even a handful makes for the uneasy conviction that were physicists to stop writing about the place, the Landscape, like Atlantis, would stop existing--just like that. This cannot be said of the sun” (David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion, pp. 119, 128) “[The string theory] was an idea that possessed every advantage except clarity, elegance, and a demonstrated connection to reality” (David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion, p. 119). “After all, the theologian need only appeal to a single God lording over it all and a single universe--our own. Dawkins must appeal to an infinitely many universes crammed into creation, with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels from one corner of the cosmos to the next, the whole entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to experience” (The Devil’s Delusion, p. 153). “After years of punishing trials, a few of them have been taught the rudiments of various primitive symbol systems. Having been given the gift of language, they have nothing to say. When two simian prodigies meet, they fling their signs at one another. ... Simian social structures are often intricate. Chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas reason; they form plans; they have preferences; they are cunning; they have passions and desires; and they suffer. The same is true of cats, I might add. In much of this, we see ourselves. But beyond what we have in common with the apes, we have nothing in common, and while the similarities are interesting, the differences are profound” (The Devil’s Delusion, p. 156). “Mind is like no other property of physical systems. It is not just that we don’t know the mechanisms that give rise to it. We have difficulty in seeing how any mechanism can give rise to it” (Erich Harth, physicist, cited by David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion, p. 175) “Within the English-speaking world, Darwin’s theory of evolution remains the only scientific theory to be widely championed by the scientific community and widely disbelieved by everyone else. No matter the effort made by biologists, the thing continues to elicit the same reaction it has always elicited: You’ve got to be kidding, right?” (Berlinski, p. 186). “Suspicions about Darwin’s theory arise for two reasons. The first: the theory makes little sense. The second: it is supported by little evidence” (David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion, p. 187). “This is the conclusion suggested by more than six thousand years of artificial selection, the practice of barnyard and backyard alike. Nothing can induce a chicken to lay a square egg or to persuade a pig to develop wheels mounted on ball bearings. It would be a violation, as chickens and pigs are prompt to observe and often with indignation, of their essential nature. If species have an essential nature that beyond limits cannot change, then random variations and natural selection cannot change them. We must look elsewhere for an account that does justice to their nature or to the facts” (David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion, p. 189). “Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not” (Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion, p. 190). “The [Darwinian] theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive. Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests. ‘Darwin?’ a Nobel laureate in biology once remarked to me over his bifocals. ‘That’s just the party line’” (David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion, p. 192). “By what means accessible to the imagination does a sterile and utterly insensate physical world become the garrulous, never-ending, infinitely varied, boisterous human world? ... The world of the physical sciences is not our world, and if our world has things that cannot be explained in their terms, then we must search elsewhere for their explanation” (David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion, pp. 205, 207).
The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays (2010) features 32 essays spanning 15 years, including his award winning essays “What Brings a World into Being?” and “On the Origins of Mind” (Best American Science Writing 2002, 2005). Berlinski states in the title essay:“The facts in favor of evolution are often held to be incontrovertible; prominent biologists shake their heads at the obduracy of those who would dispute them. Those facts, however, have been rather less forthcoming than evolutionary biologists might have hoped. If life progressed by an accumulation of small changes, as they say it has, the fossil record should reflect its flow, the dead stacked up in barely separated strata. But for well over 150 years, the dead have been remarkably diffident about confirming Darwin’s theory. Their bones lie suspended in the sands of time-theromorphs and therapsids and things that must have gibbered and then squeaked; but there are gaps in the graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms but where there is nothing whatsoever instead ... “The structures of life are complex, and complex structures get made in this, the purely human world, only by a process of deliberate design. An act of intelligence is required to bring even a thimble into being; why should the artifacts of life be different? ... “For many years, biologists have succeeded in keeping skepticism on the circumference of evolutionary thought, where paleontologists, taxonomists, and philosophers linger. But the burning fringe of criticism is now contracting, coming ever closer to the heart of Darwin's doctrine.” I.L. Cohen is a mathematician and researcher, a member of the New York Academy of Sciences, and an officer of the Archaeological Institute of America. “Micro mutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical, theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what happened in biology ... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science” (cited in Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, 1987, p. 422). “... it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end -- no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. ... if in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside superintelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back” (Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities, 1984, pp. 214, 215). “… every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary and it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong” (Darwin Was Wrong, p. 209). “The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science” (Darwin Was Wrong, p. 210). Francis Crick won the Nobel Prize as the co-discoverer of DNA’s double helix shape and its properties of containing and transferring information. Though he was an atheist and an evolutionist who once said Christianity should not be taught to children, the complexity of the living cell convinced him that the evolution of life from inanimate matter would require a miracle. In his 1981 book Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature he wrote:“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going” (p. 88). Crick rejected Darwinism by concluding that there is no scientific evidence of a “primordial soup” in which life could have risen. He also stated that the beginning of the fossil record does not show evolution. Instead, it witnesses the sudden appearance of complex creatures. Crick theorized that life began somewhere in outer space and was transported to earth by alien life forms using space travel technology. He called this “Directed Panspermia.” “Directed Panspermia -- postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization” (Life Itself, p. 141). Paul Davies (b. 1946) has a Ph.D. in physics from the University College London and did post-doctoral studies under Fred Hoyle at the University of Cambridge. His research has focused on cosmology, theoretical physics, quantum field theory, and astrobiology. He has taught at the University of Cambridge and the University of Adelaide and currently is a professor at Arizona State University. He is the recipient of the Templeton Prize (1995), Kelvin Medal (2001), and the Faraday Prize (2002). He doesn’t believe in biblical creation, but he does believe that life is too complicated and perfectly arranged to have happened by chance. “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. ... It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. ... The impression of design is overwhelming” (Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe, 1988, p. 203). “Had this exceedingly delicate tuning of values been even slightly upset, the subsequent structure of the universe would have been totally different. ... Extraordinary physical coincidences and apparently accidental cooperation ... offer compelling evidence that something is 'going on.' . . . A hidden principle seems to be at work” (Davies, The Accidental Universe, pp. 90, 110). Marek Demianski is a Polish cosmologist and astrophysicist. He has a Ph.D. from the University of Warsaw and is a professor at the Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of Warsaw. He is Co-Principal Investigator in two European consortia preparing the Planck Surveyor mission. “Somebody had to tune [the universe] very precisely” (Science News, Sept. 3, 1983, p. 152). Michael Denton (b. 1943) has a Ph.D. in biochemistry from King’s College London. He is Senior Research Fellow in molecular biology at the University of Otago, New Zealand. In Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Denton argued that natural selection and mutations cannot explain life. “It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artifacts appear clumsy. ... It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate” (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p. 32). “Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small ... 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" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis). “The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle” (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 264). It is alleged by evolutionary propagandists that Denton changed his views after the publication of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, yet the fact is that he has always been an evolutionist and anti-creationist, but he still believes that Darwinianism is faulty and that an unidentified intelligence guided the process of evolution.   In a 1995 interview, Denton made the following statement:“I think the current Darwinian picture is insufficient. I don’t think it gives a credible and comprehensive explanation of how the pattern of life on earth emerged. ... The theory of evolution permeates much of our thinking now in the Western world. I think there are problems with the current Darwinian world, and they should be discussed. ... My fundamental problem with the theory is that there are so many highly complicated organs, systems and structures, from the nature of the lung of a bird, to the eye of the rock lobster, for which I cannot conceive of how these things have come about in terms of a gradual accumulation of random changes. It strikes me as being a flagrant denial of common sense to swallow that all these things were built up by accumulative small random changes. This is simply a nonsensical claim, especially for the great majority of cases, where nobody can think of any credible explanation of how it came about. And this is a very profound question which everybody skirts, everybody brushes over, everybody tries to sweep under the carpet” (An interview with Michael Denton, Access Research Network, Vol. 15. No. 2, 1995; the interview was produced in conjunction with the University of California and was the first in a series of interviews with noted scientists and educators entitled Focus on Darwinism). Answers in Genesis contacted Dr. Denton in 1999 and he assured them that the quotes from the 1995 interview represented his current view (“Blown Away by Design,” Creation, September 1999).   His 2002 book Nature’s Destiny continues to argue for intelligent design. The subtitle is “How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe.” The following quote should leave no doubt about this:“All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact” (p. 389). Freeman Dyson (b. 1923) is a renowned theoretical physicist and mathematician, famous for work in nuclear engineering and solid-state physics. He is the recipient of the Heineman Prize (1965), the Wolf Prize (1981), the Templeton Prize (2000), and the Pomeranchuk Prize (2003). He worked on the Orion Project, which studied the possibility of space-flight using nuclear pulse propulsion, and led the design team for TRIGA, a small, safe nuclear reactor that produces isotopes and medical and research use. “The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming” (Freeman Dyson, Disturbing the Universe, 1979, p. 250). “As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together for our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we are coming” (Freeman Dyson, “Energy in the Universe,” Scientific American, 1971, p. 59).  Antony Flew (1923-2010) was a British philosopher and a famous atheist who converted to “Deism” in 2004. In 2004 he published There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.“It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design” (Dr. Antony Flew, “Atheist Becomes Theist,” interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew by Gary Habermas, Philosophia Christi, Winter 2005). In What Darwin Got Wrong (2010), Jerry Fodor and Massimo Platelli-Palmarini critique neo-Darwinism from the perspective of atheism. Publishers Weekly says:“The authors of this scattershot treatise believe in evolution, but think that the Darwinian model of adaptationism—that random genetic mutations, filtered by natural selection, produce traits that enhance fitness for a particular biological niche—is fatally flawed. Philosopher Fodor and molecular-biologist-turned-cognitive-scientist Piattelli-Palmarini, at the University of Arizona, launch a three-pronged attack (which drew fire when Fodor presented their ideas in the London Review of Books in 2007). ... Their most persuasive, and engaging, criticism is that evolutionary theory is just tautological truisms and historical narratives of how creatures came to be.” A Booklist review by Ray Olson says:“Remaining staunchly atheist all the while, philosopher Fodor and cognitive scientist Piattelli-Palmarini challenge Darwinism more effectively than the entire creationist/intelligent-design movement has. Their short, deliberate, and—for readers consulting (and reconsulting) their dictionaries about the philosophical and scientific vocabulary the authors decline to dumb down—slow-reading tract lays out biological and conceptual arguments against natural selection. Natural selection as the driver of speciation has become decreasingly explanatory as research continues to appreciate the complexity of internal and external processes impinging on development. For one thing, inherent physical limitations of developing organisms nullify blind selection; adapt as they may, pigs will never grow wings. Conceptually, natural selection is faulty because it necessarily implies intentionality (selection is made by something), never mind that how something with adaptive effect is chosen is utterly elusive logically. There is a great deal more to Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini’s arguments, which ordinary general readers won’t be able to articulate afterward but will gratefully refer others—and themselves—to again and again. Many may find this the hardest, absolutely essential reading they’ve ever done.”
Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958), Ph.D. in zoology, was a pioneer geneticist. He described the nervous system of the nematode and the sex determination of the gypsy moth and experimented for decades with mutations in moths and fruit flies. Through his research, Goldschidt came to the conclusion that Darwinian evolution by natural selection and the accumulation of gene mutations is unable to account for the origin of species.  He wrote: "In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new] species in nature” ("Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist, "American Scientist, January 1952, p. 94). In his 1940 book The Material Basis of Evolution, he wrote:“This statement of the problem already indicates that I cannot agree with the viewpoint of the textbooks that the problem of evolution has been solved as far as the genetic basis is concerned. ... At this point in our discussion I may challenge the adherents of the strictly Darwinian view, which we are discussing here, to try to explain the evolution of the following features by accumulation and selection of small mutants: hair in mammals, feathers in birds, segmentation of arthropods and vertebrates, the translation of the gill arches in phylogeny including the aortic arches, muscles, nerves, etc.; further, teeth, shells of mollusks, ectoskeletons, compound eyes, blood circulation, alternation of generations, statocysts, ambulacral system of echinoderms, pedicellaria of the same, enidocysts, poison apparatus of snakes, whalebone, and finally, primary chemical differences like hemoglobin vs. hemocyanin, etc. Corresponding examples from plants could be given” (pp. 6, 7). Refusing to give up on evolution, Goldschmidt invented “the hopeful monster” theory, hypothesizing that evolution takes place in giant leaps that are invisible in the fossil record and non-reproducible in the mutation laboratory. But even though Goldschmidt never gave up on evolution, he was counted a traitor and a heretic by the evolutionary establishment because he questioned Darwinism publicly.  Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) was the director of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge University. He was the recipient of the Royal Medal (1974), the Klumpke-Roberts Award (1977), the Crafoord Prize (1997), among others. He was snubbed for the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1983 when his co-worker was awarded while his original contribution was overlooked. Hoyle rejected Darwinism but believed in evolution driven by alien intelligence. Hoyle came to the conclusion that Darwinian evolution could not be true, because the universe is too complicated and orderly and the Darwinian theories aren’t supported by the evidence. “If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that BIOMATERIALS WITH THEIR AMAZING MEASURE OR ORDER MUST BE THE OUTCOME OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN. No other possibility I have been able to think of” (“Evolution from Space,” Omni Lecture, Royal Institution, London, January 12, 1982). “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question” (Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” Engineering and Science, November 1981). “The fossil record is highly imperfect from a Darwinian point of view, not because of the inadequacies of geologists, but because the slow evolutionary connections required by the theory did not happen. Although paleontologists have recognized this truth for a century or more, they have not been able, in spite of their status as the acknowledged experts in the field, to make much of an impression on consensus opinion. ... Darwinian evolution is most unlikely to get even one polypeptide right, let alone the thousands on which living cells depend for their survival. This situation is well-known to geneticists and yet nobody seems prepared to blow the whistle decisively on the theory” (Hoyle and Wickramasinghem, Evolution from Space, 1981, pp. 147, 148). “... we hit a difficulty that knocked the stuffing out of us. No matter how large the environment one considers, the life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare ... The same is true for living material. As our ideas developed, a monstrous spectre kept beckoning. Just as the brain of Shakespeare was necessary to produce the famous plays, so prior information was necessary to produce a living cell” (Evolution from Space, p. 148). “It is understandable that the biologists of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries did not appreciate the extreme chemical complexity of living systems. Without doing serious violence to the evidence it was then possible to think in terms of processes leading to the origin of life that were not much more subtle than those which take place naturally in the Earth’s crust, as for instance the geochemical processes which led to the formation of metallic ores. ... This was the situation in 1924 at the time of the work of A.I. Oparin, work that was widely acclaimed as putting the final nail in the coffin of the older religions. All of life (and death) could be seen, it was claimed, to spring from natural causes. With the development of microbiology in the second half of the twentieth century it became overwhelmingly clear that the truth is quite otherwise. Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed WHERE IT IS INSENSIBLY DIFFERENT FROM ZERO” (Evolution from Space, p. 3). “Anyone with even a noodling acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cube faces at random. Now imagine 10 to the fiftieth power blind persons (standing shoulder to shoulder, these would more than fill our entire planetary system) each with a scrambled Rubik cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling (random variation) of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on Earth is evidence of nonsense of a high order. Life must plainly be a cosmic phenomenon” (Hoyle, “The Big Bang in Astronomy,” New Scientist, November 19, 1981, p. 527). For these views, Hoyle was persecuted and ridiculed by the Darwinian establishment and is still treated as a nutcase. His intelligent design statistics, showing that the possibility of life evolving from nothing is comparable to a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747, has even labeled “Hoyle’s Fallacy.” The Wikipedia article on “Hoyle’s Fallacy” claims that Hoyle failed to “grasp how powerful a force natural selection can be.” Indeed, it must be exceedingly powerful to create everything out of nothing. Pierre-Paul Grassé (1895-1985) was a distinguished French zoologist, editor of the influential 28-volume Traite de zoologie, ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences; Thomas Dobzhansky, in his book Evolution, said, “Grassé’s knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic.” Grassé was an evolutionist but he debunked Darwinian evolution as contrary to the facts of nature. “Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs” (Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977, p. 8). “Our ignorance is so great that we dare not even assign with any accuracy an ancestral stock to the phyla Protozoa, Arthopoda, Mollusca and Vertebrata. ... From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origins of the phyla, it follows that an explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution” (pp. 17, 31). Robert Jastrow (1925-2008) was an astronomer, physicist, and cosmologist. He had a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Columbia University and joined NASA at its formation in 1958. He was the first chairman of the Lunar Exploration Committee and the founding director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He was a self-professed agnostic, but he did not believe that science can answer the mysteries of life. “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries” (God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 116). Vera Kistiakowsky (b. 1928) has a Ph.D. in chemistry from the University of California. She was a professor at MIT’s Laboratory for Nuclear Science until her retirement in 1994. She is the daughter of renowned physicist George Kistiakowsky (d. 1982), who worked on the Manhattan Project and developed a trigger for the first hydrogen bomb. “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine” (Vera Kistiakowsky, cited by H. Margenau and R. A. Varghese, Cosmos, Bios, and Theos, 1992, p. 52). Søren Løvtrup is a Swedish biologist. He authored Epigenetics: A Treatise on Theoretical Biology (1974) and The Phylogeny of Vertebrata (1977). Løvtrup is an evolutionist but he does not believe that natural selection and mutations can explain life. He presented his refutation of Darwinianism in his 1987 book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth. “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science” (Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, 1987). “... the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous” (Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, p. 275).Norman Macbeth (J.D., Harvard Law School), published Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason (1971) after making the study of Darwinism his avocation for many years. He attended private monthly meetings of experts at the American Museum of Natural History, where evolutionists freely acknowledged the problems of evolution (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ435.html). Macbeth says that “any fool can see that evolution died years ago.” One reviewer described the book as follows:“He does not appeal to any religious authority to contradict Darwinism, nor does he reject the idea of evolution in toto. Rather, he finds the evidence and arguments for Darwinism to be deeply flawed. Questions are begged, evidence is fudged, and extrapolations are unwarranted. This is a thoughtful and fair critique well worth reading. Let me end with a quote from the author: ‘Any profession [he has biology in mind] that does not supply its own criticism and iconoclasm will discover that someone else will do the job, and usually in a way it does not like.’” Macbeth also published Darwinism: A Time for Funerals (1982), which is a booklet of interviews about the weakness of the Darwinian theory. Macbeth exposes the censorship of anti-Darwinian thought in the evolutionary establishment. In A Time for Funerals, he gives the example of a department head in an “Ivy League College” cutting out an article containing a critical analysis of Selection Theory from a book in the college library. After admitting responsibility, the professor said: “Well, of course, I don’t believe in censorship in any form, but I just couldn’t bear the thought of my students reading that article.” Richard Milton (b. 1943) is a science journalist and design engineer and a member of Mensa, the high-IQ organization. He has been a member of the Geologists’ Association for over 30 years. He is not a creationist and in fact claims to have no religious faith, believing rather in the evolution of life by some process over millions of years. He has debunked Darwinian evolution, though, in the strongest terms. In Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (1992), Milton claims that the evidence supporting the Darwinian theory of evolution is mythical. He calls the British Museum of Natural History “a kind of headquarters for Darwinism” and says that he has “been unable to see with my own eyes the decisive evidence for the general theory of evolution” (p. 3). He calls Darwinism “the urban myth” with many faces and says there is “the myth of radiometric dating; the myth of uniformitarian geology; the myth of gradualist fossil record; the myth of beneficial mutations, the myth of natural selection; the myth that evolution is blind; the myth of the beak of the finch; the myth of the biogenetic law; the myth of vestigial organs; the myth of homology; the myth of the ‘missing link’” (p. 272). He charges Darwinism with promoting speculation and faulty data. “I am seriously concerned, on purely rational grounds, that generations of school and university teachers have been led to accept speculation as scientific theory and faulty data as scientific fact; that this process has accumulated a mountainous catalog of mingled fact and fiction that can no longer be contained by the sparsely elegant theory; and that it is high time that the theory was taken out of its ornate Victorian glass cabinet and examined with a fresh and skeptical eye” (p. 4). He begins by exposing the lack of absolute science supporting the evolutionary dating methods and the doctrine of geological uniformitarianism. He observes, “... it was the imperative need for great antiquity that deposed catastrophism, rather than any new scientific discoveries or observations; it was a new way of looking at things, not a new piece of knowledge. ... Darwinists needed time, and lots of it: uniformitarians had the geological theory that demonstrated great antiquity. ... Thus an unusual academic interdependence sprang up between the two sciences that continues to this day. A geologist wishing to date a rock stratum would ask an evolutionist’s opinion on the fossils it contained. An evolutionist having difficulty dating a fossil species would turn to the geologist for help. Fossils were used to date rocks: rocks were used to date fossils” (p. 28). Milton observes that “if even one hundredth part of the evidence presented in this book is correct, then it will be obvious to any thinking person that there is a huge question mark hanging over the central issues of the life science” (p. 273). Milton has been attacked fiercely by Darwinists. In his review of Milton’s Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, Oxford University atheist Richard Dawkins devoted two-thirds of the review to attacking the publisher for daring to print a book criticizing Darwinism and the other third to assassinating Milton’s character. Dawkins said the book is “loony,” “stupid,” “drivel,” and referred to Milton as a “harmless fruitcake” who “needs psychiatric help” (Shattering the Myths, pp. ix, x). Dawkins has tried to have Milton blacklisted so that his scientific writings cannot be published. He has lied about him, calling him a “secret creationist.” He was effective in having the Times Higher Educational Supplement stop publication of one of Milton’s articles. Milton describes one group of Darwinist vigilantes who use the Internet to attack those they find guilty of promoting the heresy of intelligent design. They call themselves “howler monkeys.” Milton says, “The effects of the howler monkeys of the Internet are profoundly damaging to academic freedom of expression, whoever their current victim happens to be” (p. 270). Because of the Darwinist gestapo led by the likes of Richard Dawkins, the field of biology has been likened to “working in Russia under Brehznev.” “Many biologists have one set of beliefs at work, their official beliefs, and another set, their real beliefs, which they can speak openly about only among friends” (Rupert Sheldrake, cited by Milton, p 274).John O’Keefe (1916-2000) was a planetary scientist with NASA from 1958-95.  He was a leader in the development of the lunar space program. “We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in” (John O’Keefe, cited by F. Heeren, Show Me God, 1995, p. 200). Arno Penzias (b. 1933) has a Ph.D. in physics from Columbia University. He worked for Bell Laboratories and won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1978 for the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, which is used as evidence for the Big Bang. “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan” (Penzias, The New York Times, Jan. 2, 1979). Michael Pitman was a chemistry professor at Cambridge. In his book Adam and Evolution, he documents his critique of and rejection of Darwinian evolution. He says:“I started as devil’s advocate for the creationist view and came, in principle, though not to any particular creed, to prefer it. ... the direction of the argument is clear -- there has been neither chemical evolution nor macro-evolution” (p. 254). Pitman takes doctrinaire evolutionists to task for pretending that their theories are based on proven science. “But I hope I have shown that apparently convincing arguments in support of a belief can often be seen to be either based on insufficient data or open to more than one interpretation; and that much of what passes for science is no more and no less emotional, illogical and idiosyncratic than many of the opposing arguments. Science, useful as it is, does not explain a host of things; nor is all that it does not explain false. ... A man’s gospel is his business: that he teaches evolution as holy writ in television series or in schools and colleges--with no alternatives properly considered--is a more serious matter” (Adam and Evolution, p. 254). Pitman also condemns the evolutionary establishment for suppressing debate on this subject. “Presenting one viewpoint exclusively is faulty teaching. Our descendants will marvel at the attempts of the neo-Darwinian lobby to suppress alternative inquiry, as we today marvel at the power of churchmen in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries” (Adam and Evolution, p. 255). The book begins with an overview of Darwin’s teaching and of the neo-Darwinian theory developed in the 20th century, which added chemical evolution, mutations, and genetic relationships to Darwinian natural selection as mechanisms of evolution. The book critiques the major evidences that are put forth as support for evolution: the fossil record, natural selection, the doctrine of species, homology, cladistics, genetic mutations. For example, Pitman describes the fruit fly experiments and shows that they actually disprove evolution:“Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: few of the geneticists’ monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice, mutants die, are sterile or tend to revert to the wild-type” (Adam and Evolution, p. 70). Pitman brilliantly develops the argument from design:“‘We do not believe in the theory of special creation because it is incredible.’ In this way Sir Arthur Keith, a distinguished anatomist of the 1930s, echoed the rationalist feeling. But life itself is incredible, starting with every cell of every organ of every organism that Sir Arthur investigated. ... there is no evidence that, left to itself with whatever start it had over man, chance could evolve machines for work like men do, even the soft biological machinery of life. The creationist stops haggling over terms and looks for the designer. Through any but blinkered eyes the biological world shows clear signs of planning and order. It is not the order that constitutes a crystal, but a more complex order--the kind revealed in a developing seed or a growing embryo--the kind that, in any other context, we would unhesitatingly think of in terms of ingenuity and deliberate design” (Adam and Evolution, pp. 26, 27). Pitman examines the living cell and its machinery, the human eye, the bird, the flying insect, metamorphosis, the bat’s radar. For example, he asks how evolution could possibly explain metamorphosis:“Within this dry shell the organs of the caterpillar are dissolved and reduced to pulp. Breathing tubes, muscles and nerves disappear as such; the creature seems to have died. But processes are in operation which remould that pulp into different, coordinating parts, and in due course the insect, which has not grown up or developed in any normal sense, re-emerges as a beautiful, adult butterfly. It is a kind of resurrection. Certainly it demonstrates the absurdity of invoking natural selection by successive mutation to explain such an obviously, yet subtly programmed, process. Why, on that basis, should the ancestral insect have survived the mutations that projected it into the chrysalid stage, from which it could not yet develop into an adult? Where was natural selection then? How could pre-programmed metamorphosis, in insect, amphibian or crustacean, ever have evolved by chance? Indeed, how could development have evolved piece-meal? The ball is in the evolutionist’s court, tangled in a net of inexplicability” (Adam and Evolution, p. 71). Holmes Rolston (b. 1932) earned a Ph.D. from the University of Edinburgh. He is professor of philosophy at Colorado State University. He received the Templeton Prize in 2003.“The physical world is--shades of Bishop Paley!--looking like a fine-tuned watch again, and this time many quantitative calculations support the argument. The forms that matter and energy take seem strangely suited to their destiny” (“Shaken Atheism: A Look at the Fine-Tuned University,” The Christian Century, Dec. 3, 1986). Allan Sandage (1926-2010) earned a Ph.D. from the California Institute of Technology. He was a graduate student assistant to Edwin Hubble, of Hubble Telescope fame. He has received the National Medal of Science (1970), the Crafoord Prize in astronomy (1991), among many other prestigious awards. “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing” (Alan Sandage, cited by J. N. Willford, “Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomer’s Quest,” New York Times, March 12, 1991, p. B9). “The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception? The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some type of organizing principle--an architect” (“A Scientist Reflects on Religious Belief,” Truth, vol. 1, 1985, p. 54). Henry Schaefer, III (b. 1944) has a Ph.D. in chemical physics from Stanford University. He is Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute and a signer of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.“The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan” (Henry Schaefer, cited by J. Sheler and J. Schrof, “The Creation,” U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991). Arthur Schawlow (1921-1999) had a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Toronto. He received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1981 and was one of the creators of the laser. He was a professor at Stanford University from 1961-96:“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. ... I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life” (Arthur Schawlow, cited by Henry Margenau and Roy Varghese, Cosmos, Bios, and Theos, 1992). Richard Shapiro, an atheist and an evolutionist, is Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Chemistry at New York University. He has a Ph.D. in organic chemistry from Harvard and postdoctoral training in DNA chemistry at Cambridge. In Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth (1986), Shapiro argues that life is too complex to have evolved through any known evolutionary process. He criticizes the major origin of life icons used by evolutionists, such as the Miller Experiment and the RNA-first theory. The Washington Monthly review says:“To the skeptical eye of Shapiro, explanations that have been offered look more like mythology than like science. ... The debate, as Shapiro presents it, is rife with speculations presented too forcefully, with inconclusive data put forward as definitive evidence and with explanations that look very much like Creation myths.” The New Yorker says:“He shifts through the various hypotheses about the origin of life and demonstrates that most are scientifically implausible or are simply forms of creation myth, sometimes in the guise of science.” Shapiro writes:“The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle” (Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide). In spite of 150 years of evidence that Darwinian evolution is not true and Shapiro’s acknowledgement that it has failed to be proven scientifically, he holds steadfastly to evolutionary and naturalistic explanations of life. In fact, he says that even if evolution is totally disproven, he will not look to religion for answers. He writes:“Some future day may yet arrive when all reasonable chemical experiments run to discover a probable origin for life have failed unequivocally. Further, new geological evidence may indicate a sudden appearance of life on the earth. Finally, we may have explored the universe and found no trace of life, or process leading to life, elsewhere. In such a case, some scientists might choose to turn to religion for an answer. Others, however, myself included, would attempt to sort out the surviving less probable scientific explanations in the hope of selecting one that was still more likely than the remainder” (Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide). This is not a scientific approach; it is willful blindness. There is no scientific reason whatsoever to rule out God from the universe. In fact, many top notch scientists have believed that the universe is evidence for God. Wolfgang Smith (b. 1930) has a Ph.D. in mathematics from Columbia University. He researched the problem of atmospheric reentry for Bell Laboratories. He has been a mathematics professor at MIT, UCLA, and Oregon State University.“The point, however, is that the doctrine of evolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living beings created themselves, which is, in essence, a metaphysical claim. ... Thus, in the final analysis, evolutionism is in truth a metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb” (Teilhardism and the New Religion, p. 24). Lee Spetner received a Ph.D. in physics from MIT in 1950. He worked with the Applied Physics Laboratory of the Johns Hopkins University from 1951-70. His book Not By Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution was published in 1997.“Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work. Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so” (“Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue,” 2001, The True Origin Archive). “But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it. ... Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can’t make money by losing it a little at a time. The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the NDT is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up in volume. ... Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory demands. There may well not be any. The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory” (Not By Chance, 1997, pp. 131, 132, 159 160). David Stove (1927-94) was an Australian philosopher, educator, and author. He taught philosophy at the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney. He claimed to be “of no religion” and believed in evolution in general, but he rejected Darwin’s teaching on the evolution of man. In Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity, and Other Fables of Evolution, Stove showed that Darwin’s principle of natural selection, which is a foundational part of his theory, is not applicable to human society. He called Darwinism “a mere festering mass of errors” and “ridiculous slanders on our species.” In his review of the book, Martin Gardner says, “Whatever your opinion of ‘Intelligent Design,’ you’ll find Stove’s criticism of what he calls ‘Darwinism’ difficult to stop reading. Stove’s blistering attack on Richard Dawkins’ ‘selfish genes’ and ‘memes’ is unparalleled and unrelenting. A discussion of spiders who mimic bird droppings is alone worth the price of the book.” Consider the following sharp refutation of the Darwinian survival of the fittest doctrine: “But no tribe of humans could possibly exist on those terms [natural selection, survival of the fittest]. Such a tribe could not even raise a second generation: the helplessness of the human young is too extreme and prolonged” (p. 5). “Huxley should not have needed Darwinism to tell him--since any intelligent child of about eight could have told him--that in a ‘continual free fight of each other against all’ there would soon be no children, no women, and hence, no men. In other words, that the human race could not possibly exist now, unless cooperation had always been stronger than competition, both between women and their children, and between men and the children and women whom they protect and provide for” (p. 9). Stove had no patience for doctrinaire Darwinists, as the following quote illustrates:“Such cases, I need hardly say, never bother armor-plated neo-Darwinians. But then no cases, possible or even actual, ever do bother them. ... In neo-Darwinism’s house there are many mansions: so many, indeed, that if a certain awkward fact will not fit into one mansion, there is sure to be another one into which it will fit to admiration” (p. 39). William Thompson (1887-1972) was Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada“... it does appear to me, in the first place, that Darwin in the Origin was not able to produce paleontological evidence sufficient to prove his views but that the evidence he did produce was adverse to them; and I may note that the position is not notably different today. The modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary hypotheses which, however plausible, are in the nature of things unverifiable” (Introduction to The Origin of Species 6th Edition, 1956, pp. xvii-xix). “A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of the Origin was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculations. 'Explanations' of the origin of structures, instincts, and mental aptitudes of all kinds, in terms of Darwinian principles, marked with Darwinian possibility but hopelessly unverifiable poured out from every research centre” (Introduction to The Origin of Species 6th Edition, 1956, p. xxi). “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science” (Introduction to The Origin of Species 6th Edition, 1956, p. xxii). “To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypotheses based on hypotheses, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion” (Introduction to The Origin of Species 6th Edition, 1956, p. xxiv). Charles Townes (b. 1915) has a Ph.D. in physics from the California Institute of Technology. He received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1964 and has been a professor at Columbia University, MIT, and the University of California, Berkeley.“Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here. Some scientists argue that ‘well, there's an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right.’ Well, that's a postulate, and it's a pretty fantastic postulate--it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that’s why it has come out so specially” (Charles Townes, “Explore as Much as We Can,” UCBerkeley News, June 17, 2005). Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) had an M.D. from the University of Moscow. He was a founder of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In 1950 Velikovsky published Worlds in Collision, providing evidence for his view that an event in earth history caused a global geological catastrophe. He theorized that this event was a near collision from the earth and other planets. Velikovsky was an evolutionist, but what he challenged was the uniformitarian view of geology that has dominated science since Darwin’s day. He was treated shabbily by Darwinian Inquisition. “What must be called the scientific establishment rose in arms, not only against the new Velikovsky theories but against the man himself. Efforts were made to block the dissemination of Dr. Velikovsky’s ideas, and even to punish supporters of his investigations. Universities, scientific societies, publishing houses, the popular press were approached and threatened; social pressures and professional sanctions were invoked to control public opinion. There can be little doubt that in a totalitarian society, not only would Dr. Velikovsky’s reputation have been at stake, but also his right to pursue his enquiry, and perhaps his personal safety. As it was, the ‘establishment’ succeeded in building a wall of unfavorable sentiment around him: to thousands of scholars the name Velikovsky bears the taint of fantasy, science-fiction and publicity” (Alfred De Grazia, The Velikovsky Affair, 1966). In his second book, Earth in Upheaval, the persistent Velikovsky provided evidence for a worldwide catastrophe. These included the existence of beds of fossilized terrestrial animals thousands of feet deep, the young age and rapid building of the mountain chains, and the global sedimentary rock formations. Velikovsky was not a Bible believer, but not only did he debunk Darwinian uniformitarianism, he inadvertently provided evidence for a global Flood. No wonder he was excommunicated by the scientific community. Wernher von Braun (1912-77), a German rocket scientist, was the leading force behind the American Apollo moon mission. Though he didn’t believe in a literal Genesis account of creation, von Braun did believe that God created the world and that it did not arise by a purely naturalistic process. He argued that the design of the world implies and requires a Designer, and he considered it unscientific to rule out a Creator just because we can’t “test” him scientifically. Von Braun published an article entitled “My Faith: A Space-age Scientist Tells Why He Must Believe in God.” This appeared in the American Weekly, February 10, 1963, and was republished in many other newspapers. “Through science man strives to learn more of the mysteries of creation. Through religion he seeks to know the creator. Neither operates independently.  It is as difficult for me to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science. ... As we learn more and more about nature, we become more deeply impressed and humbled by its orderliness and unerring perfection.” In 1972, von Braun made the following statement in a letter to the California State Board of Education. This was written to encourage the inclusion of intelligent design theories into the public school classrooms. Because of Darwinism’s elitist mentality and fear of challenge, von Braun’s wise counsel was ignored. “For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without evoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world round us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design.  We can see the will of the species to live and propagate. And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based. ... While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design.  To be forced to believe only one conclusion--that everything in the universe happened by chance--would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system or the human eye? Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer.  They admit that many of the miracles in the world around us are hard to understand, and they do not deny that the universe, as modern science sees it, is indeed a far more wondrous thing than the creation medieval man could perceive.  But they still maintain that since science has provided us with so many answers the day will soon arrive when we will be able to understand even the creation of the fundamental laws of nature without a Divine intent.  They challenge science to prove the existence of God.  But must we really light a candle to see the sun? Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they cannot visualize a Designer.  Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airlines through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements.  What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him? I am afraid that, although they really do not understand the electron either, they are ready to accept it because they managed to produce a rather clumsy mechanical model of it borrowed from rather limited experience in other fields, but they would not know how to begin building a model of God. I have discussed the aspect of a Designer at some length because it might be that the primary resistance to acknowledging the “Case for Design” as a viable scientific alternative to the current “Case for Chance” lies in the inconceivability, in some scientists’ minds, of a Designer.  The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction. We in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had with our Apollo flights to the Moon.  I think the only honest answer we could give was that we tried to never overlook anything.  It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom.  It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happened by chance (http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_4vonbraun.htm).In 1961, von Braun said, “But I can’t help feeling at the same time that this space effort of ours is bigger even than a rivalry between the United States and Russia. The heavens beyond us are enormous beyond comprehension, and the further we penetrate them, the greater will be our human understanding of the great universal purpose, the Divine Will itself” (This Week Magazine, Jan. 1, 1961). Thus, the world’s top rocket scientist who was the leading mind behind putting men on the moon was operating from and motivated by a perspective of theism rather than that of evolutionary atheism. It proved to be no discernible drag on his impressive scientific achievements. Hubert P. Yockey(Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Maryland, USA). (8) "One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on Earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written." Hubert P. Yockey in his article "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory" in Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 67, 1977 p:398 Peter T. Saundersmathematician, (University of London), and Mae-Wan Ho - biologist, (Open University). (9) "From the claims that are made for neo-Darwinism one could easily get the impression that it has made great progress towards explaining evolution, mostly leaving the details to be cleared up. In fact, quite the reverse is true. Neo-Darwinism can account for some of the details, but the major problems remain unsolved. Samuel Butler's (1911) complaint that Darwin had given us 'an origin of the species with the origin cut out' is true today as when he wrote it." Peter T. Saunders and Mae-Wan Ho in "Is Neo-Darwinism Falsifiable? And Does It Matter?", in Nature and Systems, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1982 p:191 
Ludwig von Bertalanffybiologist. (10) "The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds." Ludwig von Bertalanffy, as quoted by Huston Smith in his book "Beyond the Post-Modern Mind", Crossroads: New York, 1982 p:173 George Kocanscience writer and biologist. (11) "Unfortunately, many scientists and non-scientists have made Evolution into a religion, something to be defended against infidels. In my experience, many students of biology - professors and textbook writers included - have been so carried away with the arguments for Evolution that they neglect to question it. They preach it ..... College students, having gone through such a closed system of education, themselves become teachers, entering high schools to continue the process, using textbooks written by former classmates or professors. High standards of scholarship and teaching break down. Propaganda and the pursuit of power replace the pursuit of knowledge. Education becomes a fraud." George Kocan in his article "Evolution Isn't Faith But Theory", in the Chicago Tribune, Monday, April 21, 1980 
Dr T.N. Tahmisianphysiologist (The Atomic Energy Commission, USA). (12) "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." T.N. Tahmisian. Quoted by N.J. Mitchell in the book "Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes", Roydon Pub: UK, 1983 (title page) Dr George Waldwinner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize for Science. (17) "When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." Dr George Wald. Quoted in Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (USA), 1983 p:3 
Professor J. Keosian.(13) "All present approaches to a solution of the problem of the origin of life are either irrelevant or lead into a blind alley. Therein lies the crisis." J. Keosian summarizing the then current evidence for chemical evolution, in his article "The Origin of Life" in the Proceedings of the 2nd ISSOL Meeting, 5th ICOL Meeting, (H. Noda ed.), Japan Scientific Society Press: Japan, 1978 p:569-574 
Malcolm Muggeridgefamous philosopher and journalist. (18) "I, myself, am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has." Statement made by the famous philosopher and journalist Malcolm Muggeridge at the Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo: Ontario (Canada) 
Professor Louis Bounoureformer president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg, Director (Strasbourg Zoological Museum), Director of Research (French National Centre of Scientific Research). (19) "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." Louis Bounoure, quoted in The Advocate, Thursday March 8, 1984 p:17 
0 notes
signaramacbd · 7 years
Text
Feeding the insatiable demand for Neon Signs - Signarama CBD
Neon gas is a dull and invisible gas. But the moment it is trapped in a tube and zapped with electricity, The blaze of the crimson light has its own story to tell.  Neon signs are literally pulled out of thin air.  These signs have become the neon bright glow of the modern world, that symbolizes modern industry, progress, prosperity  and has become an essential component of the retail age.
The story of the neon fascination started off in the 1890s, with Sir William Ramsay, a Scottish chemist. Sir William Ramsay was the codiscoverer of some of the noble gases (argon, neon, krypton, and xenon), He also isolated helium and radon, the other two noble gases. This won him the Nobel Prize for his efforts. These six gasses form an unique family because of their unwillingness to bond with other atoms. This aristocratic “nobility” gave them their name, noble gases.
For over  hundred and thirty years the appetite for neon signs has seen its Ups and Downs. But a hundred and thirty years has not managed to snuff out the neon. It is that colour, its that light that makes it so magical. It still enjoys its popularity. Las Vegas which would be virtually unrecognizable without the neons. Singapore too has a learned to appreciate the noble gases. With the retail boom Singapore's retailers too have been scrambling to bask in the neon glow.
There is something that is just so romantic with Neon. It's crimson glow continues to fascinate retailers. Signarama CBD is one of the very few Sign makers in Singapore that continues to feed the insatiable appetite. Get your retail outlet that magical crimson glow of the romantic neon sign. Watch your business grow, with the glow of the neon signs. Call our friendly sales rep. for a free consultation. Call 6557 0080 Now!!
Click here to see some of our magical neon signs
0 notes
cancersfakianakis1 · 7 years
Text
Fabien Arcelin (1876–1942), ou comment on devient radiothérapeute quand on naît archéologue
Publication date: Available online 8 May 2017 Source:Cancer/Radiothérapie Author(s): N. Foray Fabien Arcelin, médecin lyonnais, fut le thésard de Destot, l’un des pères de la radiologie française et le propre élève de son père, Adrien Arcelin, l’un des archéologues préhistoriens majeurs de notre pays, co-inventeur du site de la Roche-de-Solutré. Ainsi, radiologue à Lyon en semaine et archéologue en Bourgogne le week-end, Fabien Arcelin fit avancer ces deux disciplines avec le même brio. En archéologie, il découvrit les premières sépultures aurignaciennes. En radiologie, il examina près de 2000 cœurs avec l’orthodiagraphe de Destot pour déterminer le rapport cardiothoracique et laissa un ouvrage de référence sur l’utilisation des rayons X dans la détection des calculs rénaux. En radiothérapie, il marqua l’histoire de la discipline en réalisant le premier sondage adressé à ses collègues sur les effets secondaires de l’irradiation, base documentaire à l’origine de la mise en évidence de la radiosensibilité individuelle. En parallèle des essais de Regaud à l’institut Curie, il réalisa à Lyon les premières séries de radiothérapies.Fabien Arcelin, physician working in Lyon, pioneer of radiology and radiotherapy, was both mentored by Destot (one of the fathers of the French radiology for his thesis of medicine) and by his own father Adrien Arcelin (one of the two codiscoverers of the prehistorical site of the Roche-de-Solutré in Burgundy) for archeological works. Hence, radiologist in Lyon during the week and archeologist during the weekend, Fabien Arcelin made significant advances in both radiation research and archeology. He was notably the discoverer of the first tombs of Aurignacian men. In radiology, he examined about 2000 radiographic heart views with the Destot's orthodiagraph to assess the cardiothoracic ratio and wrote a reference book about the use of X-rays to detect kidney stones. He made the first survey about the secondary effects of radiotherapy, important database for pointing out individual radiosensitivity. In parallel to the radiotherapy trials of Regaud at Curie institute (Paris), he performed the first series of anticancer treatments in Lyon. http://ift.tt/2qoIsmK
0 notes
Text
Alfred Russel Wallace
Alfred Russel Wallace
The independent codiscoverer, with Charles Darwin, of the principle of evolution by natural selection, Wallace was born near Usk, Wales. Even as he trained for a career as a surveyor, Wallace developed a lively interest in natural history, and after he moved to England in 1844 a fortunate meeting
See more on http://anthropology.iresearchnet.com/alfred-russel-wallace/
0 notes