Some creationists claim that Huxley told the Monkeys and typewriter story in 1860 during the debate with the Bishop. However, the typewriter was not invented until 1873 and came on the market in 1874. It is not likely that an audience in 1860 would have ever heard of a typewriter and certainly it was not in common use. The story is a hoax.

Robert Holloway

Thanks Robert. Foster uncritically attributed the typewriter story to Huxley(1860), but the point of the story remains true: there are computable limits to the power of chance + time. [gk]

Dear Gert,

I myself did work on A. Lima-de-Faria´s theories which not only appeared quite reasonable to me but also exited me due to their coherence and logic. I just wanted to encourage you to have a look at de-Farias "Biological Periodicity: Its Molecular Mechanism and Evolutionary Implications" which is a logical follower to "Evolution without selection". The only thing I can tell you is that it took me months to get an idea of its vast and fascinating implications!

Greetings
Ralf

A table of contents of Biological Periodicity can be found at barnesandnoble.com [gk]

Gert,

I found your list of book reviews on matters of Creation and Evolution (via Google), and it looks like an excellent resource. Congratulations on a job well done. I myself have read a number of the books, particularly (but not exclusively) the ones in the category "Creationism and Intelligent Design Theory". Having read your review of "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip Johnson (plus his response), I'd like to challenge you on a point or two of your criticism.

First of all, let me disclose my bias and my area of knowledge. I am a creationist, and a Christian. My primary field of knowledge is computer science, but I also have a keen interest in philosophy, particularly epistemology. I'm a nerd in general, and take an interest in matters of science in the broad sense, but it's unlikely that I'll ever have any particular expertise in any of the "sciences" (like geology, physics, chemistry, etc, unless you count computer science as a "science", which I don't).
... ...
I conclude that science, as the study of nature, does not demand or need the absence of miracles in order to be valid and useful in its own right.
...
Regards,
TFBW

The mail was too long to post here completely. Contact TFBW for the complete copy. [gk]

Dear Mr. Korthof,

I have only just become aware of your web site, and have much enjoyed my first viewing, and your very balanced approach. I am a semi-retired business man, and have developed in my spare time a different kind of Darwinian critique, one that focuses on the theory's underlying logic.
The text below is one of several articles I have written over the past two years on this subject. This is the most recent, and was the subject of a note that I received two weeks ago from Prof. John Polanyi (1986 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry), who commented favourably on the article, and on the references that I make in it to his late father's work [Michael Polanyi]. Your comments, should you find the time, would be most welcome.

Sincerely,
Don Cruse.

Please contact DC for a copy of his article. About Michael Polanyi see also: Note 8 of my review of Denton and Note 9 of my review of Dembski. [gk]

Dear Gert,

I have admired very much your excellent website with the only in the world available clear presentation of all books related to the theories of Darwin and Genesis concerning the origin of life. I have also enjoyed your wonderfull review of some of the books.
Is it possible to send you my book GOODBYE DARWIN, which is a true first in the world to challenge, at the same time, both science and religion as far as the origin of life is concerned, in order to have it reviewed and posted on your website probably under the same section as Denton's book : "Evolution, a theory in crisis" ?
My book is written for scientists, clergymen and laymen alike in a simple yet pleasant language without losing any of its scientific integrity.

I truly wish that a man having a totally neutral position like you could review my book as I am fighting against a very strong tide. All authors of books, for or against Darwin, for or against Genesis have a political, religious or scientific agenda and they have to conform one way or the other to the rules of their group or they stand to loose a great deal. That does not apply to my case as I am a very lonely pioneer, very humbly indeed, and any support is welcome.
The only support I have received while writting my book came from the late Dr. Collin Patterson who, until his untimely death in 1998, was the Director of the Paleontology Department of the British Museum, one can hardly reach a higher position in the world of Darwinism and evolution. He was giving me hints, directions, secrets and encouragement until I finished my manuscript.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Cherif El Ayouty

Dear Gert,

I did owe you the courtesy of responding to your emails. The main objection you raise, and one you raise repeatedly, is the supposed ability of Darwinian selection to produce what I attribute to design. It can't, and the arguments I give in my previously published work do, I think, argue for this effectively. Nonetheless, the argument can be made even more effective, and I'm currently writing a book showing that the Darwinian mechanism is not the magic design bullet it is made out to be. Send me your mailing address. I may wish to send you some chapter drafts.

Best wishes,
Bill Dembski
--
William A. Dembski, Ph.D.
Director, Michael Polanyi Center
Associate Research Professor in the Conceptual Foundations of Science
Baylor University

Address:  William A. Dembski
          The Michael Polanyi Center
          P.O. Box 97130
          Baylor University
          Waco, TX 76798-7130
Phone:    (254) 710-4175 (Waco)
          (972) 570-3751 (Dallas)
Fax:      (254) 710-3600 (Waco)
          (972) 258-5235 (Dallas)
E-mail:   William_Dembski@baylor.edu
Web:      www.baylor.edu/~William_Dembski (personal)
          www.baylor.edu/~polanyi (Michael Polanyi Center)

Hi.
Your site is very interesting and useful.
I notice that in your discussion of Hoyle and Maynard Smith's review of Hoyle's Mathematics of evolution you give the rate of change of histone h4 as .01 replacement per billion years. The correct figure is .01 replacements per million years which makes a big difference obviously. If you check the web there is quite a bit of research on the genetic variability underlying histone h4.
For example, Histone H4 has been characterized as one of the most conserved proteins in eukaryotes. It is commonly accepted that with a central role in the cell, only a very limited set of mutations to histone H4 can still produce functional proteins. However a considerable amount of variation exists in ciliate histone H4 genes. We are currently developing a technique to analyze the extent of permissible variation in a highly conserved region of the Tetrahymena thermophila histone H4. The T. thermophila histone H4, a protein of 102 amino acids, contains 18 amino acid differences with respect to Saccharomyces cerevisiae. However even with this large number of differences, we have previously demonstrated that the T. thermophila histone H4 can successfully replace the endogenous S. cerevisiae histone H4.
See: Histone H4 Research

Bye for now,
William Seager, Philosophy
University of Toronto at Scarborough
www.scar.utoronto.ca/~seager

You might want to add The Web of Life. A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems by Fritjof Capra to your "Was Darwin Wrong" web page. The book gives a lot of insight into why Darwin was wrong.

Sincerely,
Razel Remen (Evergreen State College)

Love the site. I know that you can't cover every single book written on the subject but I note that your reviews tend to cover those written by what is sometimes referred to as the "Old-Earth-Creationist" crowd (Behe, Johnson, etc.) but don't really touch the Biblical literalist "Young-Earth-Creationist" bunch. Since the latter makes up the majority of the creationists who are politically active in the United States, why not cover one of their books? One that seems to pretty much summarize their thinking is Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati. I'd be interested in seeing your opinions on that one.

James Kaleta

I will have a look at the book [GK].

I read the stuff from 10 years ago that Archaeopterx was a 'hoax'. This appeared to be the claims of Lee Spetner and Fred Hoyle. Can you point me to a site which more conclusively answers that?

Thanks,

I don't know of a site, but Arthur Strahler mentions in his Science and Earth History, p426, that the British Museum examined the specimens and published a report:
A.J. Charig et al (1986), Science, vol 232, pp 622-26.
They publish evidence that their specimens cannot be a forgery [GK].

• Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution
• A Brief History of Everything
• The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science & Religion.

Regards,
Philip Ord.

It is mentioned now. [GK]

Amazing, absolutely stunning, that you left her out. She's only one of the greatest thinkers who put together one of the most important pieces on evolution this century!

Better get a review of Five Kingdoms and Symbiosis in Cell Evolution on that page soon!

Best

Jill Neimark
Webpage: http://www.nyu.edu/classes/neimark

It takes time to write a good review! [GK]

I came across your web page today and read some of your very balanced reviews. I notice you mention the anti-evolution bibliography¹ I wrote in 1988. If you don't have a copy I could send you a photocopy of the entire work (I only have one copy of the actual book). The paperback edition is available through Amazon.com and other online sellers.
I had the pleasure of meeting Alan Hayward, author of the later bibliography² which you discuss, at the Seventh-day Adventist university where he teaches. I was researching a bibliography of books on the End of the World³, which has recently been published. On the other hand, I was most interested in seeing your knowledgeable treatment of some NON-religious anti-evolutionists and anti-Darwinists.

Tom McIver

1. Anti-Evolution. A Reader's Guide to Writings before and after Darwin, by Tom McIver
2. The Creation/Evolution Controversy. An Annotated Bibliography, by James L. Hayward.
3. The End of the World : An Annotated Bibliography. by Tom McIver, 1999.

The book has been reviewed now (17 Mar 2000) on this site [GK].

Dear Gert --

I have just only glanced at your review. The review looks great. It is thorough, and shows that you have not only read the book, but are very familiar [with] lot's of related material and are well qualified to review it. I will add a link to your review today or tomorrow.

My only quibble is with your comment, "A few sections are about his 'Life from space' (Panspermia) hypothesis." I don't know which sections you mean. Of course your readers who are familiar with Hoyle will be interested in his views on panspermia, but does he really discuss them in this book?

Thanks again for the review. It's the first one I know of, and it is a good one!

Brig Klyce * http://www.panspermia.org
Acorn Enterprises LLC

Having just come across your site I write to ask if you would seriously be interested in a review copy of Cancer Selection: the new theory of evolution.
amazon.com's page on the book or this provides quotes from some relevant reviews:
The book is an expansion of the idea published in Journal of Theoretical Biology.

James Graham
Lexington Virginia USA

I just recently discovered your excellent site - you are a more patient man than me.... However, I was intrigued by your comments on ReMine's 'discussion' area. Some time ago - over a year, if I am not mistaken - I and at least one other person that I know of experienced a similar thing. I had an extended email exchange with ReMine's 'publisher' (I have been lead to believe that the publisher is ReMine himself, as his publisher publishes no other books), and was treated the same way. I brought up several aspects of his claims (I have not read the book, though I was commenting on excerpts that had been posted on a discussion board by someone sympathetic to his cause) and was similarly 'ignored' - and angered - to see that the claim that no questions had been raised remained. I asked specifically why this was so, and for a long time received no reply. When I did finally get a reply, I was told that my questions were 'not valid' and that the 'publisher' would no longer respond to my messages.
All part of his self-promotion, I conclude.

keep up the good work!
Scott Page, Ph.D.