About the Book

Table of Contents

Part I

Part II

Part III

Part IV

Part V



     

Part IV: The Suvival of the UN-fit

     IT IS an interesting reflection upon the way in which our minds work that we should evince a convenient mental blindness to evidence which conflicts with strongly held convictions. Our attention is filtered. Were it not so, we might perhaps find ourselves almost totally unable to form any convictions at all. So we pay a price for what, after all, provides tremendous stimulus. The view that Nature is in a state of warfare, individual against individual, has led to most people being very largely unaware of the fact that animals upon occasion do sacrifice themselves for one another. In a recent book Human Evolution, two of the contributing authors make this observation: (39)

     The whole human pattern of gathering and hunting to share is unique to man. In its small range a monkey gathers only what it itself needs to eat at the moment; the whole complex of economic reciprocity that dominates so much of human life is unique to man.

     This statement would probably be unchallenged by the general public who have come to accept a view of Nature as being composed entirely of individuals fighting for their own survival in a completely selfish way. Yet if it were not for a tremendous power of control which the pundits of evolution hold over what many publishing houses publish, there is no doubt that an entirely different side of what goes on in Nature would become equally well known -- and probably read with far greater interest and enjoyment. For it has been known for a very long time that animals cooperate in helping each other quite widely in Nature and often at some cost to themselves. They may deliberately gather food in order to share it with other members of their own species who for one reason or another cannot help themselves. And I am not thinking now of the feeding

39. Washburn, S. L., and Lancaster, C. S., "The Evolution of Hunting," in Human Evolution, edited by N. Korn and F. Thompson, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1967, p.74.

     pg 1 of 12      

---

of the newborn, but of adults helping other disabled adults. Nor do I have in mind only cases where domesticated animals help one another, though it occurs here also.
     In the English journal Country Life, (40) a case was reported of one man who owned a spaniel and an alsatian. The spaniel apparently gradually went blind, and as its eyesight failed, the alsatian took over its guidance, stopping frequently when they journeyed together to make sure the spaniel was all right. In due course the spaniel went totally blind. Thereafter, the alsatian would take her gently by the ear and guide her wherever they went, in the field, in the house from room to room, and even up and down stairs. The spaniel trusted the alsatian so completely that they would go romping together on long country walks even among the trees.
     But perhaps domesticated animals are not properly representative of Nature in the wild. Yet the same altruistic interdependence has been reported here too. Driving along a country lane at night, one correspondent in Country Life tells how his carlights picked up two rats running down one of the wheel tracks ahead of him. (41) Having a strong dislike of rats, he accelerated at once and ran a wheel over them. Then he stopped his car, being a humane individual, intending to finish them off should either of them be still alive but wounded. To his amazement, one rat, though quite unharmed, did not run away. In its mouth was a long straw which was also held in the mouth of the dead animal, and the survivor was quite blind. The two rats were evidently companions, the "seeing" rat being his blind mate's seeing eye, guiding his mate with a straw held between them.
     Kropotkin was aware of a number of reports of similar nature. (42) He referred to J. C. Woods's narrative of a weasel which picked up and carried away an injured comrade in a time of danger. He referred to a certain Max Perty who observed rats feeding a blind couple. He told of a reported instance of two crows feeding in a hollow tree a third crow which was wounded, and which apparently had been wounded several weeks previously. He referred to cases where other crows have been reported as caring for blind comrades, in some cases as many as two or three such helpless fellow crows.
     Even Darwin himself was aware of these things. He recorded an observation by a Captain Stansbury who during a journey to Utah saw a blind pelican which was being fed, and well fed, by other

40. Country Life, October 26, 1967, p.1069.
41. Country Life, February 2, 1967, p.245.
42. Kropotkin, Prince Petr, Mutual Aid, Extending Horizon Books, Bosto, 1955, p.59.

     pg.2 of 12     

---

pelicans upon fishes which had to be brought a distance of thirty miles. (43)
     There is one case in which, within a species, provision is made by the stronger members for the weaker ones in a way which is rather wonderful. I have in mind the wheeling of birds taking off together before beginning a long flight. In his Social Life of Animals, (44) W. C. Allee pointed out that this habit during flight allows the younger, aged, or weaker birds to reach the proper altitude at a more leisurely pace and yet within the same time frame by the simple device of arranging that the stronger birds will describe a larger circle as they gain altitude. Thus as they spiral into the air, they travel a greater distance than the weaker members of the flock and so all reach the same altitude without undue dispersion. It has been observed that during flight, if dispersion of the flock is excessive the stronger fliers will wheel several times until the other birds have been able to catch up again. It is true that, in this instance, the action probably does not endanger those creatures who decide to delay their flight somewhat for the benefit of their weaker brethren, so that there is no altruism involved, or self-sacrifice. Nevertheless, one must admit here to a certain built-in sensitivity which renders Nature by and large a cooperative and not merely a competitive web of life.
       Closer observation of Nature has suggested to naturalists that there are probably far more instances of cooperation between animals than of conflict. Not only is this true between individuals within a species, as in all the above instances, but it is true between species. Conrad Limbaugh related the following example of the Pederson shrimp off the coasts of the Bahamas: (45)

     The transparent body of this tiny animal is striped with white and spotted with violet, and its conspicuous antennae are considerably longer than its body. It establishes its station in quiet waters where fishes congregate or frequently pass, always in association with the sea anemone. . . .
     When a fish approaches, the shrimp will whip its long antennae and sway its body back and forth. If the fish is interested, it will swim directly to the shrimp and stop an inch or two away. The fish usually presents its head or a gill cover for cleaning, but if it is bothered by something out of the ordinary, such as an injury near its tail, it presents itself tail first. The shrimp swims or crawls forward, climbs aboard and walks rapidly over the fish, checking irregularities, tugging at parasites with its claws and cleaning injured areas. The fish remains almost motionless during this inspection and allows the shrimp to make minor incisions in order to get at subcutaneous parasites. As

43. Darwin, Charles, The Descent of Man, Merrill & Baker, London, revised edition, 1874, p.166; and L. H. Morgan, The American Beaver, no publisher, 1868, p.272.
44. Allee, W. C., The Social Life of Animals, Beacon Hill Press, Boston, 1938, p.146.
45. Limbaugh, Conrad, "Cleaning Symbiosis," Scientific American, August, 1961, p.49.

     pg.3 of 12     

---

the shrimp approaches the gill covers, the fish opens each one in turn and allows the shrimp to enter and forage among the gills. The shrimp is even permitted to enter and leave the fish's mouth cavity.
     Local fishes quickly learn the location of these shrimp. They line up or crowd around for their turn and often wait to be cleaned when the shrimp has retired into the hole beside the anemone.

      So many illustrations of this can be found in marine life that Conrad Limbaugh concluded:

     From the standpoint of the philosophy of biology, the extent of cleaning behavior in the ocean emphasizes the role of cooperation in nature as opposed to the tooth-and-claw struggle for existence.

     Darwin stated categorically that if one single instance of real and complete interdependence between two species could be demonstrated, he would be willing to abandon his theory, for such interdependence could not be (he felt) accounted for upon evolutionary principles. But, as we know, when many such instances began to be reported to him, he did not abandon his evolutionary ideas. Such interdependences are so numerous and are now so familiar to naturalists � between birds and reptiles, between birds and mammals, between fishes of different species, between insects and plants (pollination by bees) � that it would be tiresome to record them. (46)
     The effect of our misconceptions regarding Nature as a battle ground, a view to which Darwin contributed in no small fashion, has been most unfortunate in terms of human behaviour. W. C. Allee noted many years ago in another of his works: (47)

     Today, as in Darwin's time, the average biologist apparently still thinks of a natural selection which acts primarily on egoistic principles, and intelligent fellow thinkers in other disciplines, together with the much cited man-in-the-street, cannot be blamed for taking the same point of view.

     In spite of the fact that Naturalists are increasingly insisting upon the harmony of Nature, there is still no question that an element of "savagery" seems to remain. Predators still pounce upon and rend their struggling victims, victims which give every appearance of suffering. But it is not absolutely certain that this appearance of suffering is an indication of actual inflicting of pain in the sense that man hurts his fellow. Some years ago Crowther Hirst studied this matter in the only way accessible to man that is really capable of

46. Materials illustrating this point will be found in The Wonders of Life on Earth, Lincoln Barnett and the editors of Life, Time-Life Inc., New York, 1960, pp.228-241.
47. Allee, W. C., "Where Angels Fear to Tread: A Contribution from General Sociology to Human Ethics," Science, vol.97, 1943, p.520.

     pg.4 of 12     

---

giving a decisive answer to the question, Is Nature cruel? (48) He interviewed personally, or corresponded with, or studied carefully all available records written by those who had been attacked or mauled by animals. He was able to examine some 60 instances, mostly reporting the experience of travellers, missionaries, or big game hunters, who had been severely injured in this way. Only two of them experienced any pain at the time of the attack, and he felt that in these particular instances the circumstances were rather special. Of the balance, he was able to state with assurance the rather surprising fact that not one of those mutilated experienced any pain at the time, even though their injuries were gross in some cases.
     Others have written in a similar vein, expressing the view that the struggle of animals is a reflex which is triggered by unwanted restraints imposed by the predator. (49) This aspect of the matter has been discussed at greater length in another Doorway Paper. (50) The shedding of blood seems unavoidable in the present economy of Nature, but in the wild it does not appear that animals inflict pain upon each other in the way that man does. I have said, in the wild, because where man has interfered and, by domestication of either the predators or their prey, upset the normal operation of animal instincts, or for his own selfish reasons has crowded creatures together unnaturally, or disturbed the balance in some other way, what are normally swift, necessary, and comparatively merciful killings become prolonged, meaningless, and vicious. (51)
     Surprisingly enough, it now appears that even within a living organism the healthy may be assisting the sick. Graham Chedd in an article entitled, "Cellular Samaritans," remarked upon recently reported instances of cooperation between cells, where one cell is temporarily unable to function properly. He wrote: (52)

     Living cells are rather selfish individuals, even those which have to subjugate themselves to the organism as a whole. But in the last two weeks, two papers have been published which report very different examples of an unexpected and remarkable help-your-neighbor cooperation among cells. In both instances, a cell which is metabolically incompetent to deal with a given situation is helped out by a neighboring competent cell.

48. Hirst, J. Crowther, Is Nature Cruel? James Clark & Co., London, 1899.
49. Wood, Theodore, "On the Apparent Cruelty of Nature," Transactions of the Victoria Institute, vol.25, 1891, p.253-278.
50. Custance, Arthur, "Nature as Part of the Kingdom of God," Part II in Man in Adam and in Christ, vol.3 in The Doorway Papers Series.
51. Foxes will kill domesticated hens indiscriminately, but not wild fowl, wolves will kill domesticated sheep indiscriminately, but not wild goats. The responsive behaviour of the domesticated animals is apparently unnatural, and the predator's behaviour is accordingly disturbed.
52. Chedd, Graham, "Cellular Samaritans," New Scientist, October 31, 1968, p.256.

     pg.5 of 12     

      One report concerns like cells, cells of the same "race." The other is apparently a straight case of "Good Samaritanism": cells of one species aiding cells belonging to a different race altogether.

     In complete contrast to this picture of cooperation, R. E. D. Clark pointed out that Darwin applied the principle of competition even to the buds on the branches of a tree which he viewed as engaged in a mad scramble to see which of them could best appropriate the available supplies of sap. (53) In Germany the concept was carried even further. A book entitled The Struggle of the Parts of the Organism, published in 1881, proposed that the general shape and structure of organisms was determined by the struggle of the various cells with one another. Organisms arose as the result of cells fighting and competing. According to Clark, Romanes and others "hailed this as a discovery of gigantic importance." Darwin even imagined that molecules themselves were engaged in the same struggle.
     By and large, naturalists as a whole increasingly commend to the reader a view of Nature that is very different from the picture presented to us over the past 80 years or so, as the result of Darwin's Origin of Species. Ardrey said: (54)

     It is fruitless to attempt to explain everything in the natural world in terms of selective value and survival necessity. There are times when one can only record what is true, and dissolve in wonder.

     Yet for all that, these same naturalists still cling tenaciously to the theory of evolution. It is the mechanism which is today under question. Perhaps in time it will be more widely recognized that any theory firmly held in the absence of a satisfactory mechanism is held by an act of faith. And when this act of faith is camouflaged in order to present it as though it were an unquestionable fact, it becomes nothing less than dogma. It is no longer science.

     I have read somewhere that a number of years ago a group of competent aeronautical engineers were asked to design a flying vehicle of a certain size with a certain wing span, a stated degree of manoeuverability and speed, and of a certain body shape. They were also given a fairly accurate specification as to the available power and rate of fuel consumption. After some months, they concluded that the task was quite impossible. The limitations placed upon

53. Clark, R. E. D., Darwin: Before and After, Grand Rapids International Publication, Michigan, 1958, p.98.
54. Ardrey, Robert, ref.35, p.175.

     pg.6 of 12     

principles of design were far too severe. It was then pointed out to them that, scaled down, all the specifications were precisely met in the common bumblebee -- which ought therefore, according to the best informed principles of aeronautical engineering, be quite unable to fly.
     The fact is that Nature somehow delights to do the impossible. I would prefer to restate this and say rather that God is full of surprises. If the conclusions of evolutionists had any basic validity, then a great many creatures in the web of life ought to have disappeared long ago, and some other creatures ought still to be around.
     Take the case of the common shrew as an example. The longtailed shrew Cryptotis parva parva is the smallest known mammal, weighing about four grams, approximately one-seventh of an ounce (according to some, only one-tenth of an ounce) . Being a mammal, it must maintain its body temperature within a very narrow range regardless of environmental conditions. In order to do this it has to be eating constantly. Medawar said: (55)

     Even when studied under conditions particularly conducive towards repose, this species of shrew ate its own weight of worms and insects daily and would have died of starvation if food had been withheld for as little as 12 hours.

     For comparative purposes, this would mean that a man of average weight would have to eat somewhere around 150 pounds of food per day or, let us say, 40 pounds for breakfast, 50 pounds for lunch, and 60 pounds for supper. As a matter of fact even this would not fill the requirement, for the shrew and the man could obviously not contain this much food if taken as a "lump sum," as it were. It could only be managed by eating all the time -- which is precisely what the shrew has to do, or very nearly so. So that in terms of survival the shrew must surely be the most "unlikely" animal in existence. According to Baldwin, since the animal must rest and cannot be food-hunting for twenty-four hours a day, it actually has to ensure for itself this total food intake not in a period of twenty-four hours but of twelve hours approximately. Consequently, it is not unfair to say that in practice it must eat twice its weight every day. Baldwin commented on this: (56)

     Although only a slight increase in size would relieve its hunger pinch, it ceased to evolve long ago, having reached its pre-determined mature phenotype.
     This proves that Natural Selection has had nothing to do with the size

55. Medawar, Sir Peter B., The Uniqueness of the Individual, Basic Books, New York, 1957, p.110.
56. Baldwin, James L., A New Answer to Darwinism, published privately, Chicago, 1957. p.69.

     pg.7 of 12     

increase in species. Despite its severe handicap selection has not been able to add a fraction of an inch to its size in 55 million years.

     By its very size the shrew may be, to some extent, protected from the observation of predators. But there are many creatures which are quite conspicuous and yet, though virtually helpless in defending themselves, have nevertheless also survived. The Australian koala is certainly one of the most helpless of all wild animals, since he can neither fight nor run. In the presence of man he has no defenses whatever. And yet in Nature his defenselessness, his unfitness in the struggle of life, has apparently had no bearing whatever on his continued survival. Some species, like the opossum which is considered to be one of the most stupid animals in the world and which probably has the smallest brain relative to body size of any mammal species, survives -- and may in fact be still extending its range � because of its fecundity. (57) But this is not true of the koala, which bears only one cub at a time.
     By contrast with such creatures as these, which it might be argued ought not to have survived as a species, there are not a few creatures whose structure is such that by all normal standards of judgment they ought never to have disappeared. Such a case perhaps is the Glyptodont clavipes, a mammal found as a fossil in Brazil. This creature was protected by armor somewhat like a cross between a tortoise and an armadillo, though much larger, being about 10 feet long. W. K. Parker remarked, (58) "Why such a form as the  Glyptodont should have failed to hold his ground (in the evolutionary struggle for existence) is a great mystery; nature seems to have built him, as Rome was built, for eternity." However, it is always possible in such a case as this in which a species seems to have come and gone, to postulate that disease, climatic change, or some other cause than strife between animals may have brought it to extinction.
     The trouble is that the evolutionists will, when it suits their purposes, argue that in spite of its defenses, other circumstances may bring about its extinction, whereas in spite of its lack of defenses certain circumstances will allow it to survive. By adopting this principle one can in fact support virtually anything. If a species with notable defenses has survived, one can say that it has survived on that account. In the struggle to survive its better defenses gave it an advantage. But as soon as one comes on a creature well equipped for

57. Moore, J. N., and Slusher, H. S. (editors.), Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1970, p.457.
58. Parker, W. K.: quoted by McCready Price, Common-Sense Geology, Pacific Press Publishing Association, California. 1946 p.214.

     pg.8 of 12     

defense, which nevertheless did not survive, one immediately has to account for its extinction by saying that it was unfit in some other way. As has been pointed out time and again, fitness is judged by survival and is not the cause of it. The phrase "survival of the fittest" becomes mere tautology. It has to be admitted that the catch phrase becomes vacuous, for it simply means that for whatever the reason, regardless of size, fertility, strength of defenses, immunity to disease, or environmental change, some animals survive and some don't: This is merely a statement of fact; it is not an explanation, and contributes nothing to theory. As we noted previously, Medawar's criticism of current evolutionary theory is that it is flexible enough to be able to explain anything, to be able to explain why A equals B, and why A doesn't equal B. W. H. Thorpe said: (59)

     The (natural) selectionist's argument is one that can be expanded or elaborated to cover anything that may conceivably have happened during the evolution of animals and plants. If selection is taken as an axiomatic and a priori principle it is always possible to imagine auxiliary hypotheses � unproved and by nature unprovable � to make it work in any special case.
     But as von Bertalanffy points out, this procedure corresponds exactly to that of epicycles in the Ptolemaic system: if planetary motion is a priori cyclic, then any orbit, however seemingly irregular, can be explained by introducing more epicycles.

     An excellent example of the meaninglessness of this kind of theorizing was borne out by a report of a simple experiment carried out by one scientist among a number of his colleagues. J. C. Fentress of the University of Rochester's Brain Research Center became involved in the study of two British voles. (60) He was intrigued to find that one species of vole would "freeze" on sighting a moving test object representing a predator to it, whereas the other species, under the same circumstances, would run for cover. The species which adopted the habit of freezing lived in the open where no cover existed, whereas the other one lived among the trees and bushes.
     Just as an experiment, Fentress reported his findings to a group of zoologists asking them for an evolutionary explanation. But he did this after he had reversed the behaviour of the open-field and woodland species, reporting that the woodland species froze when frightened and the open-field species immediately ran in search of cover. From this group of zoologists he received rationalized evolutionary explanations of equal force. The answers he received were convincing enough, and had they been quoted in a textbook

59. Thorpe, W. H., "Retrospect," in Beyond Reductionism, edited by A. Koestler and J. R. Smythies, Hutchinson, London, 1969, p.430.
60. Fentress, J. C., Scientific Research, November, 1967.

     pg.9 of 12     

would have been considered authoritative. In point of fact, of course, they were completely wrong.
     This may not be a fair test in the minds of many people since the data supplied were incorrect. Yet having been told how these two species supposedly behaved, it does seem that competent and unbiased zoologists ought to have given the matter second thoughts and to have questioned whether the original data had not been misreported. At any rate, so strong is the bias of a mind cmpletely convinced, that a sufficient measure of self-criticism may be entirely lacking. Dependence upon logic is all very well provided that one starts with the truth. Charles Kettering warned, "Beware of logic. It is an organized way of going wrong with confidence." (61)
     Wood Jones argued for years that, contrary to popular opinion, a great many of Darwin's conclusions were not based upon observation but upon the logical extensions of a basic idea which had captured and imprisoned his mind. That his premisese were at fault had become increasingly apparent, and this applies with particular force to his concept of the "survival of the fittest". A few years ago, L. R. Richardson of the Department of Zoology in Victoria University College (New Zealand), wrote an article which he entitle significantly, "The Survival of the Unfit", a title that provided the inspiration for the present Paper. (62) He wrote:

     Nearly one hundred years ago, Darwin published his theory of the way in which evolution takes place. Through simplification and dramatization, there is now firmly planted a general belief that evolution is controlled by a "natural law" known as the Survival of the Fittest. Such a law is recognized as operating in our own daily life and is accepted as a primary principle in commerce: the fit survive, the weak fail.
     The present day zoologist has available a wider knowledge than did Darwin and his immediate supporters, sufficient to leave some zoologists with the highest degree of doubt that there is any such law as "survival of the fittest" operating under ordinary conditions in nature.

     Richardson then went on to describe how any zoologist who studies animals in the field will come upon many crippled creatures thriving along with their normal fellows. he spoke of five-legged frogs as not being uncommon, or frogs lacking one foot; and of many sea gulls likewise lacking one foot or having a broken or cippled leg. He spoke of rabbits, foxes, wolves, and dingoes that have lost a foot in a trap as being not at all uncommon. And. in passing, we may just add

61. Kettering, Charles: quoted by R. M. Ritland, A Search for Meaning in Nature, Pacific Press Publishing Association, California, 1970, p.40.
62. Richardson, L. R., "The Survival of the Unfit," New Zealand Listener, September 26, 1952, p.8. 

     pg.10 of 12     

personally that we have not infrequently seen one-legged chickadees, even in the severest Canadian winter, which were able to look after themselves at a feeding-station, where as many as twelve other species came constantly. One winter we had two such chickadees, and our impression was that both of them had developed a certain dominance in terms of pecking order over their fellows.
     Richardson also wrote: (63)

     Any student of fish knows of many cases where mutilated and otherwise crippled animals not merely survive but flourish in spite of their impairment. In my own experience I have found a minnow with no jawbones to support the soft tissues of the jaw; many cases of fish blind in one eye; even one fish which had been totally blinded; and many cases of fish with permanent distortion of the backbone so that they were hump-backed, or wry-backed and swam as clumsily as do the most grotesque breeds of goldfish. An extreme example was a fish whose whole tail was bent permanently at a right-angle to the body. Many of these and other cases were congenital deformities, and the animal had therefore survived essentially from birth to adulthood deformed in this way.

     Richardson then dealt with a second category of animals, crippled by mutilation. Here he spoke of fish with part or all of the tail bitten off; one particular fish with about one third of its body bitten away; a full grown crayfish which had lost all except one of its legs; and other such instances in which it is hard to see how the animal could possibly survive, and yet in which it had indeed survived. Thus he observed: (64)

     This survival of crippled and deformed animals in the wild has profound implications. It paves the way to reinvestigation of such ideas as adaptation and perfection in nature. . . .
     Darwin explained such perfection as resulting from the struggle for existence, in which the better fitted survived to reproduce. The less suited were progressively eliminated in the competition with their fellows. The evidence shows that the intensity of competition necessary for the control of evolution in this way does not exist under natural conditions, otherwise cripples could not survive.

     Richardson pointed out, furthermore, that whereas selective pressures are supposed to guarantee only the survival of fishes which are appropriately streamlined for effective predation or escape, this principle constantly breaks down in sea life. As he said, in many species the tail fin "is not a primary organ of locomotion and we can attach no functional value to it." He thought that there was no possibility yet of attributing efficiency to the many ornate and

63. Ibid.
64. Ibid. 

     pg.11 of 12     

grotesque kinds of tail which occur in some of the more exotic fishes: (65)

     They are not developed as swimming organs, and so may develop to any size or shape so long as they do not interfere with the activities of the fish. On the analysis of this and many other examples, we begin to see that ornateness and variety of structure is in fact associated with an absence of useful value.

     So he concluded that the operation in Nature of a law of survival of the fittest would not produce a rich variety of animal structures, but would tend towards monotony and probably simplicity. Hence we reach, in his words, "a reasonable doubt that such a law operates in nature, a conclusion which is in agreement with the fact of the survival of the unfit."

     It does not seem to me at all unlikely that the older naturalists had a much better understanding of things when they were quite willing to suppose that God delighted in beauty and variety in His handiwork, and introduced them entirely because of this delight -- trusting that man would have sense enough to share it with Him. The millions of flowers whose sheer beauty increases the more closely they are examined and which bloom as often where man does not see them as where he does, and whose form can hardly contribute to their survival per se must surely be indicative of His prodigality in this respect. That we have an esthetic sense which we have reason to believe the animals do not share must surely suggest that God's thoughts are not altogether unlike our own in such things. Man has done himself no great service by attempting to repaint the fabric of Nature in colours which make it more like a battle scene than a display of God's perfection. It can only be a matter of time, surely, before people will rebel against this distorted view of Nature and once more seek to rediscover the wisdom and power of God in creation. When this time comes, our greater knowledge of Nature will so enormously enhance our sense of wonder and delight that the famous Bridgewater Treatises will be rewritten to the even greater glory of God.

65. Ibid.

     pg.12 of 12