Nature (journal) - Revision history

DanielAPulido at 14:18, June 13, 2019

2019-06-13T14:18:11Z

DavidB4-bot: HTTP --> HTTPS [#1], replaced: http://archive.org → https://archive.org, http://books.google.com → https://books.google.com (4)

2018-09-26T18:43:28Z

HTTP --> HTTPS [#1], replaced: http://archive.org → https://archive.org, http://books.google.com → https://books.google.com (4)

DavidB4-bot: Spelling, grammar, and general fixes

2016-06-24T14:23:08Z

Spelling, grammar, and general fixes

AK: /* Controversies */ sub-headers

2015-12-23T22:39:14Z

‎Controversies: sub-headers

AK: /* Controversies */ Adding Darwin on geographical distribution

2014-07-18T21:41:53Z

‎Controversies: Adding Darwin on geographical distribution

AK: /* Controversies */ stylistics

2014-07-10T20:16:56Z

‎Controversies: stylistics

AK: fixing text manipulation

2013-06-08T20:28:19Z

fixing text manipulation

AK: /* Controversies */ grammar

2013-06-08T20:20:09Z

‎Controversies: grammar

AK: /* Controversies */ typo

2013-05-15T19:22:59Z

‎Controversies: typo

Snowy: /* Controversies */

2013-05-03T23:54:51Z

‎Controversies

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-'''''Nature''''' is one of the two most influential journals in the scientific world. According to E.J. Larson it was founded in 1869 by members of so called X-Club as the mouthpiece of scientific [[naturalism]] with goal to unabashedly promote [[Darwinism]] and influence the editorial polices in that respect.<ref name="Larson">{{cite book
+'''''Nature''''' is one of the two most influential journals in the scientific world. According to E.J. Larson it was founded in 1869 by members of so-called X-Club as the mouthpiece of scientific [[naturalism]] with the goal to unabashedly promote [[Darwinism]] and influence the editorial polices in that respect.<ref name="Larson">{{cite book
 |author=E.J. Larson
 |title=Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory
@@ Line 94: / Line 94: @@
 <references/>
 [[Category:Scientific Journals]]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 |pages=108–109
 |isbn=0-8129-6849-2
-|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=xzLRvxlJhzkC&dq=E.J.Larson:+Evolution+the+remarkable+history+of+a+scientific+theory&source=bl&ots=rY2bh63YAs&sig=PNG4Cc0sG9gewbvhDgfMdOyAbo0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wOt4UNi0MIrntQbXwYHADg&redir_esc=y
+|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xzLRvxlJhzkC&dq=E.J.Larson:+Evolution+the+remarkable+history+of+a+scientific+theory&source=bl&ots=rY2bh63YAs&sig=PNG4Cc0sG9gewbvhDgfMdOyAbo0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wOt4UNi0MIrntQbXwYHADg&redir_esc=y
 |access date=2012-10-13
 |quote=The end result was much the same in Britain. There, Darwin, Huxley, and their allies effectively collaborated to take over the scientific establishment, with the goal of enthroning naturalism as the ideology of science and science as the mainspring of modern society. At first they consciously sought to minimize open scientific debate over Darwinism while systematically advancing interests of biologists who utilized an evolutionary approach. Working through an intimate group of like-minded intellectuals known as the X Club, Huxley and his friends managed to assume leadership roles in many of Britain's leading scientific societies, place supporters in prominent university and museum positions, and influence the editorial polices of scientific journals. In 1869, they founded the journal Nature as the mouthpiece of scientific naturalism, and unabashedly promoted Darwinism in its pages. ..."So successful was this takeover of the British scientific community," historian Peter Bowler says about the X-Club putsch, "that by the 1880s its remaining opponents were claiming that Darwinism had become a blindly accepted dogma carefully shielded from any serious challenge."}}</ref> The journal's original mission statement to this day remains unchanged. The first Nature article was written by [[T. H. Huxley]], who did more than anyone to promote Darwin's theories, on the supposed role of nature in [[Human evolution|the development of human beings]]. Astrophysicist Norman Lockyer was the first editor of Nature and remained in this position for 50 years.<ref name="nature">{{cite web
@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 |year=2009
 |pages=68
-|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=uo-LPwAACAAJ&dq=John+C.+Lennox+God%27s+undertaker.+Has+science+buried+God%3F&source=bl&ots=AHSynWaZj9&sig=BQzlYzbhLuJKZ2BWB0P4NOm57HM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=I_N4UIL6IsfXsgbQ-oDQDA&redir_esc=y
+|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uo-LPwAACAAJ&dq=John+C.+Lennox+God%27s+undertaker.+Has+science+buried+God%3F&source=bl&ots=AHSynWaZj9&sig=BQzlYzbhLuJKZ2BWB0P4NOm57HM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=I_N4UIL6IsfXsgbQ-oDQDA&redir_esc=y
 |isbn=978-0-7459-5371-7
 |quote=Another well known scientist who found the idea of a beginning repugnant is Sir John Maddox, a former editor of Nature. He pronounced the idea of a beginning 'thoroughly unacceptable', because it implied an 'ultimate origin of the world', and gave creationist 'ample justification' for their beliefs.}}</ref>
@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 |page=57
 |isbn=978-0-146-000-478
-|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=e-FTSHPpuAAC&q=Gould+Adam%E2%80%99s+Navel&dq=Gould+Adam%E2%80%99s+Navel&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GF8OUbjICuSn4ATLi4G4DQ&redir_esc=y
+|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=e-FTSHPpuAAC&q=Gould+Adam%E2%80%99s+Navel&dq=Gould+Adam%E2%80%99s+Navel&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GF8OUbjICuSn4ATLi4G4DQ&redir_esc=y
 |note=The quote seems to be missing at google books hence the edition obviously matters}}</ref> (Emphasis by Conservapedia)|group=note}} As the only alternative to the Theory of Evolution is presented  [[special creation]] that is however for [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalistic]] scientists "clearly incredible".<ref>{{Cite web
 | title = Adaptation
@@ Line 74: / Line 74: @@
 |author=D.M.S.Watson
 |accessdate=201-10-14
-|url=http://archive.org/details/reportofbritisha30adva}}</ref> on page 88, the statement on special creation is at page 95.|group=note}} [[C.S. Lewis]] criticised this position of orthodox [[Darwinism]] on grounds that it depends not on positive [[evidence]] but simply on an a priori [[metaphysics|metaphysical]] prejudice violating the elementary scientific [[Socratic principle]]. Further on he questions modern [[naturalism]] as devised not to get in [[fact]]s but to keep out [[God]].<ref>{{cite book
+|url=https://archive.org/details/reportofbritisha30adva}}</ref> on page 88, the statement on special creation is at page 95.|group=note}} [[C.S. Lewis]] criticised this position of orthodox [[Darwinism]] on grounds that it depends not on positive [[evidence]] but simply on an a priori [[metaphysics|metaphysical]] prejudice violating the elementary scientific [[Socratic principle]]. Further on he questions modern [[naturalism]] as devised not to get in [[fact]]s but to keep out [[God]].<ref>{{cite book
 |title=Screwtape Proposes a Toast: And Other Pieces
 |author=C.S. Lewis
@@ Line 81: / Line 81: @@
 |length=126
 |isbn=9780006224853
-|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=6QvjGwAACAAJ&dq=screwtape+proposes+a+toast+and+other+pieces+fontana+books&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wFEOUcyxGYT-4QTxgYGwCw&redir_esc=y
+|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6QvjGwAACAAJ&dq=screwtape+proposes+a+toast+and+other+pieces+fontana+books&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wFEOUcyxGYT-4QTxgYGwCw&redir_esc=y
 |quote=After that it is hardly worth noticing minor difficulties. Yet these are many and serious. The Bergsonian critique of orthodox Darwinism is not easy to answer. More disquieting still is Professor D. M. S. Watson's defence. "Evolution itself," he wrote, "is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or... can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice. Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God .Even, however, if Evolution in the strict biological sense has some better grounds than Professor Watson suggests--and I can't help thinking it must--we should distinguish Evolution in this strict sense from what may be called the universal evolutionism of modern thought. By universal evolutionism I mean the belief that the very formula of universal process is from imperfect to perfect, from small beginnings to great endings, from the rudimentary to the elaborate: the belief which makes people find it natural to think that morality springs from savage taboos, adult sentiment from infantile sexual maladjustments, thought from instinct, mind from matter, organic from inorganic, cosmos from chaos. This is perhaps the deepest habit of mind in the contemporary world. It seems to me immensely implausible, because it makes the general course of nature so very unlike those parts of nature we can observe. You remember the old puzzle as to whether the owl came from the egg or the egg from the owl. The modern acquiescence in universal evolutionism is a kind of optical illusion, produced by attending exclusively to the owls emergence from the egg. We are taught from childhood to notice how the perfect oak grows from the acorn and to forget that the acorn itself was dropped by a perfect oak. We are reminded constantly that the adult human being was an embryo, never that the life of the embryo came from two adult human beings. We love to notice that the express engine of today is the descendant of the "rocket;" we do not equally remember that the " Rocket" springs not from some even more rudimentary engine, but from something much more perfect and complicated than itself-namely, a man of genius. The obviousness or naturalness which most people seem to find in the idea of emergent evolution thus seems to be a pure hallucination.}}</ref>{{#tag:ref|The text by C.S. Lewis can be found also here.<ref name="Is Theology Poetry">{{cite web
 |title=C.S. Lewis on Evolution (Is Theology Poetry?)

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 |location=New York
 |year=2006
-|pages=108-109
+|pages=108–109
 |isbn=0-8129-6849-2
 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=xzLRvxlJhzkC&dq=E.J.Larson:+Evolution+the+remarkable+history+of+a+scientific+theory&source=bl&ots=rY2bh63YAs&sig=PNG4Cc0sG9gewbvhDgfMdOyAbo0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wOt4UNi0MIrntQbXwYHADg&redir_esc=y
@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 |publisher= Nature Publishing Group
 |url=http://www.nature.com/npg_/company_info/timeline1.html
-|quote=Astrophysicist Norman Lockyer and Thomas Henry Huxley encourage Alexander Macmillan to publish "a general scientific journal". Consequently, the House of Macmillan launches Nature, a weekly illustrated journal of science. The journal's original mission statement to this day remains unchanged.
+|quote=Astrophysicist Norman Lockyer and Thomas Henry Huxley encourage Alexander Macmillan to publish "a general scientific journal". Consequently, the House of Macmillan launches Nature, a weekly illustrated journal of science. The journal's original mission statement to this day remains unchanged.  Norman Lockyer becomes the first editor of Nature, and remains in this position for 50 years. ...After Darwin's "Origin of Species" is published in 1859, Huxley does more than anyone to promote its theories. As well as being instrumental in the conception of Nature, Huxley writes the first Nature article, on the role of nature in the development of human beings.}}</ref> Later among editors was also well known scientist Sir John Maddox who according to John C. Lennox found [[Singularity#Antipathy to the idea of beginning|the idea of beginning]] [of our world] repugnant.<ref name="LENNOX">{{cite book
-Norman Lockyer becomes the first editor of Nature, and remains in this position for 50 years. ...After Darwin's "Origin of Species" is published in 1859, Huxley does more than anyone to promote its theories. As well as being instrumental in the conception of Nature, Huxley writes the first Nature article, on the role of nature in the development of human beings.}}</ref> Later among editors was also well known scientist Sir John Maddox who according to John C. Lennox found [[Singularity#Antipathy_to_the_idea_of_beginning|the idea of beginning]] [of our world] repugnant.<ref name="LENNOX">{{cite book
 |author=John C. Lennox
 |title=God's undertaker. Has science buried God?
@@ Line 40: / Line 39: @@
 |url=http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1878Natur..18..539S
 |accessdate=2012-10-14
-|quote=the position given by Prof. Watson of the intra-Mercurial planet discovered on that day agrees so closely with that star, it may have been the object discovered, I have thought it advisable to give the facts concerning it, in order to correct such an impression if it still exists. That he had a view of the planet as stated there is no doubt, for I myself saw it some four or five minutes later, using θ as a comparison star, and am able not only to corroborate the discovery, but to substantiate the position given by him.}}</ref> Nevertheless no such planet is nowadays recognized and the case is being commonly used as an deterrent example of scientists inappropriately trying to solve problems in their theories (aiming to explain unknown natural phenomena) by establishing so called ''fudge factors'' instead of acknowledging ignorance. Contemporary [[dark matter]] and [[dark energy]] hypothesis are frequently compared with 'discovery' of Vulcan.<ref name="starlight">{{cite book| last = Hartnett| first = John| authorlink = | title = Starlight, Time and the New Physics| publisher = Creation Ministries International| series = | year = 2007|isbn = 978-0-949-906687|pages=34-36|quote=The form of 'dark' matter envisaged by theorists of the day varied; some preferred an inner asteroid belt within Mercury's orbit and some an additional planet -the planet Vulcan, which was said to orbit very close to the Sun...but in such a manner that it was always conveniently hidden from view by Earth observers, on the other side of the Sun. (They didn't seem to mind that an object near Mercury would have a shorter orbital period than Earth.)}}</ref>
+|quote=the position given by Prof. Watson of the intra-Mercurial planet discovered on that day agrees so closely with that star, it may have been the object discovered, I have thought it advisable to give the facts concerning it, in order to correct such an impression if it still exists. That he had a view of the planet as stated there is no doubt, for I myself saw it some four or five minutes later, using θ as a comparison star, and am able not only to corroborate the discovery, but to substantiate the position given by him.}}</ref> Nevertheless no such planet is nowadays recognized and the case is being commonly used as an deterrent example of scientists inappropriately trying to solve problems in their theories (aiming to explain unknown natural phenomena) by establishing so called ''fudge factors'' instead of acknowledging ignorance. Contemporary [[dark matter]] and [[dark energy]] hypothesis are frequently compared with 'discovery' of Vulcan.<ref name="starlight">{{cite book| last = Hartnett| first = John| authorlink = | title = Starlight, Time and the New Physics| publisher = Creation Ministries International| series = | year = 2007|isbn = 978-0-949-906687|pages=34–36|quote=The form of 'dark' matter envisaged by theorists of the day varied; some preferred an inner asteroid belt within Mercury's orbit and some an additional planet -the planet Vulcan, which was said to orbit very close to the Sun...but in such a manner that it was always conveniently hidden from view by Earth observers, on the other side of the Sun. (They didn't seem to mind that an object near Mercury would have a shorter orbital period than Earth.)}}</ref>
 === Theory of evolution vs. special creation ===
 *In 1929 the journal published the paper by D.M.S. Watson in which he declared that the [[theory of evolution]] is accepted not because it would be supported by logically coherent arguments or because it would be [[Scientific observation|observed]] to occur, but only because no alternative explanation is credible and because it is believed to fit all the facts of [[taxonomy]]{{#tag:ref|The claim about taxonomy however seems to contradict the article published in 1985: "The taxonomic case against Darwin"<ref>{{cite web
@@ Line 52: / Line 51: @@
 |url=http://www.manasjournal.org/pdf_library/VolumeXXXVIII_1985/XXXVIII-20.pdf
 |acessdate=12.12.2012
-|quote= The theory of evolution has never been falsified. On the other hand, it is also surely true that the positive evidence for evolution is very much weaker than most layman imagine, and than many scientist want us to imagine. Perhaps, as Patterson says, that positive evidence is missing entirely}}</ref>|group=note}} and geographical distribution.{{#tag:ref|cf.''"Turning to geographical distribution, the difficulties encountered on the theory of descent with modification are grave enough... We are often wholly unable even to conjecture how this could have been effected."'' Charles Darwin<ref>{{cite book |title=The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life |author=Charles Darwin |Edition=First |Chapter= 14. Recapitulation and Conclusion |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter14.html}}</ref>|group=note}} Whilst "every biologist" is reported as having accepted "the fact of evolution," the mode in which it has occurred and the mechanism in which it has been brought about are portrayed as still disputable.{{#tag:ref|cf. [[Stephen Jay Gould]]: "I well remember something that [[Francis Crick]] said to me many years ago, when my own functionalist biases were strong. He remarked, in response to an adaptive story I had invented with alacrity and agility to explain the meaning of repetitive DNA: ‘''Why do you evolutionists always try to identify the value of something '''before you know how it is made'''''?’"<ref>{{cite book
+|quote= The theory of evolution has never been falsified. On the other hand, it is also surely true that the positive evidence for evolution is very much weaker than most layman imagine, and than many scientist want us to imagine. Perhaps, as Patterson says, that positive evidence is missing entirely}}</ref>|group=note}} and geographical distribution.{{#tag:ref|cf.''"Turning to geographical distribution, the difficulties encountered on the theory of descent with modification are grave enough... We are often wholly unable even to conjecture how this could have been effected."'' Charles Darwin<ref>{{cite book |title=The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life |author=Charles Darwin |edition=First |chapter= 14. Recapitulation and Conclusion |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter14.html}}</ref>|group=note}} Whilst "every biologist" is reported as having accepted "the fact of evolution," the mode in which it has occurred and the mechanism in which it has been brought about are portrayed as still disputable.{{#tag:ref|cf. [[Stephen Jay Gould]]: "I well remember something that [[Francis Crick]] said to me many years ago, when my own functionalist biases were strong. He remarked, in response to an adaptive story I had invented with alacrity and agility to explain the meaning of repetitive DNA: ‘''Why do you evolutionists always try to identify the value of something '''before you know how it is made'''''?’"<ref>{{cite book
 |author=Stephen J. Gould
 |title=Adam’s Navel
@@ Line 60: / Line 59: @@
 |isbn=978-0-146-000-478
 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=e-FTSHPpuAAC&q=Gould+Adam%E2%80%99s+Navel&dq=Gould+Adam%E2%80%99s+Navel&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GF8OUbjICuSn4ATLi4G4DQ&redir_esc=y
-|note=The quote seems to be missing at google books hence the edition obviously matters}}</ref> (Emphasis by Conservapedia)|group=note}} As the only alternative to the Theory of Evolution is presented  [[special creation]] that is however for [[Naturalism_(philosophy)|naturalistic]] scientists "clearly incredible".<ref>{{Cite web
+|note=The quote seems to be missing at google books hence the edition obviously matters}}</ref> (Emphasis by Conservapedia)|group=note}} As the only alternative to the Theory of Evolution is presented  [[special creation]] that is however for [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalistic]] scientists "clearly incredible".<ref>{{Cite web
 | title = Adaptation
 | url = http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v124/n3119/pdf/124231a0.pdf
 | author = D.M.S. Watson
 | publisher = Nature
-| Volume= 124
+| volume= 124
 | date = August 10, 1929
 | acessdate = 2012-10-14
-| pages = 231 – 234
+| pages = 231–234
 | url=http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v124/n3119/pdf/124231a0.pdf
 | quote=Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or is supported by logically coherent arguments, but because it does fit all the facts of taxonomy, of pakeontology (sic), and of geographical distribution, and because no alternative explanation is credible. Whilst the fact of evolution is accepted by every biologist, the mode in which it has occurred and the mechanism by which it has been brought about are still disputable. ... The extreme difficulty of obtaining the necessary data for any quantitative estimation of the efficiency of natural selection makes it seem probable that this theory will be re-established, if it be so, by the collapse of alternative explanations which are more easily attacked by observation and experiment. If so, it will present the parallel to the Theory of Evolution itself, theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.
@@ Line 83: / Line 82: @@
 |isbn=9780006224853
 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=6QvjGwAACAAJ&dq=screwtape+proposes+a+toast+and+other+pieces+fontana+books&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wFEOUcyxGYT-4QTxgYGwCw&redir_esc=y
-|quote=After that it is hardly worth noticing minor difficulties. Yet these are many and serious. The Bergsonian critique of orthodox Darwinism is not easy to answer. More disquieting still is Professor D. M. S. Watson's defence. "Evolution itself," he wrote, "is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or... can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice. Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God .Even, however, if Evolution in the strict biological sense has some better grounds than Professor Watson suggests--and I can't help thinking it must--we should distinguish Evolution in this strict sense from what may be called the universal evolutionism of modern thought. By universal evolutionism I mean the belief that the very formula of universal process is from imperfect to perfect, from small beginnings to great endings, from the rudimentary to the elaborate: the belief which makes people find it natural to think that morality springs from savage taboos, adult sentiment from infantile sexual maladjustments, thought from instinct, mind from matter, organic from inorganic, cosmos from chaos. This is perhaps the deepest habit of mind in the contemporary world. It seems to me immensely implausible, because it makes the general course of nature so very unlike those parts of nature we can observe. You remember the old puzzle as to whether the owl came from the egg or the egg from the owl. The modern acquiescence in universal evolutionism is a kind of optical illusion, produced by attending exclusively to the owls emergence from the egg. We are taught from childhood to notice how the perfect oak grows from the acorn and to forget that the acorn itself was dropped by a perfect oak. We are reminded constantly that the adult human being was an embryo, never that the life of the embryo came from two adult human beings. We love to notice that the express engine of today is the descendant of the "rocket;" we do not equally remember that the " Rocket" springs not from some even more rudimentary engine, but from something much more perfect and complicated than itself-namely, a man of genius. The obviousness or naturalness which most people seem to find in the idea of emergent evolution thus seems to be a pure hallucination.}}</ref>{{#tag:ref|The text by C.S. Lewis can be found also here<ref name="Is Theology Poetry">{{cite web
+|quote=After that it is hardly worth noticing minor difficulties. Yet these are many and serious. The Bergsonian critique of orthodox Darwinism is not easy to answer. More disquieting still is Professor D. M. S. Watson's defence. "Evolution itself," he wrote, "is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or... can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice. Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God .Even, however, if Evolution in the strict biological sense has some better grounds than Professor Watson suggests--and I can't help thinking it must--we should distinguish Evolution in this strict sense from what may be called the universal evolutionism of modern thought. By universal evolutionism I mean the belief that the very formula of universal process is from imperfect to perfect, from small beginnings to great endings, from the rudimentary to the elaborate: the belief which makes people find it natural to think that morality springs from savage taboos, adult sentiment from infantile sexual maladjustments, thought from instinct, mind from matter, organic from inorganic, cosmos from chaos. This is perhaps the deepest habit of mind in the contemporary world. It seems to me immensely implausible, because it makes the general course of nature so very unlike those parts of nature we can observe. You remember the old puzzle as to whether the owl came from the egg or the egg from the owl. The modern acquiescence in universal evolutionism is a kind of optical illusion, produced by attending exclusively to the owls emergence from the egg. We are taught from childhood to notice how the perfect oak grows from the acorn and to forget that the acorn itself was dropped by a perfect oak. We are reminded constantly that the adult human being was an embryo, never that the life of the embryo came from two adult human beings. We love to notice that the express engine of today is the descendant of the "rocket;" we do not equally remember that the " Rocket" springs not from some even more rudimentary engine, but from something much more perfect and complicated than itself-namely, a man of genius. The obviousness or naturalness which most people seem to find in the idea of emergent evolution thus seems to be a pure hallucination.}}</ref>{{#tag:ref|The text by C.S. Lewis can be found also here.<ref name="Is Theology Poetry">{{cite web
 |title=C.S. Lewis on Evolution (Is Theology Poetry?)
 |author=C.S. Lewis
 |accessdate=2013-02-03
-|url=http://www.ldolphin.org/cslevol.html}}</ref>.|group=note}}
+|url=http://www.ldolphin.org/cslevol.html}}</ref>|group=note}}
 ==Notes==

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 ==Controversies==
 *In 1878 the journal published the article on the ' ''Discovery of [[Vulcan (planet)|Vulcan]]'' ', a non-existent hypothetical planet that was believed by naturalist scientists to exist due to the shift in the [[perihelion]] of planet [[Mercury]].<ref name="Vulcan">{{cite web
 |author=Lewis Swift
@@ Line 40: / Line 41: @@
 |accessdate=2012-10-14
 |quote=the position given by Prof. Watson of the intra-Mercurial planet discovered on that day agrees so closely with that star, it may have been the object discovered, I have thought it advisable to give the facts concerning it, in order to correct such an impression if it still exists. That he had a view of the planet as stated there is no doubt, for I myself saw it some four or five minutes later, using θ as a comparison star, and am able not only to corroborate the discovery, but to substantiate the position given by him.}}</ref> Nevertheless no such planet is nowadays recognized and the case is being commonly used as an deterrent example of scientists inappropriately trying to solve problems in their theories (aiming to explain unknown natural phenomena) by establishing so called ''fudge factors'' instead of acknowledging ignorance. Contemporary [[dark matter]] and [[dark energy]] hypothesis are frequently compared with 'discovery' of Vulcan.<ref name="starlight">{{cite book| last = Hartnett| first = John| authorlink = | title = Starlight, Time and the New Physics| publisher = Creation Ministries International| series = | year = 2007|isbn = 978-0-949-906687|pages=34-36|quote=The form of 'dark' matter envisaged by theorists of the day varied; some preferred an inner asteroid belt within Mercury's orbit and some an additional planet -the planet Vulcan, which was said to orbit very close to the Sun...but in such a manner that it was always conveniently hidden from view by Earth observers, on the other side of the Sun. (They didn't seem to mind that an object near Mercury would have a shorter orbital period than Earth.)}}</ref>
 *In 1929 the journal published the paper by D.M.S. Watson in which he declared that the [[theory of evolution]] is accepted not because it would be supported by logically coherent arguments or because it would be [[Scientific observation|observed]] to occur, but only because no alternative explanation is credible and because it is believed to fit all the facts of [[taxonomy]]{{#tag:ref|The claim about taxonomy however seems to contradict the article published in 1985: "The taxonomic case against Darwin"<ref>{{cite web
 |author=Tom Bethel

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 |url=http://www.manasjournal.org/pdf_library/VolumeXXXVIII_1985/XXXVIII-20.pdf
 |acessdate=12.12.2012
-|quote= The theory of evolution has never been falsified. On the other hand, it is also surely true that the positive evidence for evolution is very much weaker than most layman imagine, and than many scientist want us to imagine. Perhaps, as Patterson says, that positive evidence is missing entirely}}</ref>|group=note}} and geographical distribution. Whilst "every biologist" is reported as having accepted "the fact of evolution," the mode in which it has occurred and the mechanism in which it has been brought about are portrayed as still disputable.{{#tag:ref|cf. [[Stephen Jay Gould]]: "I well remember something that [[Francis Crick]] said to me many years ago, when my own functionalist biases were strong. He remarked, in response to an adaptive story I had invented with alacrity and agility to explain the meaning of repetitive DNA: ‘''Why do you evolutionists always try to identify the value of something '''before you know how it is made'''''?’"<ref>{{cite book
+|quote= The theory of evolution has never been falsified. On the other hand, it is also surely true that the positive evidence for evolution is very much weaker than most layman imagine, and than many scientist want us to imagine. Perhaps, as Patterson says, that positive evidence is missing entirely}}</ref>|group=note}} and geographical distribution.{{#tag:ref|cf.''"Turning to geographical distribution, the difficulties encountered on the theory of descent with modification are grave enough... We are often wholly unable even to conjecture how this could have been effected."'' Charles Darwin<ref>{{cite book |title=The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life |author=Charles Darwin |Edition=First |Chapter= 14. Recapitulation and Conclusion |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter14.html}}</ref>|group=note}} Whilst "every biologist" is reported as having accepted "the fact of evolution," the mode in which it has occurred and the mechanism in which it has been brought about are portrayed as still disputable.{{#tag:ref|cf. [[Stephen Jay Gould]]: "I well remember something that [[Francis Crick]] said to me many years ago, when my own functionalist biases were strong. He remarked, in response to an adaptive story I had invented with alacrity and agility to explain the meaning of repetitive DNA: ‘''Why do you evolutionists always try to identify the value of something '''before you know how it is made'''''?’"<ref>{{cite book
 |author=Stephen J. Gould
 |title=Adam’s Navel