current number of books in this list:
386, of which I have actually READ
187 (so far).
Link to journal on Evolution/Creationism.
Adams, Richard Newbold,
THE EIGHTH DAY, Social Evolution as the Self-Organization of Energy, (University of Texas Press, Austin, 1988). I bought this at a used book store in Houston (fall '91). It looks interesting,
but right now its pretty low on my list of books to read. For me, there
are more basic questions about evolution that I need to presently pursue
than the "evolution of society".
Alter, Robert, (translator),
GENESIS,
A translation and commentary by Robert Alter, (W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996). I read this in February, 2000. This is a new translation of the book of Genesis. I guess in a way it's kind of like reading a Bible translation with a very thick commentary (that's equal in length (at least) to the text.
Aristotle, selections from:Natural Science, The Metaphysics, Zoology, Psychology, The Nichomachean Ethics, On Statecraft, and The Art of Poetry, (The Odessy Press, Inc., New York, 1935, 1951).
This book contains highlights from several of Aristotle's books, including "Zoology", where he proposes his famous ladder of ascent, with simple organisms at the bottom, rising to humans at the top of this ladder. This view is still found in many theories today.
Argyll, Duke of,
The Reign of Law, (A.L. Burt, Pub., New York, 1868).
This book attempts to describe (literally) the laws of nature. Chapter
V ("Creation by Law") attempts to refute Darwin's recent theory, and offers
Hummingbirds as evidence for God's mysterious creation. This seems very
close to vitalism, which states that God is what we can't understand. See
under Ditfurth for more discussion on this.
Armstrong, G.R.The Dimensions of Evolution, (Copyright 1987 by George R. Armstrong, Sandia Park, New Mexico, U.S.A.). I bought this at a used book store in Albuquerque. This looks like a very philosophical book about physical vs. "metaphysical" views of evolution.
Ashton, John F., editor,
IN SIX DAYS - Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation,
(New Holland Publishers, Sydney, 1999). I read this book in July, 2000. I bought it from bookstore at Heathrow airport, whilst I was on my way to attend a meeting. This book is a collection of essays from 50 different scientists, all holding Ph.D.s in various different scientific fields, about why they believe that the world was created in 6 days, less than 10,000 years ago. If nothing else, it is quite an interesting look at how different people tackle the same question, from various different viewpoints and levels of expertise, ranging from Architectural Engineers to Zoologists. All 50 of the essays did have one thing in common, in addition to their belief in a "young-earth", and that is that they all invoked belief in a Christian God and a literal reading of Scriptures [Christian, of course] as their main motivation for their "scientific" position. A good summary of the position taken by many of the essays is found in the comments of Dr. Larry Vardiman, a meterologist who works for the Institute of Creation Reserach, in the U.S.
"....The most telling argument for me in rejecting evolution, however, is the meaninglessness and lack of value it signifies. If evolution occurred, then my existence is not a special event in the Creator's plan. Yet, the Bible says I am special; I was created for a purpose." (page 307)While I can certainly understand this point of view, in my opinion it is hardly a compelling "scientific" argument. One of my favorite essays in the whole book (360 pages total), is from Dr. E. Theo Agard, a medical physicist:
"My belief in the supernatural creation of this world in six days is summarised largely in the following points: The theory of evolution is not as sound as many people would believe. In particular, the problem of the origin of life is well stated by the question 'Which came first, the chicken or the egg?' Every egg anyone has ever seen was laid by a chicken and every chicken hatched from an egg .Hence the first chicken or the first egg which appeared on the scene in any other way would be unnatural, to say the least. The natural laws under which scientists work are adequate for explaining how the world functions, but are inadequate for its origin, just as the tools which service an automobile are inadequate for its manufacture." (pages 196-197)
Atkins, Peter W.THE PERIODIC KINGDOM: A Journey into the Land of the Chemical Elements (Science Masters Series), (Harper-Collins, New York, 1997). This is an excellent introduction into chemistry. It has a very nice description of the origins ("evolution") of the chemical elements.
Audesirk, Teresa and Audesirk, Gerald
LIFE ON EARTH, (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Simon &Schuster/A Viacom Company, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA, 1996). I read this in July, 1997, in preparation for my lectures in a "Biology for non-majors" class. There were 5 chapters on evolution, and I thought most of them were well-written. However, in the introductory paragraph, they make what I consider a major historical error:
". . . To explain the origin and diversity of life on Earth, nearly all peoples of the world historically turned to the hypothesis of creationism. The most common of these hypothesis is that a supernatural being created each type of organism individually at the beginning of the world and that all modern organisms are essentially unchanged descendants of those ancestors.
Throughout history, however, scientists have sought natural causes for the origin of species . . .
Augustine of Hippo, Saint,
Confessions, (Penguin Books, Ltd., Harmondsworth,
Middlesex, England, 1984). Although this was written ca. 400 A.D., this
book seems appropriate to the collection due to Augustine's commentary
on Genesis, along with some good comments on the relationship between Christianity and Science:
" Whenever I hear a brother Christian talk in such a way as to show that he is ignorant of these scientific matters and confuses one thing with another, I listen with patience to his theories and think it no harm to him provided that he holds no beliefs unworthy of you, O Lord, who are the Creator of them all. The danger lies in thinking that such knowledge is part and parcel of what he must believe to save his soul and in presuming to make obstinate declarations about things of which he knows nothing." (Book V, page 96).St. Augustine had left a cult for Christianity, and part of the reason for his rejecting the cult was their insistence on the scientific accuracy of their "inspired writings". Augustine realized that even the secular scientists were accurate in their predictions of solar eclipses, while the "inspired writings" were wrong.
Augustine of Hippo, Saint,
The City of God, (Henry Bettenson, trans.,
Penguin Books, Ltd., Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, 1972; first
pub. 1467). I put this book in the collection based on a quote from Paul
Davies, where Augustine postulated that time was created at the same time
God created the earth. In flipping through this huge treatise (more than
1000 pages!) I did find (yet) another interesting quote.
"Whatever the [scientists] themselves can demonstrate by true proofs about the nature of things, we can show not to be contrary to our scriptures. But whatever they advance [i.e., as an hypothesis] in any of their books that is contrary to our scriptures . . we should indicate either a solution or believe without hesitation that it is false."(This quote was in the introduction, p. xxxiii; I'm not sure I understand whether this quote was actually from The City of God or not.)
Avers, Charlotte J.
EVOLUTION, (Harper and Row, Publishers, New York, 1974). This is meant as an undergraduate text in evolutionary biology. There are 4 parts: "Life and Prelife", "Principles and Phenomena", "Trends in Evolution", and "Human Evolution".
Avers, Charlotte J.
Process and Pattern in Evolution, (Oxford University Press, New York, 1989). This is a fairly thick treatise on evolution (590 pages), to be used as a text in teaching evolution to biology majors. There are 3 parts: "Foundations of Life on Earth", "Evolutionary Processes", and "Patterns and Trends in Evolution".
Bak, Per
How Nature Works - The Science of Self-Organized Criticality, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997). I read this in July, 1998, as part of a course on "The Spontaneous Origins of Life" at the Neils Bohr Institute in Copenhagen. Per Bak is a professor at the University of Copenhagen, and this is his attempt to use a theory of complex systems to expain how nature works. It is intersting, but I'm not sure how useful it really is.
Barber, Ian G.,
When Science Meets Religion,
(HarperSanFrancisco, A Division of HarperCollins Publishers, New York, 2000). I liked this book. I read it in April, 2001. Barber lists four views of science and religion: Conflict, Independence, Dialogue, and Integration. He then spends a chapter on each of five topics where science and religion interact - Astronomy and Creation; The Implications of Quantum Physics; Evolution and Continuing Creation; Genetics, Neuroscience and Human Nature; and God and Nature. For each of these he first summarizes the present state of knowledge in the field, and then goes through the four different views and discusses various examples. He states up front that he would prefer views where science and religion can at least talk to each other ("Dialogue"), or better yet if they can actually be somehow integrated. I was at first surprised to see him place Phil Johnson and Mike Behe in the "conflict" category, along with of course Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. But I think he does a pretty good job of explaining that both groups are emphasizing conflicts between science and religion, rather than some sort of reconciliation between the two.
Barrow, John .,
The Origin of the Universe, (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1994). I read this in the Autumn of 1994. This is a good "quick read" book (part of the "Science Masters" series published in England). It contains a summary of the present theories about the origin (and possible demise) of the universe.
Bates, Marston,
MAN IN NATURE, (second edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1961, 1964). This is part of the "Foundations of Modern Biology Series"
Beadle,George and Mauriel,
THE LANGUAGE OF LIFE - An Introduction to the Science of Genetics, (Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York, 1966). George Beadle received the Nobel Prize in 1958 for his work with genetics. Chapters 4-6 discuss evolution from nucleic acids to simple cells (ch.4) to man (ch.6). I read this in the autumn of 1996.
Beard, Charles A. (Editor),
WHITHER MANKIND - A Panorama of Modern Civilization,
(Longmans, Green and Co., New York, 1928). This is a collection of essays
by leaders in various fields about what the future might be like. Of particular interest to this collection is Chapter 3, "SCIENCE", written by Bertrand Russel. Most of his predictions for the rest of the century are pretty accurate.
"It may be said, broadly, that science has simultaneously, and in equal measure, increased man's power and diminished his pride. In the Middle Ages, the earth was the centre of the universe, and the human race was the principal object of divine solicitude. The first blow to this outlook, and perhaps the greatest, was the Copernican system, with the discovery that the earth is one of the smaller planets. The next blow was the doctrine of next, which is only now beginning to be delivered, is the analysis of mind and soul by behaviourists and biochemists. I have heard it suggested by a biochemist that mysticism is due to excessive alkalinity of the blood. This particular doctrine may or may not be true, but some equally painful explanation of the mystic emotion is pretty sure to be found before long. Physics, biology, psychology, have each in turn demanded sacrifices dear to our human conceit. The increase of power which men derive from science has, however, made these sacrifices endurable, and has allowed the scientific outlook to triumph in practice even with those who continue to reject it in its general and speculative aspects." (page 76).
He makes a small digression about eugenics:
"More serious is the effect of a scientific civilization upon population - not upon quantity, which is unimportant, but upon quality. The most intelligent individuals, on the average, breed least, and do not breed enough to keep their numbers constant. Unless new incentives are discovered to induce them to breed, they will soon not be sufficiently numerous to supply the intelligence needed for maintaining a highly technical and elaborate system. . . In America and Great Britain, the fetish of democracy stands in the way; in Russia, the Marxian disbelief in biology. . .Probably the best chance is in Germany, but even there it is small. Meanwhile, we must expect, at any rate for the next hundred years, that each generation will be congenitally stupider than its predecessor. This is a grave prospect." (pages 80-81).
Behe, Michael J.
DARWIN'S BLACK BOX - The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, (The Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., New York, 1996). I read this in January, 1998, as part of a discussion group of four professor at Roanoke college. The religion and philosophy professors really liked it, and the physics professor and myself (as a biology professor) really did not like some of his distortions of science. Behe gave a talk at Roanoke college, and Frank Munley (the physics professor) and myself were allowed a rebuttal period. This was in October of 1998.
Link to my book review for bios magazine (written in July, 1998).) A list of reviews of Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" Link to reviews from Amazon.com
Berra,Tim M.,
EVOLUTION and the Myth of CREATIONISM - A Basic Guide to the
Facts in the Evolution Debate, (Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 1990). I bought this at the UNM bookstore in Albuquerque (spring '92). The author is a biologist at Ohio State University, and he was inspired to write this book after review a draft of the Biology Curriculum for the public schools in Columbus, Ohio. Berra states that "the last straw camem when, on pages 133 and 137 of the handbook, the National Enquirer was quoted as a scientific reference." (from the preface).
Benz,Ernst,
EVOLUTION AND CHRISTIAN HOPE : Man's Concept of the Future from the Early Fathers to Teilhard de Chardin, (Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1968; translated from the German by Heinz G. Franck). This book is a collection of essays about "Christian concepts of creation and eschatology as they have changed throughout history". Some interesting chapters: III. The Expectation of the End of Time and the Doctrine of Evolution in the Middle Ages, V. Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Its Effect upon the Christian Expectation of the End of Time.
Berg, Paul (editor), GENETIC CHEMISTRY: THE MOLECULAR BASIS OF HEREDITY -The Robert A. Welch Foundation Conferences on Chemical Research, (Houston, Texas, 1985). There are several good articles in here about DNA structure, recombination (the molecular mechanism for evolution), and a chapter on site-directed mutagenesis (ch. 18).
Bettex,F.,
SCIENCE AND CHRISTIANITY, (Jennings and Grahm, Cincinnati, OH, 1901). This says "Translated from the German" on the title page, although it provides no further information concerning the original title, author, or date. Probably, the original German text was written in the late 1800's. It is interesting to read about the "recent invention of the telegraph", and the ether which "is much lighter than air". (While it seems strange to think of ether, this was replaced by Einstein's theory of (quantum)
electrodynamics in the early 1900's.) Also mentioned is the fact that 1
atom of Hydrogen combines with 8 of Oxygen to form water (this ratio is
actually correct for a mass ratio), which is now known to be H2O.
It is also interesting to read the viewpoint of history at the turn of
the century, before WWI and WWII. The author argues that while some evolution might have occurred (what some today would term "microevolution"), that man did not evolve, but was divinely created.
Beveridge,W.I.B.,
The Art of Scientific Investigation, (Vintage Books, A Division
of Random House, New York, 1957). I bought this book out of interest of
scientific methodology; both the evolutionists and the creationists accuse
each other of not using "proper scientific methods". Maybe this book will
help.
Bloom, Harold, (David Rosenberg, translator),
THE BOOK OF J, (Vintage Books,
Random House Publishers, New York, 1991). I just finished reading this
(December, 1991). This is the first addition to my collection since I have
moved to Texas. If the fundamentalists saw this, I'm sure they would think
that it is all blasphemy. I'm not enough of a literary critic to evaluate
how true what the authors claim, but I did find this to be interesting
reading. The basic idea is that the first five books of the Bible started
out as a fragment from an author who referred to Jehovah (Yahweh) God.
Hence the title "J" for this fragment. Later on several revisions were
made before these writings became the Torah, then incorporated into the
Hebrew Bible, and then into the Christian Old Testament. Harold Bloom does the interpreting, and sets the scene with an introduction, then there is
the "manuscript of J", (translated by Rosenberg), followed by more commentary from Bloom.
Although this book doesn't deal directly with the creation/evolution conflict, I think this book points out one of the problems with the creationists' position. If in fact the earliest versions of Genesis did not contain the six-day creation story, then its "centralness to Judeo-Christian faith" is undermined. Since much of the original version has been edited and meshed into the final version as we have it, some parts of this earlier version are lost, while some large segments remain intact. Bloom speculates on what the early account of Creation might have been in this first version:
"Yahweh with one word created the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars. He stretched out the skies like a tent cloth to shroud the Deep, and placed his secret court above the skies, founding it upon the Higher Waters. In creating, Yahweh rode above the Deep, which rose against him. Tehom, queen of the Deep, sought to drown out Yahweh's Creation, but he rode against her in his chariot of fire, and bombarded her with hail and with lightning. Yahweh destroyed her vassal Leviathan with one great blow to the monster's skull, while he ended Rahab by thrusting a sword into her heart. The waters fled backward, awed by the voice of Yahweh, and Tehom fearfully surrendered. Yahweh shouted his triumph, and dried up the floods. He set the Moon to divide the seasons, the Sun to divide day and night. Observing Yahweh's victory, the Morning Stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy. Thus the work of Creation was completed." (pages 30-31).
Obviously, such an introduction to Genesis would give the creationists problems.
Bodmer,W.F. and CavalliSforza,L.L.
Genetics, Evolution, and Man, (W.H. Freeman, San Fancisco, 1976). This is a fairly thick text (782 pages) , meant for undergraduates.
Bolles, Edmund Balir, Editor
GALILEO's Commandment - An Anthology of Great Science Writing, (W.H. Freeman, New York, 1997). I bought this at Salem Bookworks in Virginia, and read it in March, 1999. This is an excellent book! I really enjoyed all the essays
by different scientists. It was good to see so many scientists writing
clear essays for the "general reader" describing recent advances in their
field. The earliest was from Herodotus (444 B.C.), but by far most
of the essays were from scientists writing in the 1900's. I have
a much better feel and appreciation for the breadth of science after reading
this book! It was wonderful to read the original articles.
I was quite impressed with Alfred Russel Wallace's essay on evolution.
(link
reviews from Amazon.com)
Bonhoeffer,Dietrich,
Creation and Fall & Temptation, (MacMillan Pub. Co.,New York, 1959; translated from Schöpfung und Fall,
Chr. Kaiser Verlag, Munich, 1937). "These lectures were delivered in the
Winter semester 1932-1933 at the University of Berlin and are now made
public at the request of those who heard them." Dietrich Bonhoeffer was
executed in a German concentration camp for standing up (as a Christian)
against the Nazi government. This book is in many ways similar to some
of St. Augustine's commentary on Genesis; however, Dietrich is writing
with a "modern science" background (e.g., Darwin). He demonstrates deep
yet clear thoughts about the nature of time, the fall of man, and salvation.
"The man whom God has created in His image, that is in freedom, is the man who is formed out of earth. Darwin and Feuerbach themselves could not speak any more strongly. Man's origin is in a piece of earth." (page 46) . . . . "The hand of God portrayed by the picture in the Sistine Chapel reveals more wisdom about the creation than many a deep speculation." (p. 47)
In agreement with St. Augustine (and probably many others) he argues against a literal interpretation of the word "day":
"The day is the first finished work of God. In the beginning God created the day. The day bears all other things, and the world lives amid the changes
of the day. The day possesses its own being, form and power. It is not the rotation of the earth about the sun - which can be understood physically - or the calculable change of light and darkness; the day is something exceeding all of this, something determining the essence of our world and our existence. If it were not such an unsuitable thing to say in this context, we might say that it is what is called a mythological quantity." (p.27).
Bonner, John Tyler,
The Ideas of Biology, (Harper & Brothers,
New York, 1962). This book is mainly about evolution, and its central importance to biology.
Boorstin, Daniel J.
THE DISCOVERERS - A History of Man's Search to Know His World and Himself, (Vintage Books, A Division of Random House, New York, 1983). I read this in July, 1998. This is an excellent history of science and technology. The first "book" is about time, and gives a thorough account of how we arrived at our modern system of years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes and seconds. It is obvious that historically people have thought differently about time than we do today. There is also a chapter (ch. 59) on evolution, but this is weaved into the much larger picture of the flow of history of ideas.
Boorstin, Daniel J.
THE CREATORS - A History of Heroes of the Imagination, (Vintage Books, A Division of Random House, New York, 1993). I read this in December, 1998. Of course, the "Creators" Boorstein is talking about are the artists and writers, but the first couple of chapters are about different creation myths.
Bowler, Peter J.,
CHARLES DARWIN - The Man and His Influence,
(Basil Blackwell, Ltd., Oxford, England, 1990). II read this in November, 2000. This is a good biography of Charles Darwin. Bowler attempts to understand the environment in which Darwin wrote the Origins of the Species. I think one section in particular pretty well sums up the situation that still exists today:
"....The overall success of Darwin's campaign can be measured by the fact that the opponents were increasingly compelled to present alternative theories of how evolution worked. In effect they had given up creationism and conceded the basic point that new species were the transformed products of old ones. Their objections focused on Darwin's particular explanation of how the process worked. The nature of their objections and of their preferred alternatives show us that the real problem with natural selection was its challenge to the belief that the development of life had a structure revealing an underlying divine purpose. To rely on the selection of random variants by environmental pressure was to descend into pure materialism. Only by seeing regular patterns or some other sign of purpose in nature would it be possible to preserve traditional beliefs. The scientific arguments reflect underlying religious concerns, but these in turn reflect the ideological debate that was transforming the Victorian world. Huxley had his scientific doubts about the adequacy of natural selection but he was prepared to go along with Darwinism because he was committed to the view that progress must be the product of the everyday actions of natural forces. For many opponents it was precisely that underlying assumption that was open to question. Evolution might occur, but if it was to be seen as the unfolding of a meaningful diving plan, there must be something visible in the process that could not be reduced to everyday events." (page 307)
Brace, C.L., Montagu, M.F. Ashley,
MAN'S EVOLUTION - An Introduction to Physical Anthropology, (The MacMillian Company, New York, 1965). This is full of "evolutionary material", from the mid-1960's.
"Hence it should come as no surprise that religious thinkers and evolutionary scientists have no basic area of necessary disagreement. In fact, many contributions have been made to the understanding of organic evolution by men who were professionally committed to both religion and science. Much of our knowledge of fossil man in Europe, where more is known of fossil man than in any other region of the world, has been the direct contribution of Roman Catholic priests supported by their church in their pre-historic researches." (pages 1 & 2).
Brace, C. Loring,
The Stages of Human Evolution, (5th edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1995). This is meant as a text for a class in human evolution. It is pretty "up to date", and contains more than 50 pages of references at the end.
Brack, Andre, editor,
The Molecular Origins of Life : Assembling Pieces of the Puzzle,
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999). read this in September, 2000. This is a collection of chapters written by experts in the field of various aspects of abiogenesis. I would highly recommend it for any one interested in the question of how life arose on planet earth. One of the things I learned from reading this is that certain types of "micro-meteorites" contain amino acids and many organic molecules, and furthermore, they can concentrate the amino acids from their surroundings. These tiny meteorites contain amino acids which were formed from simple molecules in space!
Bragg, Melvin
ON GIANTS' SHOULDERS - Great Scientists and their Discoveries from Archimedes
to DNA, (Sceptre books, London, 1998). I read this in May, 1999. This book is based on a BBC series of interviews with famous scientists. It is a discussion about extraordinary discoveries of twelve famous scientists. - Archimedes, Galileo, Newton, Lavoisier, Faraday, Darwin, Poincare, Curie, Freud, Einstein, and Watson and Crick. Bragg gives a very nice historical development and description of the times of the various scientists.
Bragg, Sir William,
Concerning the Nature of Things, (Harper & Brothers,
Publishers, New York, 1925). This is interesting from a historical perspective. Bragg was the head of the lab that Francis Crick and James Watson worked in when they discovered the double helical structure of DNA (in 1953).
Brandon, Robert N., and Burian,R.M., (editors),
Genes, Organisms, Populations - Controversies Over the Units of Selection, (The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
1984). This is an anthology of works about natural selection; it includes
works from biologists and also philosophers.
Brewster, EdwinTenney, CREATION - A History of Non-Evolutionary Theories, (The Bobbs-Merrill Co., Publishers, Indianopolis, 1927). The Author claims in the introduction that this is the first systematic account of creationist's beliefs since Darwin's Origin was published. Interestingly, Brewster points out that "there actually have been no fewer than five theories of creation that are so far incompatible with one another that no two ought to occupy the same mind at the same time. Unless one knows something about them all, and who has held which and when, and which -if any - the Bible teaches, one is hardly in a position to pass intelligently on various disputed matters." (See more comments under "A Snowy Day" above.) "Both the science and the world-view of Aristotle and the Christian Middle Ages collapsed suddenly, between the appearance of Copernicus's De Revolutionibus Orbium
in 1543 and of Newton's Principia in 1687. . . . But in general,
in less than a century altogether, the seven heavens above man's heads
came crashing down about their ears, while the firm set earth under their
feet got up and started running around the sun. Then occurred the most
rapid change of basal opinions in all history. Then, essentially, was our
modern world born."
Briggs, D. and Walters, S.M. Plant Variation and Evolution, (World University Library, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1969). Why is it that people have not problems with evolution of plants?
Brooks, Daniel R. and Wiley, E.O.
Evolution as Entropy, (second edition, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1988). This book is about entropy or "randomness" in evolution.
Brooks, Jim
ORIGINS OF LIFE, (Lion Publishing plc, Herts, England, 1985). I got this book from John Livingstone, when he worked for Lion Press. It is an attempt to teach evolutionary biology to Christians. I think it looks like they're doing a fairly good job - certainly better than the creationist books which take the stand the world is less than 10,000 years old.
I read this in October of 1999. The author states that he is a scientist who also is a Christian, and that he thinks that there's not a conflict between the two. He certainly cites evidence for an "ancient earth", and in fact for Darwinian evolution in general. However, he does make the same kind of argument from improbability of biochemical evolution that is the theme of Michael Behe's book - the odds of a 100 amino acid protein forming by random chances are astronomically impossible. (See my comments on Stuart Kauffman's "The Origin of Order" for more on this.) I would put this book on my list to recommend to people who want to read about evoultion from a theistic perspective.
Brown, Andrew,
THE DARWIN WARS - The Scientific Battle for the Soul of Man,
(Touchstone books, Simon & Schuster UK Ltd., London, 1999). I read this in April, 2000. This book was a good read. My only complaint is that I finished it too soon! Most of the book is about the origins of sociobiology and the opposing views about human consciousness. As an aside, I found Brown's viewpoint of creationism in America is perhaps a good glimpse at the perspective of many people I've talked to here in Europe:
In America there is of course serious (though not intellectually) and well-organised opposition to Darwinism, just as there is a serious and well-organised movement to ensure that teenage children have ready access to automatic weapons and ammunition, and a large body of opinion that holds that all useful science originated in Africa. The sanity or historical plausibility of a message has no necessary correlation with its political importance in American culture. Despite a succession of crushing court victories which have kept `Creation Science' out of publicly funded classrooms, there is a steady quiet pressure which has kept explicit Darwinism out of widely sold textbooks, too. [see Dorothy Nelkin, "The Science Textbook Controversies", Scientific American, 234:33-39, 1976).] Not all of this can be put down to the malign influence of American Protestantism. As much, it seems to me, comes from the profoundly democratic and capitalist nature of America, which holds that everyone has a right to believe what pleases them, especially if there is money to be made out of this belief. The love of truth is the weakest of all human passions, said A.E. Housman, and it does not do much for the popularity of evolutionary biology to point out that this is true. The real enemy of science is not organised religion, but the guerrilla forces of disorganised credulity.
Brown, Arthur I.,
Miracles of Science, (Fundamental Truth Publishers, Findlay,
Ohio, 1945). This is actually my Father's book.
Brosseau, George E., Jr., editor,
Evolution, (Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa, 1967). This is a collection of readings from 21 different evolutionary biologists, ranging from Lamark's "Zoological Philosophy" (published in 1809) through Ernst Mayr's "The Species Problem (published in 1957).
Burkitt, M.C.,
OUR FORERUNNERS A Study of PalÆlithic Man's Civilisations in
Western Europe and the Mediterranean Basin (Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1924). This is an interesting paleontology text (from the 1920's) from the "Home University Library". In flipping through the book, the oldest date I could find was 17,000 years ago. (Compare with several million years ago presently believed for the oldest humanoid remains.
Calladine, C.R. and Drew, H.R.
Understanding DNA: The Molecule and How it Works, (2nd Edition, Academic Press, New York, 1997). I read this in September, 1998. I really enjoyed the first edition of this book, and think this is an excellent book to provide a molecular and structural basis for understanding how the DNA helix is put together. One of the things that really struck me is the description of how the DNA bases will spontaneously form a helix in solution. This has obvious implications for evolution.
Cairns, J., Stent, G.S., Watson, J.D. (editors),
Phage and The Origins of Molecular Biology, (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory of Quantitative Biology, Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, New York, 1966). This book documents the development of a molecular explanation for the basis of life (and its evolution).
Cairns-Smith, A.G.,
EVOLVING THE MIND - On the Nature of Matter and the Origin of Consciousness, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996). "Our minds must be considered among the wonders of the natural world. It seems hardly credible that an organised assemblage of molecules can generate vivid feelings and sensations, yet the brain is such an assemblage and it does . . . So, how does our conscious mind arise from our physical brain? Evolving the Mind examines this question by following two main themes: how theories of the mind have evolved in science and how the mind itself evolved in Nature." from the cover jacket.
Capra, Fritjof,
THE WEB OF LIFE: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems,
(Anchor Books, a division of Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., New York, 1996). I read this in December, 1999. It is a good introduction into "systems thinking". It is along the lines of Stuart Kaufmann and others at the Complexity Instute in Santa Fe. He makes a good point about reductionism:
This triumph of molecular biology resulted in the widespread belief that all biological functions can be explained in terms of molecular structures and mechanisms. Thus most biologists have become fervent reductionists, concerned with molecular details. Molecular biology, originally a small branch of the life sciences, has now become the most pervasive and exclusive way of thinking that has led to a severe distortion of biological research.I agree completely - it is interesting along these lines to note that our bioinformatics group will soon be expanding and changing its name to a "systems biology" group, where we look at more wholistic interactions - modelling bacterial virulence, for example. I work with whole genomes, not merely small bits and pieces of genomes.
At the same time, the problems that resist the mechanistic approach of molecular biology became ever more apparent during the second half of the century. While many biologists know the precise structure of a few genes, they know very little about the ways in which genes communicate and cooperate in the development of an organism. In other words, they know the alphabet of the genetic code, but have almost no idea of its syntax. It is now apparent that most of the DNA - perhaps as much as 95% percent - may be used for integrative activities about which biologists are likely to remain ignorant as long as they adhere to mechanistic models. (pages 77-78).
Carey,George, Archbishop of Canterbury,
WHY I BELIEVE IN A PERSONAL GOD - The Credibility of Faith in a Doubting Culture, (Harold Shaw Publishers, Wheaton,
IL, 1989). As discussed above in the "comments" section, Carey says many things that the creationists are saying about philosophical problems of evolution - while at the same time he quotes many of the modern scientists and talks about biological evolution, the "big bang", and quantum mechanics. I agree with most of what he says, but I'm going to have to go back and read this again and see if I can figure out how he rationalizes the two together.
Chapin,F. Stuart,
An Introduction to the Study of SOCIAL EVOLUTION - The Prehistoric
Period, (The Century Co., New York, 1913). This book is divided
into two parts: the first three chapters consists of Part 1 ORGANIC
EVOLUTION, while chapters 4-9 is Part 2 SOCIAL EVOLUTION; the
title of the last chapter is "The Transition from Tribal Society to Civil
Society". Note that this was written before WW1, when maybe the
future of humanity seemed brighter than it does now.
Chittick, Donald E.,
THE CONTROVERSY - Roots of the Creation-Evolution Conflict,
(Multnomah Press, Portland, Oregon, 1984). This book has a good (?) chapter
on scientific evidence for a young earth. I think the general thrust of
the book is pretty well summed up in the opening two paragraphs:
Notice that "evolution" is assumed to be the opposite of believing that God created life.
Clark, Austin H.,
THE NEW EVOLUTION - Zoogenesis, (The Williams & Wilkins
Company, Baltimore, 1930). The author proposes a "new" theory of evolution,
in which all life evolved from a primitive germ cell. The book starts out
with lots of observations made by the author about life - and then he uses
that as a background for his theory. In a way, his book is kind of like
Darwin's ORIGIN.
All animal types are therefore to be regarded, in their relation to cosmic evolution, simply as varied and varying manifestations of the inherent potentialities of the fundamental substance protoplasm. Such a concept contemplates the animal world as in reality but a single unit finding its expression in an infinity of equations all of which, no matter how complicated they may seem, reduce themselves to the same fundamental term." (page 216).
Of course, today we know that Clark is wrong, and that in fact the basis of heredity is not the cell itself. Maybe Clark hadn't read Morgan's book (see below) yet. This same problem was what led T.D. Lysenko (see below) to believe in acquired characteristics rather than inheritable genetic entities; this mistake might have been understandable in the 1930's, but to hold on to such an obvious belief for another 30 years in spite of obvious evidence to the contrary is one of the greatest disasters to happen to the Soviet Union.
Clark, Ronald W.,
THE SURVIVAL OF CHARLES DARWIN - A Biography of a Man and an
Idea, (Random House, New York, 1984). I bought this book in Feb.
'86 (one mounth before we were married!) This book looks wonderful, but
I still haven't had time to read it (July '91). Only the first third of
the book (THE PREPOSTEROUS THEORY) is actually about Darwin himself
- the second third (DECLINE AND RECOVERY) traces the development
of genetics, and the last section (SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST) is about
the development of molecular biology.
Clark, W.E. Le Gros
THE ANTECEDEDENTS OF MAN - An Introduction to the Evolution of Primates, (Harper Torchbooks, The Science Library, Harper and Row, Publishers, New York, 1959). This is a systematic book about the evolution of primates, with specific chapters based on the evidence from teeth, the skull, the limbs, the digestive system, etc.
Clark, William R.
AT WAR WITHIN - The Double-Edged Sword of Immunity, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997). I read this in July, 1998. In many ways, the immune system is like "mini-evolution" happening. You have reproduction, variety, and selection, all the necessary ingredients for evolution.
Constable, George,
The Neanderthals - The Emergence of Man, (Time-Life Books,
New York, 1973). I got this book from Colleen's parents (they were throwing
away a bunch of old books in the summer of 1990). The title of the first
chapter is "the Ancestor Nobody Wanted", and it talks about Neanderthal
man, and the Genesis account.
Crick,Francis,
LIFE ITSELF - Its Origin and Nature, (Simon and Schuster,
New York, 1981). This contains Crick's "Panspermia theory" - that life
evolved on earth from bacteria seed sown from an advanced civilization
on the other side of the universe. This is one book that both Creationists
and Evolutionists can easily agree on: it's silly, even if Crick did win
receive Nobel prize (along with Jim Watson and Maurice Wilkins) for discovering
the double helix structure of DNA.
Crick,Francis,
WHAT MAD PURSUIT - A Personal View of Scientific Discovery,
(Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, New York, 1988). I think my Boss still
has my copy of this book. Crick talks about his discovery of the double
helix, and he talks some about his strong skepticism of anything supernatural.
After I read this book, I had a discussion with a technician in Iain's
lab (Robin). I told her that I had actually asked Francis Crick whether
or not he believed in God, and that he told me that it "depended on one's
definition of God". He certainly didn't believe in the Christian fundamentalist
concept of God. He said he was more of an agnostic than an actual atheist.
Upon hearing this, Robin said "don't you feel sorry for him, (because he's
going to hell was implied). I said that I feel like I'm responsible for
myself, and I really don't know (or want to know) who is going to heaven
(or hell). She said that was very selfish of me (which she might be right),
and a long discussion ensued. I should mention that the reason I asked
Crick this question was that a student in our college Sunday School class
(this was in Abq, I think around '85) asked to pray for the campus, that
people wouldn't "be deceived by this ardent humanist who is coming to campus"
to speak; his name was Francis Crick.
Crile, George,
THE PHENOMENA OF LIFE A Radio-Electric Interpretation, (W.W.
Norton & Company, Inc., New York, 1936). I think this book might be
a predecessor to some of the morphogenetic field theories that many people
think are new. It seems that Crile argues that there must be more to an
individual than just the atoms that make up its structure. In this sense,
I think that it is good for biologists to think about how much they can
really explain (or what they can't) from a purely reductionist point of
view. (See comments under "The Cosmic Blueprint", by Paul Davies, for more
on this.)
Criswell,W.A.,
Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally True, (Broadman
Press, Nashville, Tennessee, 1969). This contains 2 chapters (13,14) which
represent what is typically taught by Fundamentalist Christians about Evolution
and Creationism. In the chapter entitled "God? Yes! Atheistic Evolution?
No!", Criswell make the argument that since Freud believed in Lamarckian
genetics (e.g., the theory of acquired characteristics, which now is known
to be generally, but not completely, false), and Darwin believed in Mendelian
genetics (e.g., inheritance through random segregation of chromosomal material,
although Mendel's work was not fully appreciated until the early 1900's),
therefore all of the scientific community is confused about evolution.
Therefore (he implies) science actually supports that the earth was created
in 4004 BC by the YHWH God of the Christian fundamentalists. My contention
is that this same type of reasoning could be argued equally well to support
the idea that Buddha created the earth (by fiat) on the back of a very
large tortoise. As Darwin pointed out, the creationists can not "prove"
that science supports their position merely by pointing out an inconsistency
in the evolutionary theory. Also, Criswell seems to confuse the (scientific)
term "species" with the word "kind" as used in the Hebrew scriptures. "Within
a species, there can be great variety. Mutation is always possible and
is one of God's delightful secrets. We may see such an example in the dog
family. We have many different kinds of dogs. . . yet they are all dogs.
That is a mutation. But if a dog should produce a hippopotamus and if a
hippopotamus should produce a giraffe that would be transmutation [of the
species], and transmutation the Bible forever forbids. . . No living thing
has ever violated that mandate of God that like produces like." (p.143-144).
First, he is correct in reference to the "dog" family. However, he seems
to confuse the dog family (Canidae, which includes wolves and foxes)
with a particular species (?) or maybe the genus for the common dog (Canis)
of which there are eight species, including the domestic dog (Canis
familiaris). Secondly, I don't buy his strong assertion that like must
always produce like. I think there is strong evidence to the contrary.
For example, consider Darwin's (and Criswell's) argument that breeding
of dogs has produced different species of dogs (but still in the
dog family).
Crowe, Michael J.,
Theories of the World from Antiquity to the Copernican Revolution,
(Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1990). I bought this book as a Christmas
present to myself ($5.95) for Christmas '90.
"One way to describe this book is to offer, as was common among eighteenth-century authors, an extended title: A Selective History, Employing Elementary Geometrical Methods and Passages from the Writings of Ptolemy and Copernicus, of Theories of the Planetary System from Antiquity to 1615. A briefer if more ambiguous title would be: Given the Evidence in 1615, Which Theory of the Planetary System (the Ptolemaic, Copernican, Tychonic, etc.) Was Most Deserving of Support at That Time?" (from the preface).
I think the same is true for evolution; while many people believe in evolution,
few can site evidence the evidences that led to their conviction.
"It is an irony of current educational practice that whereas everyone believes
the earth orbits the sun, few persons can cite the evidences that led to
this conviction."
Darwin, Charles,
The Formation of Vegetable Mould, through the Action of Worms, with
Observations on Their Habits, (The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, 1985). This is a facsimile of the 1881 edition. I have read somewhere
that Darwin's book "on worms" is actually an important and carefully thought
out work - that while some people were sitting around debating about it,
Darwin showed that through gradual processes, the worms literally changed
the ground underneath. (Or something like that; anyway, if I ever have
the time I would like to read this for myself.)
Darwin, Charles,
The Voyage of the Beagle, (Doubleday & Co., New York,
1962). This was originally published in 1845. This book contains Darwin's
description of his famous voyage in which he made many discoveries that
led to his theory described in The Origin of the Species.
Darwin,Charles,
The Origin of Species, (Penguin Books, Ltd., Harmondsworth,
Middlesex, England, 1981). This is the first edition, (1859), and was sold
out even before it was published. I was surprised when I read this. I guess
I had expected Darwin to lash out at the Creationists, but instead I found
a very carefully constructed case, based on observations, and often well
known examples, of how one species might evolve into another. It is amazing
to me, that 100 years after Darwin has written this book, people still
argue that there is not a single documented case of one species changing
into another. Darwin's attack against the Creationists is often simply
the fact that such a belief cannot add to scientific knowledge.
I was also surprised that Darwin devoted an entire chapter (Ch. 9) to the imperfections of the geological record, and carefully explains why we should not expect to find the "missing links". I had always heard that Darwin said that plenty of evidence would be found by future excavations. Finally, I'm not sure how Darwin's theme of Natura non facit saltum fits in with Stephen J. Gould's punctuated equilibrium.
Darwin,Charles,
The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation
of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, (Collier Books, New
York, 1978). This is the sixth edition (1872), containing several differences
from the first edition, including refutations of some of the arguments
raised against previous editions, and also some new material. This was
the last revision by Darwin.
Darwin,Charles,
The Autobiography of CHARLES DARWIN 1809-1882,(W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1969). I have heard preachers say that Darwin recanted the theory of evolution in his autobiography. I guess I'll have to read
it and see.
Darwin,Charles,
The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, (Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1981). First published in 1871.
This is the first time that Darwin actually mentions that man and ape have
a common ancestor, but the controversy was already going strong by the
time this came out. This is probably one of the most significant books
in the collection (?).
note: see also under "Hyman" and "Ridley" for collections of Darwin's works.
Davies, Paul,
GOD & THE NEW PHYSICS, (Simon and Schuster, New York,
1983). I bought this after I had read THE COSMIC BLUEPRINT.
A friend of mine, who belongs to Inter-Varsity Christian fellowship, strongly
recommended reading this book a few years ago, and as is often the case,
I borrowed it for a few weeks and then returned it unread. Anyway, now
I am reading it, and I can see the significance.
"These days most cosmologists and astronomers back the theory that there was indeed a creation, about eighteen billion years ago, when the physical universe burst into existence in an awesome explosion known as the 'big bang'. There are many strands of evidence to support this astonishing theory. Whether one accepts all the details or not, the essential hypothesis - that there was some sort of creation - seems, from the scientific point of view, compelling. The reason stems directly from a large body of scientific evidence that is encompassed by the most universal law of physics known - the second law of thermodynamics. . ." (p. 10)
"The belief that the universe as a whole must have a cause, that cause being
God, was enunciated by Plato and Aristotle, developed by Thomas Aquinas,
and reached its most cogent form with Gottfried Willhelm von Leibniz and
Samuel Clarke in the eighteenth century. It is usually known as the cosmological argument for the existence of God. . .(p. 33) "The nearest that science has come to falsifying the claim that every event has a cause is quantum mechanics. (p. 34)
Davies quotes St. Augustine as saying that" 'The world and time had one beginning. The world was made, not in time, but simultaneously with time.' This is a remarkable anticipation of modern scientific cosmology considering the completely erroneous ideas of space and time that were current in Augustine's day." (p. 38). The quote is from The City of God, which I have not read, but maybe should add to my collection.
"If time
belongs to the physical universe, and is subject to laws of physics,it
must be included in the universe that God is supposed to have created.
But what does it mean to say that God caused time to come into existence, when by our usual understanding of causation a cause must precede its effect? Causation is a temporal activity." (p. 44) . . .
Davies then goes on to argue that in fact the creation of the universe appears
to violate the second law of thermodynamics, and mentions the belief that
God "wound up the universe", and that it has been going downhill ever since.
"We now know that this is wrong. The primeval state was not one of maximum organization but one of simplicity and equilibrium. The apparent conflict of this fact and the second law of thermodynamics has only recently been resolved. The problem is that the second law applies only to isolated systems. Now it is physically impossible to isolate anything from gravity - there are no gravity shields, and even if there were the system concerned could not escape its own gravity. . ." Davies argues "nobody really knows whether or not the second law of thermodynamics applies to gravity.", and that
the initial state of the universe can be explained in terms of gravity,
with no need for God to 'wind up the clock'. (p. 51).
"In the case of living systems, nobody would deny that an organism is a collection of atoms. The mistake is to suppose that it is nothing but a collection of atoms. Such a claim is as ridiculous as asserting that a Beethoven symphony is nothing but a collection of notes or that a Dickens novel is nothing but a collection of words. The property of life, the theme of a tune or the plot of a novel are what have been called 'emergent' qualities. They only emerge at the collective level of structure, and are simply meaningless at the component level. The component description does not contradict the holistic description; the two points of view are complementary, each valid at their own level." (p. 62)
"None of this, of course, rules out a creative God, but it does suggest that
divine action may be no more necessary for biology than it is for, say,
producing the rings of Saturn or the surface features of Jupiter. We
either see the evidence of God everywhere, or nowhere. Life is not,
it would seem exceptionally different from other complex organized structures,
except perhaps in degree. Our ignorance of the origin of life leaves plenty
of scope for divine explanations, but that is a purely negative attitude,
invoking 'the God-of-the-gaps' only to risk retreat at a later date in
the face of scientific advance. Instead, let us regard life, not as an
isolated miracle in an otherwise clockwork universe, but as an integral
part of the cosmic miracle." (p. 70).
Davies,Paul,
THE COSMIC BLUEPRINT - New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability
to Order the Universe, (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1988). I
think this book has had a great influence on my thinking on the matter
of creationism/evolution. I realized how much of a reductionist I had become,
and some of the shortcomings of such a view. This book has helped shape
some of my thinking about DNA structure, and how it might be modelled using
fractals, and how that there is more to an organism than simply the sum
of the chemical parts. (Paul Davies is a theoretical physicist at University
of Newcastle upon Tyne, England, and I have heard that he is a Christian,
although his view of God might be different from that of a Fundamentalist.
Davies, Paul
THE FIFTH MIRACLE - The Search for the Origin of Life, (Penguin Books, London, 1998). I read this in July, 1999. Davies discusses the possibility that the first life came from underground, rather than living on the surface. He also discusses the possibility of bacteria in Martian meteriotes. He seems to think that the constants of the universe are such that life is likely to form.
Dawkins,Richard,
The Selfish Gene, (Oxford University Press, New York, 1976).
Dawkin's view of organisms as nothing more than vessels to hold DNA.
"To
be strict, this book should be called not The Selfish Cistron nor
The Selfish Chromosome, but The slightly selfish big bit of chromosome
and the even more selfish bit of the chromosome." (p. 35) . . .
I find this extreme reductionist view to be very depressing. But I, by faith,
believe in God who creates and gives purpose to life.
"Natural
selection in its most general form means the differential survival of entities
[genes] . . It was the great achievement of Gregor Mendel to show that
hereditary units can be treated in practice as indivisible and independent
particles. Nowadays we know that this is a little too simple. . . . A gene
is not indivisible, but it is seldom divided. It is either definitely present
or definitely absent in the body of any given individual. A gene travels
intact from grandparent to grandchild, passing straight through the intermediate
generation without being merged with other genes. If genes continually
blended with each other, natural selection as we now understand it would
be impossible. Incidentally, this was proved in Darwin's lifetime,
and it caused Darwin great worry since in those days it was assumed that
heredity was a blending process. Mendel's discovery had already been published,
and it could have rescued Darwin, but alas he never knew about it; nobody
seems to have read it until years after Darwin and Mendel had both died.
Mendel perhaps did not realize the significance of his findings, otherwise
he might have written Darwin." (p. 36). . .
"Genes,
like diamonds, are forever, but not quite in the same way as diamonds.
It is an individual diamond crystal which lasts, as an unaltered pattern
of atoms. DNA molecules don't have that kind of performance. The life of
any one physical DNA molecule is quite short - perhaps a matter of months,
certainly not more than one lifetime. But a DNA molecule could theoretically
live in the form of copies of itself for a hundred million years.
Moreover, just like the ancient replicators in the primeval soup, copies
of a particular gene may be distributed all over the world. The difference
is that the modern versions are all neatly packaged inside the bodies of
survival machines." (p. 37).
Dawkins, Richard,
THE BLIND WATCHMAKER - Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, (W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1987). This book (like many others in my collection) looks very interesting. This work thoroughly documents arguments against Paley's "watchmaker" analogy. See the comments from my "journal".
Dawkins, Richard,
THE EXTENDED PHENOTYPE - The Long Reach of the Gene, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1982). This book is "a personal look aat the evolution of life, and in particular the logic around natural selection and the level in the Hierarch of life at which natural selection can be said to act." - from the preface. There is a quote from Richard Dawkins on the cover that says "It doesn't matter if you never read anything else of mine, please at least read this".
Dawkins, Richard
CLIMBING MOUNT IMPROBABLE, (W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1997). I read this in November, 1997. Dawkins provides detailed explanations for possible paths of evolution of such complex organs as the eye.
Dawkins, Richard
UNWEAVING THE RAINBOW - Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for Wonder, (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1998). I read this in November, 1998. In some ways, this book reads like someone who has been in the field for a long time, looking back on the past. I think that Dawkins was surprised that so many people hated "The Selfish Gene". I know that I found it pretty depressing, when I read it, in the late 1970's. The thing is, in this light it's no wonder that the sales for Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" is so high - which would you rather read - that life has a purpose, designed by God, or that there's no meaning at all to life? However, Dawkin's science is good, though sometimes exagerated, and in the case of "The Selfish Gene", there were many errors that were corrected in the new edition. In contrast Behe misses a lot of points that he should have been aware of. However, I still think that I can accept the science of evolution without necessarily having to say that there is no meaning to life. This is part of what Dawkins is trying to say in this book, in a way, I think.
de Chardin, Pierre Tielhard,
The Future of Man, (Harper Colophon Books, Harper & Row, Publishers, New York, 1964). deChardin was a Jesuit
Priest at the University of Paris in the 1920s, who taught evolution to his students. All of nature, including man, is evolving toward the headship of Christ, which deChardin calls the "omega point".
de Chardin, Pierre Tielhard,
The Phenomenon of Man, (Harper Colophon
Books, Harper & Row, Publishers, New York, 1965). deChardin believes
that man should take control of his own destiny. One of the interesting
aspects of this for me as a molecular biologist, is that deChardin organized
and was the head for the C.N.R.S. in France, which is today one of the
leading centers for genetic engineering studies, home of Pierre Chambon,
a very famous molecular biologist. I have heard rumors that the French
are working on genetically designing a human being. This kind of research
bothers me, although I have to admit that I know similar types of things
are going on in here in the U.S. at Los Alamos National Labs. (In fact,
when I was in Albuquerque, I considered a job working 2 miles underground
on a secret human-mouse chromosome hybrid project. This was in the mid-80's,
when Reagan was talking about winning a nuclear war. (The whole thing is
really quite frightening. I had one scientist tell me that if we were to
survive a nuclear war, we must learn to genetically engineer humans to
survive the radioactivity damage to the chromosome.)
DeHaan, M.R.,
The Chemistry of the Blood, (Zondervan Books, Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1980).
"The Bible is the infallibly inspired revelation of God concerning Himself and His creation. Since He made everything that was made, He is the last and final authority on that which He made. Whether the Bible speaks of salvation, or astronomy, or psychology, or physiology, or anatomy, or geology, or history, or medicine, or surgery, or chemistry, or any other branch of science, it speaks with infallible authority.I'm not sure I buy all of that, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
"How is it that Moses who was schooled for forty years in Egyptian philosophy and the sciences never incorporated any of the now discredited Egyptian superstitions in the books he wrote? In Moses' day people taught that a great man carried the earth on his shoulders and when the man sneezed there was an earthquake. But the Bible declared 3500 years ago, He hangeth the earth on nothing. That was scientific. In Moses' day the practice of medicine, if it can be called that, was a mere mess and mass of superstition, boiling of toads' skins and demon incantations. Yet Moses, who was schooled in these superstitions, wrote the most scientific treatise on modern medicine, hygiene and sanitation the world has ever known. Today in our ultra-scientific age we have not added one thing or been able to improve ton a single regulation Moses gave to the children of Israel concerning the handling of contagious diseases or the method of surgery." (pages 77-78).
de Santillana,Girogio,
The Crime of Galileo, (Time Reading Program Special Edition, Time Incorporated, New York, 1962). The author claims that Galileo wanted to try and integrate the works of Copernicus (published 70 years previous with ecclesiastical condemnation) and his own observations "into the philosophical and educational system which was identified with the Church." (from the preface). de Santillana also argues that had Galileo tried a few centuries earlier, "he would have the churchmen far more receptive." Many people have made analogies between Galileo and creation science.
Dembski, William A.,
INTELLIGENT DESIGN - The Bridge Between Science & Theology,
(InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1999). I read this book in February, 2001. The "Bridge" in the title is meant to be a serious, scientific link between science in theology, restoring theology to its proper place as the "Queen of Sciences". Dembski has developed a statistical test to measure "Intelligent Design". To be honest, I was a bit afraid that a book written by a mathematician would be full of equations and difficult to understand. However, I found it quite easy to read. (After all, this book has an intended audience of the "general reader".)
In the first chapter ("Recognizing the Divine Finger"), he talks quite a bit about the Bible and how people would ask God for signs, and what types of signs are valid. Essentially Dembski thinks he's found a way to PROVE that there MUST have been something outside of nature responsible for "specified complexity". Dembski advocates going back to the "pre-modern" view of the world.
Link to more comments on this book.
Dennett, Daniel C.
DARWIN'S DANGEROUS IDEA : Evolution and the Meanings of Life, (Touchstone Books, New York, 1996). I read this book in the spring of 1996. I think it was quite good, although he began to repeat himself after awhile. The general thrust of the book is that Darwin's "Dangerous Idea" is that perhaps the human brain could have evolved, and we can explain the development of human thought capabilities in terms of small gradual imporvements to the brain - and people were opposed to Darwin because this explanation is somehow insulting to most people. He spends quite a bit of time blasting Roger Penrose, who has written a different view of the origins of conciousnes than Dennett's "Consciousness Explained". I think Dennett has some good ideas in the book, but that it could have been a bit thinner (it was 672 pages long!).
Denton, Michael,
EVOLUTION: A Theory in Crisis, (Adler & Adler, Bethesda,
Maryland, 1986). I obtained this book through an advertisement from "The
Conservative Book Club", which claimed that this provides devastating evidence
for evolution. Although I have not read this entirely, I don't think
the author is making a case for Creationism, either. This is (yet) another
example of the classic creationist argument that since someone criticizes
evolution, then it must obviously follow that the worlds had to
have been created 4004 BC, 23 September, at 10:00 a.m. (it was a Thursday,
I've been told).
Diamond, Jared
The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee - How our animal heritage
affects the way we live, (Vintage books, London, 1992). I read this in April, 1999. This is a sobering book about our "animal roots". It was interesting to read the chapter about world genocides (chapter 16), and then read in the newspapers about what's presently going on in Kosovo. It is both disturbing and sad to realise that in fact genocide happens much more often than we want to admit.
On a more positive note, I really liked Diamonds example of how languages change with time. He used as an example a section of the 23rd Psalm (pages 230-231):
Modern (1989):
The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing.
He lets me lie down in green pastures.
He leads me to still waters.King James Bible (1611):
The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures.
He leadeth me beside the still waters.Middle English (1100-1500):
Our Lord gouerneth me, and nothyng shal defailen to me.
In the sted of pasture he sett me ther.
He norissed me upon water of fyllyng.Old English (800-1066):
Drihten me raet, ne byth me nanes godes wan.
And he me geset on swythe good feohland.
And fedde me be waetera stathum.
Diamond, Jared
GUNS, GERMS and STEEL - A Short History of Everybody for the Last 13,000 Years, (Vintage Books, A Division of Random House UK, London, 1997). I read this in June, 1998. Jared Diamond is an excellent writer, and this book won the pulitzer prize. The basic idea is that the reason that Western Europe dominated the recent world history is because of their particular geographic location allowed for the development of cities, which then led to the development of technology. The "germs" aspect comes from the fact that living in close quarters with farm animals meant that the Europeans were subjected to much higher levels of infections, and had to develop immune systems to deal with this. So when the Europeans came to the Americas, for example, they unknowlingly brought all their lethal germs with them.
Dillon, Lawrence S.,
EVOLUTION - Concepts and Consequences, (2nd edition, The C.V. Mosby Company, St. Louis, 1978). This is an undergraduate text book for evolution, with 21 chapters (nearly 500 pages long). The first two chapters deal with the "basic concepts", and discuss the growth of the concept of evolution.
Ditfurth, Hoimar v.,
THE ORIGINS OF LIFE - Evolution as Creation, (Harper
& Row, Publishers, San Francisco, 1982). This is an English translation
(by Peter Heinegg) from the #1 German bestseller, Wir sind nicht nur
von dieser Welt: Naturwissenschaft, Religion und die Zukunft des Menschen.
I think this is perhaps one of the best synthesis between the two theories
that I have read. Ditfurth points out theological problems with the Creationists,
and says that Christians should be amazed that the miracle of evolution
occurred, rather than claiming that "God is what we don't know".
Dodson, Edward O., and Dodson, Peter
EVOLUTION - Process and Product, (2nd edition, D. Van Nostrand Company, New York, 1976). This is another undergraduate text book for evolution. "Evolution is a much misunderstood subject. Popular ideas about evolution often bear only a tenuous and misleading relationship to the subject as it is understood by evolutionary biologists. A brief definition would be insufficient to correct these misconceptions. . . ." from the preface to part 1.
Dobzhansky, Theodosius,
GENETICS AND THE ORIGINS OF THE SPECIES, (2nd edition, Columbia
University Press, New York, 1941). This is a "classic" book on the molecular
mechanism (genetics) of mutations and evolution.
Dobzhansky,Theodosius, Ayala,Francisco J., Stebbins,G. Ledyard, Valentine,James W.
EVOLUTION, (W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1977). This is a fairly thick (573 pages) undergraduate text book for evolution, written by a team of experts from the University of California at Davis. "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." - Th. Dobzhansky, 1973. This quote is at the beginning of the text.
Dubos, René,
LOUIS PASTEUR - Free Lance of Science, (Da Cappo Press, Inc.,
New York, 1960). I am presently reading this book (July '91). It
was chosen for this collection because Pasteur was supposedly a "creationist"
- according to Chittick (see above), Morris (see below), and other creationists.
"As early as 1859, the year of publication of the Origin of Species,
Pasteur had entered into the thick fight over the origin of life. It has
been suggested that he immediately took sides against those who claimed
to have demonstrated spontaneous generation because, as a devout Catholic,
he could not accept the thought of a new creation of life. This interpretation
is certainly unwarranted. A few years before, Pasteur himself had attempted
to create life by the action of asymmetrical physical and chemical forces,
but his studies on fermentation had more recently led him to emphasise
the specific nature of the fermentative reactions - a concept incompatible
with the haphazard appearance of microorganisms which seemed to be a consequence
of the doctrine of spontaneous generation. At that time, the specificity
of living species had already become associated with the idea of the continuity
of the germ cell, and it would have been very astonishing had this relationship
failed to operate among the 'infinitely small'. The idea of specificity,
born of the work on fermentation, involved the concept of hereditary characters,
which in turn led to the belief in an ordinary kind of generation." (page
166).
" 'God
as author of life would then no longer be needed. Matter would replace
Him. God would need be invoked only as author of the motions of the world
in the Universe.'" (pages 395-396).
" 'This
is why the problem of spontaneous generation is all-absorbing, and all-important.
It is the very problem of life and of its origin. To bring about spontaneous
generation would be to create a germ. It would be creating life; it would
be to solve the problem of its origin. It would mean to go from matter
to life through conditions of environment.
Duncan, David Ewing,
CALENDAR - Humanity's Epic Struggle to Determine a True and Accurate Year,
(Avon Books, Inc., New York, 1998). I read this in January, 2000. It is a very interesting history of the concept of time - how we wound up with a 7-day week, and 24 hours in a day. I guess I had not really thought about it before, but the idea of defining exactly what an hour (or day) is, has only fairly recently been established. I enjoyed the history of the development of clocks, and their relationship with the church in order to be able to tell people when to pray - and also the larger picture of how frustrated the church was in not being able to accurately figure out when Easter was.
Dunn, L.C.,
GENETICS IN THE 20th CENTURY - Essays on the Progress of Genetics
During Its First 50 Years, (The MacMillan Company, New York, 1951).
"This volume is a compilation of the invitation papers presented at the
program of the Golden Jubilee of Genetics at Ohio State University, Columbus,
Ohio, September 11-14, 1950. The celebration was in honour of the fiftieth
anniversary of the rediscovery of Mendel's work which marked the beginning
of the science of genetics." This is 3 years before Watson and Crick published
their paper on DNA structure, beginning the era of "molecular biology";
There is a chapter on "Chemical Genetics" by George Beadle, where he readily
admits that not much is known, and that "No one yet knows how the peptide
linkage that binds adjacent amino acid components of a protein is established
in a living organism and no one yet knows the sequence of amino acid components
of even the simplest protein." (page 225) At this point in time, it was
commonly accepted that proteins contained the genetic material, and that
nucleic acids were merely structural components. There are three chapters
mainly about evolution (out of 26). The last chapter is by Julian Huxley,
entitled "Genetics, Evolution, and Human Destiny". Huxley argues that we
as humans are in charge of our own fate and should act now to control our
evolution of the future. I tend to disagree for theological and philosophical
reasons.
Dyson, Freeman,
IMAGINED WORLDS (Jerusalem-Harvard Lectures),
(Harvard University Press, 1998). The main reason I decided to include this book here is chapter 4, on evolution. Dyson is a physicist, and so is looking at things from a different perspective than biologists. I really liked his idea of looking at evolutionary time in terms of orders of magnitude - just like physicists look at various physical objects - some are very large (e.g., galaxies), and some are very very small (like atoms). I think the idea of a BILLION years of evolution is really difficult to grasp.
In chapter 3 ("Technology")Dyson discusses J.B.S. Haldane's book, Dædalus, or Science and the Future. Haldane was not too optimistic about the use of science: "The tendency of applied science is to magnify injustices until they become too intolerable to be borne, and the average man, whom all the prophets and poets could not move, turns at last and extinguishes evil at its source." However, the technology which Haldane expected would have the most profound shocks to human society would come from biology - in particular the genetic engineering of microbes which would invade the oceans and replace agriculture as a source of food, and the technology of ectogenesis which would replace motherhood as a source of babies. Neither of these have happened - yet.
Dyson, Freeman J.,
Origins of Life,
(2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, 1999). I read this in November, 1999. Dyson believes that life probably started as metabolism. (That is, the precursors to the first cells were replicating metabolic cycles.)
...There are accordingly two logical possibilities for life's origins. Either life began only once, with the functions of replication and metabolism already present in rudimentary form and linked together from the beginning, or life began twice, with two separate kinds of creatures, one kind capable of metabolism without exact replication and the other kind capable of replication without metabolism. If life began twice, the first beginning must have been with molecules resembling proteins, and the second beginning with molecules resembling nucleic acids. The first protein creatures might have existed independently for a long time, eating and growing and gradually evolving a more and more efficient metabolic apparatus. The nucleic acid creatures must have been obligatory parasites from the start, preying upon the protein creatures and using the products of protein metabolism to achieve their own replication.
The main theme of this book will be a critical examinationof the second possibility, the possibility that life began twice. . . (pages 9-10).
Eaton, Theodore H.
EVOLUTION, (W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., New York, 1970). This is an undergraduate text book for evolution. "Evolutionary biology is as wide as the world of animals and plants, past and present. There is little likelihood that our ideas about it will ever become stereotyped or that our knowledge will be complete. . . " from the preface.
Edey,Maitland A., Johanson,Donald C.,
BLUEPRINTS - Solving the Mystery of Evolution,
(Penguin Books, New York, 1989). This book received good reviews in the
New York Times Book Review; it takes a historical approach to "solving
the mystery of evolution". See the comments above. I read this in January, 1991.
Einstein, Albert,
SIDELIGHTS ON RELATIVITY, (Dover Publications, Inc., New
York, 1983). This is "an unabridged and unaltered republication of the
translation by G.B. Jeffery & W. Perrett, published by E.P.Dutton &
Co., in 1922. This book deals with some of the philosophical ideas and
implications of relativity. In his address to the Prussian Academy of Sciences
in 1921, Einstein talked about the relationship of mathematics to "reality":
"At
this point an enigma presents itself which in all ages has agitated inquiring
minds. How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human
thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate
to the objects of reality? Is human reason, then, without experience, merely
by taking thought, able to fathom the properties of real things.
"In my
opinion the answer to this question is, briefly, this: - As far as the
laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far
as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. It seems to me that
complete clearness as to this state of things first became common property
through that new departure in mathematics which is known by the name of
mathematical logic or "Axiomatics." . . . (page 28)
See more
on this under Gödel,Kurt.
Eiseley, Loren,
The Unexpected UNIVERSE, (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers,
San Diego, 1964). This is a collection of philosophical science essays,
some of which came from talks given to a "general audience". I glanced
through them and it looks interesting, (yet) another book to read. Although
the title implies a subject that might be related to the creationism/evolution
issue, I'll have to spend more time and read it and see.
Eldredge, Niles,
THE MONKEY BUSINESS, A Scientist Looks at Creationism, (Washington
Square Press, Published by Pocket Books, New York, 1982). ". . . For creation-science isn't science at all, nor have creation scientists managed to come up with even a single intellectually compelling, scientifically testable statement about the natural world. At least ninety-five percent of all of their reams of privately-published books and pamphlets are devoted to an attack on
conventional science - the prevailing ideas of astronomy, geology, biology,
and anthropology. . ." (page 80).
Eldredge, Niles
FOSSILS - The Evolution and Extinction of Species, (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1991). I read this in February, 1998. This is a "coffee-table book", with lots of nice colour pictures.
Elderedge, Niles
REINVENTING DARWIN - The Great Evolutionary Debate, (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1995). I read this in the summer of 1995, and thoroughly enjoyed it. I think Elderedge is a good writer, and puts into perspective the debate between the punctuated equilibrium people (including himself and Stephen Jay Gould) and the "ultra-Darwinists" (for example, Richard Dawkins). He likens the current argument to a food fight at high table at one of the colleges at Oxford or Cambridge. I can just see something like this happening at St. Johns college in Oxford (home of Richard Dawkins). I really wanted to use this as a text for my Introductory Biology course, but the paperback version wasn't available in the U.S. at the time, and the book would have cost the students about $30 - which I thought too much for a supplemental text. However, I would happily recommend this to anyone interested in learning more about the "debate" between Gould and Dawkins.
Eldredge, Niles
LIFE IN THE BALANCE - Humanity and the Biodiversity Crisis, (Princeton University Press, Princeton New Jersey, USA, 1998). I bought this at a sale at the Danish Technical University bookstore, and read it in April, 1999. Niles Elderidge makes a very convincing argument that we are in the beginnings of the "Sixth Extinction", and this one is different in that it is being caused by man - in particular by the destruction of the ecosystems that most animals and plant need. Before, animals and plants could migrate with changing environmental conditions, but now they're becoming extinct because there isn't any place left for them to go! Having read this book right after Diamond's book, I must admit that I'm concerned whether humans can manage to prevent the destruction of the rest of the tropical rainforests. I'm also concerned that
we might one day push the system too far, and all of the sudden realise
that we are in fact still part of the earth's biosphere, and how much we
depend on other species. Eldredge estimates that we depend on about
40,000 different species EACH DAY for our existence!
Elderidge, Niles
The Pattern of Evolution, (W.H. Freeman, New York, 1998). I read this in March, 1999. Niles Elderidge picks up where he left off in "Reinventing
Darwin" and "Fossils: The Evolution and Extinction of Species", and takes
the reader on a tour of the history of evolution. I thoroughly enjoyed
this book. He starts off with admitting he caught himself at one
moment contemplating whether Richard Dawkins might actually have been correct
in his "selfish gene" theory about evolution. "My God, Richard Dawkins
must be right after all!" he exclaims on the first page. But soon
he calms down, takes a deep breath, and looks at the larger picture.
He argues (convincingly, in my opinion) that evolution does not occur all
the time, and that in fact species are quite stable and will last for millions
of years, until some sort of environmental event happens which wipes out
not only species but entire ecosystems as well. Most of the time,
if there's a local change in the environment, the species could simply
move. But sometimes events happen which results in extinction (in
fact, the species today represent less than 1% of all species that have
ever existed). Evolution occurs from the survivors of extinction,
radiating to fill in new niches. This is Darwinian evolution, but
not quite the gradual improvement often taught by the "Ulta-Darwinists".
I found this book a delight to read, and thought he did an excellent job
of summarising the history of the attempts to unite evolution with modern
genetics. (link
to reviews from Amazon.com)
Eldredge, Niles,
THE TRIUMPH OF EVOLUTION, and the Failure of Creationism,
(W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, 2000). I read this book in July, 2000. I have to admit, I am a big fan of Niles Eldredge, and so looked forward to reading this book. I was not disappointed. Eldredge spends the first half of the book simply explaining the story of evolution - how science works, and what evidence there is for evolution, in terms of the abundant geological record and also the abundant genetic evidence for descent from a common ancestor. Then in the second half of the book, he systematically goes through the Creationist attacks on evolution, including the so-called "Intelligent Design" movement, which I consider "neo-Creationismism". Eldredge points out that at least Phillip Johnson is being honest when he clearly states that this is a Christian movement, whereas some of the more recent Intelligent Design crowd want to substitute an "Intelligent Something" for the Designer. This is not "science", when one says that because it is so complicated it MUST have been CREATED by an "Intelligent Designer". This does not really answer any questions from a scientific point of view.
Eldredge knows about the Creationists from personal experience - he tells of his surprise to discover that he was being quoted in the Creationists literature as saying that evolution has not happened. It turns out that someone had taken a comment completely out of context (at best) and distorted it to suit their purposes. I couldn't agree more with his comments about the creationists:
"Creationists hear what they want to hear because they believe what they want to believe. They obviously think that all this is fair in both love and war, and they see this as a culture war. But somehow I persist in the apparently quaint belief that lying, cheating, and distortion are inherently unchristian." (page 134).
Epp, Theodore H.,
Nuggets from Genesis, (Back to the Bible Publishers,
Lincoln Nebraska, 1951). This is a collection of radio sermons. It is interesting
in that Epp obviously believes that the world is 6000 years old, he really
does not mention it in the chapter on Genesis 1. Instead, he draws an analogy
of the 6 days of creation to six stages in the life of the Christian.
Epp, Theodore H.,
The God of Creation, volumes 1 and 2, (Back to the Bible
Broadcast, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1972). This book was given to me by A.E.
Stanley in 1972, a friend of mine from my hometown church (First Baptist
Church, in Springdale, Arkansas).
" . . . Because most believers are not trained in the fields of science, they have mistakenly accepted what many scientists have said about origins, not realizing that the problem of origins is completely outside the realm of pure science. As believers have tried to harmonise what they suppose to be the facts of science with the Scriptures, the Scriptures have greatly suffered. Because truth is truth, in whatever field of study it is found, the position taken in this book is that the facts of pure science can be harmonised with the Bible. However, no such hope is given for the theories that unbelieving scientists propound in order to explain the matter of origins, which is outside their realm.I agree with Epp's objections, although they are more theological than scientific. I have a real problem with some of these very issues. However, for me, I accept the Bible by faith, and I still believe that God created the world and humans - I'm just not sure the mechanism by which he did this. Does this mean I must necessarily reject the rest of scripture? I personally don't think so.
"This is a privileged age inasmuch as Christian men of science are now courageously speaking out to help believers distinguish between fact and theory. These qualified men are showing that it is not required by the facts of science to believe the earth has great antiquity. Thus, vast geologic ages are not required scientifically nor theologically in the explanation of the origins of the universe and man. " (from the Foreword) " . . . If the first 11 chapters of Genesis are explained away, what prevents a person form explaining away the rest of the Bible? This is exactly what theological liberalism is doing today and such views are beginning to make inroads into evangelical circles. I refer specifically to such views as theistic evolution, which is a compromise of the Bible and evolution. If we cannon believe in the historicity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis, how then can we accept the authenticity of the commandments, the virgin birth, the crucifixion or the resurrection?" (page 14).
Esbjornson,Robert(Editor),
The Manipulation of Life - Nobel Conference XIX,
(Harper & Row, Publishers, San Fransisco, 1984). I read this book in
the summer of 1985, on a trip to Columbus, Mississippi. The book is a collection
of essays about the prospects of genetic engineering of human beings in
the future. One of the interesting things I learned is that there are presently
at least six different methods for getting pregnant (other than the "conventional
method").
"New
knowledge extends power, and new duties accompany these powers. As long
as we are subject to the fate of random events beyond our control, we can
excuse ourselves, but when we are able to do something to help (or harm)
ourselves and others, we are responsible for the consequences and vulnerable
to stress and anxiety." . . . (from the Introduction, page xii)
Feigl, Herbert, and Brodbeck, May,
Readings in THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, (Appleton-Century-Crofts,
Inc., New York, 1953). There are several good chapters, such as "Does Science
Have Metaphysical Presuppositions?"
Fenton, Carrol Lane, and Fenton, Mildred Adams,
THE FOSSIL BOOK - A Record of Prehistoric Life with over 1500 illustrations, (Doubleday, New York, 1989).
I bought this book with "bonus coupons" from the computer science book
club (a seemingly unlikely place to find a book for my creation/evolution
collection). This is a wonderful book, taking a careful look at the fossil
record, and what it tells us about the past. While it doesn't deal directly
with the Evolution/Creation debate, it provides much evidence for Evolution.
(I seem to remember a book entitled Evolution, the Fossils say 'YES'";
that might be an apt title for this huge work).
Ferguson, Kitty
STEPHEN HAWKING: Quest for a Theory of Everything - The Story of his life and work, (Bantam Books, New York, 1991). I read this in June, 1998. This is a short biography of Stephen Hawking, who argues that the world might have been created as a "fluctuation in nothingness" or came from a black hole.
Ferrington, Benjamin,
The Philosophy of Francis Bacon, (Phoenix Books, The University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1964). Bacon was supposedly a "Bible-believing
creationist", even though he lived 200 years before Darwin (!) (According
to Huse's book (see below).)
Ferris, Timothy,
Coming of Age in the Milky Way, (William Morrow and Company,
Inc., New York, 1988). This was another one of my "free" books from the
BOMC (Nov. '88) This is kind of like a history of the world, in one volume.
Actually, it is a history of ideas about space and time; it starts out
with Aristotle, and ends with quantum evolution ("The ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE",
ch. 18). Another book I must read!
Fischer, Robert B.,
GOD DID IT, BUT HOW?, (Zondervon Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1981).
"The
subject matter of this book deals in a positive manner with the relationships
between the Bible and science. This has been an area of considerable popular
concern for many years, particularly as it involves the origins of life
and man. Much of what is written and taught within evangelical Christian
circles takes one particular viewpoint, while what is written and taught
in some liberal circles (and also assumed in virtually all other non-evangelical
circles) takes another viewpoint. The former is so unacceptable scientifically
and the latter so unacceptable Biblically that the controversy turns into
emotional outbursts and senseless ridicule emanating form both sides. The
practical consequences are indeed serious.
"As one
whose vocation for many years has been that of a scientist in research
and in teaching and whose avocation has long been in Biblical studies and
hermeneutics, I am deeply troubled by this state of affairs. I feel that
I understand and respect both viewpoints but find serious misunderstanding
and error in both. I am convinced that there is a more basic viewpoint
which is both thoroughly Biblical and scientifically sound. . ." (from
the "Purpose and General Thrust", p.1)
This
sounds like a wonderful book, it might be helpful, if I ever get around
to reading it.
Fletcher, F.D.
DARWIN - An illustrated life of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882., (C.I.Thomas and Sons (Haverfordwest) Ltd., Press Buildings, Merlins Bridge, Haverfordwest, England, 1988). This is a brief biography of Charles Darwin. I bought it at the Museum of Natural History in Oxford. This is where the famous debate took place in 1860, between bishop Samuel Wilberforce and T.H. Huxley.
Fox, Matthew, and Sheldrake, Rupert,
NATURAL GRACE - Dialogues on Creation, Darkness, and the Soul in Spirituality and Science,
(An Image Book, Published by Doubleday, a division of Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., New York, 1997). I read this in June, 2000. This was an interesting book written as a dialogue between a scientist and a priest. I have to admit that I had a bit of difficulty with some of the ideas of both authors. The priest (Matthew Fox) suggested that we should all become pantheists, and in another place said that he has problems with the idea of original sin. The scientist (Rupert Sheldrake) believes that if rats learn how to run a maze (say in Australia), then all future rats, anywhere in the world, given the same maze, will be able to learn more quickly, through morphogenetic fields. Sounds a bit strange to me. They both had many good things to say, but I am not sure how representative they really are of a "typical" person in their field.
Frair, Wayne, and Davis, P. William,
The Case for Creation - An Evaluation of Modern
Evolutionary Thought from a Biblical Perspective, (Moody Press,
Chicago, 1972). This book actually belongs to my oldest brother, Steve.
This book supposedly presents positive evidence for creationism. However,
glancing through it, I see the same classic attacks on evolution, with
little obvious emphasis on the "positive evidence" of creationism.
Gale, Barry G.,
Evolution Without Evidence - Charles Darwin and The Origin of
Species, (University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM, 1982).
This gives a good historical and scientific background for Darwin's theory.
In addition, differences between the biological and physical sciences (which
I believe still exist today) are discussed.
"In
1859, when Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species, he had
no more evidence to support his theory than did the Creationists, whose
view of the world he was attempting to overthrow. Darwin's argument had
so many theoretical weak spots that he was forced, in large parts of the
Origin, to argue not so much the correct theory as the least objectionable
one. Far from delaying publication of his ideas, as earlier scholars have
suggested, given the quality of Darwin's evidence and the nature of his
theory, he was probably forced to publish his ideas too soon." (From the
cover jacket.)
This
looks to be a good and serious work. Maybe someday I'll actually read it.
Galston, Arthur W.,
GREEN WISDOM The Inside Story of Plant Life, (Perigee
Books, The Putnam Publishing Group, New York, 1983). This is a collection
of essays originally written for Natural History magazine. Chapter
6 is entitled "Botanist Charles Darwin". The book is about examples of
the "wisdom" of plants, along the same line as the "wisdom" of animals
- "the camouflage of a butterfly, the burrowing of a mole, the evasive
hopping of a rabbit . . ." (page xi)
Gardner, Martin,
SCIENCE, Good, Bad, and Bogus, (Prometheus Books, Buffalo,
New York, 1989). Martin mentions creation science in some of the essays
in this collection. He has a quote from Scientific American in which
Jimmy Carter states that while he believes the world is about 4.5 billion
years old, "I believe that responsible science and religion work hand in
hand to provide important answers concerning our existence on earth. My
personal faith leads me to believe that God is in control of the ongoing
process of creation. Insofar as the school curriculum is concerned, state
and local school boards should exercise that responsibility in a manner
consistent with the Constitutional mandate of separation of church and
state." It is interesting to note that this article appeared 1 month before
the "Creationism Trial" in Arkansas.
Gehring, Walter J.,
Master Control Genes in Development and Evolution: The Homeobox Story, (Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1998). This is fourty-fourth volume published by The Dwight Harrington Terry Foundation Lectures on Religion in the Light of Science and Philosophy. The lectures are intended to show that ..."religion will greatly stimulate intelligent effort for the improvement of human conditions and the advancement of the race in strength and excellence in character. To this end it is desired that a series of lectures be given by men eminent in their respective departments . . . especially evolution ... to the end that the Christian spirit may be helped to attain its highest possible welfare and happiness upon the earth."
I read this in November, 1999. Gehring does an excellent job of explaining exciting results (which his lab was involved in) showing how that genes can control development. Chapter 12 ("The Role of Homeotic Genes in Evolution" is clearly written, and explains the significance of a set of genes ("homeobox genes") in development of the fly, but also in the development of animals in general, including humans.
Gentry, Robert V.,
CREATION'S Tiny Mystery, (Earth Science Associates, Knoxville,
Tennessee, 1986). I bought this book at the UNM bookstore in Albuquerque
(in April, 1992). Gentry testified at the Creationism Trial in Little Rock in 1981, as a scientist testifying on behalf of creationism. Gentry starts off explaining how he was denied the request to work on his thesis project for his Ph.D. in physics. Gentry wanted to challenge the geological dating method continuing work (which had been abandoned 30 years earlier) on fossilized halos from uranium trapped in granite crystals. Gentry feels that it was because he would have challenged the status quo. Having been a graduate student myself for the past 10 years, I can understand his feelings, but I can also understand his research director's concern. I would imagine a research director would want him to pursue a project that is workable - within a few years - with hopefully clear results that are publishable. To his credit, Gentry went on to teach at a small college (with a M.S. degree in physics), and did some research at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, as a visiting scientist. He obtained a small grant from the National Science Foundation, and published several papers in highly visible scientific journals, including Science.
In the book, Gentry portrays his research as giving "scientific evidence
for creation, published in the scientific literature", and many times he
states that he waited anxiously for another scientist to do experiments
to try and prove or disprove his theory. This sounds like good reasoning
from a rational person. However, the area of his research is pretty obscure,
and in addition, he never directly states in any of his papers that the
evidence he presents supports a young earth (less than 10,000 years). He
claims that any such reference would jeopardise the publication of the
work. If his evidence was really that strong, surely he could convince
someone to publish it - after all, science loves a controversy. Gentry's
point of view is perhaps best summarized in the following quotation: ".
. . What I have said is that the polonium halos in Precambrian granites
identify these rocks as some of the Genesis rocks of our planet - created
in such a way that they cannot be duplicated without the intervention of
the Creator." (page 133). What he is saying is that since science can't
explain it, then it must have been from God. This is dangerous logic
to say God is what we don't understand. Does that mean that God has nothing
to do with what we do understand? The real problem is that his scientific
explanation is that it cannot be explained, therefore God must have changed
the laws of nature and done it just this one time. Gentry claims that it
was because of his belief in creationism that he didn't get his NSF grant
renewed - he had originally applied for a 1 year grant and had it extended
for another 7 years. He wanted to continue for another 2 years, and they
turned him down. He claims that he got good grant reviews, so it must have
been political. I personally feel that the funding situation was getting
tighter, and his score didn't make the funding line. (This was in 1977,
when the NSF was funding around 50% of the grants received; I wrote a NSF
grant earlier this year (1992) and was turned down - presently they are
funding only 10% of the grants - one of my reviewers said that my grant
was good science and should be funded - but by average score didn't put
me in the top 10%.) He goes on about how much money the federal government
is spending on "evolutionary research" and yet they don't want to spend
money on "scientific evidence for Creation". (I think he's missing the
point - this is discussed in more detail in the comments section under
2-May-92). Gentry goes on to tell of his testimony at the Creationism Trial
in Arkansas, and how he has been "blackballed" by the scientific community
since then. I certainly think that scientists should be free to work regardless
of their religious convictions. However, if I were to hire someone to do
some research for me, I would not waste money on someone who already knows
the results (claiming divine knowledge) before he does the experiment.
Ghyka,Matila,
The Geometry of Art and Life, (Dover Publications, Inc.,
New York, 1977).
"Is everything chaos and chance, or is there order, harmony and proportion
in human life, nature and the finest art? Can one find a natural aesthetic
which corresponds to a universal order? . . ." (from the back of the book.)
Gilkey, Landgon,
CREATIONISM ON TRIAL: Evolution and God at Little Rock, (Harper
& Row, San Fransisco, 1985). I bought this book in San Marcos, Texas,
on our 7th wedding anniversary, (for $2.15) at a book warehouse. I read
it within 2 weeks after I bought it (March, 1992), and found it very interesting
and hard to put down. Gilkey is a theologian who testified on behalf of
the evolutionists at the Arkansas Creationism Trial. As discussed in the
comments section, Gilkey points out that most of the people testifying
on behalf of creationism were scientists, while most of the witnesses testifying
against the creationism law were theologians. Yet the media portrayed
the trial as science (evolution) vs. religion (creationism). I think that
Gilkey correctly points out that many people (including scientists) do
not understand what science is, and what it's boundaries are. Gilkey argues
that creationism is simply a particular form of religion masquerading as
science. I think he makes a convincing case.
Gillespie,Neal C., Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation, (The University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1979). This book explores Darwin's views about
God and science. Gillespie sees Darwin's theory as coming from both a scientific
and theological necessity. In Chapter 2, Gillespie states: "I hope to show
the extent to which his [Darwin's] critique was a theological response,
and the degree to which theological concerns affected his science without
directly being a part of it." I think this book is one of the more significant
books in my collection.
"As
used here, positivism signifies that attitude toward nature that became
common among men of science and those whose intellectual lives were influenced
by science in the nineteenth century, and which saw the purpose of science
to be the discovery of laws which reflected the operation of purely natural
or "secondary" causes. It typically used mechanistic or materialistic models
of causality, rejected supernatural, teleological, or other factors which
were in principle beyond scientific examination as legitimate aspects of
scientific inquiry, and - whatever the desires or beliefs of individual
practitioners, many of whom were theists or even good Christians - embraced
and promoted those far-reaching cultural tendencies conventionally known
as secularism and naturalism. This development resulted in a consensus,
virtually unquestioned among the followers of science by the century's
end, that science had a unique and prescriptive approach to knowledge which
was superior to all others and was exclusively the way to understand the
world of nature. The requirement that all questions touching nature be
open to science, that there be no areas of knowledge about the world that
were "forbidden ground," however, did not necessitate the assumption that
all problems were practically open to solution. What the mystery of God
was to the creationist, man's finitude was to the positivist. But while
the former gloried in his inabilities, the latter had only a reluctant
acquiescence." (page 8-9).
" . .
. Special creation, as an explanation of speciation, simply led nowhere
when viewed from the perspective of positivism. In truth, it led nowhere
within the creationist episteme, but there ignorance was acceptable as
an end of the scientific quest. . . It is often thought that positivism
restricted the area of scientific inquiry by excluding questions of a metaphysical
or theological nature. In this case, however, the struggle was over extending,
by invoking natural causes, the number of questions that could be asked.
For creationists, a knowledge of the origin of species was not within the
reach of normal scientific practice. . ." (page 9; emphasis mine).
" . . . To theists who worked within the new episteme the relation of the divine
to nature was not so self-evident. British physiologist William B. Carpenter
pointed up the tension between theology and positive science when he wrote
defensively that "we do not exclude the subsequent perpetual agency of
Creative Will, because in scientific reasoning we speak of it in the language
of physical force." Admitting that "the idea of 'government' by a God"
had been properly excluded from science, he protested against substituting
an autonomous government of nature by laws. Laws, he argued, must have
a cause and, while science could not reveal the cause, it could not exclude
the idea of "an Intelligent First Cause" as their source. the uncomfortable
fact was, however, that the new science had no use for such a causa
causarum. For positivists like Carpenter, it was possible to retain
God as part of one's personal view of the cosmos, but such retention was
private, subjective, and artificial. One could keep God in the positivist
cosmos only by constantly reminding oneself that He was there. Unlike the
creationist cosmology wherein he played a specific role as creator, innovator,
preserver, and designer, in the positive episteme there was no equivalent
function for him to carry out. He was, at best, a gratuitous philosophical
concept derived from a personal need and not entailed by the new system
of science. Neither its rationale nor its logic required his presence to
get on with scientific work. Consequently, many theists, such as Carpenter
and American botanist Asa Gray, were never entirely easy within the fold
of the new science.
". . .Just as science shifted from a theological ground to a positive one, so
religion - at least among many scientists and laymen influenced by science
- shifted from religion as knowledge to religion as faith. . .The influence
of scientists in weaning a large portion of the public away from biblical
literalism and changing the nature of that public's understanding of Christianity
should not be underrated and certainly needs more thorough study."
(page 16, emphasis mine).
Gillespie offers four different meanings for the term "creation" in the 19th century:
1. literally - "God miraculously made a species"; "...each species was introduced
by direct miraculous interference of a personal intelligence." (pages
22-23).
2. nonmiraculous
- "Lyell was employing creation in the second conventional sense, which
was that favored by nomothetic creationists: a symbolic of an unknown mode
of divine action that stayed within the confines of the laws of nature
and, while involving a continuing divine initiative, did not require disruptions
of that order. This creative process was no less mysterious than miracle,
only less capricious.
"Lyell
reported physicist John Tyndall as remarking in the 1850s that defining
'creation' to mean some presently unknown 'modus operandi' or 'plan
of introducing new species . . . might be a legitimate mode of dealing
with the difficulty or mystery.'"
"Creation,
wrote mathematician-geologist William Hopkins, "is a negation of other
theories rather than a theory of itself, and therefore cannot be called
upon to account for phenomena at all in the physical sense . . ' Its content
was essentially negative: 'a mode of expressing our disbelief in the assertion
that such phenomena are, like ordinary phenomena, due solely to the action
of ordinary natural causes, together with our belief that there is some
higher order of causation in nature.'" (page 24).
3.
"origin of the species, the world, matter, or whatever" - this
had no theological referent. (page 25).
4.
Laws of God - as used "by Robert Chambers in his Vestiges of
the Natural History of Creation (1844). Here creation referred to the
body of laws established by God in the beginning, through the operation
of which new species were evolved. For Chambers, each new species was a
divine creation, but did not involve any special intervention or initiative
on God's part as was the case for the nomothetic creationist." (page 25).
From
here, Gillespie argues that "the use of the word creation in itself means
nothing" in the literature of the mid to late 1800's. However, he then
goes on to argue that most of the scientists at the time of Darwin's writing
of the Origin believed in miraculous creation. It was Darwin's task
to show what the fossil evidence supported. It's getting late, and I've
probably written enough for now.
Gish, Duane T.,
Evolution: The Fossils Say NO!, (Creation Life Publishers,
San Diego, CA, 1979). This is one of creationist's "classic" books; it
is often cited and it contains a good representation of the creationist
arguments. One of Gish's arguments has since been outdated by the massive
weight of genetic evidence. His argument is as follows:
"If homologous structures exist because animals (or plants) which possess these similar structures do so because they have inherited these homologous structures through evolution from a common ancestor which possessed the structure, then certainly these creatures would share in common the genes each inherited from the common ancestor which determined the homologous structure. In other words, the set of genes in each one of these creatures which determines the homologous structure should be nearly identical (thus "homologous"). But this is not the case. When the homologous structure is traced back to the genes which determine it, these genes are found to be completely different in animals (or plants) possessing the homologous structure." (page 182.)The last statement is false. There are hundreds of genes that have now been sequence in hundreds of different animals and plants. One classic example is the histone genes, which are used to fold the long DNA into a smaller area. (The length of all of the DNA from one human cell is about 6 meters (6000 millimeters) long, while the width of the cell is only about 10 micrometers (0.01 millimeters).) There are four major histone proteins, and the genetic sequence for these proteins is nearly identical - from the pea to fungus to humans - and everything else in between. I can think of many, many different genes that serve homologous function in different animals and also have a homologous sequence. In a previous section, he shows his complete ignorance of genetics:
"Another type of change which is often cited by evolutionists as evidence for evolution is the origin of domesticated plants and animals by artificial breeding. Evidence of the nature is again irrelevant to our discussion, since nothing new or more complex arises, and the change accomplished is always extremely limited. What artificial selection and breeding actually accomplishes is to rapidly establish the limit beyond which no further change is possible. . ." (page 40)Lest there be any doubt, we know genetically that these are both "dogs". This book is filled with ad ignoratium type of reasoning - Gish assumes that the people reading this book know little science, in particular biology, genetics, geology, and paleontology. (Although he does seriously misconstrue basic physics (and logic) in some places.) This is one of the books that embarrassed me - this guy claims divine inspiration for this? He is claiming that this is the view all true Christians must take - and unfortunately most Americans believe him.
So Gish actually thinks that a chihuahua and a St. Bernard are essentially the same?
Gleick, James,
CHAOS Making a New Science, (Viking Penguin, Inc., New York,
1988).
This book is in the collection because it deals with theories of randomness and principles of determinism. For example, lightning, once thought to be random, and very difficult to model, can now be understood in terms of fractal geometry. Another example is that of a fern leaf, which is fairly complicated geometrically. It turns out that it can be assigned a unique dimensionally, and can be drawn quite accurately from a simple rule, where, if you flip a coin, you move up two for heads, and down three and over one for tails, and then make a point. If you flip the coin enough times (maybe a few hundred) you will begin to see the detailed outline of a fern leaf. This is very interesting form me in terms of modelling how DNA transcription might be able to code for the complicated shape of a fern. Also discussed is how things that are apparently ordered can actually be caused from chaos, and things that appear random can come from a very ordered process.
Godfrey, Laurie R., Editor,
Scientists Confront Creationism, (W.W. Norton
& Co., New York, 1983). This book contains a number of good attacks
on creationism. In particular, Chapter 4 "Ghosts from the Nineteenth Century:
Creationist Arguments for a Young Earth" discusses many of the creationists
"proofs" that the world is less than 10,000 years old. There's also a chapter
on "Thermodynamics and Evolution", and even one on "Molecular Evidence
for Evolution".
Goldstein, David B. and Schlötterer, Christian, Editors,
MICROSATELLITES: Evolution and Applications, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999). This book is a collection of articles about small DNA repeats, known as "microsatellites", which make up a substantial fraction of most of the DNA from plants and animals.
Gödel, Kurt,
THE CONSISTENCY OF THE CONTINUUM HYPOTHESIS, (Princeton University
Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1940). In this book Gödel "proves" mathematically
that anything one can think of is either incomplete or inconsistent. Thus,
here is mathematical evidence that no one can ever know "for certain" that
something happened, or that "God had to have done it this way." This is
along the line of Ecclesiates: "Surely there is no one on earth so righteous
as to do good without ever sinning." I find Gödel's result very applicable
to the evolution/creation science conflict - if anything we conceive of
is incomplete or inconsistent, then how can we claim to have absolute Knowledge?
Even from Divine revelation, we, being mortal, finite creatures can never
understand it all. I suppose both the creationists and the evolutionists
are wrong if they claim that they posses the complete picture, and everyone
must believe as they do.
Goin, Coleman J. and Goin, Olive B.
Journey onto Land, (MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York, 1974). This is a book about the evolution of life on the land. It is meant as part of a college course on evolution. "This little book looks at the three groups of organisms that became really terrestrial - the seed plants, arthropods, and vertebrates. Life on land presents quite different problems from those posed by an aquatic existence. These three very diverse groups have had basically the same problems to solve. How they did so is a success story attested by their predominance today." - from the preface.
Goldberg, Jeff,
Anatomy of a Scientific Discovery, (Bantam Books, Toronto,
1988). I put this book in the collection because of the implications of
the discoveries described. The book is about the discovery of endorphins,
the body's "natural opiates". When I was an undergraduate, I did some research
in this area, and it is interesting to see how the field looks like 10
years later. It is amazing (and sometimes frightening) to see the explosion
in the field of neurochemistry. It takes about 100,000 different proteins
to make a person; about 50,000 of which are unique to the brain. As more
is learned about how our brains are "wired", we learn more about the influence
of both environment and heredity on personalities. The evolutionist would
say that our personality is all physical, while the creationist
would say that its all "spiritual". While I certainly believe that we each
are responsible for our own actions, and furthermore we will be held accountable
before God for what we do. However, I have to admit that I can see how
some people certainly have different dispositions -for example, imagine
that a person is born with a mutation in which the one of the endorphins
is either inactive or expressed at a much lower level. This person would
still feel pain (the ability to "feel pain" is due to the release
of a small protein known as "substance P"), but their response to
the pain would be different from most normal people. This person would
be able to tolerate less pain. Goldberg describes the interest of pharmaceutical
companies in developing better pain medications, and their reluctance to
risk marketing something 500,000 times as powerful as morphine.
Goldfarb, Sam,
How from a Monkey I Became a Man, (Operation Truth, Inc.,
Hallandale Florida, 1967). "November 24, 1859 represents one of the most
important dates in history. That day Charles Darwin gave to the world his
"Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection" - more often referred
to as the Theory of Evolution." . . . (from the FOREWORD, page vii.) From
here, the author argues that educators should have "started to teach the
child in the first grade that to hate another human being was to lower
oneself to the level of a monkey. Our education should have had as its
overwhelming objective the teaching of hate as being the single most important
reason why wars come into being." Basically, this book is about Goldfarb's
struggle to "become a man from a monkey".
Good, Ronald,
The Philosophy of Evolution, (The Dovecotte Press, Stanbridge,
Wimborne, Dorset, Great Britain, 1981). I bought this at a used book store
in Houston (Fall '91). Dr. Good seems to think that "belief in Special
Creation" was just an outgrowth from primitive theism. It will be interesting
to look through the facts he presents, and try and sort out his religious
(or anti-religious) ideas from his scientific stance.
Goodwin, Brian
HOW THE LEOPARD CHANGED ITS SPOTS - The Evolution of Complexity, (Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1994). I bought this at a used bookstore in Roanoke, Virginia, and read it in June, 1998. Goodwin proposes an alternative to the synthesis of Darwinism and genetics. He points out the similarities in the writing of some of the ardent evolutionists (such as Richard Dawkins) and religious writings. Goodwin takes an "organocentric" perspective, rather than the "genocentric" perspective of many molecular biologists, who see everything happening at the level of the genes, rather than the level of the individual. I found the book to be very enjoyable.
Gould, Sean,
THE THEORY OF OPTIONS - A New Theory of the Evolution of Human Behavior,
(Success Media, Bangkok, 2001). This book was sent to me by the author. I read this in February, 2001. Sean had contacted me by email, and asked me several questions about his book, and I agreed to read through drafts of various pieces, and make comments on them. Now I've read the whole book, and have a better understanding of the subject. Essentially, if I understand this right, the book is about the importance of adaptability in evolution. I think he made some interesting points, particularly about evolution of the human brain. If nothing else, this book perked my interest in the field, and perhaps I should read up some more on this, if I have the chance sometime.
Gould, Stephen Jay
TIME'S ARROW, TIME'S CYCLE, Myth and Metaphor in the Discovery of Geological Time, (Penguin Books Ltd., London, 1991). I read this in December of 1995. This is a book about the discovery of an ancient history. I found it very interesting, especially in light of the claim by many creationists that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Gould, Stephen Jay, Ever Since Darwin - Reflections in Natural History,
(W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1979). This is a collection of essays,
many of them dealing with evolution.
Gould, Stephen Jay,
The Panda's Thumb - More Reflections in Natural History,
(W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1980). More essays - in this collection
is a section on "Darwinia" and "Human Evolution".
Gould, Stephen Jay, WONDERFUL LIFE - The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History,
(W.W.Norton & Company, New York, 1989). This is a very good book that
seriously questions some of the commonly held views about evolution. Creationists
often like to quote Gould because he is critical of the neo-Darwinists;
however, they seldom mention the punctuated equilibrium theory that he
proposes. This book is also very interesting in terms of recent developments
in developmental biology and also chaos theory. I can see the beginnings
of a coherent picture of how cells control differentiation and development
(and its relationship to evolution). Gould starts out the book with a quote
from Ezekiel, and he discusses at great length how there was a "creative
explosion" from bacterial to multi-cellular life a few billion years ago,
and that out of many different forms of animals that were created, only
a very few survive today. In this sense, he is arguing that since that
"creative phase", life has been a series of decimation and extinctions.
See the comments above.
Gould, Stephen Jay,
ADAM's NAVAL and other essays,
(from the "Penguin 60's" collection, Penguin Books, London, 1995). I read this in February, 2000. It is a tiny little, book, with a collection of four essays. The subject for the title essay is about a book (Omphalos) written by the British Naturalist Henry Gosse, in 1857, about why Adam was created with a navel. According to Gosse, Adam was created to "look old", in order to show a continuity with future men. Gould says the book is "spectacular nonsense", but it is worth looking at because "its author was such a serious and fascinating man, not a hopeless crank or malcontent.... When we grasp why Omphalos is so unacceptable (and not, by the way, for the reason usually cited), we will understand better how science and useful logic proceed..."
Gould, Stephen Jay
DINOSAUR IN A HAYSTACK - Reflections in Natural History, (Crown Trade Paperbacks, New York, 1995). I read this in January, 1998. This is another collection of Gould's essays on evolution.
Gould, Stephen Jay
FULL HOUSE - The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin, (Three Rivers Press, New York, 1996). I read this in December, 1997. This is another collection of Gould's essays on evolution.
Gould, Stephen Jay
Questioning the Millenium, (Vintage Books, Random House, London, 1998). I read this in June, 1999. This thin little book contains lots of interesting trivia about calendars and how we keep track of time. I was a bit disappointed though not to hear Gould discuss that a "day" was longer a million years ago than it is today.
Gould, Stephen Jay,
Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms : Essays on Natural History,
(Three Rivers Press, New York, 1999). I read this in February, 2000. This is (yet) another book of collections of articles for Natural History magazine. Gould has a very entertaining article about the relationship between Charles Darwin and James Dwight Dana - the latter being an American "geologist, biologist, longtime professor at Yale, and surely America's most preeminent indigenous natural historian of the nineteenth century." Dana was a creationist, and Gould discusses the differences in perspective the two had. I think this is well written and shows how one views the data depends on presuppositions.
Gould, Stephen Jay,
ROCK OF AGES - Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life,
(The Library of Contemporary Thought, published by The Ballantine Publishing Group, New York, 1999). I read this in January, 2000. Gould proposes his "NOMA" - Non-Overlapping Magistrates of Authority - that is, that science and religion cover different aspects of the same thing, and there's no real reason for the two to fight each other. This is a clear example of Ian Barber's 2nd category of relationships between science and religion (Barber's four categories are: Conflict, Independence, Dialogue, and Integration). In some ways I agree with Gould. However, I was left with a feeling of frustration at the end of the book, where he said that, on the one hand, there are clear standards for the truth in science, but on the other that everyone is kind of left on their own to decide whatever religious views they want. Sounds great and very tolerant, but a bit unfair - why doesn't Gould say that scientists should be free to do their own science as they please, such as ignoring experimental results in favour of their pet theories? My own personal feeling is that there is also some sort of necessary social organisation to religion, but it has seemingly collapsed in the West. I also find it hard to believe that there is no overlap whatsoever between science and religion. My own person views are I guess a bit of Independence and Dialogue. For example, I have no problem saying that the Universe is designed, or that God created life - I just don't think that one can use SCIENCE to prove either of these two beliefs.
Graebner,Th.,
EVOLUTION. An Investigation and a Criticism, (Northwestern
Publishing House, Milwaukee, Wis., 1929). The author admits reading Darwin's
Origin in 1892. This is an interesting look at the Creationist's
view in the 1920's. It is particularly worth noting some of the ardent
statements (e.g., "life is so complicated that scientists will never
understand the mechanism of inheritance") that have been proven wrong with
the passing of time.
Greene, John C.,
THE DEATH OF ADAM - Evolution and its impact on Western thought,
(Published as a MENTOR BOOK by arrangement with the Iowa State University Press, 1961). I read this in January, 2000. It is an intersting historical look at the influence of development of the physical sciences and the parallel decline in belief of a literal "Adam" - from the roughly 150 years between Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin. Thus, the book chronicles the "Death of Adam" by the time that Darwin wrote his Origins of the Species. I found it a very educational and interesting read. A lot of the creationists blame Darwin for the decline in moral standards in society - and yet this book clearly demonstrates that the fall started long before Darwin entered the scene.
Gribbin, John,
GENESIS - The Origins of Man and the Universe, (Dell Publishing
Co., New York, 1981). This book starts off with the origin of the universe
(the "Big Bang"), then goes on to the "Origin of Our Galaxy" (Ch. 2), "The
Origin of Our Solar System" (Ch. 3), "The Origin of the Earth" (Ch. 4),
"The Origin of Life (Ch. 5), "The Origin of Species" (Ch. 6), "The Origin
of Diversity" (Ch. 7), and finally "Human Origins" (Ch. 8). It is interesting
that the book starts out "In the beginning, there was nothing at all. This
is a very difficult concept . . . But before the Big Bang of creation,
there wasn't even any empty space. Space and time, as well as matter and
energy, were created in that 'explosion', and there was no 'outside' for
the exploding Universe to explode into, since even when it was only just
born and beginning its great expansion, the Universe contained everything,
including all empty space." (page 5). Maybe some day I'll get to read this.
Gribbin, John,
In Search of the DOUBLE HELIX - Quantum Physics and Life,(McGraw-
Hill Book Co., New York, 1985). This is a history of the impact of physics
on molecular biology. In a sense, this is like Judson's The EIGHTH DAY
OF CREATION, although this book deals more with the historical development
of evolutionary thought, starting with Darwin, through Mendel and Morgan,
then a digression about quantum physics, then about DNA, cracking the genetic
code, "jumping genes", and finally "From Darwin to DNA: The molecular proof
of human origins" (Ch. 10). Again, maybe someday I will have the chance
to read this. (I read this while writing my Ph.D. thesis (Sept '92).) I
think the take home message of the book is that life can be reduced to
known processes that obey the laws of physics and chemistry. This is pretty
much the reductionist's philosophy in a nutshell. While I do agree
scientifically with this, I'm not sure that I would go so far as to say
that all of life can be reduced to these simple chemicals.
Gribbin,Mary and John
BEING HUMAN - Putting people in an evolutionary perspective, (J.M. Dent, Ltd., London, 1993). I read this in the summer of 1994. This is a good book about the effects of changing environment on the evoltion of humans.
Griffiths,Anthony J.F., Miller,J.H., Suzuki,D.T., Lewontin,R.C., and Gelbart,W.M.,
An Introduction to GENETIC ANALYSIS, (W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, sixth edition, 1996). I read this in August, 1997, for my Genetics class I taught in the Autumn of 1997. The last two chapters deal with Population Genetics and Evolution.
Haldane, J.B.S.
The Causes of Evolution, (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, 1966; first published in 1932). "Based on a series of lectures entitled 'A Re-examination of Darwinism', this classic work by a world-renowned British biologist helped to establish the field now called population genetics. Noting at the outset of his book that the really few pertinent attacks on Darwin's theories have frequently been obscured by 'jabbers of ecclesiastical bominations', the late Professor Haldane makes the important distinction between the theory of evolution and that of natural selection. He accepts the former as scientifically valid; the latter he challenges, and offers in its place the genetical theory of evolution. The book contains a comprehensive appendix which outlines the mathematical theory of natural selection.", from the back of the book.
Hamrum, Charles, Editor,
Nobel Conference XVIII, DARWIN'S LEGACY, (Harper
& Row, Publishers, San Francisco, 1983). This is a collection of essays
from the 18th Nobel Conference, commemorating the 100th year anniversary
of Darwin's death. Some of the speakers (and hence authors of the essays)
include Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Leakey, Sir Peter Medawar, and Irving
Stone. Sir Peter Medewar's essay is entitled "Evidences for Evolution".
Hanson, Earl D.
Understanding Evolution, (Oxford University Press, New York, 1981). This is an undergraduate text for a course in evolution, for biology majors. It is fairly thick (556 pages), and deals almost exclusively with mechanisms of the speciation and evolution of organisms.
Harris, John
Clones, Genes, and Immortality: Ethics and the Genetic Revolution, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998). I read this in March, 1999. I have to admit that this book was a bit different than I had thought when I bought it. First, it turns out that this is essentially a slightly updated version of an earlier book, called "Superman and Wonderwoman". I was a bit frustrated that most of the references were to articles from "The Guardian" newspaper, mainly
in 1988 and 1989, when the earlier version of the book was being written.
I have read lots of interesting articles in the newspapers about the bioethics
of cloning. In fact just yesterday there was an article in the "Washington
Post". Does this make me an authority? Is it "ethical" to repackage
an old book and sell it as if it is something more recent and timely than
it really is? Actually, many of the issues are not that much different
now than they were 10 years ago, when most of the book seems to have been
written - after all, Aristotle's "Ethics" is still popular. However,
I am skeptical of someone using accounts from the popular press (newspapers
and books like Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene", [cited in the list
of "Texts dealing with ethics, law and biotechnology", page 307]) as a
basis for forming their ethics.
As a teacher of Genetics, I found the last bit, where he talks about the ethics of genetic engineering of humans enjoyable, but again, some of the issues were a bit dated. At a recent seminar with the title "Genes, Genomes and Society", the speaker declared that he thought human cloning would soon be as common as IVF, which presently is quite common, with several thousand clinics in the U.S. One issue that was not discussed very much was the idea of creating a new human species. Starting in 1997, I have had discussions with my Genetics
class about the introduction of "HACs", or Human Artificial Chromosomes
- I think it is important to encourage students to think some about the
ethical implications of this. Presently, these are of course in experimental
cell lines only, but if they were to be introduced into an embryo, it would
be possible to make humans with an extra chromosome - "custom built" for
adding whatever gene(s) might be necessary or fashionable. Because
the gametes from such a person would most likely only be able properly
segregate with another person with the extra chromosome, you would in effect
have a distinct species - in the biological sense of the word - that is,
not capable of interbreeding with the "normal" human population.
I kept thinking of the movie "GATTACA" whilst reading this book. (link
to amazon.com)
Harsanyi, Zsolt, and Hutton,Richard,
Genetic Prophecy: Beyond the Double Helix, (Bantam Books, Toronto, 1982). This is a history of medical genetics -
the genetics of humans - and the ability to predict certain genetic diseases.
The last chapter ("The Perils of Prophecy" Ch. 11) discusses whether this
genetic information should be used to screen people (e.g., for insurance)
for diseases.
Hartl, Daniel L., and Jones, Elizabeth
GENETICS - Principles and Analysis - 4th Edition, (Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, Massachusetts, 1997). I read this in December, 1997, and used it as a text for my genetics class in the spring of 1998. Chapter 15 deals with "population genetics and evolution".
Haught, John F.,
GOD AFTER DARWIN: A Theology of Evolution,
(Westview Press, A Member of Perseus Books Group, Oxford, 2000). I read this book in July, 2000. I found this book very interesting, although at times I felt like it was a bit "deep" for me. I'm not a theologian, but I certainly thought Haught's arguments were good and well-thought through. He was pretty hard on the "Intelligent Design" crowd throughout most of the book, which I found a first a bit puzzling, but Haught convinced me that, among other things, they are over-emphasising the all powerfulness of God, at the expense of the image of a God that is willing to give up some control, in order in part for us to have a truly free choice. If God is truly in control, then is it not logical to hold God responsible for the evil in the world? I think this is the reason many people don't like evolution - because it seems too "cruel" of a method for God to use. However, there is still the problem of cruelty in nature, even if one doesn't believe in evolution. In contrast to many of the Creationists who claim that God finished creation on day 6, about 10,000 years ago, Haught says that creation is not finished yet - it is still a work in progress. He also makes some good points about ecology, for example:
"...The universe, it bears constant repeating, is ultimately God's creation though we have been granted a role in its aesthetic intensification. It has taken some billions of years for nature to attain the ecological richness and beauty that existed prior to our appearance. So when in our own time we allow pollution, resource exhaustion, and the animal extinction of thousands of species to fray the delicate tissue of life, we are surely aborting the hidden potential for a larger and wider-than-human future that still lurks in the folds of the Earth's complex ecosystems." (pages 159-160).
Hawking,Stephen W.,
A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME - From the Big Bang to Black Holes,
(Bantam Books, Toronto, 1988). This book looks like it'll be great to read!
I only wish I had the time to read it soon. (December 1989) I finished this book
last year. One of the interesting stories I remember is that Hawking was
invited by the pope to attend this conference on cosmology, because the
Catholic church was happy that science seemed to be agreeing with scripture.
Hawking said that fortunately the pope didn't know that he was going to
talk about his work on whether the "big bang" occurred only once or maybe
it has occurred several times. I loaned this book to someone (Diane?),
and now I need to get it back in my collection.
Henig, Robin Marantz,
A MONK and TWO PEAS - The Story of Gregor Mendel and the Discovery of Genetics,
(Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London, 2000; published in the USA as "A MONK in the GARDEN: The Lost and Found Genius of Gregor Mendel, the Father of Genetics", by Houghton Mifflin, New York, 2000). I read this in June, 2000. This is an excellent biography of Gregor Mendel. Although the author admits that some of the details of Mendel's life are not known for sure, the book is full of facts about his life, where he worked and lived, and some of his interactions with others.
I was surprised to read about the origins of the name "gene", especially in light of the fact that I am currently living in Denmark.
Wilhelm Johannsen, a professor of plant physiology at Copenhagen Agriculture College in Denmark, coined the word in 1909, four years after Bateson introduced 'genetics'. He derived it, he said, not as a contraction of genetics, but as a nod to Darwin's theory of pangenesis, from which De Vries had, in turn, created the word 'pangen'. Johannsen said he simply cut off the first syllable of De Vrie's word and turned the second syllable into something entirely new. 'The word gene is completely free of any hypothesis', he said. All it indicates is that 'many characteristics of the organism are specified in the gametes by means of special conditions, foundations, and determiners which are present in unique, separate, and thereby independent ways - in short, precisely what we wish to call genes'.
Along with 'gene', Johannsen introduced two other words that proved to be just as central to the emerging lexicon: 'phenotype', meaning an organism's appearance; and 'genotype', meaning its genetic makeup. This was a distinction Mendel had intuited more than fifty years earlier, before anyone had the ability - either conceptually or linguistically . to name it. In the case of an organism showing a recessive trait, genotype could be inferred from the phenotype, since the only way a recessive trait showed up in the phenotype was when the organism was double recessive. But when dominant traits appeared, further experimentation was required to see what the genotype was. The organism could be either a double dominant or a hybrid. (page 231).
Herschel,Sir John F.W.,
OUTLINES OF ASTRONOMY, (P.F. Collier & Son,
New York, 1902). Part 1. This was first published in 1858. Colleen got
this as a Christmas present for me (Dec. '90). This is a "classic" astronomy
text.
Herschel, Sir John F.W.,
OUTLINES OF ASTRONOMY, (P.F. Collier & Son,
New York, 1902). Part 2. This volume includes a chapter on comets, as well
as a section on "Of the Account of TIME" (part IV, pp 818-887).
Hill, Harold,
HOW DID IT ALL BEGIN? A Revolutionary Look at Evolution,
(Logos International, Plainfield, New Jersey, 1976). I think this is one
of Frank's favourite books. (It has on the back "from goo to you by way
of the zoo", which I've seen on some of Frank's handouts.) The first chapter
("How Did It All Begin? Phoney Scientists' Theories") says that
"Darwin didn't pretend to be a scientist to start with. He had dropped
out of med. school after two years of it. Actually, Darwin never claimed
his theory of evolution was a fact, and he was rather surprised to find
he had invented a new religion. The later chapters contain a lot of probability
arguments (see comments under Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker). The
"bibliography" is taken straight from Morris' Scientific Creationism.
Hitching, Francis,
THE NECK OF THE GIRAFFE - Darwin, Evolution, and the New Biology,
(The New American Library, Inc., New York, 1982). This book is written
in 1982, one-hundred years after Darwin died. The author traces the history
of Darwin's ideas from "the point of view of a neutralist", and looks at
challenges to Darwin's theory, including creationism.
Holder, Rodney D.
NOTHING BUT ATOMS AND MOLECULES? Probing the Limits of Science, (Monarch Publications, Kent, England, 1993). I read this in February, 1995. I bought it in the back of St. Clements church at Oxford. This is a good look at the problems of the reductionistic approach to science.
Holland, John H.
HIDDEN ORDER - How Adaptation Builds Complexity, (Helix Books, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., Reading, Massachusetts, 1995). I read this in February, 1998. John Holland developed "genetic alogrithms". This is another mathematical model for the origins of complexity and evolution. He argues that "evolution remembers building blocks that increase fitness." (page 79).
Holmes, Rolston, III.,
GENES, GENESIS, and GOD - Values and Their Origins In Natural History,
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999). I read this in October, 2000. This book aims to show that sociobiology is going in the wrong direction when it tries to reduce religion and ethics to mere biology. Holmes claims that values and ethics are more than "selfish genes" expressing themselves. On the one hand, this subject is of interest to me, but on the other, for whatever reason, I really had a hard time getting very excited about this book. Perhaps if I was to read it again sometime later, I might find it really interesting, but this time around it seemed pretty boring.
Hooke, Robert
MICROGRAPHIA - or Some Physiological Descriptions of Minutes Bodies made by Magnifying Glasses with Observations and Inquiries thereupon, (Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1961; this was first published by the Royal Society in 1665). This is a facsimile of the 1665 edition. It is amazing to read about the new microscopic world that Hooke saw. Of course, this had implications for the understanding of life. Hooke postulated that cork was made up of "cells" because they looked like tiny Monk's cells.
Howard, Jonathan,
DARWIN, (Hill and Wang, New York, 1982). This is another
book written on the centenary of Darwin's death. This looks like an interesting
(and short) biography of Darwin.
Hunt, Robert, and Arras,John,
Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, (Mayfield
Publishing Co., Palo Alto, California, 1977). I bought this book (probably
in 1981) when I was an undergraduate at William Jewell College. I put it
in this collection mainly because of the essays on Genetics. Genetic engineering
has the potential for good and/or evil, depending on how it is used. I
guess I get worried when I here people talking about "controlling the evolution
of man in the future" (see the essay by Muller on page 47).
Huxley, Julian
Evolution in Action, (Penguin Books, Ltd., Middlesex, England, 1968; first published in 1953). This is based on the "Pattern Foundation Lectures" given at Indiana University in 1951.
Huntington, Ellsworth,
World-Power and Evolution, (Yale University Press, New Haven,
Conn., 1919). This is an interesting (and somewhat bizarre, by today's
point of view) book about the relationship between climate and the evolution
of humans. This book is a reflection after the first world war.
"Every important aspect of human knowledge must be considered in its relation to both space and time. In Civilization and Climate the problem of the effect of physical environment was discussed in its relation to space. It was shown that the distribution of civilization upon the earth's surface is closely in harmony with the distribution of climatic energy, which appears to be the most important factor in physical environment. In the present volume the same problem is considered in its relation to time. . . . Turning to the distant past we find that from the earliest geological times the evolution of man's ancestors, even before they had assumed the form of man, was largely guided by climatic environment. This was especially true of mental evolution. . . Germany, in like manner, was able to defy the world largely because no other country has so many people who live under a highly energizing climate and are also under a single government. . .This is kind of an interesting twist on the "environment vs. heredity" question. It is interesting that although Huntington mentions the church as an influence, he seems to have a purely mechanistic/materialistic approach. I suppose that this is "scientific", but I'm curious what his views were about the church and God.
". . . A few generations ago, the emphasis was all upon the various agencies which combine to furnish training. In a broad sense these include the Church, the Home, the School, the State, and other institutions. Recently tremendous emphasis has justly been given to another factor, namely, heredity. . . Yet training, heredity, and physical environment are like food, drink, and air. . .All are essential."
Huse, Scott M.,
The Collapse of EVOLUTION, (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1983). The author cynically puts an appendix for "All the Scientific
Proofs for Evolution", and then lists a blank page - indicating that there
exists no scientific proof for evolution. Also, he lists in another
appendix famous scientists who were also "creationists", although all
were born before Darwin ever published his Origins (included in
the list are Leo da Vinci, Sir Isaac Newton, and Blaise Pascal - I wouldn't
consider any of these three a "creationist" in the sense that the author
implies in the text.)
Huxley,Thomas H.,
Evidence as to MAN'S PLACE IN NATURE, (The University
of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1959). This was Huxley's first book, published
in 1863, and was in demand through the end of the century and throughout
the next. I think this book is probably where many people (including myself)
begin to have theological problems. It is one thing to say that a butterfly
or cat evolved, but to say that man is just one small (insignificant) part
of the larger scheme of life on earth is difficult to accept.
Huxley, Thomas H.,
On the ORIGIN OF SPECIES or, The Causes of the Phenomena of Organic
Nature, (The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1968). This
is six lectures presented by Huxley to the "working class" in 1861. I bought
it (and the one above) at a used bookstore in Fayetteville, Arkansas, in
1984. (This is significant in that it is difficult to find books about
evolution in that area.)
Hyman, Stanley Edgar, DARWIN FOR TODAY - A One-Volume Collection of His Most Important
and Delightful Writings. (The Viking Press, Inc., New York, 1963).
This book contains: the complete "Essay of 1844", containing the
substance of the later Origins, Darwin's Autobiography, selections
from The Voyage of the Beagle, The Descent of Man, The
Expression of the Emotions, Insectivorous Plants, The Formation
of Vegetable Mould, and Letters.
Itzkoff, Seymour W.
THE FORM OF MAN - The Evolutionary Origins of Human Intelligence, (Paideia Publishers, Ashfield, Massachusetts, 1983.) This is the first in a series of four books about the evolution of humans. "The Form of Man was begun as an attempt to reconnect the biological and the cultural worlds. It was my hope that our understanding of the symbolic nature of knowledge could be harmonized in some way with the evolutionary process now that growing awareness existed that the various books on man - concerning concepts such as 'the hairless ape', 'the territorial imperative', 'the fang and claw', - all the science fiction of man's survival, where just so-so stories.", from part one.
Jacob, François,
The Logic of Life - A History of Heredity, (Vintage Books,
New York, 1976). There is a fascinating quote at the beginning of this
book - "Do you see this egg? With it you can overthrow all the schools
of theology, all the churches of the earth." - Diderot, Conversation with
d'Alembert
This
is a good history of genetics - the same old story, how Darwin looked but
couldn't discern the source of variation, and how that source is actually
mutations in genes. This is from a slightly different point of view (a
French Nobel Laureate).
Jean, Sir James,
The Mysterious Universe, (The MacMillan Company, New
York, 1930).
"There
is a widespread conviction that the new teachings of astronomy and physical
science are destined to produce an immense change on our outlook of the
universe as a whole, and on our views as to the significance of human life.
. ." (from the Foreword). This is an account of "modern physics" about
60 years ago.
Jennings, H.S.,
Prometheus - or, Biology and the Advancement of Man, (E.P.
Dutton & Company, New York, 1925). This book is written primarily about
eugenics - the genetic engineering of humans. It is frightening to think
what was done in Germany, based in part on "selective breeding" of humans.
It was written after WWI, with the hopes that eugenics could be used to
improve human behaviour.
Johnson, Phillip E.
DARWIN ON TRIAL, (2nd edition, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1993). I read this in November, 1998. I enjoyed reading it, and I think Johnson makes some good points. However, he is trained as a lawyer, and not a scientist, and there are many mistakes scattered throughout the book that were a bit annoying. (I would never try and write a book about law, and I admire him for learning so much outside of his area!) The bottom line is that I think he has a common misconception about science. Things are rarely "proven" in science. Instead, there's often the "current dogma", which is often the best that we've got, at the moment. His chapter on "Molecular Evolution" (chapter 7) is quite dated. Things change pretty quickly - particularly in the field of molecular evolution where there's been a real explosion that's still going on.
Johnson, Phillip E.
An Easy-to-Understand Guide for DEFEATING DARWINISM by Opening Minds, (Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1997). I read this in March, 1998. This is meant for high-school students. Johnson makes some good points, although I've scribbled notes in the margins throughout many chapters, where I like some of the things he says, and in other areas think he's not accurately telling the whole story. It is interesting to read this book after having lived in Europe for several years. Evolution is simply not a problem for the majority of people (including Christians) in Europe. Johnson bases many of his arguments on Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box", and he states that Behe is a "molecular biologist" - but as can be readily seen from Behe's book, he is a biochemist, with hardly any training or experience in biology. This is the point - there are very few can't BIOLOGISTS who would take such a strong anti-Darwinian stance.
Johnson, Phillip E..,
THE WEDGE OF TRUTH: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism,
(InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 2000)). I read this in February, 2001, and I have to admit that this book is better than I had thought it was going to be before I read it. I actually agree with many things that Phil Johnson has to say. I have no problem with his historical analysis of the decline in the influence of Christianity in higher education in the U.S., and I even agree with him on many of the things he has to say about morality. I think this book is a clear explanation of his "wedge strategy", and is a good overview for his plan to try and systematically split the ideas of "materialism" from science. However, as a working scientist who is NOT a materialist (that is, I believe that there's more to life than what we can physically see around us, and that science cannot explain everything), I resent his implication that scientists MUST assume a completely materialistic worldview if they are modern biologists (that is, if they accept the evidence of Darwinian evolution). I (very) strongly disagree with his idea that science can somehow "prove" the existence of God.
Judson,Horace Freeland,
THE EIGHTH DAY OF CREATION, The Makers of the Revolution
in Biology, (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1979). This history
of the development of Molecular Biology is important in that this field
has provided an enormous amount of evidence for evolutionary relationships
between organisms through DNA, RNA and protein sequencing data. Through
genetic engineering, it is becoming possible not only to observe and predict
evolution, but to actually change its course. I think Judson mentions Crick's
decision to go into biology for theological reasons (or actually non-theological reasons; see Crick's book). This book is interesting also in that you get a feel for some of the personalities involved.
Kauffman, Stuart
The Origins of Order : Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution , (Oxford University Press, New York, 1993). I read this in September/October, 1999. This is a very thick book (about 700 pages), outlining his theory of evolution. Basically, Kauffman thinks that there's more to selection in evolution - that there are only certain forms from which to select, and these are the result of constraints on self-organization. It's kind of complicated book to summarise in a few sentences.
One thing that Kauffman discusses which is of particular interest to me in terms of the evolution/creationism controversy has to do with the argument of improbability. A commonly used argument by creationists (and many evolutionists as well!) goes something like this: consider a protein of 100 amino acids in length. The chance of it "randomly occurring" is 20^100. This number is so large (far more than the number of hydrogen atoms in the entire universe!), as Kauffman points out, that essentially it's "impossible". So the creationists claim "it's a miracle" or this is evidence for intelligent design (as Michael Behe does - see more comments in my review of "Darwin's Black Box"). On the other hand, many evolutionists (such as Jacque Monad - see comments on "Chance and Necissity") claim that evolution must have been a unique grand Accident, which happened only once in nature, and can never be repeated. In contrast to these two views, Kauffman argues that in fact life could have evolved much more readily than we had previously suspected. Instead of randomly trying the 20^100 different possible protein sequences, he estimates there are probably only in the range of about 100,000,000 different protein CONFORMATIONS. Thus the sampling space is much smaller, and can occur much more readily. Kauffman figures that, based on the fact that enzymatic reactions all occur in a limited volume, and that there are only so many different comformations available, the number of possible enzymes is not infinite, but rather a limited number. He estimates that there are roughly a million to a hundred million different enzymes might be sufficient as a "universal enzymatic tool kit". Thus, the important thing in terms of a protein sequence is which of the many possible conformations does this belong to, not "what are the chances of having THIS PARTICULAR AMINO ACID SEQUENCE. This is actually a theme throughout the book - that nature (read EVOLUTION) is NOT the result of random processes (a common starting assumption for many creationists).
...To some great extent, evolution is a complex combinatorial optimization process in each of the coevolving species in a linked ecosystem, where the landscape of each actor deforms as the other actors move..... Therefore, I have made bold to suggest that much of the order we see in organisms is precisely the spontaneous order in the systems of which they are composed. Such order has beauty and elegance, casting an image of permanence and underlying law over biology. Evolution is not just 'chance caught on the wing'. It is not just a tinkering of the ad hoc, of bricolage, of contraption. It is emergent order honored andhoned by selection. (page 644)In "far from equilibria systems", spontaneous order can occur. See more on this from Bernd-Olaf Küppers "Information and the Origin of Life".
Kauffman, Stuart
AT HOME IN THE UNIVERSE - The Search for Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity, (Oxford University Press, New York, 1995). I read this in June, 1998. Kaufman proposes a theory of "self-organisation" which will explain the origins of complexity. He argues that the complex systems we see in Evolution are the inevitable result of being far from equilibrium. His theory is at this point mainly mathematical, but the nice thing is that it is possible to use this theory to make TESTABLE predictions.
Kayzer, Wim, (editor),
A GLORIOUS ACCIDENT - Understanding Our Place in the Cosmic Puzzle,
(W.H. Freeman & Co., New York, 1997; first published in The Netherlands in 1995 by Uitgeverij Contact). I read this in December, 1999. The general theme of the book is where did consciousness come from, as described by six different professionals. The six are: Oliver Sacks, Daniel Dennett, Stephen Jay Gould, Freeman Dyson, Rupert Sheldrake, and Stephen Toulmin. There are two parts to the book. The first section consists of interviews with the six people, and the second part is from a round-table discussion filmed for public television in the Netherlands (and also broadcast in the U.S.) There is certainly several different opinions expressed here, and it's a fun read.
Kellogg,Vernon L.,
Elementary Zoology, (Henry Holt and Company, 1902). I
bought this book at a shop in Springdale, Arkansas, in the summer of 1988.
That was the summer I was reading Darwin's Origins, but I had to
leave it in Cincinnati when I visited my parents, out of fear of them discovering
that I was reading such poisonous literature (I was 28 years old at the
time). In this zoology text, the word "evolution" is not found in the table
of contents nor in the index - and I couldn't find any reference to it
throughout the 400 pages of the book. Perhaps this book is like many found
in the public schools today - too afraid to mention anything that might
be controversial.
Kelvin, Lord, and Tait, Peter G.,
Elements of Natural Philosophy, (P.F. Collier
& Son, New York, 1879). I bought this book (Christmas '90) thinking
that it would Kelvin's "Dynamics" would be more Thermodynamics, but actually
it turns out to be a text on Newtonian Mechanics. It is still interesting,
though. According to Morris, Kelvin was a creationist.
Kemeny, John G.,
A Philosopher Looks at Science, (D. Van Nostrand Company,
Inc., Princeton, New Jersey, 1959). The third section of this book
is entitled "Problems raised by Science", and includes a chapter on "LIFE"
in which evolution is discussed.
"Perhaps
the earliest theory in western culture is furnished by the Bible. It is
one of the only too recent successes of scientific development to convince
the man on the street that there is no religious danger in rejecting the
scientific content of the Bible. It took two millennia for mankind to learn
that the moral teachings of the Bible are independent of its pseudo-scientific
content, just as the logical content of Principia Mathematica does
not depend for its validity on Mr. Bertrand Russel's personal moral convictions.
"The
essential point in the Bible's account that was disproved by the weight
of evidence is that various species were created independently of each
other. In the fact of overwhelming evidence, we are forced to accept the
theory that species evolved from simple to complex forms, through - perhaps
- a billion years. This one doctrine is common to all current evolutionary
theories. I cannot help to remark that this account of the development
of Life appears to me much more awe-inspiring than the biblical version."
(page 197).
Kendrew, John C.,
THE THREAD OF LIFE - An Introduction to Molecular Biology,
(Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1967). "This book is
based on a series of television lectures on molecular biology which I delivered
early in 1964. I was pleased when the BBC asked me to give the lectures,
because it seemed to me that molecular biology was a subject perfectly
suited to a non-specialist audience."
Kevles, Daniel J.,
IN THE NAME OF EUGENICS - Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity,
(Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, 1985). This is a history of eugenics,
or the genetic engineering of humans. As I have mentioned a few times before,
I get nervous when I hear people talking about controlling our evolutionary
destiny. This is another one of those books that looks great to read --
if I can find time to ever read it.
Kidner, Derek,
GENESIS - An Introduction and Commentary, (Inter-Varsity
Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1967). I bought this book (in 1984) when
I was living with the Keefers in Albuquerque, New Mexico. This is part
of a set of commentaries on the Old Testament by IVP.
"What
is almost equally unavoidable is the offence which any writer on this subject
is likely to give to many of his readers at one point or another, in discussing
the immense issues that are raised by Genesis at every turn. There can
scarcely be another part of Scripture over which so many battles, theological,
scientific, historical and literary, have been fought, or so many strong
opinions cherished. This very fact is a sign of the greatness and power
of the book, and of the narrow limits of both our factual knowledge and
our spiritual grasp." (page 9)
Kidner
also points out that "to correlate the data of Scripture and nature is
not to dishonour biblical authority, but to honour God as Creator and to
grapple with our proper task of interpreting His ways of speaking. . .
We are asserting our own infallibility, not that of Scripture, when
we refuse to collate our factual answers with those of independent enquiry."
(page 31). He also mentions that Galileo "realized that the new astronomy
discredited only the expositors, not the Bible." (p. 31)
Kreidel,George A.,(Rev.),
NOTES OF A CATHOLIC BIOLOGIST, (B. Herder Book
Co., St. Louis, MO, 1922). This book includes chapters on "The Beginning
and End of the World", "The Origin of Life", and "God in Nature". Kreidel
makes a big point of the necessity of a theocentric view of the universe
as a basis for rationality of scientific ideas.
Kuhn, Thomas S.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1996; third edition; the first edition was published in 1962). I read this in June, 1999. This is a classic book about how changes occur in science. I found it quite good, and thought it quite true when he said that scientific revolutions have to wait for the old scientists to die off! Of course, Kuhn is only dealing with CONCEPTUAL revolutions, which are fairly rare. One of the big conceptual revolutions was Darwin's idea of evolution. Kuhn discusses this throughout the book.
Küppers,Bernd-Olaf,
MOLECULAR THEORY OF EVOLUTION - Outline of a Physico-Chemical Theory
of the Origin of Life, (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1983; translated
from the German by Paul Wooley). This book is on "loan" from Dr. David
Behnke; I helped him move into his new office, and discovered this book.
He said it was pretty mathematical (which it is), and that he had no real
use for it. I think it looks to be a wonderful book. The book is divided
into 4 main sections: I. The Molecular Basis of Biological Information,
II. Principles of Molecular Selection and Evolution, III.
The Transition form the Non-Living to the Living, and IV. Model
and Reality.
Küppers, Bernd-Olaf
Information and the Origin of Life, (The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1990; translated by Manu Scripta, Aarhus, Denmark - originally published under the title Der Ursprung biologischer Information: Zur Naturphilosophie der Lebensentstehung, in 1986 by R. Piper BmbH & Co.). I read this book in May, 1999. I was reminded of Michael Behe's
book when I read this one. The author asks the question of "where
does biological information come from?" He offers three possibilites:
I think that Behe focuses on the first two views only for the origins of complexity. Since the odds are so incredibly against complex structures just happening by chance (I think his reasoning is correct here), then it must be that science CAN'T explain the origin of complexity (I strongly disagree here). In my opinion, the third approach makes a lot of sense, and Küppers does a good job of outlining his point of view.(1.) the chance hypothesis (he cites Jacque Monad's "Life and Necessity") (2.) the teleological approach (which is close to Behe's point of view) (3.) the molecular-Darwinistic approach (a reductionistic approach, taking into account information theory and far-from-equilibrium chemistry)
LaHaye, Tim,
THE BATTLE FOR THE MIND, (Fleming H. Revell Co., Old Tappan,
New Jersey, 1980). I think this represents the most extreme view of creationism.
LaHaye rejects all forms of thought not based on the Bible, and then asserts
(supposedly using scriptures) that Evolution = humanism = homosexuality
= communism. He also proves that evolution is unscientific. LaHaye has
spoken at our church in Springdale, Arkansas (he wrote the foreword to
our pastor's book), and he traces the problems of society (pornography,
drugs, crime, etc.) to the teaching of evolution in public schools.
Larson, Edward J.
SUMMER FOR THE GODS - The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science
and Religion, (Basic Books, A Subsidiary of Perseus Books, L.L.C. Press, New York, 1997). I read this in May, 1998. This book won the pulitzer prize in history. I think Larson does an excellent job of trying to portray both sides of the debate fairly. He makes it clear that the "Scopes Trial" was more political rather than a real debate on evolution.
Lewin, Benjamin,
GENE EXPRESSION - 2 Eukaryotic Chromosomes, (John Wiley &
Sons, London, 1974). I put this book in the collection mainly for Ch. 4
- "Sequences of Eukaryotic DNA"; this is a very good description of the
bothering fact that most DNA in eukaryotes (higher organisms like plants,
flies and people) consists of repeating short segments that have no apparent
value. They certainly do not code for proteins, and this DNA (as much as
90% in some organisms) is often referred to as "junk DNA". . . "There is
at present no satisfactory explanation for the large contents of DNA in
eukaryotes and for their wide variations." If one were to take the entire
genetic material found in the 23 human chromosomes, it would stretch to
about 2 meters in length, or slightly longer than the height of most people.
I have always found it amazing how the DNA can be so compacted (about 10,000
fold) in order to fit in a tiny cell. This is even more amazing when I
think about how many cells there are in a typical human body (maybe as
many cells as there are stars in the galaxy?). The DNA of a single human
being, if stretched end to end in its double helical form, would extend
from the earth to the moon - and back, eight times! That's a lot
of DNA, and if you consider the potential information, an awful lot of
energy is devoted to its maintenance. Here's where I have a hard time understanding
how 90% of it is unnecessary junk. I guess this potential dilemma will
have to wait for future experiments - can you make a mouse with some of
this "junk DNA" taken out? Should you make a mouse like that?
Lewin, Roger,
THREAD OF LIFE, The Smithsonian Looks at Evolution, (Smithsonian
Books, Washington, D.C., 1982). This is an oversized book with beautiful
photography. It also came with a long (about 6 feet) poster, "The Tower
of Time", sketching the evolution of man. I bought this book while on our
honeymoon in Colorado (spring, 1986). I recently (21-Dec-88) received a
brochure in the mail advertising this book from the Smithsonian Institution,
saying this is an "invaluable addition to your collection of books". I
don't know that I agree fully, but nonetheless its a good book.
Lewis, C.S.,
Christian Reflections, (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1967). I added this book to this collection because
of a chapter "The Funeral of a Great Myth", in which Lewis discusses scientific
evolutionary theory vs. evolutionism. "The central idea of the Myth is
what its believers would call 'Evolution' or 'Development' or 'Emergence',
just as the central idea in the myth of Adonis is Death and Re-birth. I
do not mean that the doctrine of Evolution as held by practising biologists
is a Myth. It may be shown, by later biologists, to be a less satisfactory
hypothesis than was hoped for fifty years ago. But that does not amount
to being a Myth. It is a genuine scientific hypothesis. But we must
sharply distinguish between Evolution as a biological theorem and popular
Evolutionism or Developmentialism which is certainly a Myth. Before
proceeding to describe it and (which is my chief business) to pronounce
its eulogy, I had better make clear its mythical character." I couldn't
agree more. (C.S. Lewis is my hero.) Lewis concludes the essay by admitting
to having believed in Evolutionism in the past (e.g., before his conversion):
"For my own part, though I believe it no longer, I shall always enjoy it
as I enjoy other myths." (p. 93)
Lewontin,R.C., Rose,S., and Kamin,L.J.,
NOT IN OUR GENES - Biology, Ideology, and Human
Nature, (Pantheon Books, New York, 1984). This is a book against
what is called "biological determinism" - the concept that one's actions
is dictated by one's genes, to such an extent that the individual should
not be considered responsible. This is interesting from a philosophical/ethical
point of view; to what extent is human responsibility really a matter of
a free will choice and how much of that role can be taken away or tempered
by genetic makeup. Is it possible for a person to be "predestined" (genetically
speaking, that is) to be criminally insane? According to the authors of
this book, the answer is that for most people, there really does exist
a choice, and they can (and maybe should) be held accountable for their
actions. This is remotely related to the creationism/evolution question
in that if in fact man's behaviour is merely a result of a well-defined
set of biochemical reactions, then how does God fit into this? The authors
argue that in fact the totality of human existence is more than the sum
of the biochemical (genetic) parts. This is a "holistic" approach, which
I must admit that my chemical background tends to make me sceptical of,
and yet my religious background makes me want to believe.
Li, Wen-Hsiung,
Molecular Evolution, (Sinauer Associates, Inc., Publishers, Sunderland Massachusetts, U.S.A., 1997). This is a fairly thick book about (487 pages) about molecular evoultion. I hope to be able to read it carefully soon.
Lodge,Sir Oliver,
Beyond Physics - or the Idealisation of Mechanism,
(Unwin Brothers, Ltd., Working, England, 1929). Essentially, Lodge proposes
that electricity and magnetism plays a vital role in life; in a sense,
he has been proven correct, in that the membrane in each cell carries a
large electrical potential across it, and this electrical potential is
put to useful work in generating chemical energy for the cell's activity.
Certainly nerve and muscle cells communicate using electrical (and chemical)
communication. This concept was brave at the time, because the commonly
held theory was that life contained a divine force, not describable in
physical terms.
Long,LeRoy Edward,Jr.,
SCIENCE and CHRISTIAN FAITH, (Association Press,
New York, 1950). This book outlines the rise of science, with its early
unity with religion, then "the parting of ways", followed by a discussion
of "The Role and Boundaries of Science" (ch. 3), then two chapters on the
nature and ultimacy of religion, and finally, "Science and Christian Faith"
(ch. 6). The book seems to treat science rather fairly (when compared to
Morris or Gish), and has the general approach that something can be learned
from both science and Christianity.
Longwell, Chester R., and Flint, Richard F.,
Introduction to PHYSICAL GEOLOGY,
(John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1962). I bought this at a garage
sale (July '91) for 25¢; I had looked earlier for a geology text at
the University Bookstore - new it was $78, and "used" it cost $56. For
my purposes this will work just as well. (I just wanted a reference to
see what it would say about the age of the earth.)
Lovelock, James
GAIA - A New Look at Life on Earth, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1979). I read this in September, 1998. This is the famous theory that the earth is one organism. I have to admit that if you read what he's saying, it makes sense. I think since the book was written, some people have kind of gone crazy with some of the metaphysical claims.
Lucas, Jerry, and Washburn, Del,
THEOMATICS - God's Best Kept Secret Revealed,
(Stein and Day, Publishers, New York, 1979). This book ". . . scientifically
proves that a Mind -far beyond human capabilities and understanding - planned,
constructed, and formed every word in the Bible." This is a kind of strange
idea in that Lucas takes various biblical themes and then adds up the numerial
values for the Greek words, and obtains "insight" into the meaning of the
text. For example, one chapter is devoted to the parable where Peter caught
153 fish in the net. Now, if you sum up the values for the Greek letters
in "fish", you get 1224 (153x8). Amazing!! But, if you sum up the value
for "the net" you also get 1224 (153x8). "Fishers of Men" is also a multiple
of 153 (2142 = 153x14), as well as "Multitude of fishes" (2448 = 153x16),
and "casting a net into the sea" (3060 = 153x20). From all of this it is
obvious that God must of been up to something when He inspired John to
write this passage of scripture. This type of evidence has been cited by
creationists as "scientific proof" of the inspiration and accuracy of scriptures.
At least Lucas is honest when he admits that he hasn't looked in other
literature for such combinations: "One question that some readers may ask
us is this: Have you checked out other works of literature to see if they
contain a design? The answer is no, and the reason is simple. Which work
of literature are we going to examine? In order for us to prove that no
other work of literature contains a design, we would have to check every
piece of literature ever written in the history of man. Furthermore, which
multiple factors would we use, and which number-letter equivalencies? As
the reader can see, the number of numerical combinations is immeasurable.
The amazing fact is that the Bible is the only book in the world where
these designs can and do exist. And the only equivalencies that will produce
them are those found in Webster's dictionary and the papyrus. Strange,
isn't it?" (page 99). (Too bad it wasn't page 153!)
Lucretius,
The Nature of the Universe, (Penguin Books Ltd., Harmondsworth,
Middlesex, England, 1952). Lucretius believed that all man had to go on
was the five senses, and that all knowledge came from observations made
from these senses alone. It is interesting in that Book V (Cosmology and
Sociology) sounds pretty much like the modern "evolutionary" view of the
world. He states that the world had a beginning and will have an end, and
that it was not created by the gods, who are remote and unconcerned. Furthermore,
his view of the creation of the world ("by a conflux of atoms") is actually
similar to the "Big Bang" theory. He also traces the development of man
from primitive societies to the present. This was written about 70 B.C.
Lull, Richard Swann, (Editor),
The Evolution of Earth and Its Inhabitants,
(Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn., 1918). This is a series of lectures
delivered before the Yale chapter of the Sigma Xi during the academic year
1916-1917. The material is mainly technical details about the geology of
the earth. "On the whole, the problem of the genesis of the earth appears
to lie somewhat more in the field of the geologist than in that of the
astronomer." There is no mention of God or any other possible view of the
origin of the earth.
Lull,Richard Swann, Ferris,H.B., Parker,G.H., Angell,J.R., Keller,A.G., and Conklin,E.G.,
The Evolution of Man, (Yale University Press, New Haven,
Conn., 1922). This is a series of lectures delivered before the Yale chapter
of the Sigma Xi during the academic year 1921-1922.
"The
Mosaic account of creation, which has been and is yet of wide acceptance,
would give us a very recent date for man's advent on this planet. The strictest
interpretation of this account is that of Dr. John Lightfoot, a profound
Biblical scholar, vice-chancellor of Cambridge University in 1654, who
is often quoted because of the exactness of his findings. As a result of
careful searching of the Scripture, Dr. Lightfoot was led to declare that
"Heaven and earth, centre and circumference were made in the same instance
of time, and clouds full of water, and man was created by the Trinity on
the 26th of October, 4004 B.C. at 9 o'clock in the morning.
"One
questions, however, not the Scriptural account but the exactness of its
interpretation. The researches of oriental scholars are bringing more and
more into evidence the historical truth of the Old Testament narratives,
and are establishing from other lines of evidence the historical character
of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the other Hebrew patriarchs, but they are
also tracing back into a more and more remote period the history of the
Near Eastern peoples, as the result of the extensive excavations, with
their treasure trove, which are being carried forward in these venerable
abiding places of mankind." (page 1).
From here, Lull traces the evidence of civilizations to 5500 to 6000 B.C., and
that there is geological evidence that the earth could in fact be several
million years old. It is worth noting that he questions Usher's
4004 B.C. date but not the authority of scripture.
Lull,Richard
Swann, ORGANIC EVOLUTION, (The Macmillan Company, New York,
1927).
This is a thick book (more than 700 pages) on the evolutionary theory in the early 1920's. In the chapter on Hereditary (ch. 10), Weismann's germ-plasm theory is discussed in which "the chromatin of the nucleus contains the determinants of hereditary qualities." (page 143).
McAlester, A. Lee
The History of Life, (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1968). This is a thin book, probably meant for either high-school students or first-year college students, outlining the basic concepts of evolution.
McAlester, A.Lee,
The History of Life, (2nd edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey, 1977). This is essentially an undergraduate text on evolution.
The stance of the book is clear in the first chapter:
"Sometime
during the 4 billion years that made up the first eight-ninths of our planet's
history, there was an obscure but extraordinarily significant event - the
beginning of life on Earth. Most biologists now believe that life originated
by a process of slow development from nonliving chemical systems; today
few areas of science offer more challenge and excitement than does the
search for understanding the nature of this development and the primitive
organisms that it produced. Since the mid-1950's, research in two disparate
fields has added significantly to our knowledge of these earliest organisms.
biochemists have become interested in laboratory syntheses of the chemical
components of life under conditions that simulate those of the primeval
Earth; and geologists have discovered fossilized remains of early life
in Precambrian rocks (those formed during the eight-ninths of Earth
history before the Cambrian Period, which marks the beginning of abundant
fossilized life). In this chapter we shall review these developments by
considering the experimental evidence for the origin of life from nonliving
chemical systems and the life processes of the simplest organisms that
exist today. Then we shall turn to the documentary evidence for early life
provided by Precambrian fossils." (page 3)
This is quite a bit different from the Genesis account. I guess I don't consider
the origin of life on earth an "obscure" event. On the other hand, compared
to the evidence presented here for "the origin of life from nonliving chemicals",
the present technology (fall of 1991) vastly outshadows the comparatively
puny evidence presented in this chapter (from the mid-1970's). It is kind
of frightening - the technology that looms before us - what will the future
bring? I guess I'm aware of all of this evidence, and yet I choose to believe
in a God behind the mechanism.
McElroy,William D., and Glass,B.,
A Symposium on THE CHEMICAL BASIS OF HERIDITY,
(The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1957). This is interesting from a
historical point of view; at the time of writing, this book probably represent
one of the first gathering of such a broad group of scientists, talking
about DNA structure, genetics, and recombination. This is important for
this collection in that DNA recombination is the mechanism for genetic
(and hence evolutionary) change.
McGrath, Alister E.,
SCIENCE & RELIGION - An Introduction,
(Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Oxford, 1999). I read this in April, 2000. Allistor got his Ph.D. in "Molecular Biophysics", and then became interested in theology later, and he is now a professor in theology at Wycliffe college, Oxford University. This is a very good introduction to the subject, starting out with a historical background, and then going through some specific examples, and finally he ends with a discussion of several "key authors" in the area. In Chapter 5 ("Creation and the Sciences"), McGrath makes some very good points about ecology:
This vital theme of `the human right to mastery' is intimately connected with the rise of technology inthe modern period. In a remarkly astute analysis of the social role of technology, written in 1923, the Roman Catholic theologian and philosopher Romano Guardini (1885-1968) argues that the fundamental link between nature and culture has been severed as the result of the `machine'. Humanity was once prepared to regard nature as the expression of a will, intelligence and design that are `not of our own making'. Yet the rise of technology has opened up thepossibility of changing nature, of making it become something which it was not intended to be. Technology offers humanity the ability to impose its own authority upon nature, redirecting it for its own ends....
This ability to dominate and control nature will inevitably, according to at least some culture analysts, lead to the deification of technology, resulting in a culture which `seeks its authorisation in technology, finds its satisfaction in technology, and takes its orders from technology' (Postman). As Moltmann correctly observes, blame for this development can hardly be laid at the door of Christianity, or any other religion. (page 121).
McMenamin, Mark A. S.
Discovering the first complex life - The GARDEN of EDIACARA, (Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, 1997). I read this in August, 1998, as part of a course on "The Spontaneous Origins of Life" at the Neils Bohr Institute in Copenhagen. Mark was one of the speakers for the course, so I got to discuss the book with him in person. The book is about life BEFORE the Cambrian "explosion". There were some kind of strange looking fossils, and presumably creatures.
Macbeth,Norman,
DARWIN RETRIED - An Appeal to Reason, (Dell Publishing Co.,
Inc., New York, 1971). This is a collection of essays written by a retired
lawyer who became interested in Darwinism. He readily admits that he started
out as an amateur, but has struggled to educate himself in the literature.
He has some interesting arguments. ". . . If a Watchmaker is thus carefully
excluded at the beginning, we need not be surprised if no Watchmaker appears
at the end. The dice have been loaded against him. The determination to
exclude Christianity plays a part in the arguments [of the evolutionists],
but it is only a reflection of a far more significant fact: Darwinism
itself has become a religion." (page 126).
Malthus, Thomas,
An Essay on the Principle of Population, (Penguin Books Ltd.,
Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, 1979). This book contains both the 1798
essay, and his final restatement of 1830. This is interesting to read in
light of Darwin's claim for some inspiration from this work.
Margulis,Lynn, and Fester,Rene, editors
Symbiosis as a Source of Evolutionary Innovation, (The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1991). This book contains a set of 26 essays by various scientists about evolution and symbiosis.
Margulis, Lynn,
SYMBIOTIC PLANET - A new look at evolution,
(Basic Books, a member of the Perseus Books Group, New York, 1998). I read this in January, 2000. Margulis is a strong proponent of the "endosymbiosis theory" of the origins of eukaryotic cells. Actually there is considerable evidence for the bacterial origins of mitochondria in eukaryotic cells, as well as for plant chloroplasts coming from ancient bacteria. The most compelling evidence (in my opinion) for this is from the DNA sequences in mtDNA organelles, which carry many of the same genes and characteristics as bacterial genomes. In fact, in some (mainly plant) mtDNAs, the size of the mtDNA is as larger or larger than that of many bacteria. Margulis also discusses the "GAIA" hypothesis - the idea that the organisms somehow interact with each other, and the biosphere behaves in some ways as one big creature. I have to admit that, on the one hand, I am a bit skeptical, on the other hand, I did find that some of the things that James Lovelock had to say in his GAIA book made some sense - that there are biological feedback mechanisms to control the amount of certain gases and heat within the atmosphere.
Margulis, Lynn, and Schwartz, Karlene V.,
FIVE KINGDOMS - An Illustrated Guide to the Phlya of Life on Earth,
(Third Edition, W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1998). I read this in April, 2000. Aristotle divided all life into two kingdoms. Then, when micro-organisms were first characterised a few hundred years ago, there were THREE kingdoms. In the 1950's, a "Five Kingdom" classification scheme was proposed. The Five Kingdoms are: Animals, Fungi, Prokaryotes (Bacteria and Archaea), Proctista (single-celled organisms), and Plants. This is a very good look at the diversity of life. It also (of course) has a lot to do with evolution, and one of the authors (Lynn Margulis) is quite keen on the idea that some of the major transitions in life, such as the development of the first eukaryotic cell, are due to endosymbiosis. This theme is fleshed out in more detail in her "Symbiotic Planet". "The Five Kingdoms" is more of a reference book, with detailed listings and examples of all the major phyla in each kingdom.
Marshall, P.T.,
The DEVELOPMENT of MODERN BIOLOGY, - A text for history of science
examinations and background reading in biological science for vi forms,
(Pergamon Press, Leicester, England, 1969). This is a history of biology;
it starts off with a chapter on "the origins and development of the scientific
method", then a chapter on plant and animal classification and taxonomy,
then a chapter on "evolution", followed by two chapters on aspects of medicine
and the final chapter on agriculture. This came from the old biochemistry
library at U.C.
Mayr, Ernst,
Animal Species and Evolution, (The Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1966). This is an undergraduate text
- nearly 800 pages. "The present work is an attempt to summarize and review
critically what we know about the biology and genetics of animal species
and their role in evolution." (from the preface.)
Medvedev, Zhores A.,
The Rise and Fall of T.D. Lysenko, (Columbia University
Press, New York, 1969).I finished
this book in June of 1991. I put this book in this collection because of
some of the parallels between the pseudo-science that Lysenko believed
and in what the creationists propose. In the last chapter, "How did it
happen?", Medvedev speculates on how such an obviously wrong (scientifically)
idea could flourish: "First of all, any false doctrine is, beyond question,
a product of fanaticism. As indicated, the theoretical constructs of false
doctrines are extreme manifestations in the spectrum of normal hypothetical
constructs. In essence, they are hypertrophied and dogmatized hypotheses
lying somewhere on the border between science and anti-science. And in
most cases their creators are also extremist representatives of the heterogeneous
world of science, whose scientific thinking lies somewhere on the border
between the normal and the pathological. The world of science, as represented
by its human diversity, is no more uniform than any other part of our society.
The human psyche in science runs the full gamut of expression from total
mediocrity to absolute genius, and includes a range of psychopathic deviations,
often more dangerous in the area of talent than of mediocrity. To create
a false doctrine, all that may be required is a fanatical person who has
faith in the products of his own fantasy and who assumes the function of
an infallible, scientific prophet. But, for false doctrines to succeed
and for their creators to achieve a scientific monopoly, still other special
conditions are necessary.
"In the ancient and medieval worlds the origin of false doctrines was aided by
ignorance, since only an insignificant amount of scientific information
was available. In many cases the spread of false doctrines was secured
through their defence by dominating groups, religious or political, whose
interests they served. In more recent times the link between periodic monopolies by false doctrines and political alignments has become the main factor.
The alarming thing is that President Reagon endorsed creation science, for purely political purposes, and some of his appointees to the supreme court voted for the parallel teaching of "creation science" with evolution. I suppose I should be glad that we live in a country that is free enough not to be forced into accepting some false doctrine.
"False doctrines, being an extreme product of the normal background of science,
and having been created by extremist, fanatical representatives of the
world of science, can achieve a monopolistic position only in state systems
that are extremist in nature, as a particular manifestation of many other
deviations from the reasonable norms of organized human society.
"Monopoly in science by one or another false doctrine, or even by one scientific trend, is an external symptom of some deep-seated sickness of a society. . ." (pages 245-246).
Mendel, Gregor,
Experiments in PLANT HYBRIDISATION, (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge Mass., 1965). This is an English translation of Mendel's papers
originally published in Verh. naturf. Ver. in Brunn, Abkhandlungen,
(iv) 1865, which appeared in 1866. In the foreword, Mendel is quoted as
having said "Mein Zeit will schon kommen."
Messenger, Ernest,
EVOLUTION and THEOLOGY - The Problem of Man's Origin, (Burns Oates and Washbourne Ltd., London, 1931). I bought this at Blackwell's bookshop in Oxford (autumn 1993, but I didn't get around to actually reading this until the summer of 1995, when we were on holiday in Bath, England). My impression is that, from a strict Catholic theological position, creation through spontaneous generation has historically been the position of the church. So, in another way of looking at it, God used "natural processes" for creation. I suppose in one sense, special creation of the first kind is not that different from the belief in spontaneous generation - except that in the latter, special creation is happening all the time.
Miller, Ken R.,
FINDING DARWIN'S GOD: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution,
(Cliff Street Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, New York, 1999). I read this book while traveling to and from a biochemistry conference ("Beyond the Genome") in Birmingham, England (July, 2000). I think this is one of the best books I have read so far on the subject. Roughly the first half of the book is spent in building up the case for evolution, giving a good solid discussion of the subject. Miller takes on the creationists ("young earthers"), the Intelligent Design crowd, as well as the evolutionists who try and use science to push their own atheistic beliefs. In fact, Miller says that a large part of the blame for the present situation lays at the feet of some of the scientists who are pushing their materialistic philosophy as the only possible alternative. I tend to agree with him here - the fundamentalists are reacting to being kicked. Maybe what the Creationists are doing is not so bright, either, but part of the problem is that many scientists try and use their "science" to prove there is no God.
Miller's view is a bit like Stephen Jay Gould's NOMA (see my comments on Gould's "Rock of Ages" for more on this). However, Miller feels that there is still room for a God you can pray to, who is personal and can do all the miracles in the Bible - but this is a matter of choice, and that one cannot try and use science to prove God exists. Here is a quote from towards the end of the book, where he talks about chance, and that many people are really bothered by the idea of being here as the result of "random chance" or an accident:
"Since chance - and for that matter, free will - played such an important role in bringing me to life, does this mean that I cannot view my own existence as part of God's plan? Of course not. Any clergyman, very much in the Christian tradition, would caution me that God's purpose does not always submit to human analysis. God's means are beyond our ability to fathom, and just because events seem to have ordinary causes, or seem to be the result of chance, does not mean that they are not part of the divine plan. This is the reason why no religious person would take issue with a geneticists's assertion that the sorting of the chromosomes in meiosis is random. Sure it is, every bit as random as flipping a coin, the impact of a meteor, or a sudden shift in climate that drives one species to extincition and allows another to survive.A week after reading this book, I heard a debate between Ken Miller and Michael Behe on NPR. Miller challenged Behe to a debate at either the next meeting of the International Union of Biochemists (IUB, which Mike Behe is a member), or the equivalent association of cell biologists (which Ken Miller is a member). Mike accepted the challenge, and I look forward to seeing the debate. This really makes much more sense to discuss it in front of scientists. The meeting I attended two weeks ago was of the IUB, and there was more than two thousand posters, many of them about molecular evolution, but despite scanning several thousand abstracts over the week of the conference, I did not find a single poster with a reference to anything about "Intelligent Design". If this is so "scientific", then where is the evidence? Out of more than 11 MILLION published articles in the PubMed database, I could not find a single one proposing Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution. I suspect the reason for this is that the real motivation for the "Intelligent Design" movement is more religious, rather than scientific.
A Christian, specifically, sees his life, family, and his small place in history as parts of God's plan. He has faith that God expects him to use his talents and abilities in God's name. He accepts the adversity that comes into his life as a challenge from God, and he sees apparent misfortune as an opportunity to do good in the service of both God and man. these non-controversial elements of Christian teaching are so ordinary that we sometimes forget what they imply about the interplay of history, free-will, and chance. To put it simply, they mean that if God, if He exists, surpasses our ordinary understanding of chance and causality. Christians know that chance plays an undeniable role in history, and nonetheless accept the events that affect them in their daily lives as part of God's plan for each of them. This means that Christians already agree that the details of historical process can be driven by chance, that to allow for individual free will the outcome of such a process need not be preordained, and that the final result of the process may nonetheless be seen as part of God's will. These ordinary elements of religious teaching merge smoothly into everything we know about evolution. (pages 236-237).
Miller,Jonathan,
DARWIN for Beginners, (Pantheon Books, New York, 1982). This
is a comic book type of overview of Evolution.
Milner, Richard,
The Encyclopaedia of EVOLUTION - Humanity's Search for Its Origins,
(Facts On File, Inc., New York, 1990). Colleen bought this for me on my
31rst birthday (May '91) from the QPB. It has lots of interesting articles,
including 3 pages on "CREATIONISM", an entry under "FOUR-THOUSAND AND FOUR",
discus-sing the Bishop Usher's date for Creation (also see "USHER/LIGHTFOOT
CHRONOLOGY"), "NATURAL THEOLOGY", "GENE MAPPING", and several thousand
other entries, with many illustrations and short bibliographies under several
entries. This is a most valuable addition to my collection.
Milligan, W.O.,(editor),
COSMOCHEMISTRY (vol. XXI) from the Proceedings of the Robert
A. Welch Foundation Conferences on Chemical Research, (The Robert
A. Welch Foundation, Houston, Texas, 1978). There are a couple of interesting
chapters: ch.4 Cosmochemistry and the Origin of Life; ch. 7 Ancient Chemistry
and the Formation of the Planets.
Minkoff, Eli C.
Evolutionary Biology, (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts, 1983). This is a thick (627 pages) undergraduate text on evolution. It is divided into four main units: historical development, microevolution, macroevolution, and "the course of evolution".
Monad, Jacques
CHANCE and NECESSITY - An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology, (translated from the French by Austryn Wainhouse; Vintage
Books, A Division of Random House, New York, 1971). I read this in September, 1998. This is a "classic" by the Nobel-winning biologist who discovered
and characterised the first bacterial operon. This is a nice companion
to "THE LOGIC OF LIFE - A History of Heredity" by Francois Jacob.
Monad in many ways sounds like an earlier version of Richard Dawkins.
Here's a representative quote:
"...Randomness caught on the wing, preserved, reproduced by the machinery of invariance and thus converted into order, rule necessity. A totally blind process can by definition lead to anything; it can even lead to vision itself...."
Montagu, M.F. Ashley, editor,
Culture and the Evolution of Man, (Oxford University Press, New York,
1964). This book is a compilation of about 20 different essays from prominant evolutionary biologists.
Montagu, M.F. Ashle, editor,
Man and Aggression, (Oxford University Press, New York,
1968). This book is another collection of different essays, this time about the nature of agression in humans.
Montagu, Ashley,
Science and Creationism, (Oxford University Press, New York,
1984). This book was written in response to the 1981 legislation in Arkansas
which required equal treatment of Evolution and Creationism in the classroom.
There is a wonderful chapter entitled "Evolution - The Fossils Say Yes!
", as well as a chapter on "Paleontologic Evidence and Organic Evolution"
- this chapter provides 5 tables, each with several fossils and several
references, of transitional forms. This is the data the creationists claim
is "missing", and the data I'll have to dig out and start with if I wind
up discussing this with any creationists.
Moody, Paul Amos
INTRODUCTION TO EVOLUTION, (third edition, Harper and Row, publishers, New York, 1970). This book is an undergraduate text in evolution. The last chapter (ch. 22) is "An Open Letter to Students", where the author says he has "decided to doff the cloak of scientific objectivity, to sit down at your elbow, so to speak, and talk over with you some of the implications of evolution from your outlook on life in general, including religion. . ." (page 492).
Moore, James
THE DARWIN LEGEND - Are reporst of his deathbed conversion true?, (Hodder and Stoughton, Ltd., London, 1994). I bought this in the back of St. Clements Church, in Oxford, England. I read it in July of 1994, and really enjoyed it. I think Moore does a good job of putting Darwin into historical perspective, and discussing some of Darwin's religious concerns about evolution.
Moorehead, Alan,
Darwin and the Beagle, (Penguin Books, Toppan Printing Co.,
Singapore, 1982). This has lots of nice illustrations (most of them period)
of the Beagle's voyages. I found this book enjoyable and easy reading.
Morgan,Thomas Hunt,
The Physical Basis of Heredity, (J.B. Lippincott Company,
Philadelphia, 1919). I found this book in the old Microbiology Library
(at U.C. Med. School), hidden back with several old books to be discarded.
I think this is a very significant book. Morgan took Sutton's hypothesis
(linking chromosomes with Mendel's units of heredity) and greatly expanded
on it using Drosophila (fruit flies). Morgan is considered "the
father of modern experimental genetics". He won the Nobel prize in medicine
in 1933. Calvin Bridges was one of his students, and together they produced
linear maps of Drosophila chromosomes.
Morowitz,Harold J.,
Mayonaise and the Origin of Life, (Berkley Books, New
York, 1986). This is a collection of short essays originally published
as columns in Science 82, Science 83, etc. There are some interesting stories
about Morowitz's testimony at the Arkansas Creation Science hearings, Tieldard
de Chardin's Phenomen of Man, and the Galápagos islands.
Morris, Desmond,
THE ILLUSTRATED NAKED APE - A Zoologist's Study of the Human Animal,
(Crown Publishers, Inc., New York, 1967). I was 7 years old when this book
came out, although I'm sure it was probably banned in the whole state of
Arkansas. Anyway, I can imagine it caused quite a controversy when it was
published. Personally, I don't think that humans are "just another animal".
I believe that man has a spirit, but in the final analysis, this is a matter
of faith and not science. I do think that some useful lessons
can be learned from observing animal social behavior, although I do
not think that just because some animals behave in a particular manner
(e.g., eating their own dung).
Morris,Henry M.,
The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, (Bethany Fellowship,
Inc., Minneapolis, MN, 1978). Typical creationist rhetoric. Evolution violates
the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Life is too complicated to have evolved
by "accident", etc. Morris claims that Psalm 139 shows that God had already
revealed modern biology to the Hebrew psalmist 3000 years ago.
"Mutations are rare and, for the most part, the process of reproduction is marvellously efficient and wonderful. 'I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought (literally "embroidered," perhaps an intimation of the intricate weaving of the D.N.A. molecular structure) in the lowest (or "hidden") parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my "substance, yet being unperfect" (this phrase is one Hebrew word that could perhaps be translated "embryo"); and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.' (Psalm 139:14-16)." (page
43).
I think I could probably find allusions to DNA in Homer if I wanted to look.
Morris, Henry M.,
The Twilight of Evolution, (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1963). I think this might be one of Morris's first books on creationism,
although I'm not sure. (This was published nearly 30 years ago!) Essentially,
this is the same arguments as in all of the other books by this author.
". . .Many people have no concern over this struggle, regarding the issue as
'peripheral.' The important thin, it is alleged, is simply to acknowledge
the fact of God and of 'creation', leaving the problem of the method and
sequence of creation to be worked out by the scientists.
I think there is a real danger in vitalism (i.e., God is what we don't know), in that the more we understand, the less room there is for God. If I understand
the physical mechanism by which a broken bone is healed, and can "heal"
broken bones at will, understanding the process involved, does that mean
that God had no part in the healing? James says "Every good gift comes
from above". Why must I be compelled to doubt the existence of God if I
can understand how something occurred. There is still the question
of why it occurred. I suppose I must be an Ostrich. At least I try
not to make any bold claims on behalf of God - as far as I'm concerned
He can do it however He wants - after all, who am I to demand that He must have done it this way?
"Although the legendary posture of the ostrich may provide a superficial and temporary freedom from the discomforts of active conflict, it is not to be recommended as a permanent solution! The leaders of evolutionary thought in the intellectual world, and most of their followers, are not to be satisfied with any such shallow compromise as that which regards evolution as "God's method of
creation." If evolution can explain the origin and development of this
universe and its inhabitants, then there is no need for any kind of personal
God at all.
"The tale could be told a thousand times, of a Christian church or school or
mission society or some other organization, founded by men of strong Biblical
faith and with an uncompromising evangelical witness, slowly but steadily
drifting off its foundations and gradually sinking in the sands of modernism
and secularism. This tragedy, repeated times without number, almost
always begins with a questioning of Biblical creationism." (from the
preface.)
Morris, Henry M.,
The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, (Baker Book House,
Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1984). Morris shows that Christianity is the "Queen
of the Sciences", and also delves into the Biblical basis for Physics,
Chemistry, and other sciences. What I would really like to see is the Biblical
basis for Kurt Gödel's Consistency of the Continuum Hypothesis; actually
I would be pleased just to see the Biblical basis for Intel's 80486 microchip.
Morris,Henry M.,
The Long WAR Against GOD - The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution
Conflict, (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1989). I bought
this book with money I won from a poster on Triple-Stranded DNA (spring, 1990). It was
kind of a self-indulgent act. The title had a pompous sound to it - and
the book turned out to be as good as the cover had promised. Morris traces
the theory of Evolution back to the Chinese, then to the Babylonians, and
then to Adam, and then to Satan - the first evolutionist. "This means,
finally, that the very first evolutionist was not Charles Darwin or Lucretius
or Thales or Nimrod, but Satan himself!" (page 260). I particularly enjoyed
the bit about "promiscuity, vandalism, hedonism, even incipient cannibalism"
being caused by teaching evolution. Morris argues that "evolutionary thinking
is the root cause of the major harmful systems and practices in the world".
Morris,John D.,
Tracking Those Incredible Dinosaurs & the People Who Knew
Them, (Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1980).
This is an interesting look at fossil evidence for the coexistence of man
and dinosaurs. Unfortunately, two years ago (1986), the author had to retract
his claim, when further excavations revealed that the alleged giant man's
footprints were in fact from another dinosaur. (See Nature, 320:308,(1986).
Morris, Simon Conway
THE CRUCIBLE OF CREATION - The Burgess Shale and the Rise of Animals, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998). I read this in June, 1999. This is a very interesting contrast to Stephen Jay Gould's "It's a Wonderful Life". I like the way this book was written - I feel as though I learned a lot not only about the Burgess Shale and the "Cambrian Explosion", but also about evolution as well.
Mueller-Hill, Benno
THE lac OPERON - A Short History of a Genetic Paradigm, (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1996). I read this in July, 1998. This is where evolution happens at the molecular level. Here's the "Readers' Comment" I wrote for Amazon.com:
The lac Operon, a Paradigm of Beauty and Efficiency In "The
lac Operon - A Short History of a Genetic Paradigm", Benno Mueller-Hill
does an excellent job of describing the history, mistakes, and present-day
view of the lac operon. I found it an enjoyable read. The book is written
at a level that assumes the reader already knows a bit about molecular
biology, and starts with "A Short History of the lac System from
its Beginning to 1978". I found the middle section most interesting, where
the mistaken interpretations of the lac operon are considered. This would
be a very educational read for students (and post-docs and researchers)
in the field. Finally, the last section discusses the current model for
how the lac Operon works; this model has not made it to many of the undergraduate
molecular biology / Genetics textbooks yet. Overall I was quite happy with
this short book on the first bacterial operon to be characterised.
Muller, Robert,
NEW GENESIS - Shaping A Global Spirituality, (Image Books
- A Division of Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York, 1984).
This is another book about social evolution. It has the "we can make this
world a better place to live" type of philosophy. Muller works for the
UN, and claims that the whole world is "evolving" toward social order.
Murphy, Michael P. and O'Neill, Luke A.J., editors
WHAT IS LIFE? THE NEXT FIFTY YEARS - Speculations on the future of biology, (Cambridge University Press, paperback edition, 1997). I read this in August, 1998. This book is a companion volume to Schrodinger's "What is Life", celebrating the 50th anniversary of its publication.
Narby, Jeremy,
THE COSMIC SERPENT: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge,
(translated from the French, "Le Serpent cosmiue, l'ADN et les origines du savoir", by the author, with the help of Jon Christensen; this edition was published by Phoenix Books, an imprint of Orion Books, Ltd., London, 1999). I found this at a bookstore at an airport in Maqnchester, England, and read it on a plane trip to the U.S. (in December, 1999). It was kind of fun reading, although I think the book is a bit silly. Basically the author (who is Swiss) spent some time working with the Peruvian Indians, and decided one night that the reason the Indians take psycho-active drugs is to allow the jungle to communicate with them - and he claims to have seen visions of things like snakes dancing, which represent the DNA double helix, and that there's something out there trying to communicate with us, if only we are receptive (e.g., taking the right psychodellic drugs!). The funny thing is, some of his arguments sound a bit like the creationists...
"As I patrolled the texts of biology, I discovered that the natural world was teeming with examples of behaviors which require forethought. Some crows manufacture tools with standardized hooks and toothed probes to help in their search for insects hidden in holes. Some chimpanzees, when infected with intestininal parasites, eat bitter, foul-tasting plants, which they otherwise avoid and which contain biologically active compounds that kill internal parasites. Some species of ants, with brains the size of a grain of sugar, raise herds of aphids which they milk for their sweek secretions and which they keep in barns. Other ants have been cultivating mushrooms as their exclusinve food for fifty million years. It is difficult to understand how these insects could do this without a form of consciousness." (page 138).It is interesting to note that using the same type of reasoning as Michael Behe, Narby reaches the conclusion that the jungle is trying to talk to us, if only we were to smoke some hallucinogenic plant and get in touch with the spirits.
Nei,Masatoshi and Koehn,Richard K.
EVOLUTION OF GENES AND PROTEINS, (Sinauer Associates, Inc., Publishers, Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA, 1993). This is a collection of essays about "molecular evolution". "The study of evolution at the molecular level has experienced two periods of exciting development during the past two decades. The first period started when the techniques of amino acid sequencing and protein electrohoresis were introduced in evolutionary studies in the 1960s, and lasted about 10 years . . . The second period started only a few years ago and is not yet over. This period was initiated by introduction of a new set of biochemical techniques: DNA sequencing, recombinant DNA, and restriction enzyme methods. . . " from the preface.
Nelkin, Dorothy, and Lindee, M. Susan
The DNA MYSTIQUE - The Gene as a cultural icon, (W.H. Freeman & Co., New York, USA). I read this in July, 1997. This was written by two socialogists, looking at how DNA is used (and often abused) as various symbols of scientific progress. DNA has come to stand for the symbol of the synthesis of evolution and genetics.
Nelson, Byron C.,
AFTER ITS KIND, The First and Last Word on Evolution,
(Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis, 1930). "The pages of this book
are the product of years of study of a Bible-lover who has gone through
the fiery furnace of skepticism and has come out firmly convinced of the
scientific trustworthiness of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis.
In this book are contained the conclusions of examining and weighing of
evidences and arguments for and against the theory of evolution which began
when, as a young man in the University of Wisconsin, the author's Christian
faith was almost destroyed by the wave of evolutionary philosophy and pseudo-science
that has swept over the universities and colleges of our land." (from the
preface). I got this book at a Library discard sale at William Jewell College
(probably in '81 or '82).
Newman, William L.
Geologic Time, (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1996). I read this in August, 1999. This is a good brief overview of how geological time is measured. It is a nice contrast to the creationist position that there is little or no evidence for an old earth.
Numbers, Ronald N.,
The Creationists - The Evolution of Scientific Creationism,
(University of California Press, Berkley and Los Angeles, California, 1993). This is a very good history of the "Young Earth" Creationist movement. I read this in June of 2001. I had not really appreciated that even during the early 1900's, most Christians were willing to accept scientific evidence that the earth was perhaps millions of years old. The idea that the world MUST BE less than 10,000 years old has only been held by a relatively small handful of people from around the turn of the century until the 1960's, when the Creationist movement started to spread in the U.S. It is interesting to read some of the comments about how the early creationists were alienated from society. Douglas Dewar had submitted a short paper to a mainstream scientific journal, about the distribution of mammalian fossils, which was rejected.
"... Dewar, nevertheless, interpreted the rejection as an attempt by those who had made evolution `a scientific creed' to muzzle independent-thinking creationists. Articulating what would soon become a creationist dogma, he argued that `Those who do not accept this creed are deemed unfit to hold scientific offices; their articles are rejected by newspapers or journals; their contributions are refused by scientific societies; and publishers decline to publish their books except at the author's expense'. " (pages 149-150).Dewar's complaints in 1923 sound very similar to the people from the Intelligent Design movement, who insist that their claim of creation by an Intelligent Designer Something, working outside of the laws of science, is a perfectly valid scientific notion, and can't seem to understand why SCIENCE or NATURE magazine wouldn't want to publish their arguments of incredulity (gee, this is soooo complicated GOD MUST have made it!) as if they were scientific.
Numbers, Ronald L.,
Darwinism Comes to America,
(Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England, 1998). I read this in April, 2001. This is an interesting historical look at how Darwin's theory of evolution came to the United States. Numbers takes 80 American naturalists elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences between 1863 and 1900, and examines their written statements concerning Darwinism. After carefully examining their records in historical context, he then goes on to describe the development of the modern "creationists" movement. I was surprised to learn that the modern "young earth" creationist movement came from the 7th Adventists, who in the early part of the 1900s was one of the few groups who insisted that God must have created the world less than 10,000 years ago. Even William Jennings Bryan had no problem with God taking a long time (e.g., maybe even millions of years) to create life, and that it did not have to be within a literal 6 days, 24 hours each.
Olson,Everett C., Robinson, Jane
CONCEPTS OF EVOLUTION, (Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, A Bell and Howell Company, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975). This book is meant as a textbook for college "non-biology majors". It is supposed to be a general introduction to biology in the context of evolution.
Oparin,A.I.,
Genesis and Evolutionary Development of Life, (Academic Press,
New York, 1968; translated from the Russian by Eleanor Maass).
This book came from Dr. Bill Buss (in the pharmacology dept. at UNM Med. School). I should probably eventually return it to him. This is a book about the beginning of life - from inorganic chemicals to "living" molecules. "At
the present time, a fundamental change has occurred in the thinking of
different groups of naturalists regarding the problem which interests us.
Today, the conclusion has become generally accepted that the origin of
life was by no means a "lucky accident", but a phenomenon completely approachable by objective scientific study." (from the "Preface to the English Edition").
Osawa, Syozo,
Evolution of the Genetic Code, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995). This book is a about mechanisms of molecular evolution of the genetic code. It is quite detailed, and looks like a very interesting read.
Pagels, Heinz R.,
THE COSMIC CODE - Quantum Physics as the Language of Nature,
(Simon and Schuster, New York, 1982). "Albert Einstein, who never accepted
the randomness at the foundation of relativity implied by the quantum theory,
expressed his objection by stating, "I cannot believe that God plays dice."
Yet almost every physicist today believes He does. We will look at randomness
in the hand of a dice-playing God and see what it implies about reality."
(from the foreword).
Parker, Barry,
CREATION - The Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe,
(Plenum Press, New York, 1988). I bought this book at the UNM bookstore
in April of 1992, at the same time I bought the book by Gentry (see above).
I read the first three chapters on the plane, and was fascinated. Here
you can see science tracing back what happened at the Creation of the Universe
- the entire universe came from a small speck - smaller than an atom. It
doesn't take very much faith to go back a step further and say there was
nothing and then God created the universe de novo. A tiny
fraction of a second later the universe expanded to the size of an orange
- and now time (and then light) was created. A few weeks ago (May '92)
several newspapers reported that scientists had discovered fluctuations
in background radiation from this event.
Patterson, Alex.,
The Other Side of Evolution - Its Effects and Fallacy,
(The Bible Institute Colportage Association of Chicago, 1903). This is
a "classic" old creationist book.
"It is true that many evolutionists are theistic. But it is not enough to be theistic. The devil is "theistic", so was Thomas Paine. Christianity is far more than theism. It is the grossest sophistry to teach that because a belief has some truth in it we must therefore tolerate it. All false doctrine is sugar-coated with truth. . ." (page viii).In the chapter on "Evolution and the Bible", Patterson questions why evolution is never mentioned in the Bible, if it is how life began. He concludes:
"Whom shall we believe? Shall we credit Evolution which admits that its theory is unproven and full of difficulties, with not a single case of Evolution to support it, nor a power which could produce it, and with countless facts to antagonize it, or shall we believe Jesus Christ who was never mistaken, or false in his facts, or teachings, and who believed these chapters, cited them and accepted their narratives without question?" (page 127).
Patterson, Colin
EVOLUTION,
(British Museum, (Natural History), Cornell University Press, New York, 1978).
"In writing this book I have set out to produce an account of modern evolutionary theory which does not beg too many questions, and is complete enough to be coherent, but simple enough to be comprehensible to those with little or no technical knowledge of biology. . .", from the Foreward.
Pelikan, Jaroslav,
The Christian Intellectual, (Harper & Row, Publishers,
New York, 1965).
The first half of this book is on "Christian Thought and Natural Philosophy", and is about "Creation". The author discusses why it is that Darwin's book was seemingly so much more a threat to Christianity than Gallileo's work or some of the previous "revolutions". He makes that point that creation links man to Adam, and includes the doctrine of original sin. If there
was no literal Adam, then what does that do to the doctrine of man's sin?
The book looks interesting; maybe one of these years I'll find the time
to read it.
Piel, Gerard,
SCIENCE in the Cause of MAN, (Alfred A. Knopf, New York,
1961). This is a collection of essays about the benefits of science.
"It is true that starvation and disease have not been positive political forces in the history of man. Most of the fifty billion human beings who have ever been born, died early of hunger and infection. Most of them expected to and accepted their lot as the misfortune of birth. But now the word has got around that malnutrition, disease, and early death are not necessary conditions of existence. And just because they are human, people are determined to do something about it." (page 58).I know it is dangerous to read between the lines, but I get the feeling that Piel might say that Christianity has helped people to accept their poor meagre lot, while science can help them improve their life. I certainly would agree with that, and yet I cannot really disagree with what he has said - science has improved things - but I think it is for some people, and we have to ask at what cost to the rest of the world. Also, I think that the Judeo/Christian tradition of careful study and rationality has helped science to develop.
Plato, TIMAEUS and CRITIAS, (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, 1981; translated by Desmond Lee) Plato's attempt at a scientific account of the creation of the world (written around 350 B.C.) has some parts that still sound reasonable, while in other places it sound a little
ridiculous. (Plato thought the ear was connected to the liver, and that
the eyes emitted rays of light from within.)
Pollack, Robert
SIGNS OF LIFE: The Language and Meanings of DNA, (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1994). I read this in May, 1998. This is a discussion of DNA as a string of text characters. I think he makes some good points, that DNA can be thought of as an ancient text. However, perhaps he could have taken this a bit further, and even though this book is intended for the general reader, mentioned the importance of context for information, as described in Kuppers' "Information and the Origin of Life".
Poole, G.W.,
THE ORIGIN OF MAN - or, Evolution or Revolution, Which?,
(The Western Methodist Book Concern, Cincinnati, 1904). The author states
in the introduction that he has spent the past 10 years looking into the
Evolution/Creationism controversy, and that this book is the synthesis
of his findings.
Poore, Michael
A Guide to SCIENCE AND BELIEF, (Lion Publishing, plc, Sandy Lane West, Oxford, England). This book was given to me from John Livingstone, when he worked for Lion Press, in Oxford. This is a good, honest look at Science and religion. I think it's quite a good book, although a bit thin (128 pages).
I read this in September, 1999. I like how the author tries to put things in perspective - he shows respect both to the scientists as well as the theologians. I would gladly recommend this to read to anyone interested in a Christian perspective on evolution.
Postgate, John
The Outer Reaches of Life, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994). I read this in March, 1999. I found this book very enjoyable. John Postgate does an excellent job of describing the different types of environments that bacteria can occupy, from surviving in the deep-freeze arctic to boiling sulfur springs to mineral deposits buried deep within the earth.
I was reminded of Stephen Jay Gould's "Full House", where he says that
bacteria probably constitute the majority of the biomass of the earth.
There's also an excellent chapter on flagella - and it was quite nice to
see a good description at the molecular level of the flagella, along the
lines of Michael Behe's description in "Darwin's Black Box".
One of the themes I found interesting in the book was that of evolution. He mentions examples of how bacteria might have evolved to digest nasty man-made organic chemicals in the environment, through natural selection of degradation pathways of similar molecules. Also presented is a "time-line", starting with the formation of the Earth and moon, about 4,500,000,000 years ago. Essentially bacteria appeared as soon as fossils could be formed - about 3,500,000,000 years ago, and for the next 2,500,000,000 years it was only bacteria, then a few small multi-cellular organisms, and it's only within the past 500,000,000 years or so that more complex organisms appeared (and really only the last 65,000,000 years saw the development of "modern" plants and animals. So essentially bacteria have "ruled the earth" for most of the history, and still occupy an amazing range of places and, as pointed out in Postgate's last chapter, the bacteria are still necessary for establishing new territory. So, for example, he says that in the future it might be possible to send bacteria to mars to start preparing the surface, in terms of generating an atmosphere and also the beginnings of a biological ecosystem, for the eventual habitation of humans. (link to reviews from Amazon.com)
Raup,David M.,
EXTINCTION - Bad Genes or Bad Luck?, (W.W.Norton &
Company, New York, 1991). I got this free with "bonus points" from a book
club. It is a thin book, and I finished reading it within a few weeks after
it came in the mail (April '92). (See under "Some Thoughts While Hiking
in the Rocky Mountains" in the comment section for more on this.) I put
this book in the collection because it deals with a closely related problem
to evolution - extinction. I had not realized that there had been 5 major
mass extinctions, each followed by an outburst of evolution. Raup attempts
to link these extinctions to meteor collisions with the earth. He does
a good job of presenting the data as statistical probabilities, and he
argues very gently, not forcing the issue. I appreciate the candour, and
I think he tells a very interesting story.
Raymo, Chet,
SKEPTICS AND TRUE BELIEVERS - The Exhilarating Connection Between Science and Religion,
(Walker and Company, New York, 1998). I read this in December, 1999. Raymo is a professor of physics and astronomy at Stonehill College, and also writes a science column for the Boston Globe. I generally liked the book, although I felt that Raymo was saying the "true believers" were kind of ignorant and stupid, believing in old superstitions, whilst the "skeptics" had the enlightened truth. That's not much of a "connection between science and religion" - it sounds like he's pretty much saying religion is wrong and should admit defeat. However, despite this feeling, there were several good sections in the book, such as this:
"...However, many of us instinctively recoil from the mechanical metaphor of life, and especially for consciousness. We are put off by the idea that we might be merely machines. We cling to the notion that there is something magical, irreducible, and transcendent about life, something that will forever escape the molecular biologists with their computer models of chemical structures. ... The indispensably useful mechanical metaphor of life does not so much reduce the miraculous to the mundane as it elevates the mundane to the miraculous." (pages 40 - 41).
Reanney, Darryl
THE DEATH OF FOREVER - A New Future of Human Consciousness, (Souvenir Press, Ltd., London, 1995). "A ground-breaking book that overturns our beliefs about life, death and eternity and reveals our true place in the evolution of the cosmos." (from the back cover.)
Ridley, Matt,
GENOME - The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters,
(HarperCollins Publishers, New York, 1999). read this in August 2000. This is an excellent look at the human genome, with all of its implications. The view is very different than most people have, I think. It is also very recent, with many articles cited within the past year or two. I am absolutely amazed at how much we now know, as well as how much we still don't know. I think Ridley does a very good job of introducing the human genome, with a look at one chromosome for each chapter. (Actually, he tries to described one GENE from each chromosome, weaving it into a tale of the whole human genome.) He does a pretty good job of this, I think. I was surprised how much evolutionary biology was in this book. Obviously this is written from one person's perspective, but still it is a good introduction into the field.
Ridenour, Fritz, editor,
WHO SAYS?, (G/L Publications, Glendale, California,
1967). This book looks like its geared toward high school students - it
is illustrated throughout with cartoons. However, at the end of each chapter
there is a bibliography with 5 or 6 "paperbacks" followed by roughly an
equal number of "hardbacks". The conflict between modern science and scriptures
is an issue throughout the text, although the last half of the book (chapters
7-12) deal with some of the more specific aspects. For example, "Is evolution
a threat or theory?" (chapter 8), and "Does Genesis conflict with modern
science?" (chapter 10) both deal with evolution/creationism.
"Today genetics is considered by many evolutionists to be the "mechanism" of evolution - that is, the way evolutionary changes occur through natural selection. Geneticists carry on many experiments, with x-ray for example, and produce actual changes in the genes of certain organisms. But there is no evidence to date that these gene changes (mutations) ever result in a new form of life. No observed genetic change is adequate to prove that fishes turned
to frogs and reptiles to birds as evolutionists claim happened in the distant
past. That there has been change within species (for example, the dog or
horse) is obvious. But such change does not prove the assumption made by
the believer in organic evolution - that great leaps and changes were accomplished, which resulted in completely new forms of life." (pages 119-120).
As a geneticist reading this 25 years after it was written, I can see that there is much evidence now that most likely didn't exist then. For example, I
can think of mutations in the "homeo box" of Drosophila (fruit fly)
which results in a fly with eight legs. Another mutation can result
in a fly with its leg sticking out of its head (Antenopedia). While one
could argue that in both cases the product is still a fly, a strict taxonomist
would say that something with eight legs cannot be classified as an "insect".
I can think of other examples as well. Perhaps more importantly, I can
visualize mechanistically how this could occur. Thus, I find it very reasonable
to believe that one species can "evolve" into another through a result
of a few mutations in certain key genes. A little further on, Riodenour
talks about theistic evolution:
"The point is this: If you try to explain Genesis 1 by saying 'God worked through evolution' you leave yourself wide open to the liberal and neo-orthodox
higher critical view of the Bible which denies its inspiration and infallibility. In addition you set yourself at odds with the firmly stated opinions of Christ Himself Who took Genesis just as seriously as any other part of Scripture. For example, Christ spoke of man's special creation as a historical fact when He was discussing marriage: 'Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female?' (Matt. 19:4)." (page 121).
Ridley, Mark, editor
The DARWIN READER, (2nd edition, W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 1987).
This book contains a selection of readings from 9 different pieces of Darwin's work.
Rifkin, Jeremy,
ENTROPY - A New World View, (Bantam Books, Toronto, 1980).
Rifkin shows his ignorance of thermodynamics. Rifkin is an example of why
social "scientists" have developed such a bad reputation. By definition,
life is the opposite of random decay. Life is organization. To say that
society must of necessity become more random and disorderly is to go against
this logic.
Rifkin, Jeremy,
ALGENY, (Penguin Books, R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company,
Harrisonburg, Virginia, 1984). I guess Jeremy Rifkin and I probably have
opposite views on a lot of things; he thinks that computers were created
for the soul purpose of learning a detached view of reality, which results
in a blurred distinction between species, allowing for the acceptance of
genetic engineering, the ultimate of all evils. Rifkin thinks that Darwin's
writings (1850's) inspired the industrial revolution (ca. 1780's). He further
states that in fact now "Darwinism is in a state of flux", and the Chemists,
who are still upset about never being able to turn lead into gold, are
out to try and perfect life through genetic engineering.
Rimmer, Harry,
The Harmony of Science and Scripture, (The Berne Witness
Company, Berne, Indiana, 1940). Ruse (see below) talks a lot about Rimmer
as one of the traditional creationists.
"The universe in which we live is our specimen. The Bible is our microscope. When men study creation through the lens of the Word of God, their definitions are clear, their enlargements are magnificent, and their conclusions are scientific and accurate. But when a man uses the universe, which is his specimen, to study the Word of God, which is his magnifying glass, he has reversed the proper procedure! So his definitions are fogged, the matter is distorted, and confusion results!" (page 47).
Rosenfeld,Israel,
DNA for Beginners, (Writers and Readers Publishing, Inc.,
New York, 1983). This comic book is informative for the novice and fun
to read, although the conservatives might find some of it offensive.
Ruse,Michael,Editor,
BUT IS IT SCIENCE? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution
Controversy, (Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1988). This book
looks very good; I only wish I didn't have so many other books to read
before I'll have a chance to get to this one. (later . . ) I finished this
book! I think Ruse did a good job of presenting both sides of the controversy
and explaining his reasoning behind his testimony at the Arkansas Creation
Science Trial in 1981. (See "Comments" above).
Ruse, Michael,
Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? : The Relationship Between Science and Religion,
(Cambridge University Press, UK, 2001). I read this in March, 2001. Michael Ruse takes a long, careful look at whether believing in Darwinian evolution means that one can no longer be a Christian. He is being brutally honest when he says that the task is a difficult one, and that it is not easy to try and answer some of the questions, but he presses on, and goes through many of the traditional arguments for why believing in Darwinian evolution does not necessarily exclude belief in traditional Christianity. I loved the quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, where he says that we should worship the God we do know and have experienced, rather than limit God to the gaps of present scientific knowledge.
Ruse, Michael
DARWINISM DEFENDED - A Guide to the Evolution Controversies, (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, London, 1982). I read this in March, 1998. This is a good overview of Darwinian theory, and how it has fared over the 100 years since his death.
Ryan, William, and Pitman, Walter
NOAH'S FLOOD - The New Scientific Discoveries About the Event that Changed History,
(A Touchstone Book by Simon and Schuster, New York, 1998). I read this in January, 2000, at the recommendation of Mr. Merrifield, my high-school chemistry teacher, who I had visited in back in Arkansas over Christmas (1999). I thought the book was quite well written, and though they did a pretty good job of building the case for a devastating flood in the Mideast area about 7000 years ago. The authors speculate that this might have given rise to the flood stories from the epic of Gilgemesh to the Babylonians to the flood story in Genesis.
Sagan, Carl,
The Dragons of Eden, Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence,
(Ballantine Books, New York, 1977). Sagan has an interesting quote in the
beginning of this book - it is from Job 30:29. "I am a brother to dragons,
and a companion to owls." (This verse is interesting in different translations:
"I am a brother of jackals, and a companion of ostriches" (NRSV); "I have
become a brother of jackals, a companion of owls." (NIV); the Jerusalem
Bible and the New Oxford Annotated Bible both have "jackals" and "owls".
I think that the old King James is the only translation with "dragons".
While the scripture it taken out of context for this book, it certainly
is an interesting quote. (I have heard it said that you can prove just
about anything using scripture.)
Sagan,Carl,
COSMOS, (Random House, New York, 1980). This is from the television series where he talks about evolution occurring over billyions and billyions of years. Van Till (in Science Held Hostage, see below)
discusses COSMOS as a "religious theatre" in which Western naturalism
(essentially atheism) is present as the natural consequence of scientific
fact.
Sagan,Carl, and Druyan,Ann,
COMET, (Random House, New York, 1985). I added
this book to the collection because of Frank's argument (see
the comments on the debate) about the origin of comets. There is a
whole section (7 chapters) dealing with "The Origin and Fate of Comets".
Maybe someday I can read this and sit down and figure out exactly what
Franck (actually Humphries) was trying to say.
Savage, Jay M.
EVOLUTION, (second edition, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York, 1969). "The function of Evolution, second edition, is to provide a basic understanding of the inconceivably complex but unifying theme of biological evolutionary change. This book is written in the strong conviction that the study of evolution is fundamental to the understanding of any field of biology and forms a rich area of investigation in its own right. . .", from the Preface.
Savage, Jay M.
EVOLUTION, (third edition, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York, 1977). This is a more recent version of the same book as above.
Schaeffer, Francis A.,
Genesis in Space and Time, (InterVarsity Press, Downers
Grove, Illinois, 1979). I was surprised to find Schaeffer (usually considered
a conservative; he inspired Tim LaHaye) suggesting the possibility that
Abraham was a Neanderthal. He also believes in the big bang as God's method
of creation of matter, space and time.
Schwartz, Jeffrey H.
SUDDEN ORIGINS - Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species, (John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1999).
"The greatest riddle of evolution has been the following puzzle: while Darwin argued that new species emerge through slow, gradual accumulation of tiny mutations, the fossil record reveals a very different scenario - the sudden emergence of whole new species, with no apparent immediate ancestors. This discrepency has fueled heated debate among evolutionary theorists and has provided unfortunate fodder to creationists, who see it as proof that evolution doesn't happen at all.
I read this in November, 1999. This book is pretty much a history of evolution, and (unfortunately) when he comes to the more recent topics like the homeobox mutations, Schwartz does not really seem to explain the mechanism of HOW "Sudden Origins" can happen. I have mixed feelings about the book - when I read some of the stuff which are closer to my area of interest and background seem to be a bit suspect, so I'm not sure how much I can trust what he writes about things which are more removed from my speciality. However, having said that, he DOES make some good points throughout the book, such as the following:
Now, in this provocative and timely book, leading paleoanthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz presents a groundbreaking and radical new theory of evolution, which brings together evidence from genetics, paleontology, embryology, and anatomy to solve this outstanding riddle . . ." from the cover jacket.
"....It seems that whenever you pick up a popular article or read a piece in a newspaper about evolutionary theory, the topic is described as ``Darwin's Theory of Evolution''. This, of course, is an incorrect attribution on various counts. Evolution is not a theory. It is a phenomenon. What evolutionists, whether Chevalier de Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin, Niles Eldredge, or Stephen Jay Gould, strive to understand are the processes that make evolution tick. This is not an easy task, because evolutionary events occur over greater periods of time than any scientist, or generations of scientists, could observe - assuming they would know that such an event was taking place. Even Darwin was aware of the distinction between observing the results of the phenomenon of evolution and trying to understand the way or ways in which the results of evolution came about. Darwin's realization of this dichotomy - accepting the reality of a phenomenon and trying to understanding the workings of the phenomenon - is obvious in the title of his book On the Origins of Species by Means of Natural Selection
" (page 88)
While I can certainly understand this point of view, in my opinion it is hardly a compelling "scientific" argument. One of my favorite essays in the whole book (360 pages total), is from Dr. E. Theo Agard, a medical physicist:
Schmucker,S.C.,
The Meaning of Evolution, (The Chautauqua Press, Chautauqua,
New York, 1913). The author readily states his belief in God in the foreword:
"So, in the distant past, in the childhood of our race, the question was asked, "Who made us?" and the answer was "God." Men formed their simple conception at that time of how He did it. As the centuries rolled by and the children of men have learned from creation the story of its origin, a riper and richer knowledge has given them a broader and finer conception. No less
does the reverent student believe that God created the earth, but he no
longer thinks of God as working, as man works. He no longer feels that
it is impious to attempt to read God's plan in His work; to see how this
work has arisen, to see, if may be, what there is ahead." (pages 3-4).
I think that although this book was written nearly 80 years ago, it is very relevant today to the creationism controversy. I agree that there is a problem in assuming that God must work "as a man works".
Schmucker, Samuel Christian,
MAN'S LIFE ON EARTH, (The Macmillan Company, New
York, 1925). Schmucker considers himself a Christian biology teacher, and
he admits "having taught evolution all the time".
"I have taught it [evolution] to many thousands of people. In all that time I believed myself most solicitous for the spiritual, yes the religious, welfare of my pupils. To be told now, that all of this has been destructive of character and subversive to religion hurts, even though I believe those who say so are mistaken. They are usually people of more than common earnestness and seriousness, as good people as any in the community . . ." (Introduction,
page xxviii). Also, in the introduction, he mentions a resolution adopted
by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in Boston in
December of 1923. The resolution, which was from "one of the largest scientific bodies in the world" at that time, consists of four statements:
Schmucker points out that the resolution passed without dissent, and also that most of the scientists "hold connection, at least as active as that of most
business men, with some religious organization, church, or synagogue."
"1.)
The council of the association affirms that, so far as the scientific evidences
of the evolution of plants and animals and man are concerned, there is
no ground whatever for the assertion that these evidences constitute a
'mere guess.' No scientific generalization is more strongly supported by
thoroughly tested evidences that is that of organic evolution.
"2.)
The council of the association affirms that the evidences in favour of
the evolution of man are sufficient to convince every scientist of note
in the world, and the evidences re increasing in number and importance
every year.
"3.)
The council of the association also affirms that the theory of evolution
is one of the most potent of the great influences for good that have thus
far entered into human experience; it has promoted the progress of knowledge,
it has fostered unprejudiced inquiry, and it has served as an invaluable
aid in humanity's search for truth in many fields.
"4.)
The council of the association is convinced that any legislation attempting
to limit the teaching of any scientific doctrine so well established and
so widely accepted by specialists as is the doctrine of evolution would
be a profound mistake, which could not fail to injure and retard the advancement
of knowledge and of human welfare by denying the freedom of teaching and
inquiry which is essential to all progress."
Schrödinger,Erwin,
What is Life? & Mind and Matter, (Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1944). Schrödinger is best known for his contributions
to quantum mechanics (for which he won the Nobel prize). However, this
book was influential for several scientists in pursuing the chemical source
of genetic information (DNA). Schrödinger proposed that this information
- containing molecule must be some sort of long crystal.
Schroeder, Gerald L.
THE SCIENCE OF GOD: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom, (The Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., New York, 1997). I read this in April, 1998, based on a book review in the Washington Post. I think he does a good job of showing the similarities, at an overall level, of some of the philosophy of the origins of the Universe held in the Talmud and contemporary scientific theories. He has kind of a strange argument about the speed of light and relativity, where he figures out that 6 days, from the perspective of a beam of light at the creation of the Universe, is actually 15,000,000,000 years! I'm not sure I fully understood this bit.
Shapiro, Robert,
ORIGINS - A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth,
(Summit Books, New York, 1986). I think that I can relate to this book
better than any other in the collection. This is probably due in part to
the fact that the author is also a nucleic acids chemist and sceptical
of both sides. I read this in the spring of 1991 (see comments above).
Shapiro, Robert,
THE HUMAN BLUEPRINT - The Race to Unlock the Secrets of our Genetic
Script, (St. Martin's Press, New York, 1991). This is a book written
for the layperson about the Human Genome Project. I think Shapiro does
a good job of describing things clear enough so that people outside of
the field can understand. The "genetic text" of humans contains records
of millions of years of evolution - all we need to do is to read it (which
turns out to be millions of pages) and try and understand.
Sheldrake, Rupert,
A NEW SCIENCE OF LIFE - The Hypothesis of Formative Causation,
(J.P.Tarcher, Inc., Los Angeles, Distributed by Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1981). I read this in January, 2000. To be honest, I had not heard of this guy, until someone had emailed me, suggesting that I read something by Rupert Sheldrake, as an alternative to scientific materialism. Apparently Rupert is quite popular in some circles in Germany, and many of his books in German sell quite well. I found his ideas a bit strange. Sheldrake proposes the existence of "morphogenetic fields", kind of like magnetic fields or something, but which contain neurological information. An example that he gives in the book is that if someone was to train a rat to learn a maze, then this rat could somehow communicate its knowledge to all the other rats, so that learning would become progressively easier for rats throughout the world. He claims that this is why ritual is so important - when we perform an ancient religious ritual, such as citing the Apostle's creed in church, we are "resonating" with past learning, and even people in the future. On the one hand, it seems a bit odd, on the other hand, perhaps this is not THAT far removed from the idea that the Creeds represent a continuous link to the past. However, I'm not so sure this is really a serious contender as a scientific theory. Perhaps if someone could somehow detect these fields, this would be a start - but even then, I'm not sure there is a great problem here that needs to be solved. I don't know that many people who are concerned about how rats can learn mazes, nor does there seem to be that much evidence for this type of learning - if it occurs at all, it must be at such low levels that no one has ever noticed it before.
Shermer, Michael,
How We Believe : The Search for God in an Age of Science,
(W.H. Freeman & Co., New York, 2000). I read this book in May of 2001. I thought this book was a good presentation of a skeptics' view about why religion is so common in society. Shermer makes many good points, and early on I found myself agreeing with him. His analogy of another "spiritual" dimension to the appearance of a sphere in flatland is an old but good example, I think. My feeling is that we simply cannot say for certain that the world we see around us is all that exists - we now know of magnetic fields which have been around for a very long time, but only comparatively recently have been characterised by science. Might there not be similar phenomena that we have yet to discover?
I think that the idea of humans as "pattern seeking animals" explains a lot of our reading more meaning into some things than is really there. My only (minor) complaint is that the book already feels a bit dated in the discussion of the "end of the millennium". I guess from my perspective, the end of the millennium has come and gone with no great calamities - I had almost forgot all the hype from the media until I read the last section of the book.
Sims, Michael,
DARWIN'S ORCHESTRA - An Almanac of Nature in History and the Arts,
(Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1997). This book contains a reading for every day of the year. There are lots of little pieces of trivia about natural history. I read it during the year 2000.
Sinnot,Edmund W., Dunn,L.C., and Dobzhansky,Th.,
Principles of GENETICS, (McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., New York, 1950). This is a nice text of "classic" genetics, including Bridges' polytene chromosome maps. Dobzhansky has the famous quote "biology only makes senses in light of evolution".
Sitchin, Zecharia,
GENESIS REVISITED - Is Modern Science Catching up with Ancient Knowledge?,
(Avon Books, New York, 1990). "Science and Myth: Are they one and the same?
Was Adam the first test-tube baby? And was Eve the original beneficiary
of organ transplant surgery? Did nuclear fission destroy Sodom and Gomorra?
Did computer printouts exist 5000 years ago? How were the ancients able
to describe accurately details about our solar system that are only now
being revealed by deep space probes? The incredible answers are all here
- fully documented with the latest scientific findings - in an important
and fascinating new work by the respected author of THE EARTH CHRONICLES."
(from inside the from cover).
Sloan, Phillip R., editor,
Controlling Our Destinies : Historical, Philosophical, Ethical, and Theological Perspectives on the Human Genome Project (Studies in Science & the human genome project),
(Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2000). I read this in May of 2001. This hefty book (more than 500 pages!) is a collection of essays written by philosophers, theologians, and historians. For me this really helped put not only the "human genome project" into perspective, but also provided a wonderful insight into the relationship between theology and modern science.
Smith, John Maynard, EVOLUTION NOW - A Century after Darwin, (W.H.
Freeman & Co., San Francisco, 1982). I got this book in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
"In recent years there have been claims - in the daily press, on television,
and by retired cosmologists - that Darwin may have got it wrong. . . The
most controversial of these are debated in this book. However, to see Darwinism as being under serious threat would, I think, be a false perception. The error arises because Darwin's theory is so central to modern biology that
any new idea may first be seen (as Mendelian genetics was seen) as being
in conflict with Darwinism.
From here he goes on to point out how developments in our understanding of genetics has illuminated mechanisms for evolutionary change.
"This volume presents some current controversies and recent advances in evolutionary biology, by reprinting papers published in the last few years. But let me, as a background, first give a brief history of evolutionary ideas since Darwin. In the Origin of Species, Darwin aimed to establish two
things. First, he argued that evolution had in fact happened (that is,
that all existing organisms are descended from one or a few simple ancestral
forms), and, second, that the main cause of evolutionary change was natural
selection of variations that were in their origin non-adaptive. The main
weaknesses of his position were that he had no adequate theory of genetics,
and that he could give no satisfactory account of the origin of the variations
on which selection would later act. . ." (from the Introduction)
Smith, John Maynard
EVOLUTIONARY GENETICS, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989). "This book is intended as a text for advanced undergraduates: I hope it will also be useful to graduate students. It aims to do two things. First, it provides a basic grounding in those aspects of genetics, both population and molecular, that are needed to understand the mechanisms of evolution. Secondly, it disucss a range of topics, from the evolution of plasmids and of gene families to the evolution of breeding systems and social behaviour, upon which current research in evolution is mainly concentrated, and attempts to show how the basic principles discussed in the first part of the book can be applied. I am convinced that a proper training in science requires that undergraduates are confronted with by the problems of contemporary science. Only then can they see science as an activity, and not a body of received point of view. In discussing contemporary problems, I have expressed my own point of view, but I have also given references in which alternative views are expressed."
Smith, John Maynard ,
SHAPING LIFE: Genes, Embryos, and Evolution,
(Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1998). I read this in April, 2001. This is a good quick-read which is a summary of the role of genetics in development. It is part of the "Darwinism Today" series of short books about evolution. This is something that would be great for countering Jonathan Well's claim that genes have nothing to do with development of an organism.
Smith, John Maynard and Szathmary, Eors
The Major Transitions in Evolution, (W.H. Freeman, Oxford, 1995). I read this in August, 1999. This is a more detailed version of their "Origins of Life" book (see below). The authors take the challenge of trying to explain the difficult transitions in evolution, and, in my opinion, they do a very good job of laying out the possibilities, and when necessary, saying "we don't know, but here's a good guess. . ."
Smith, John Maynard and Szathmary, Eors
THE ORIGINS OF LIFE - From the Birth of Life to the Oirign of Language, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 1999). I read this in May, 1999. This book is an excellent overview of many of the troubling transitions in evolution. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it, and feel like I learned several new things in the process. I love the way the book starts off - "Organisms are incredibly complex. . . ." in chapter 1, and then in chapter 2 "The theory of evolution by natural selection does not predict that organisms will get more comlex. It predicts only that they will get better at surviving and reproducing in the current environment, or at least that they will not get worse.
Empirically, many and perhaps most lineages change little for many millions
of years . . ." I think this is a very important point, and well
said. I'm reminded of a figure from Stephen Jay Gould's book "Full
House". (Actually, it is two figures - Figures 28 and 29 on pages
170-171.) Most animals and plants are at the tail end of a curve
showing complexity - essentially the shape of the curved has changed little
before and after the Cambrian explosion. All the "complex organisms"
are just a tiny fraction of most of life!
Early on, the authors list 8 major transitions towards higher
complexity, which are essentially the topics of individual chapters to
follow.
These transitions are:
This book is a "popularized version" of their more scientific book that came out in 1995 (The Major Transitions in Evolution). I'll have to eventually get my hands on this book and read it as well!Replicating molecules --> Populations of molecules in protocells Independent replicators --> Independent replicators RNA as gene and enzyme --> DNA genes, protein enzymes Bacterial cells --> Cells with nuclei and organelles (eukaryotes) Asexual clones --> Sexual populations Single-celled organisms --> Animals, plants, and fungi Solitary individuals --> Colonies with non-reproductive casts (ants, bees, and termites) Primate societies --> Human societies (language)
Smolin, Lee
The LIFE OF THE COSMOS, (Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, 1997). I read this in August, 1998, as part of a course on "The Spontaneous Origins of Life" at the Neils Bohr Institute in Copenhagen. Lee Smolin was one of the speakers for the course, so I got to discuss the book with him in person. The book is about evolution of Universes. Smolin applies Darwinian evolution to the development of black wholes and baby universes, and attempts to explain why we live in the present universe. It was pretty philocophical, but quite interesting.
Smoot,George, and Davidson,Keay
WRINKLES IN TIME - The Imprint of Creation, (Little, Brown and Company, London, 1993). I read this in the summer of 1994. The book is about measuring the aftermath of the "Big Bang", in terms of background radiation, as predicted by theory. Stephen Hawking calls this "the scientific discovery of the century, if not all time". I think that Smoot has a very clear approach, and he also emphasizes the point of being careful - he offered to give airline tickets to anyone in his research group who could find design problems in his instruments.
Solbrig, Otto T.
Evolution and Systematics, (The Macmillan Company, New York, 1966). This book starts with a wonderful quote from Darwin: "We are not here concerned with hopes or fears, only with the truth as far as our reason permits us to discover it."
Stansfield, William D.
The Science of Evolution, (Macmillan Co., Inc., New York, 1977).
This is an undergraduate text in Evolutionary Biology. It is fairly thick (614 pages), and looks quite thorough. This is from an "organismal" perspective.
Stebbins, G.Ledyard, Processes of Organic Evolution, (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1966). Stebbins is Professor of Genetics at U.C. Davis.
"For more than a century evolution has been both a cornerstone of biology and a focal point for conflicting theories. As we begin the second century following the Origin of Species, these theories have been sifted
and combined to produce a synthesis upon which evolutionists in all disciplines of biology - taxonomy, genetics, cytology, ecology, and paleontology - are beginning to agree, at least in respect to its broad outlines. In the present volume this synthesis is offered to students who have had some training in biology and have mastered the basic principles and vocabulary of Mendelian genetics." (from the preface).
Stebbins,G.Ledyard,
Processes of Organic Evolution, (2nd edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1971). This is an updated version of the same text as described above. Someone gave this to me, so I added it to my collection.
Stein,Sara,
The Evolution Book, (Workman Publishing, New York, 1986).
This came from a used book store in Houston. It is a "project book" for
children 10-14 years old. (I could send it to one of my nephews or nieces,
but I would probably get shot.) The book starts out 400,000,000 years ago,
with projects like looking at rocks, to 1,000,000 years ago, with a section
on "skinning and drying an animal skin".
Stone,Irving,
The Origin, (Doubleday & Co., Inc., New York, 1980).
This is a novel version of the voyage of the beagle. I bought it at a garage
sale in Cinncinnati, for 25¢.
Strickberger, Monroe W.
EVOLUTION, (Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Boston, 1990).
This is an undergraduate text in Evolution. ". . . I believe it is essential for students to understand that evolution takes place on many levels and encompasses many disciplines, from biochemistry to paleiontology to population biology, each with its own mode of analyzing evolutionary change. . ." from the preface.
Strickberger, Monroe W.
EVOLUTION, (second edition, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Boston, 1996). This is an undergraduate text in Evolution. It is quite comprehensive (670 pages) and fairly recent.
Suarès,Carlo,
THE CIPHER OF GENESIS - The Original Code of The Qabala as applied
to The Scriptures, (Shambhala Publications, Boulder, 1978). The
author claims to use a "secret tradition" to translate the Hebrew into
its "real" meaning. He argues that Genesis has been mistranslated, and
that he can offer the correct translation.
Sullivan, J.W.N.,
The Basis of Modern Science, (Doubleday, Doran & Company,
New York, 1929). "This book is an attempt to expound the main ideas of
physical science in non-technical language. The scheme of the book may
well seem ambitious, since I begin with the Copernican revolution and end
with the new theories of the atom." I think that this book will be interesting
to read and compare with Morris' The Biblical Basis of Modern Science.
Sullivan,J.W.N.,
The Limitations of Science, (The Viking Press, New York,
1933). I think Sullivan feels that science can explain the physical
world, but not the purpose of life. Maybe he's right.
Taylor, J. Herbert, (editor)
MOLECULAR GENETICS, (Academic Press, New
York, 1967). Of interest are the following chapters: ch. 3 "Patterns
and Mechanisms of Genetic Recombination" - this is the molecular mechanism
of evolution; ch 10 "Studies of Nucleic Acid Interactions Using DNA-Agar"
- This is one of the early discussions of the discovery that the DNA from
higher organisms (including humans) consists of repetitive sequences ("junk-DNA"
or "selfish genes"). Also, part vi. "Implications for Evolution" (page
474), relates interspecies DNA hybridization to evolutionary divergence.
Taylor, Kenneth N.,
What High School Students Should Know about CREATION,
(Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois, 1983). I bought this
book and the one below at a "Christian" book store in my hometown of Springdale,
Arkansas. I felt a little guilty for paying so much money ($2.50) for such
a thin book (60 pages). I read this book in its entirety during the commercials
while watching "STAR TREK" (Sept. '91). Essentially all of the arguments
are along of Paley's watchmaker or what I call "neo-vitalism" (see Ditfurth).
For example, a great deal of time is spent (approximately the first half
of the "book" talking about astronomy and how big the universe is. The
conclusion is that the universe is so big that God must have created it,
and it could not have happened by "chance". I think that Taylor is not
only oversimplifying the issue, but he is actually deceiving these poor
readers into thinking that the choice is either atheistic evolution by
chance, or divine creation as presented in the Bible. Also, I'm not sure
that the author has much of an understanding about DNA when he tries to
explain this "complex machine". "DNA is the 'machine' in the chromosome
of the cell that duplicates the chromosome, including all the hereditary
features to be passed on to the daughter cells whenever cell division occurs."
(page 40). The is wrong. DNA polymerase (a protein complex) is responsible for duplicating DNA (the genetic information material), while translation of mRNA (made from the DNA) on ribosomes (a mixture of RNA and proteins) into chromosomal proteins is the source of the replicated proteins, and the microtubules are assembled from actin monomers (which again are made
from mRNA). I guess the point that I'm making (I know it might seem trivial
but I think it is important) is that the DNA is merely the information
that is being duplicated - it does not "duplicate the chromosome" as Taylor
would suggest. I think it is important that people should have at least
a basic understanding about their subject matter before presenting it to
students as "science".
Taylor,Kenneth N.,
What High School Students Should Know about EVOLUTION,(Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois, 1983). This book is the companion volume to the book above. The title is a bit deceptive, in that:
"The purpose of this booklet is to discuss evolution from the viewpoint of the
creationist - the person who believes that God created Adam as a full-grown
man. The book will show why evolution remains merely a theory, rather than
being a fact on which a case against the Bible can be built. Then it will
show why the theory does not seem to the creationist to be true, probable,
or even possible - despite the fact that almost all biology teachers and
textbooks teach it (so we have a lot of explaining to do!).
Again, as in the book above, the author describes DNA as a "complex machine". This time, he describes the mitotic apparatus (which is certainly more like a rope or perhaps machine that is DNA) as "mechanism", "for which evolution can give no plausible explanation". (page 38). I refer the interested reader to a book I have on my desk, entitled "MICROTUBULES" which tells most sane people more than they would ever want to know about the basic
constituent of the mitotic apparatus. In addition, microtubules can be
made in vitro (e.g., in a test tube) from mRNA (remember DNA->RNA->proteins), and can then be made to polymerize into microtubule filaments indistinguishable from those isolated from living cells. I guess what I'm saying is that Taylor is using an "appeal to ignorance" type of reasoning (often used by the creationists) rather than trying to present what is known about the biology of chromosomes.
Taylor, Michael Ray,
DARK LIFE: Martian Nanobacteria, Rock-Eating Cave Bugs, and Other Extreme Organisms of Inner Earth and Outer Space,
(Charles Scribner & Sons, New York, 1999). This book is mainly about bacterial life in the deep recesses of the earth. One popular theory is that life started not on the surface of this planet, but from within. Michael Ray lives in Arkansas, my native state.
I read this in December, 1999. Taylor is a journalist, and tells the story of the discovery of possible bacteria in a rock sample from Mars. I'm still not sure what to make of the idea of nanobacteria. Taylor seems to imply that there is some sort of bias in scientists, in that living things smaller than about 2 micrometers can't exist. He points out that this is close to the resolution of our microscopes - and seems to think perhaps it is a bias in that if it is to smal to be seen with our microscope, then it is ignored. However, there is also another problem, and that is that the proposed size of these bacteria are in the range of a few hundred atoms thick - or in other words, the entire organism is approaching the same size as very large complex biomolecules. I don't know - it is an interesting idea, but no one has so far been able to show that these organisms have any DNA. Of course, it'd be very interesting if these nanobacteria have some other clever mechanism for replication. Taylor says that many things previously thought to have occurred naturally, over a long period of time, are now thought to be due to nanobacteria. (For example, he claims that Carlsbad caverns was formed by nanobacteria digesting the limestone, over perhaps a few hundred years.) Interesting ideas, and certainly something for me to think about, even if I am a bit skeptical...
Thomas, Lewis,
The Lives of a Cell - Notes of a Biology Watcher, (Bantam
Books, Inc., Toronto, 1975). This is a collection of essays, most of them
about how that the "earth is one organism" type of thinking. I think they
are interesting, but I'm sceptical about being too pantheistic.
Thomson, J. Arthur,
Darwinism and Human Life, (Andrew Melrose, London,
1909). This is a series of lectures given in South Africa 50 years after
the first publication of Darwin's Origins.
Thomson, J. Arthur,
CONCERNING EVOLUTION, (Yale University Press,
London, 1925). This book is based on three lectures given at Yale University
in 1924. They all deal with various aspects of evolution, and one can get
a feel for the breadth of the author by the diversity of topics:
I. The Making of Worlds
It is interesting that Thomson speaks about the wonder of creation:
II. Organic Evolution
III. The Evolution of Man
"From finite experiences we cannot make a transcendent inference, but we see
some point in the saying, 'The undevout astronomer is mad.' We cannot but
be impressed by Newton's quiet declaration: 'This most beautiful System
of Sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion
of an intelligent and powerful Being." (page 16)
Thurman,L. Duane,
How to Think About Evolution & Other Bible-Science Controversies, (Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1978). I bought this book
when in 1981 (when I was an undergraduate at William Jewell College). I
have marked several interesting passages throughout. There are two main
thoughts. One, which I think is perhaps enlightening, is a series of charts
(on page 113), in which "evolutionary trees" are depicted for evolution
and creationism. Three trees are pictured, and all three are identical
from a line marked "Cambrian" up. The differences is between the "beginning"
and the Cambrian explosion. (See more on this under S. Gould.) The other
point of interest is the following quote:
"Creationists have already thought critically about evolution and have had some success in increasing the accuracy of statements on origins presented in public school biology texts, at least in California. The most vocal creationists, however, tend to overdo it by introducing their own religious dogmas which are not acceptable to many evolutionists and other creationists. Consequently their valid criticisms are thrown out along with their dogmas. It seems that everyone would be better served if fewer dogmas were included in the discussion of scientific matters." (page 39)
This quote sounds like a good summary of my feelings after thinking about many
of the books and ideas in this collection.
Tidwell,William D.,
Common Fossil Plants of Western North America, (Brigham
Young University Press, Provo, Utah, 1975). I bought this book because
I thought the idea of a Mormon admitting there existed fossil plants that
no loner exist, fun. It is interesting to note that nowhere is the word
"evolution" found in this book.
Torrey,R.A. (Editor),
The FUNDAMENTALS, (Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1990).
This is an "updated" version of The Fundamentals for Today (1958), which was a (4-volume) compilation of a twelve volume set originally published in 1909. It is interesting, because it was "carefully updated ... for the contemporary reader" in 1958. Presumably, it might have been also possible to "update" the text again in 1990, where necessary. There is a chapter on "The Passing of Evolution", which uses the classic arguments against evolution in 1909 - e.g., "But no one knows what causes variation in plants and animals. Like the wind it comes, but we know not whence it cometh or whither it goeth." Since T.H. Morgan showed that inheritance comes through
chromosomes (he got the Nobel prize in the 1930's), and we now know that
heredity is based on DNA sequence, which is subject to mutations, this
argument is no longer valid. When I make a new plasmid in the laboratory,
I am actually creating a new "species", and I can measure its rate of mutation
(e.g., how much it varies) accurately. In fact, our lab is interested in
understanding mutagenesis from a DNA structural point of view. For example,
certain regions of chromosomal DNA can recombine ("change" or "vary") at
relatively high levels. These regions often contains stretches of alternating
pur/pyr that can form Z-DNA; this alternative structure has been shown
to be involved in mutations (variety). The other major argument against
Darwin has to do with the age of the Earth. Darwin is quoted as saying
"306,662,400 years is a 'mere trifle' of geological time. . . . Evolutionists
are now fighting hard and against great odds to be allowed 100 million
years . . ." For about the last 40 years, geologists have agreed that the
earth is probably about 4,500,000,000 years old. Thus, Darwin's 300 million
years is only 10% of the total age of the earth. This argument might have
been valid in 1909, but not in the 1990's. I would think whoever was in
charge of "updating" this book might have wanted to check and see if science
has changed any since the turn of the century.
Toulman,Stephen,
The Philosophy of Science, (Hutchinson's University Library,
Hutchinson House, London, W.I., 1953). This is another book that came from
the old microbiology library before the departments merged. I put it in
to go along with some of the other books on the philosophy of science.
The last chapter is entitled "Uniformity and Determinism".
Twin-Cities Creation Science Association
The 1992 Twin-Cities Creation Conference, (sponsored by the Twin-Cities Creation-Science Association, Northwestern College, and the Genesis Institute, 1992). This is a collection of about 70 different articles by various people, about "creation science". I bought this at the "Creation Science Museum" near Fossil Ridge, Texas. The guy told me that this was the most technical book they had. I'm not sure even how to refernce it - it is basically a bunch of photocopies that have been spiral bound, there's no "publisher". Amongst other articles is one which claims that quantum mechanics is anit-biblical, since it allows for uncertainty. So these guys don't mind using the computer technology which comes from the theory, but deny the basis of the theory.
Tyndall,John,
FORMS OF WATER in Clouds and Rivers, Ice and Glaciers, (D.Appleton
and Company, New York, 1872). This set of 4 books by Tyndall is from the
"Author's Edition", (limited to 1000 copies; all of these books are # 485),
and most of the pages are still folded from publication, such that a letter
opener is needed to open every other page. I guess that I envy Tyndall
for the era in which he lived. It was possible for a scientist to be very
diverse, and travel about and make observations and contemplate nature.
I often feel that to be a scientist in the late 20th century requires being
very specialized, and any wanderings outside the area of one's alleged
expertise is often considered a distraction and detrimental to the work
at hand.
Tyndall, John,
FRAGMENTS OF SCIENCE, A Series of Detached Essays, Addresses, and
Reviews, Vol. 1, (D.Appleton and Company, New York, 1892). This
first volume deals with "physical laws" of nature.
Tyndall,John,
FRAGMENTS OF SCIENCE, A Series of Detached Essays, Addresses,
and Reviews, Vol. 2, (D.Appleton and Company, New York, 1892).
This volume contains essays on "Reflections on Prayer and Natural Law",
"Miracles and Special Providences", "Prayer as a Form of Physical Energy",
"Spontaneous Generation", and "Science and Man". Tyndall's refutation of
the theory of spontaneous generation was considered a victory for the creationists,
since the evolutionists of that time often used spontaneous generation
as an example of how simply life could evolve.
Tyndall,John,
NEW FRAGMENTS , (D.Appleton and Company, New York, 1892).
The first chapter is on "The Sabbath". It was a presidential address, delivered
before the Glasgow Sunday Society in 1880.
Van Till,Howard J.,
THE FOURTH DAY: What the Bible and the Heavens Are Telling Us about the Creation, (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1986) I bought this book at a quasi-Christian book store in Florence, Kentucky. I had written an article about it a few years ago. . . (Presently, this book is in the hands of Faith, who is looking over it for the upcoming
debate (in Feb. '91).
Van Till,Howard J., Young,Davis A., Menninga,Clarence,
SCIENCE HELD HOSTAGE: What's Wrong with Creation Science AND Evolutionism, (InterVarsity
Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1988). I am presently reading this. I've
read the first 3 chapters so far, and pretty much agree. The authors are
claiming that science has its role - the study of the physical universe,
and the religion has its role - understanding and relating to God. Science
cannot make theological statements, nor can theology make scientific claims,
based on "inspiration". I pretty much agree. From here, the next section
is devoted to 4 chapters attacking "creation science", and then a few chapters
attacking "evolutionism" (e.g., Carl Sagan's reductionistic approach).
While the book is good to attack problems with both sides, it does not
clearly define a necessary third alternative - the fusion of evolution
with Christian theology. This book is similar to Shapiro's book. (see above).
Varghese,Roy Abraham, (Editor),
The Intellectuals Speak Out About GOD: A Handbook for the Christian Student in a Secular Society, (Lewis and Stanley, Dallas, Texas, 1984). This book is dedicated to C.S. Lewis (my hero), but (unfortunately) it has a foreword by Ronald Reagan.
Volpe, E. Peter
Understanding Evolution, (second edition, Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa, 1970). This book is designed for an introductory college course in evolution.
Volpe, E. Peter
Understanding Evolution, (fourth edition, Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa, 1970). This book is designed for an introductory college course in evolution. It's an updated version of the same book above - they were both given to me by a friend in Roanoke, Virginia.
Wallace, Alfred Russel
THE MALAY ARCHIPELAGO - The Land of the Orang-utan and the Bird of Paradise; A Narrative of Travel, with Studies of Man and Nature, (Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1962). This book is an unabridged reproduction of the last revised work first published in 1869 by Macmillan and Company, London.
Ward, Rita Rhodes,
In the Beginning - A Study of Creation versus Evolution for
Young People, (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1965).
I bought this book (for $1.95, suggested retail price) at a book store
in Albuquerque. This book is about 20 years before Taylor's books (see
above) and are written at a much higher level. It contains many of the
classic creationist's attacks against evolution, including a statement
that a Christian cannot believe in evolution.
"Often when students are being taught this idea the teacher will suggest that
God created the living world by evolution. That is to satisfy the student
who has been taught the Bible. The leading evolutionists do not believe
it. If man evolved, then there is no point at which he became in the image
of God or received a soul. There is no sin, the Garden of Eden, and a promise
of a Saviour. There would be no sacrifice of Jesus and a plan of salvation.
If life evolved there would be no truth to the Bible." (pages 96-97).
I think this is unfortunate in that if a student becomes convinced that evolution is true, then he is forced to become an atheist.
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
DID MAN GET HERE BY EVOLUTION OR BY CREATION, (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1967). This little book has lots of fun illustrations that look more like from the 1950s. It is actually a fairly good summary of the creationist position (182 pages, with more than 200 references - although many are from "Reader's Digest", or from local newspapers).
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society
Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?,
(Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1998). This book was sent to me by a reader of my review of Darwin's Black Box. I read it in November, 2000. The question was whether I had thought about the idea that maybe the word "day" in the bible might not mean a 24 hour day, but a long period of time - perhaps a thousand years. This is actually a fairly standard line, but there's still a "slight" problem of a difference of a MILLION fold longer time according to science (e.g., 4,500,000,000 years vs. maybe 4000 years). Overall, I have to admit that it was written much better and to a higher standard than I had expected. Except for the occasional reference to the seemingly strange (to me) ideas of the Jehovah's witnesses, the book read well, and was a good summary of many current ideas as written in the "popular science press". I did not find it nearly as "anti-science" as many of the creationist books tend to be.
Watson, James D.,
Molecular Biology of the Gene, (W.A. Benjamin, Inc.,
New York, 1965). This is the first edition of a "classic" text. It is amazing
to compare the first edition with the fourth edition, which I am presently
using as a supplemental text for a graduate course in Molecular Genetics.
Watson,James D., Hopkins,Nancy H., Roberts,Jeffrey W., Steitz,Joan Argetsinger, Weiner,Alan
M.,
Molecular Biology of the Gene, (4th Edition, The Benjamin/Cummings
Publishing Company, Inc., Menlo Park, California, 1987) The fourth edition
is now in two volumes, and I am presently reading chapter 28 in volume
2 (it starts on page 1198!), entitled "The Origins of Life". This is assigned
reading for a Molecular Genetics class that I'm taking. This chapter takes
a detailed look at the molecular fossils that provide evidence for evolution.
"Molecular fossils" is defined early on as "structures (such as the placement
of introns within a gene) or functions (such as the utilization of a particular
metabolic pathway) that are shared by such diverse organisms that they
must have been present in the first cells, as well as in early precellular
forms of life." I think that the creationists might get some of the "missing
evidence" that they have been wanting to see for the past 100 years. Unfortunately,
the evidence doesn't look like its in their favour.
Watson,James D.,
The Double Helix - A Personal Account of the Discovery of the
Structure of DNA, (Mentor Books, The New American Library, Inc.,
New York, 1969). This book is Watson's account of the double helix. Compare
Crick's book, "What Mad Pursuit".
Watson, James D.,
The Double Helix, (W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1980).
This is a "critical norton edition", with reprints of several of the important
papers about DNA structure.
Watson,James D., Tooze,John,
THE DNA STORY - A Documentary History of Gene Cloning,
(W.H. Freeman and Company, San Fransisco, 1981). This is a history of the
beginnings of genetic engineering. I was only 13 years old (in 1973) when
the controversy began to grow about whether we might accidentally release
some pathogenic organism/virus/DNA that could cause an epidemic like the
"black death" caused by Yersinia Pestus pest.
Weiner, Jonathan,
The Beak of the Finch,
(Vintage Books, a division of Random House, Inc., New York, 1994). I read this in January, 2000. This book won the Pulitzer prize. It is a good, detailed emperical look at evolution in action. Buried in the middle is a quote which explains why Phil Johnson and the people his "Discovery Institute" don't like Weiner:
"In his recent book, Darwin On Trial, the lawyer Phillip E. Johnson speaks sarcastically of ``all this supposing''. 'Gould supposes what he has to suppose, and Dawkins finds it easy to believe what he wants to believe, but supposing and believing are not enough to make scientific explanation''. Johnson writes, adding, ``The prevailing assumption in evolutionary science seems to be that speculative possibilities, without experimental confirmation, are all that is really necessary.''Towards the end of the book, Weiner notes that many of the farmers in states which are fighting to ban the teaching of evolution in the schools are at the same time having to struggle with the [evolutionary] adaption of insects which are destroying their crops. Over a period of only a few generations of crop-eating moths, the percentage which are resistant to insecticides has grown from 6% to more than 60%. Of course, in the absence of insecticide, the levels of resistance would go down again - this is the give and take of natural selection at work.
There is now a simple experimental confirmation of this point. The experiment was published in the same year as Johnson's book, 1991. It was carried out by two evolutionists at the University of British Columbia, in Vancouver, working in a borrowed corner of the laboratory of Dolph Schluter... (page 182)
Wells, Jonathan,
ICONS OF EVOLUTION - Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong,
(Regnery Publishing, Washington, D.C., 2000)). II read this book over Christmas break (December, 2000), and have written a review of it for Skeptics magazine. In a nutshell, I was surprised that, despite all the publicity and slick packaging, the contents were pretty much a rehash of old creationist arguments. The idea is that most of the textbooks are touting "false icons" of evolution, and that there is a conspiracy of fraud amongst the scientists to try and trick the unsuspecting public into believing that evolution is true. Wells says things that are simply not true, quotes scientists out of context, and generally appeals to the ignorance of the readers, rather than trying to build up a rational argument and encourage people to think for themselves. The other day I was thinking about "Icons of Evolution", and came up with the following (paraphrase and perversion of Hebrew scripture):
And what is it that the Lord [Rev. Moon] requires of you [Jonathan Wells]??
To act unjustly, falsely accusing scientists of fraud,
to love having no mercy to your nasty Darwinist enemies,
and to walk proudly with the Discovery Institute.
Wells,H.G., Huxley,Julain S., Wells,C.P.,
The SCIENCE OF LIFE, volume 1, (Doubleday Doran & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York,
1931). This volume contains the first three books: Book one - The Living
Body, Book two - The Chief Patterns of Life, and Book Three - The Incontrovertible
Fact of Evolution.
Wells,H.G., Huxley,Julain S., Wells,C.P.,
The SCIENCE OF LIFE, volume 2, (Doubleday Doran & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York, 1931). This volume contains the two and a half books: Book Three (continued) - The Incontrovertible Fact of Evolution, Book Four - The How and The Why of Development and Evolution, and Book Five - The History and Adventures of Life.
Wells,H.G., Huxley,Julain S., Wells,C.P.,
The SCIENCE OF LIFE, volume
3, (Doubleday Doran & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York,
1931). This volume contains the following books: Book Five (continued)
- The History and Adventures of Life. Book Six - The Spectacle of Life,
Book Seven - Health and Disease, and Book Eight - Behavior, Feeling, and
Thought.
Wells,H.G., Huxley,Julain S., Wells,C.P.,
The SCIENCE OF LIFE, volume
4, (Doubleday Doran & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York,
1931). This volume contains the following books: Book Eight (continued)
- Behavior, Feeling, and Thought, and Book Nine - Biology of the Human
Race.
Whetham,William Cecil Dampier,
MATTER and CHANGE - An Introduction to Physical and
Chemical Science, (CAMBRIDGE at the University Press, 1924). This
probably falls under the category of an old science textbook. Chapter 6
is on "Organic and Biochemistry".
"The new subject of biochemistry deals with the properties and characteristic changes of organic compounds as they exist in living beings. It has developed chiefly from physiology and organic chemistry, and uses the methods and results of both of those sciences. But, in an increasing degree, it draws on other branches of knowledge, such as physics, bacteriology, zoology, and botany. It has thus thrown new light on many problems of theoretical an practical interest." (page 167).
Although there are sections on enzymes, carbohydrates, fats, and proteins, no mention is made of nucleic acids (which at that time were known only as structural components of the nucleus).
Whetham,William Cecil Dampier,
Cambridge Readings in the LITERATURE OF SCIENCE -
Being Extracts from the Writings of Men of Science to Illustrate the Development of Scientific Thought, (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1924). The first chapter is on "Cosmology", and starts out with the first two chapters of Genesis, then goes on to Aristotle, Aristarchus & Archimedes, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, etc.
Whitcomb,John C.,Jr., Morris,Henry M.
THE GENESIS FLOOD - The Biblical Record and Its Scientific
Implications, (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1961).
This is a "classic" creationist text. I bought it when I was a fundamentalist
high-school student in Springdale, Arkansas (probably around 1976 or so).
This is probably one of the most authoritative (-ly looking, anyway) creationist
books I've seen. There are lots of pictures and technical references. The
basic idea is that all of the fossil record is the result of one cataclysmic
flood. My question is - what about the dinosaurs?
White,Edmund, and Brown,Dale M.,
THE FIRST MEN - The Emergence of Man,
(Time- Life Books, New York, (1973). I got this book from Colleen's parents
(in the summer of 1990). This is basically an introductory anthropology
book, written for teenagers.
Wiester,John,
The GENESIS CONNECTION, (Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville,
Tennessee, 1983). I got this from the conservative book club. This is meant
to be a text for middle schoolers. I supposed that this is the least offensive
of the "creationist textbooks" I've seen. The author uses geological ages
(e.g., he talks about things being millions & billions of years old),
and has a chapter on "Ages and Days" in which he says that God can use
whatever timescale He wants. He starts off the chapter with a quote from
Psalm 90:4 ( . . . a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when
it passes by, . . .). The book is written in a narrative form, taking the
Genesis account, and then discussing the origins of things on each "day"
from Genesis.
Wickler, Wolfgang
MIMICRY in plants and animals, (translated from the German by R.D. Martin, World University Library, London, 1968). This book is about mimicry in nature, and several chapters deal with evolutionary aspects of this.
Wilson, Edward O.
THE DIVERSITY OF LIFE, (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1992). I read this in September, 1997. This is as much about biodiversity and the ecological crisis as it is about evolution. Wilson tries to estimate the number of species, and shows the real difficulties in coming up with even a rough estimate. A good summary of the book is in the following quote:
One Peruvian farmer clearing rain forest to feed his family, progressing from patch to patch as the soil is drained of nutrients, will cut more kinds of trees than are native to all of Europe. If there is not other way for him to make a living, the trees will fall.pages 282-283.
Wiggam, Albert Edward,
The New Decalogue of Science, (The Bobbs-Merrill
Company, Publishers, Indianapolis, 1923). This is another book advocating
eugenics - the genetic engineering of human beings. (I think the concept
is frightening.)
Wiggam, Albert Edward,
The Fruit of the Family Tree, (The Bobbs-Merrill
Company, Publishers, Indianapolis, 1924). "Eugenics is the basis of the
new sociology, and sociology is the cap sheaf of all the sciences. Eugenics
is, therefore, the application of human intelligence to human evolution...
But it is the one final adventure of the human intelligence and spirit
which, if it succeeds - and it will succeed - will bring the earthly redemption of man and fill the world with inborn intelligence, health, and happiness." I am pleased to say, as a molecular geneticist of the 1990s, that Wiggam is full of garbage.
Wiggam, Albert Edward, The Next Age of Man, (The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Publishers, Indianapolis, 1927). "My own belief is that biology and psychology and psychology have recently placed in our hands new and powerful instruments and agencies by which man can greatly accelerate his own evolution, and that these discoveries of science are going to usher in a new age of man. Human nature, I think, has profoundly changed within the past ten or fifteen thousand years. I believe we are better men than have ever lived; also that human nature is going to change even more rapidly in the comparatively near future than it has ever changed in the past. . . There are, here and there, people who are naturally good, naturally sane, healthy, intelligent and long-lived. These people are naturally happy and naturally civilizable. I believe that through the use of the new instrumentalities of science these people are going, in the course of no great time, to constitute the main body of the population. To maintain the foregoing thesis is the
aim of this essay." (!) This was written before Hitler tried
out this idea in Nazi Germany, and I hope that today such a concept would
be universally rejected.
Wiggam, Albert Edward,
SORRY BUT YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT IT, (The Bobbs-Merrill
Company, Indianapolis, 1931). The table of contents has the heading "Your
are Wrong if You Believe: . . . I. That Popular Notions are Not Always
Wrong, II. That Practice make Perfect, . . . XVII That Women Can Drive
Automobiles as Well as Men . . ."
Wilder-Smith,A.E.,
He Who Thinks Has to Believe, (Bethany House Publishers,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1981). I have problems with the assumption that
the evidence is so overwhelming that one has no choice but to believe (by
faith?) that God created the world. It seems that we would no longer have
a free will if we had to believe after considering the facts. I
think that one must choose to believe in a Creator God, and that
we (or at least I am) not constrained to accept the same mechanism (viz.,
creation de novo in six 24-hour days, approximately 10,000 years
ago).
Wooldreidge, Dean E.
MECHANICAL MAN - The Physical Basis of Intelligent LIfe, (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1968). This book is takes a very strong evolutionary approach to the development of intelligence.
Wright, Richard T.
BIOLOGY through the eyes of faith, (Harper San Fransisco, 1989). I read this in January of 1999. This book was loaned to me by a friend of mine who is an evolutionary biologist. I think it's one of the best books relating Christian beliefs to evolution that I've seen. Basically his stance is that evolution as a science has happened, and that there are lots of more important things going on in the world, like the wrecking of the environment, that as Christians we should be concerned about.
Wysong,R.L.,
The Creation-Evolution Controversy, (Inquiry Press, Midland,
Michigan, 1981). This book was a Christmas present to me from the mother
of a friend of mine from William Jewell College. (She was worried about
me falling into "liberal beliefs).
Ycas, M.,
THE BIOLOGICAL CODE, (North Holland Publishing Company -
Amsterdam × London, 1969). The last chapter (ch. 9) is entitled "Universality
and the evolution of the code". On top of the dedication page is " 'Great
is the Diana of the Ephesians' Acts 19:28" The scriptural reference is
to the scene where the merchants people realized that Paul was threatening
business to their idol. I'm not quite sure what this means.
Young, Louise B.
EVOUTION OF MAN, (Oxford University Press, New York, 1970). "Evolution of Man is a book of readings focussing on the nature of man and his role in the evolutionary process. It is designed to provide a background of knowledge about the issues concerning man's control of man and his environment through science - problems such as eugenics, birth control, pollution, ecology, and city planning, as well as the broader issue of the total direction of human development. . .", from the preface.
Zamenhof, Stephen,
THE CHEMISTRY OF HEREDITY, (Charles C. Thomas Publisher,
Springfield, IL, 1959). This is an interesting early view of "molecular
biology" before the term was even invented. There is a short chapter on
mutation; this was before the genetic code had been "cracked", so
the real mechanism of mutations was still not known. However, the rate
of mutations could be measured. "Mutations are changes in the genes
which, in a long run, make evolution possible; indeed, mutations are the
only known process which furnishes the raw material for evolutionary
change." (page 48). "Now, what is a mutated nucleic acid? What change in
what feature of the structure of nucleic acid is retained upon reproduction?
In other words, what is the chemical basis of mutation? The answer is:
we do not know but we can make some simple guesses. As mentioned in Chapter
III, one guess is that the specificity of nucleic acids may reside chiefly
in the sequence of various nucleotides. . . " (page 49). Of course we now
know that this is the correct answer, and that the mechanism for genetic
change is based on differences in the DNA sequence. These differences can
occur through induced mutations by strong mutagenic agents (as listed in
Table IV, p. 53). They can also happen through naturally occurring mutations,
which is roughly 1 wrong base incorporated every 100,000 bp for man (since
there are 3,000,000,000 bases in every human cell, there are 10,000
"mutations" every time a human cell divides. Fortunately, most of these
mutations are "silent"; nonetheless, there is a larger difference in the
DNA sequence between two humans than there are between two species
of birds.
