Contents

Charles Darwin
(1809-82)

Charlie is My Darwin

Hello there. My name is G-man, and I am standing in Westminster Abbey, next to the tomb of Charles Darwin, described by the late great evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson as 'one of history's towering geniuses, a great hero of man's intellectual progress.'

As you may have heard, Darwin's illustrious Theory of Evolution, his life work, suddenly perished quite recently, apparently having proved completely unfit for survival in the ice-cold climate of intellectual honesty now spreading around the globe.

The abbey is completely hushed at this hour and quite peaceful -- but, what's that? I can hear a strange noise -- a steady whirring sound that seems to be emanating from the tomb itself . . . I am now removing this thick stone slab . . . and the sound is now very loud indeed . . . the more so as I begin to lift the lid of the coffin inside . . .

"Good heavens! Chas, whatever are you doing?"

"That should be obvious, G-man, even to you, you sedimentary simpleton! Can't you see, you mutating moron? I am turning in my grave. All those years of study and research, and now my glorious theory is dead. All that work, all that writing, all for nothing. Now stand back, because I am going to spit as well. In fact, why don't you just buzz off, you creationist cretin, and leave me in peace so I can develop a new theory? Oh yes, I did it before and I can do it again. You mark my words. All it needs is time, lot and lots of time . . . Can we fix it? Yes we can! Can we fix it? Yes we can!. . . "

"For goodness' sake, Chas, calm down. As a matter of fact, I've been carrying out a sympathetic inquiry into the sudden death of your beloved theory, and I was hoping you might be able to help me establish the facts of the situation."

"Oh, very well, G-man, you crooked crustacean, but haven't I suffered enough already in the pursuit of Science -- all those awful months at sea, poking around in those steamy jungles, then, after I returned home, all those years of raging headaches, the dreadful stomach pains, the constant vomiting, my legs swelling up as if with elephantiasis and my eyes closing up, the fierce rashes, the excruciating boils . . . I mean, it was like living in hell, and I was even confined to a clinic during those final few weeks when the book was being printed . . . and now, after all that, my dear theory is dead. Can it really be true?"

"Sorry to rub it in, Chas, but the old theory did prove to be a bit of a bummer in the end, what? And now it's kaput. Dead as the Dodo. Intellectually inert. More mortis than rigour, I'm afraid. Never mind, you had a very good run, single-handedly misleading most of the world for more than a century. That's a monumental achievement, you know, but now the game really is up, old man."

"So you say, G-man, but I still remember the glory days, when the first edition of Origins sold out completely. It gripped the imagination of the whole nation, nay, the world, you know -- challenging all those unscientific assumptions and biological misconceptions. Soon it was in every textbook , every encyclopedia, and taught in every school and university. Yes, those were heady days."

"They certainly were, Chas. They certainly were. Now, if you've calmed down, perhaps I can ask you a few pertinent questions."

"Oh, if you must, G-man. "

" Thank you, Chas. Now, am I right in thinking that one of the major assumptions you challenged was the notion that the plant and animal species were immutable, because God had created them thousands of years ago just as we see them today?"

"Spot on, G-man. Even the great Carl Linnaeus thought that, you know. Poor old Carl, he actually did some wonderful work on classification, but he got bogged down in that creationist nonsense. Yes, he certainly maintained that the species as they existed at that time were immutable, set that way since the days of creation."

"So Linnaeus was simply wrong, Chas?"

"Oh yes, even that froggie fella, Lamark, could see that. He said that the species, including man, plant and animal, were all descended from earlier, different forms, and ultimately from a handful of long-extinct primordial organisms, with possibly just one common ancestor. That was one of the first nails in the coffin of creationism. More followed, and I was simply the undertaker, you see.

My travels in South America simply reinforced my dawning suspicions. For example, when comparing birds from neighboring islands of the Galapagos archipelago with one another and with birds from the mainland, I was struck by how entirely vague and arbitrary were the distinctions normally drawn between supposedly different species."

"So Carl's species were clearly not immutable, then, Chas? Apparently evolution had created new ones. How did that work, then?"

"Well, as you should know, no two organisms are ever identical in every detail. Take puppies for example. In any litter, some will be bigger or smaller, weaker or stronger, have sharper teeth, or better eyesight, and so on, factors that make them more or less fit to survive in the deadly struggle for survival over the puppy chow.

Consequently, as a result of those small but vitally important differences, a dog breeder can select those with the most desirable traits for his purpose, then breed from those to develop and perpetuate particular traits or combination of traits. Ipso facto, given enough time, given enough generations, you have spaniels, collies, bulldogs and all the rest.

The simple truth of variation is also demonstrated by the strains of cattle and plants that we have bred and cultivated over the centuries, G-man. All you need is variation plus a mechanism for selecting out the best, the fittest for a chosen purpose - plus time, lots and lots of time. In that way, in the wild, different environmental niches which favour different traits become populated by different, seemingly unique species, just like my famous finches on their separate islands."

"Got it, Chas. By the way, am I right in thinking that you tested your ideas by breeding pigeons?"

"Yes, I did, G-man. I kept every breed which I could purchase or obtain, and also studied the skins of specimens sent to me from around the world. The diversity of the breeds in colour, size, wing shape, tail feather patterns and so on was quite amazing. You see, all living organisms are genetically plastic, and because of spontaneous mutations, new variations or 'sports' keep emerging. Natural selection then goes to work.

I repeat, the same thing happens with plants, which is why we see astonishing improvements in many florists' flowers, when they are compared to drawings of flowers from only twenty or thirty years ago. The key to such breeding is man's power of accumulative selection, what you might call 'un-natural selection', I suppose, but the same thing happens in the wild. "

"I see, Chas, so what did your experiments with pigeons produce?"

"Well, it produced pigeons of course, G-man, what else?"

"O.K. Now, I understand what you have said so far, and it seems quite convincing, Chas. However, what you also seem to be saying is that although, in our limited experience, pigeons keep producing pigeons, finches produce finches, and roses produce roses, given enough time totally new and completely different organisms might gradually be developed by the accumulation of those tiny differences - and that is how pigs and eagles and crocodiles and elephants and the rest all developed from a single, common ancestor? "

"Bang on, G-man, but it takes time, lots and lots of time. That's the secret - the accumulation of endless tiny variations, the selection and retention of those that are favorable to survival and the death of those that are less favorable. All it needs for natural selection to do its job are a few variations plus what old Jimmy Hutton the geologist chappie used to call 'deep time'. Then Chuck Lyell jumped on the bandwagon, of course, and kept it rolling, even working out the millions of years required for each foot of sedimentary rock strata to be deposited, a painfully slow process. Naturally, he had to make some pretty hairy assumptions in order to work out his figures, but the rest is history."

"So be it, Chas. I take it you're talking about his famous principle of 'uniformitarianism' -- the assumption that geological conditions have always been the same as they are now, that were never any massive cataclysms or floods that might have speeded up the processes of erosion or sedimentation?"

"Quite so, G-man, but one has to start somewhere. Anyway, take my word for it -- we're talking billions of years, old boy. Billions and billions. Can't really imagine it myself, can you?

Indeed the mind boggles at the possibilities deep time opens up, G-man. Just think, by the endless accumulation of tiny variations over billions of generations, one primordial organism could yield cats and dogs, fish, flies, monkeys, mushrooms, even man. That is the magic key to the creation of all the plants and animals in the whole world, now and in times past. That's what evolution, or descent with modification as I prefer to call it, is all about."

"Hold on a sec, Chas, you seem to be making a major assumption here yourself , namely that limitless variation is possible and actually took place. In fact, what you are saying reminds me of my grandson's school science project. We gave him a little Jack Russell puppy for his birthday and he's been weighing it every week for several months now and plotting a graph of weight against time . . ."

"Excellent project, G-man, very educational. I love graphs and facts and figures, you know, as did the very brilliant Thomas Malthus, of course, who assisted me enormously in putting my theory on a sound mathematical footing. It was young Malthus who pointed out that populations grow geometrically, and so multiply rapidly, but food supplies only increase arithmetically, and cannot keep pace. Hence the brutal struggle for survival. Just thought you might like to know that. Anyway, G-man, just what is your point, old son?"

"Well, the point is Chas, that my grandson is very worried, because according to the way his graph is going, in a couple of years' time the puppy will be the size of an elephant - and far too heavy to sleep on his bed or even get in through the bedroom door . . ."

"What nonsense, G-man. Excuse me butting in again so rudely, but extending a trend in that manner is what we scientific types call 'extrapolation' and, as any schoolboy should know, it all goes wrong if you venture too far beyond the range of your experimental data. Your grandson is assuming that limitless growth is possible, with no direct evidence to support such an hypothesis."

"But Chas, isn't that what you are doing with your theory of evolution -- extrapolating and adding up the effects of a few small changes over millions of generations, assuming that brand new plants and animals can be created in that fashion from one common ancestor? Aren't you assuming that limitless variation can occur? I thought you said my grandson couldn't do that kind of thing?"

"Quite so, G-man, but I am a grown-up and I am famous, so I can do what the devil I like. I am an expert, you see. Hard cheese, old chum, but you really are being a bit of a prig."

"Sorry, Chas. Anyway, moving on from that difficulty, I'd like to ask you this - we hear people talking about Evolution, asking if it is just a theory or is it a fact? How do you know if a theory is correct?"

"Quite simple, old chap. Theories are a dime a dozen, as our American cousins like to say over there in the colonies. Any old theory can be dreamed up to apparently 'explain' the known facts, but the acid test comes when you use that theory to make predictions that can then be tested by experiment."

"You mean, Chas, that if my grandson carried on the experiment with his puppy over three or four years, he would find that the growth rate actually slows down and the creature stops growing? Thereby proving that his theoretical assumption of continuous growth was unsound?"

"Quite so, G-man -- and if you have read Origins assiduously enough you will know that I identified two major testable predictions that flow from my own very scientific and rigorous theory of evolution. "

"I'm right with you, Chas, in fact I've underlined several statements you made along those very lines so that I could ask you about them. Do these sound familiar? - 'If the theory is correct, innumerable transitional forms must have existed' - and, 'The number of intermediate varieties which formerly existed must be truly enormous' - and also, 'The number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great.' Wow, the number of unfit intermediate organisms that perished in the struggle for survival must have been absolutely ginormously gargantuan - or gargantuanly gignormous, whichever is the larger!

"That is correct, G-man, and of course I still stand by my words - and the way to test those predictions is by collecting the fossil remains left behind when that innumerable, truly enormous and inconceivably great multitude of transitional forms perished because they were unfit to win out in the struggle for survival. Of course, I should also point out yet again that that the reason those missing links had not been found prior to my mortal demise lay in the extreme imperfection of the fossil record, and the fact that only a small portion of the world had been geologically explored at that time. So yes, I stand confidently by my words . . . By the way, how is the fossil record looking these days? I understand a lot of hard work has been done over the past century or so."

"Quite right, Chas, an immense amount -- and there's good news and bad news. I'll give you the good news first. You were quite right about the imperfection of the fossil record, so you will be pleased to hear that in the years since your death, geologists have explored vast areas of the earth's crust, dug and sifted through myriad rock strata and identified more than a quarter of a million fossilized species!"

"Good heavens, G-man! Quarter of a million -- and species you say, not just individual specimens, but actual species! Just as I suspected. All it takes is time, lots and lots of time. So, there you have it, I was right all along, although I must admit I did entertain some doubts along the way . . . Any way, in the light of all this wonderful news, what's all this rubbish about my theory being a bummer, as you so crudely put it?"

"Unfortunately, Chas, that's where the bad news comes in. You see, although they have found millions of fossil species, all were from perfectly formed, complex and fully functioning organisms. No missing links, no imperfect intermediate forms at all. Even the much vaunted supposed ancestry of the horse has now been shown to be completely assenine, I'm afraid."

"What? Still no intermediate forms, yet they must have existed during the descent with modification from the first primordial organism, and in mind-boggling numbers too. The theory absolutely requires it. You cannot be serious, G-man. You cannot be serious!"

"Sorry to quote your masterpiece again, Chas, but I believe you said: 'Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.' Hard cheese, Chas -- the problem simply refuses to go away."

"Don't rub it in, G-man. We all make mistakes."

" Quite so, Chas. Now, moving in from that difficulty . . ."

"Wait a minute, G-man, I recognize that felicitous phrase, and you used it earlier as well!"

"And so you should, Chas. It's my favorite quote from Origins - 'Moving on from that difficulty!' Something you and your devilish disciples do quite often - and believe me, they have moved on from a lot more difficulties since you fell off the perch. They even write books about it now and again in weak moments - like young Stephen Gould, who says: 'The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology'. Hot stuff, eh?"

"Oh dear, what a blabber-mouth. Never mind, have it your way, G-man, but please don't keep going on . . . Now see what you've done -- I am starting to get another headache. Haven't had one for a hundred years, you know . . . and I think I am going to vomit again, any second. Do stand back . . . Ughhh! . . ."

"Here, Chas, use this old hat of mine . . . Better out than in, eh? Now then, if you've finished, I merely want to move on to the second major testable prediction of your theory by reminding you of the fact that an astonishing diversity of complex organisms suddenly appears in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks, in the Cambrian age - complex and fully formed species, genera and families of creatures, such as the Trilobites which had no apparent ancestors.

They just stampede out of nowhere - with not one shred of evidence in underlying strata of any ancestors evolving, or any intermediate forms. In fact, may I also remind you of what you said about this odd situation in Origins? -- Quote: 'Where are the remains of the infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the Cambrian system was deposited?' A very pointed question. Chas. I assume you were referring to the more than 2000 species that suddently appear in the Cambrian rocks, representing very major phylum."

"I hear you, G-man. Isn't that what they now call the 'Cambrian explosion of life'? . . . Hold on a sec, have you got another hat? How about that briefcase? . . . Ughhh! . . . Oh dear, I do hate it when the bits get stuck in my beard . . ."

"That's the way, old man . . . Now, to continue. You are absolutely correct, Chas, the massive Cambrian Explosion of life it is - and it blows a gigantic hole in your theory. In fact it completely demolishes it, because even the most assiduous searches over more than a century have still failed to find the fondly imagined forebears that featured in your fevered imagination . . . "

"Now, look whose getting carried away, G-man!"

"Sorry, Chas. Anyway, take a look these words from one of your fiercest followers, George Gaylord Simpson -- Quote: 'Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera and families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by any known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequence.' A rather explosive comment, I would say."

"All right, G-man, I concede that you may have a point.

"And what about this one, Chas: 'Despite the bright promise that paleontology would provide a means of seing evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of gaps in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, but paleontology does not provide them.' "

"Don't confuse me with the facts, G-man!"

"As you wish, Chas, but just let's take a closer look at these Trilobite creatures, supposedly some of Earth's very earliest inhabitants, a class of apparently extinct arthropods containing 3000 genera, and used as index fossils to identify Early Cambrian through Permian rocks. Fossil remains show that their bodies consisted of anything from 2 to 60 articulated segments, each one equipped with a pair of jointed legs for walking and a pair of flexing filaments for swimming and stirring up sediments in search of food then passing those tasty morsels along to their mouth.

Trilobites varied in size from under and inch up to 18 inches, and could weigh several pounds. In addition to this they possessed compound eyes consisting of arrays of calcite lenses, the optical geometry of which was quite unknown to physics until about a century ago. All this in addition to the internal complexity required to operate a digestive system, work and coordinate their appendages and monitor the signals incoming from their complex eyes. I suppose they also had some kind of circulation and breathing system as well. Yet, by some astounding miracle, these astonishingly creatures, along with other equally complex and sophisticated life forms, suddenly appear in the lowest fossil-bearing strata, with no ancestry. Now explain that Chas. . . . Chas! . . you're not listening!"

"Quite so, G-man, I may not be listening to any more of your creationist claptrap, but I am thinking. Yes, I am thinking . . . and, Eureka! I've got it! By Jove, I think I've got it!"

"Got what, Chas? You haven't got the shakes again, have you? I didn't even mention the complexity of the human eye, that's usually what triggers an attack isn't it?"

"No, no, no, G-man. Not that. Oh, Eureka! Eureka! and again I say Eureka! - I've finally found the solution to that Cambrian explosion thingy you mentioned, the black hole in my theory that these creationist cretins keep harping on about, the undeniable fact that all those highly complex fossil forms suddenly appear in the fossil record with no ancestral forms in the underlying Pre-Cambrian rock strata . . . It's all so simple, so diabolically simple . . . which is why it takes a genius like me to discover it, or course. Genius, yes genius, that's what old Hux would say about me, that old British bulldog, and now I've proved him right once again!"

"Yes, Chas, we know you are a genius. But what have you discovered? What is the cunning solution?"

"Well, G-man, it's obvious, so obvious. It's those Trilobites you keep going on about - mean little critters, a bit like giant aquatic woodlice, I suppose, but much tougher and bigger. Scavengers, don't you know! Ferocious devils. Well, that's it, G-man. Don't you see? THE TRIBLOBITES ATE ALL THE TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS. THAT'S WHY NOBOBY CAN EVER FIND THEM! EUREKA! EUREKAKAKA!

Don't you understand, G-man? Those little fellas were constantly scuttling about on the Pre-Cambrian strata - then, Bob's your uncle, a few millions years flash by and before you know it they have cleaned the lot out, simply ate up every single one of their ancestors. A bit cannibalistic, I suppose, and of course they'd need pretty good teeth . . . Did they have teeth, I wonder? Must have, to make the theory work. But never mind, that's it! A brand new theory, and this time I've pipped old Wallace to the post and no mistake. Now if you'll just excuse me, old chap, I need time to perfect it, polish it up a bit, and write another book perhaps. I shall need time, lots and lots of time, deep time even."

"You got it, Chas! You got it. Here, have a burger and fries to keep you going. What about a milkshake? Strawberry or chocolate?"

"What are you ranting on about now, G-man?"

" Sorry, Chas, I've been watching too many TV commercials. Never mind . . . but wait a minute! Wait just a mesozoic minute! I've just had an idea too, one you might even like."

"Oh, very well. Go on G-man, but no more nasty shocks please, and no more ocular allusions - it simply stinks in here already, and this old brief case is brim full, I'm afraid. And another thing, for goodness sake, stop calling me Chas."

"Right you are, Charles, but look, when you first introduced your revolutionary evolutionary idea about species not being fixed by divine fiat from the days of creation, didn't a certain celebrated author who was also a Christian minister actually came to your defence even though most people in the Church attacked you?

"Yes, G-man. That's quite right. No doubt you read that in Origins, and I can now reveal that the celebrated author was non other than the famous Charles Kingsley. But how does that help?"

"Well, Charles, have you ever wondered what Kingsley really meant when he said -- Quote: 'It is a noble concept that God created a few original forms capable of self-development'? He seemed to be agreeing with your theory, but I wonder if he was just being diplomatic, after all he was a Christian minister."

"Hmm. I get your point, G-man. Yes, 'cunning Kingsley' they called him. The whole thing seems to hinge on one's interpretation of the words 'few' and 'self-development' does it not? "

"Quite so, Charles, and if we take Kingsley's 'few' to mean the limited number of 'kinds' in the Genesis account of creation, then the need for limitless variation beginning from just one or two primordial organisms is removed, and it all becomes quite simple. And no need for all those non-existent intermediate forms - which is why all we find in the fossil record, in the words of garrulous young Professor Gould, is 'variation about a set of basic designs.' It might also provide a simple explanation of the Cambrian Explosion too. In other words, God created a limited number of 'kinds' of plants and animals, all of which can vary about their basic design, which is what Kingsley must have meant by 'self-development', the clever devil. He really was very perceptive.

You see, Charles, God built into the basic kinds of organisms the facility to mutate and be selectively bred for variety as you have explained -- but still keeping to the original kinds, so that roses will always be roses, no matter how much they are bred and how exotic they become, and dogs will always be dogs, and so on. In this way, God ensured that the basic kinds, animals such as sheep and goats, for example, would be able to adapt to varying conditions in the different habitats they would encounter as they spread across the globe - likewise plants fitted for different growing conditions, early and late seasons, and so on.

In fact, Charles, swimming in the primordial puke in that briefcase you're holding, I have some scientific journals that describe the latest biological discoveries about the genetic germ material we now call DNA that is located in every single cell nucleus of every living thing. Interestingly, scientists now describe much of this material as 'junk DNA', because it has no known function. However, thinking about your theory, I'm beginning to wonder if this junk DNA may well control the adaptive process, generating new mutations, possibly even responding to environmental conditions such temperature and light and humidity, as Lamark suggested all those years ago."

"Very interesting, G-man, but I will clean up those journals and study them later. Right now I am somewhat puzzled -- are you saying that my ideas are right or wrong?"

"Well, Charles, it seems to me that they are both right and wrong. You see, your contemporary Darwinian disciples now distinguish between Macro-evolution and Micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is simply a fact of life - involving mutation, variation and adaption within the Genesis kinds, just as you observed with so many organisms on your travels, with the finches and turtles of South America, for example, and your pigeon breeding. "

"That's an interesting idea, G-man. Perhaps the function of the 'junk DNA' is to provide each kind of organism with a sort of genetic wardrobe of possible variations - so that just as I might don gloves and a top hat, or spats or Wellington boots to suit the weather and different social situations, but still be a human being inside, so organisms possess the potential to adapt to the ecological niches they encounter. "

"You're getting the big picture, now, Charles."

"That's all very well, G-man. But what about Macro-evolution?"

"Well, Charles, Macro-evolution must be where it all went wrong - when you tried to extrapolated Micro-evolution back to some kind of prehistoric swamp in order to prove that the Genesis kinds were not created by God but developed by gradual evolution from some imaginary primordial organism. You hoped all the time that sooner or later someone would find the evidence, the myriad intermediate fossil forms needed to support your theory, but they never did. And by the way, you never did tackle the problem what 'life' is, did you, but that's another story?

Yes, Charles, Macro-evolution was simply a figment of your over-excited imagination when you discovered the error of old Carl's assumptions about the immutability of species. Perhaps he should have opted for the immutability of the broader groupings of organisms such families and phyla. Anyway, there you have it - good and evil, truth mixed with error. And as so often happens in life, the real truth probably lies somewhere in the middle."

"It's a cunning idea, G-man, but I still don't like it."

"Why not, Charles? What's the problem now?"

"Oh, I have my reasons, G-man, I have my reasons."

"Come on, Charles, let's put our cards on the table, shall we? Look, I think I know what your problem is anyway, and I understand it - You are simply unable to accept the Genesis account of creation. Am I right, or am I right?"

"That's part of it, G-man. You see, I never really was an atheist at all. I always believed in God and still do, which is why in the very last sentence of Origins I was careful to give him credit for creating those innocuous primordial organisms. But I simply cannot accept the Bible as the actual word of that God, even though I used to quote it continually in discussions over dinner on the Beagle."

"What stopped you accepting the Bible later on then, Charles? You must have some kind of secret agenda."

"Yes I do, and it is this, G-man - If the Bible holds God responsible for creating the Genesis kinds as you claimed a moment ago, it also makes him responsible for creating sharks and tigers and poisonous snakes, plus all the evil, pain and suffering that becomes increasingly evident as one studies nature more closely. Nature really is red in tooth and claw, sickeningly violent, and quite abhorrent. I see no beauty there any more.

Origins was my attempt to resolve my inner conflict by shifting the blame for the evils of nature away from God and making Natural Selection responsible for them instead. That's why I insisted on tracing all organisms back to a tiny handful or innocuous, primordial ones for which I could in all good conscience give God the credit for creating. I've never said this in public before, G-man, but nothing you have suggested is new to me, all that stuff about species and Biblical kinds and so on was really quite obvious from the start - I was simply unable to accept it, for the reasons just given."

"Charles, you really are a gentle and sensitive soul, a kind, and loving person, and I admire you greatly for that. Am I right in thinking that although you studied medicine, you declined to become a doctor because human suffering and the sight of blood sickened you - and that you later studied theology but declined to become a vicar and take on a nice, cosy country living in a spacious vicarage, mainly because you lost your faith because of all the misery you saw in people's lives?"

"Quite correct, G-man. I simply cannot accept or inflict pain and suffering. So why ever does a loving God allow it?"

"That's a tough question, Charles. It's one I've often asked myself - and so I do have some thoughts on the matter, which you may find helpful. First, the fact that nature is red in tooth and claw. If you re-read the Genesis account of creation more carefully, for yourself, you will find that to begin with the earth's ecology was benign, which is why God said, when he finished his work, that everything was very good -- and, very significantly, that he had provided the green plants as the source of food for all creatures. So, you see, there were no carnivores to begin with, and Adam and Eve were vegetarians apparently. You will find those statements in the last few verses of the very first chapter of Genesis, by the way.

Of course the Earth's ecology is very different now, violent and bloody, as you know better than anybody perhaps - because it has come to depict the selfish, competitive way of life that human beings have chosen to follow ever since Adam and Eve exercised their freedom of choice and rejected God's personal guidance in the Garden of Eden.

Incidentally, Charles, it's interesting in this regard that a crocodile fossil was discovered recently that shows the teeth of a herbivore, not a carnivore. Only to be expected, I suppose, since all those creatures were harmless herbivores to begin with. Of course, when Jesus returns to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth, that benign ecology will be restored - and the wolf will once again dwell with the lamb, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and the little child shall put his hand in den of the adder and not be harmed, because nothing shall hurt or destroy anymore -- and nations shall not learn war any more either. That's in eleventh chapter of Isaiah the prophet, as you probably recall from your days at Cambridge."

"Good try, G-man, but I still cannot accept that this all-powerful, all-knowing God really controls everything that happens in this world."

"Charles, you recall that Jesus did point out that God, with a power beyond our imagining, is aware of every sparrow in the field and can even number the hairs on our head?"

"Yes, G-man, I do, but even so I cannot accept when I see a hedgehog in my garden, that God miraculously led it there - or that, when a bird swallows a fly, it happens because God makes it happen, or that God tells a bee which flower to go to next, and so on. It's sanctimonious nonsense."

"I quite agree, Charles. Although God does have the power to do those things if he wants to, and can know all things, Jesus did not say that he actually chooses to controls all things. Quite the opposite, in fact, which is why Solomon points out in Ecclesiastes that time and chance, random events, fall on all men. God lets us to live our own lives, make our own decisions, and do as we choose."

"Well, we certainly do like to make our own decision, G-man, and I do see how that can lead to a great deal of human suffering that has absolutely nothing to do with God."

"I feel the same way, Charles. Now, am I right in thinking that you also had problems accepting the New Testament of the Bible, and the teaching s of Christianity?"

"I'm afraid so, G-man, you see, Christianity teaches that unbelievers are lost and will be destroyed by everlasting hell fire. I just could not accept that, because it would mean that my father, grandfather, my uncle and even most of my friends would suffer for ever in that way at the hands of a harsh God. As a result, my Christian faith just seemed to fade slowly away . . . It's hopeless, G-man. It's completely hopeless, isn't it? What's the point? Let me perish too. If they can't be saved, I don't want to be saved either. If they are going to suffer, let me suffer with them. Forgive me if you find that a shockingly inexcusable thing to say."

"Know what, Charles? The Apostle Paul felt the same way you do. He felt the same anguish about the possible fate of his fellow Israelites as you feel for your family and friends. He even expressed the very same sentiments as you did about his own salvation. Didn't you ever read this passage from his letter to the Romans? -- Quote: 'I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my bretheren, my kinsmen according to the flesh' (9:2-3). Those are strong words, Charles.

"Those are encouraging words, G-man."

"You see, Charles, Paul couldn't just dismiss his fellow Israelites either and callously write them off as sinners without hope, which is why he goes on to say - Quote: 'Bretheren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they might be saved' (10:1). That was his earnest prayer, Charles. He felt the very same way you do.

And there's more! In the first verse of the eleventh chapter, Paul asks the same question you did -- Quote: 'I say then, Has God cast away his people?' His answer is found half way through that same chapter - Quote: 'And so all Israel shall be saved' (verse 26). Note that well, Charles - ALL Israel shall be saved!

The same message is even found back in the Old Testament book of the prophet Ezekiel."

"Ah, let me guess, G-man - not the Valley of the Dry Bones?"

"Hole in one, Charles. Ezekiel was commanded by God to prophesy to the dry bones, the mortal remains of all the dead people of Israel, millions of sinners who never served and obeyed God at all. Notice the first fearful thing they think as they are resurrected back to life at some time in the future - Quote: 'Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone!' - but they were wrong, their hope hadn't gone -- because God is love. Yes, God is love, Charles. The apostle John said that - and don't you ever forget it, just about the most important scripture in the entire Bible. Anyway, Ezekiel then goes on to describe how God will be restore them to the land of Israel and imbue themwith the Holy Spirit (37:11)."

"Those are wonderful words, G-man. Why didn't I see that before?"

"Search me old son. As a free think from a line of free thinkers, Charles, you were very successful in identifying and challenging the assumptions of the biological experts of the day - yet for some reason you failed to think for yourself and challenge the pronouncements of those who claimed to be theological experts. Odd, isn't it?"

"G-man, pass over that stone slab would you? I want to beat my head on it."

"No need for that Charles, I'll help you do it later. By the way, we've been talking about the Spirit of God, but there is also a human spirit in man, as Solomon also mentions in Ecclesiastes (3:21), a non-physical something or other that imparts mind and understanding, as Job (32:8), Paul (1 Corintians 2:15) and James (2:26) also explain. Therein, as a matter of fact, lies the major problem with your theory, Charles - namely the false assumption that man and animals are nothing more than atoms and molecules arranged in pretty patterns, mere physical entities, and that the mind is simply a chemical reaction. "

"Hmm. That's very interesting, G-man. Perhaps that explains how animals acquire instinct, how some baby birds hatch out from their eggs already knowing how to migrate by the stars, for example, or the fact that pigeons can find their way home after being transported hundreds of miles away in closed boxes, even if they are chloroformed unconscious on the way. And that many dogs somehow sense when their master is returning home from work and go and wait for him by the door or a window."

"It may well do, Charles, and those are incredible phenomena. However, my point is that even if you could selectively breed a lizard, for example, over billions of generations you could never create a bird -- even if it started to look like a bird, because a lizard has the spirit of a lizard and a bird has the spirit of a bird.

And here's another interesting point, Charles, with regards to the spiritual dimension of things. It's a simple question that some of your latter day disciples are still working on - Have you wondered how a cell growing in your arm knows that it has to work together with millions of other cells to make an arm, or how the cells in the leg know to make a knee and a foot and toes, and so on - and when they have become specialized bone, or blood or muscle cells and start to form organs, such as the heart and stomach? Some biologists are even suggesting that the body must contains a non-physical template that Rupert Sheldrake calls a 'morphic field', an intangible spirit blue-print , by analogy a bit like the field around a magnet, I suppose. Anyway, Shedrake now believes that it is the morphic field that somehow mutates and evolves, not the physical bits. He just cannot let go of that Macro-evolution concept. By the way, perhaps that explains how God can resurrect the 'body' of a person who has been torn to pieces and eaten by a pack of sharks."

"G-man, looking back, my grand theory really was quite infantile, wasn't it?."

"You said, it Charles, not me. The problem was, I suspect, that many other people, like yourself, each with his or her own secret agenda, simply wanted to believe it, were even desperate to believe it - because if there is no God, there are no laws to obey, no Ten Commandments to muck up their mucky morals."

"That's quite possible, G-man, but all this speculation gets too complicated for me, which is why I once remarked in a letter to a friend that us trying to comprehend the works of God is like a dog trying to understand the mind of Isaac Newton and his laws of motion."

"Of course it gets too complicated, Charles. It got too complicated for Paul too, which is why he concludes that stuff in Romans we were reading by saying - Quote: 'How unsearchable are his judgments and his ways past finding out.' (10:33) - which is why we must be very careful about making assumptions and jumping to conclusions about matters that we really do not and perhaps cannot understand. Does that sound like a cop-out?"

"I think perhaps it does, G-man, but now you've got me quoting the Bible again - Remember how Paul also said - Quote: 'But now I see through a glass darkly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been understood.' Amazing, G-man, I still remember those words after all these years. Let me see, I think it goes on: 'So now abide Faith, Hope and Love; but the greatest of these is Love.' "

"Spot on, Charles. I couldn't agree more. Love is what it's all about. Love is our policy, says Paul somewhere, and God is love, as I said earlier, and boundless in mercy to those who turn from wickedness and cast their cares on him - whether in this present life or even when they rise from their graves in the resurrection. God is not willing that any sinner should perish, Charles, but that all should come to repentance . . . Can't remember where it says that for the moment, but it's also in there somewhere . . . And with God, all things are possible. Jesus said that as well. So believe it. Have faith in God, faith in his love."

"That makes sense, G-man, and now another verse has just come back to me, which may explain why God sometimes seems to act out of character and deal harshly with people in Old Testament times - Quote: 'To the faithful you show yourself faithful, to the blameless you show yourself blameless, to the pure you show yourself pure, but to the crooked you show yourself crooked'. Psalm 18, if I remember correctly!"

"Bang on the nail, Charles. I am very impressed. In other words, God treats us the way we treat other people. So there we have it, faith and love. Powerfully important things. That's the big picture, so who really cares about the precise details of how God actually created the plants and animals or the rock strata? Those technicalities are of trivial importance. It's mere knowledge, and knowledge, Paul said, will pass away. What really matters and what will endure for all eternity is love."

" I hope you are right, G-man - but what about Hope, the third factor in Paul's spiritual equation? You forgot about that. Where does that come in?"

"Well, Charles, do you recall how Paul also said in Philippians (3:11) that we must live in hope of the resurrection from the dead and the life of the world to come, as it also says in the Creed?"

"Yes, I do, G-man - a time, Paul said, in Romans I think (8:18), when all the sufferings of this present time will fade into absolute insignificance in comparison to the glory and joy to be bestowed upon us! . . . What an amazing thought. How absolutely overwhelming that glory must be, how unimaginable the joy! It overwhelms me, G-man, especially the thought of being re-united and able to share it with my family and friends . . . for ever and ever . . .

. . . But hold on a moment, G-man, what is happening to me? What in heaven's name is going on? I feel deliriously happy, yet I'm supposed to be dead and buried . . . and why I am I standing here talking to you when I should be in the grave? And how come I know your name - I've never seen you before?

"Odd indeed, Charles, odd indeed -- and I'm glad you reminded me . . . We got so busy talking about your cock-eyed theory that I completely forgot why I came. So come on out of that smelly tomb, we've places to go and people to see. "

"Fine by me, G-man, but just who are you, anyway?"

"I should have thought that was quite obvious by now, Charles."

"Ah, of course, G-man -- now I'm out of that wretched tomb I can see you better . . . Amazing -- human body form, plus wings. You're adapted to fly! . . . It must have taken millions of years for those . . ."

"Don't start that again, Charles!"

Karl Linnaeus

Swedish taxonomist. Established the bionomial nomenclature principle of botanical classificatin in Species Plantarium (1753), later extended to animals in Systema Naturae (1758).

James Hutton
(1726-97)

Scottish geologist. Originated several basic principles of modern geology, notably uniformitarianism -- the belief that the Earth's surface has been shaped since its origin by unchaning processes of denudation and deposition. Wrote Theory of the Earth (1795).

Charles Lyell
(1797-1875)

Scottish geologist and author of the standard text The Principles of Geology which expounds uniformitarianism theory of James Hutton.

English economist and churchman,, Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), suggested in an Essay on the Principles of Population (1798) that povery is inevitable as popluation increases geometrically while food supply increases arithmetically.

Extrapolation

The unwarranted and unreliable extension the trend of a graph far beyond the range of data used to create it.

Trilobites

Any of the class Trilobita of extinct marine arthropods. Flattened oval body divided into three segments. Fossils found in Cambrian rocks.

Charles Kingsley
(1819-75)

English clergyman and author.