Intelligent Design

How and why we need iron to live


Without oxygen (O2) we can’t live very long. To get enough O2 to survive, we need the respiratory center in our brain telling our muscles of respiration to breathe air in and out of our lungs. However, because O2 doesn’t dissolve well in blood, we also need to have enough red blood cells to make enough hemoglobin to transport enough O2 to our cells.

Evolutionary biologists expect us to believe that blind processes of chance and the laws of nature alone brought about the development of all of the components of the respiratory system and hemoglobin production, including the mechanisms that control them (never mind that without any one component the system would utterly fail, and death would take place before the next so call mutation could take effect, but why worry about facts and reality).

But that still isn’t enough to explain how our cells get the O2 they need to live and work properly. For it’s the iron (Fe) in the hemoglobin molecule to which O2 actually attaches and enables it to be transported in the blood throughout the body. Therefore, no iron means no hemoglobin, and no hemoglobin means no O2 transport, and no O2 transport means no life.


However, having too much iron can be toxic to the body. So the body must be able to not only acquire enough iron to make enough hemoglobin, it must be able to control it as well. Here’s how the body does all that.

We get iron from meat, fish, and poultry, but also from fruits, vegetables, dried beans, nuts, and grains. Iron is mainly taken into the cells that line the upper part of the intestine. But just because iron comes into the intestinal cell doesn’t mean it will automatically pass out of it and into the blood. To enter the blood, the iron must pass out through a protein in the plasma membrane of the intestinal cell called ferroportin. It’s by controlling how much iron leaves the intestinal cells, through ferroportin, that the body controls both its intake of iron and its total iron content.


To take control, the body uses a hormone, made in the liver, called hepcidin. Hepcidin works by locking onto ferroportin and blocks it from letting iron out of the intestinal cell. The liver cell is able to detect its own content of iron and matches this with the amount of hepcidin it releases into the blood.

The more iron stored in the liver, the more hepcidin it releases. More hepcidin results in less iron passing from the intestinal cells, through ferroportin, into the blood and prevents the body from having too much iron. And the less iron stored in the liver, the less hepcidin it releases. Less hepcidin results in more iron passing from the intestinal cells, through ferroportin, into the blood and helps keep the body’s iron level where it should be. The iron that remains in the intestinal cells due to the effect of hepcidin on ferroportin eventually leaves the body when these cells die and slough off within a few days.

However, just like oxygen, iron needs to be transported in the blood by a specialized protein so it can go to where it’s needed. This protein, also made in the liver, is called transferrin.


The production of transferrin is inversely related to the amount of iron stored in the liver. The more iron in the liver, the less transferrin is produced, while the less iron in the liver, the more transferrin is produced.

Transferrin carries iron to the bone marrow and other organs and tissues. The cells have specific receptors for transferrin in their plasma membranes. These receptors lock onto transferrin, with its cargo of iron, so they can unload the iron into the cell. The number of transferrin receptors a given cell has is inversely related to how much iron it has stored within it. The less stored iron it has, the more transferrin receptors it has so it can collect more iron. And the more stored iron it has, the less transferrin receptors it has so it will not take in too much iron.

In particular, the developing red blood cells in the bone marrow, which constantly use iron to make hemoglobin, have a high concentration of transferrin receptors. That allows them to pick up most of the iron that is carried to the tissues.

The total absence of iron is incompatible with human life. In developed countries, iron deficiency anemia usually takes place due to chronic blood loss from the gastrointestinal system, or less commonly, from low dietary intake. With worsening iron deficiency anemia the body experiences severe weakness, dizziness, and shortness of breath.

This takes place because, although the lungs may be bringing in adequate amounts of O2, the tissues can’t get enough of it because the blood’s O2 carrying capacity is severely reduced. Iron deficiency anemia can easily be treated with oral supplements of iron and usually the underlying cause can be identified and treated.

On the other hand, if the cells of the body store too much iron, then it is said to be in a state of iron overload. One of the commoner causes for this is condition is hereditary hemochromatosis. Medical scientists have only recently discovered that this type of iron overload is often related to a malfunction of the proteins hepcidin and/or ferroportin, resulting in too much iron being taken into the body through the intestine.

Too much iron in the cell can be toxic and can result in not only malfunction but even cell death. This usually results in multi-organ failure (liver, pancreas, heart) and infertility. The main treatment for this condition is the regular removal of blood by phlebotomy to keep the iron levels down to prevent further organ damage.

Our ancient ancestors, who were trying to win the battle for survival on a daily basis, would have needed the right amount of iron to survive. They did not have the benefit of modern medicine to diagnose and treat conditions like iron deficiency anemia and iron overload.

However, having a properly controlled respiratory system and the ability to produce the right amount of hemoglobin with the right amount of iron to carry enough O2 in the blood still doesn’t fully explain how enough O2 gets to the cells. How the cardiovascular system does that will be written about soon.


The Kallikaks

The name Kallikak is a pseudonym used as a family name throughout a 1912 book by the American psychologist Henry H. Goddard. Goddard coined the name from the Greek words καλός (kallos) meaning beautiful and κακός (kakos) meaning bad. The book follows the genealogy of Martin Kallikak, Deborah’s great-great-great grandfather, a Revolutionary War hero married to a Quaker woman. On his way back from battle, the normally morally upright Martin dallied one time with a barmaid. The young Martin soon reformed and went on with his upright life, becoming a respected New England citizen and father of a large family of prosperous individuals. All of the children that came from this relationship were “wholesome.”

But according to Goddard, a child was born by the dalliance with the barmaid. This single child, a male, went on to father more children, who fathered their own children, and on and on down the generations. With the Kallikaks, Goddard claims to have discovered, as close as one could imagine, an experiment in the hereditability of intelligence, moral ability, and criminality.

On the barmaid side of the Kallikak family, the children wound up poor, insane, delinquent, and mentally retarded. On the other side of the Kallikak family tree, the children ended up prosperous, intelligent, and morally upstanding. They were lawyers, ministers, and doctors.

Goddard concluded from this that intelligence, sanity, and morality were hereditary. What was that? Goddard described the barmaid as”feeble-minded”: a catch-all early 20th century term to describe various forms of mental retardation or learning deficiencies. Goddard was interested in the heritability of “feeble-mindedness”—and often wrote of the invisible threat of recessive “feeble-minded” genes carried by otherwise healthy and intelligent looking members of the population.

Goddard was convinced that this free-spirited young girl who was kind to animals, loved music, and “was bold towards strangers,” was nothing less than a menace to the future of American civilization. Goddard, who holds the dubious honor of introducing the term “moron” (“Moron” was coined in 1910 from the Ancient Greek word μωρός (moros), which meant “dull”) into the English language, was obsessed with how “feebleminded” Americans were degrading their country’s racial stock.

According to Goddard, a field investigation of the area surrounding the “ancestral home” of Deborah’s family “showed that the family had always been notorious for the number of defectives and delinquents it had produced.” Indeed, the more Kallikak family members the investigators located, the more deficient the family’s bloodline appeared to be. “The surprise and horror of it all was that no matter where we traced them, whether in the prosperous rural district, in the city slums … or in the more remote mountain regions, or whether it was a question of the second or the sixth generation, an appalling amount of defectiveness was everywhere found.”

Goddard believed that members of the Kallikak family were especially dangerous to America’s racial stock because on the surface many of them did not appear to be particularly deficient. “A large proportion of those who are considered feeble-minded in this study are persons who would not be recognized as such by the untrained observer,” acknowledged Goddard,

Published during the same year presidential candidate Woodrow Wilson was campaigning for an evolutionary understanding of the Constitution, Goddard’s book urged the nation to apply biological science to its social-welfare policies as well.

In Goddard’s view, heredity rather than charity was the key to eliminating the underclass and its associated social ills. By 1912, his message was striking a chord with American policymakers, social scientists, and cultural leaders. New books advocating eugenics were being published, a Broadway play on the subject was in preparation, and professional societies were taking up the topic in earnest. In Washington, D.C., Dr. Woods Hutchinson of the New York Polyclinic preached eugenics at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association. Hutchinson proposed that all American schoolchildren be given a eugenics inspection by their third year in school. “As soon as the 2 to 3 per cent of all children who are hereditarily defective are determined they should be given such a training as will fit them for the part they are likely to play in life. Then they should either be segregated in open-air farm colonies or sterilized.” A few days later, Dr. L. F. Barker of Johns Hopkins University lectured the International Hygiene Congress about the importance of “providing for the birth of children endowed with good brains” and “denying, as far as possible, the privilege of parenthood to the manifestly unfit.”

The eugenics movement drew direct inspiration from Darwinian biology. Yet today the Darwinian roots of eugenics tend to be downplayed both by the popular media and by some scholars. When Darwin’s theory is mentioned at all, a sharp distinction is often drawn between Darwin’s own views and the “Social Darwinism” of the eugenists, who supposedly extended Darwin’s theory into realms unanticipated by him. The eugenists’ underlying fear was the same as the one Charles Darwin had articulated so clearly in The Descent of Man: By saving the weak through medicine and charity, and by allowing defective classes to reproduce, civilized societies were counteracting the law of natural selection to the detriment of the human race.

According to the eugenists, human beings were essentially no different from horses, dogs, or blackberries, and so the techniques perfected to breed animals and plants could easily be applied to men and women with just as much success. “Man is an organism— an animal,” declared Charles Darwin, “and the laws of improvement of corn and of race horses hold true for him also.” “All life is conditioned by the same fundamental laws of nature,” agreed H. E. Jordan. “It would seem, then, that the same methods that man now employs in producing a high quality breed of dogs, or birds, or cattle, or horses, he must apply to himself.” “If the human race is to be permanently improved in its inherited characteristics,” wrote Princeton biologist Edwin Conklin, “there is no doubt that it must be accomplished in the same way in which man has made improvements in the various races of domesticated animals and cultivated plants.” And since breeders of animals and plants are experts in heredity, the public should let them determine how humans should breed.

Eugenists in the 1920s marketed sterilization as the cure to what they depicted as a looming welfare crisis. In a 1926 speech at Vassar College promoting sterilization, Margaret Sanger spoke in near-apocalpytic terms about the ruinous costs to taxpayers of welfare spending to care for defectives. “In 1923 over nine billions of dollars were spent on state and federal charities for the care and maintenance and perpetuation of these undesirables,” she complained. “Year by year their numbers are mounting. Year by year their cost is increasing. Huge sums— yes, vast fortunes— are expended on these, while the normal parents and their children are compelled to shift for themselves and compete with each other.” She added that “the American public is taxed, heavily taxed, to maintain an increasing race of morons, which threatens the very foundations of our civilization.” In her bestselling book The Pivot of Civilization (1922), Sanger likewise tried to alert Americans to alarming expenditures on social-welfare programs for the mentally defective, urging readers that “our eyes should be opened to the terrific cost to the community of this dead weight of human waste.” Eugenists also criticized traditional welfare programs for ignoring biological reality and relying instead on sentimental ideals of human equality. Margaret Sanger warned of the “dangers inherent in the very idea of humanitarianism and altruism, dangers which have today produced their full harvest of human waste, of inequality and inefficiency.” Sanger of course was the creator of Planned Parenthood.

Goddard hid the real identities of the Kallikaks, making it impossible for other scholars to try to verify his account. But through meticulous scholarly detective work, J. David Smith was finally able to identify the family in the 1980s. He conclusively showed that Goddard’s assessment was more a product of prejudice than unbiased scientific investigation. The Kallikaks were not hereditarily unfit at all. They had their share of social misfits, but they also had their “strengths and successes. The tragedy of the disfavored Kallikaks is that their story was distorted so as to fit an expectation. They were perceived in a way that allowed only their weaknesses and failures to emerge.”

And that is how Darwinism, evillution and progressivism has warped and distorted the world around us. That is what happens when, supposedly intelligent individuals fall for the latest unsubstantiated “pop” theory.


Evillution, Intelligent Design

Is it or isn’t it a Brontosaurus


1989 US postage stamp depicting Brontosaurus.

The mighty thunder lizard, Brontosaurus, is one of the most popular dinosaurs, featured in advertisements, children’s books, films, TV shows, on stamps, and a fascinating array of toys. However, it was the dinosaur that never really was—until now, maybe.


In 1877, Othniel Charles Marsh, Professor of Paleontology at Yale University and an avid dinosaur fossil hunter, discovered some of the bones of an incomplete sauropod[1] dinosaur in the Morrison Formation, Colorado.[2] He named this sauropod Apatosaurus ajax (Apatosaurus means deceptive lizard), which he estimated to be 50–60ft (15–18m) in length.[3] Two years later in 1879 Marsh discovered the bones of a larger and more complete sauropod dinosaur, again in the Morrison Formation but this time over the state line in Wyoming,[4] which he estimated to be 70–80ft (18–24m) long from head to tail.[5] Marsh named this second sauropod dinosaur Brontosaurus excelsus (Brontosaurus means thunder lizard) as he thought, due to its great size, the ground must have shook and thundered underneath it as it walked.

That name stuck until 1903 when Elmer Riggs, a paleontologist working for the Field Museum in Chicago, who had studied Marsh’s work, wrote, “the writer is convinced that the Apatosaur specimen is merely a young animal of the form represented in the adult by the Brontosaur specimen… . In view of these facts the two genera may be regarded as synonymous. As the term ‘Apatosaurus’ has priority, ‘Brontosaurus’ will be regarded as a synonym.”[6] Following the rules of taxonomy (which seem a little outdated- but no better system has been proposed), that the earlier name has priority, the Brontosaurus genus was dropped and the remains of the almost complete sauropod dinosaur was reclassified as Apatosaurus excelsus in the dinosaur family Diplodocidae. That should have been the end of Brontosaurus, but it was not to be, as the name lingered on, it became popular for toys, a sign for an oil company and much more.

In 1905 the skeleton of the newly classified Apatosaurus excelsus was mounted in the Yale Peabody Museum. However, the sign placed in front of it did not give this sauropod its new name, but instead it was labelled Brontosaurus excelsus, forever placing that name into the minds of the general public, lasting right up to our own modern times. The original fossil had been missing some feet and parts of the tail, which in the mount were composed of other fossil material found close by, but more notably it was also missing a head. (Notice that parts were filled in by other ‘fossil material’ and a head from any other old animal that happed to have died in and about the same area and time). In Marsh’s own reconstructions of the Brontosaurus excelsus, in 1893 and 1891, he chose large incomplete Camarasaurus-like skulls[7] which had been found in different quarries. These skulls which were short, round-faced, and heavy set, and a cast based on Camarasaurus-like skulls was used to complete the 1905 mount. (Making up what a false dinosaur- they knew it didn’t look like that, but they still presented it to the public as real). As early as 1915, this view was challenged by Dr William Holland, Carnegie Museum Director, pointing out that the skulls had no connection with the body as, “the two skulls used by Marsh were found, one four miles from the rest of his skeleton, the other about four hundred miles from it”.[8] Dr Holland instead believed that the correct skull for the body should have been more like the long, slender and broad Diplodocus type skull. His view was proven correct in the 1970s, when the head on the original 1905 mount was changed and all modern reconstructions have long, slender and broad skulls. Not only did the Brontosaurus excelsus lose its name, it also lost its head.

Now a new paper in PeerJ,[9] a biological and medical sciences journal, has reinstated Brontosaurus as a valid genus of sauropod dinosaur and Brontosaurus excelsus as a valid species. The study, carried out over a five-year period by Tschopp and colleagues, examined the bones of dinosaurs which belonged to the family Diplodocidae. 477 key aspects of the dinosaur’s anatomy were examined and statistically analysed to see how close their characteristics were to each other. Upon concluding their study, Tschopp’s team suggested that, due to a number of physical differences, the original Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus could be classified as different genera, and so the Brontosaurus was resurrected.[10] The physical differences between the two focused on features of the shoulder blade and vertebral column which showed that the Apatosaurus had a shorter and thicker neck and was considered to be the more robust animal of the two. “The differences we found between Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus were at least as numerous as the ones between closely related genera, and much more than what you normally find between species,” explained Dr Roger Benson, a co-author of the study from the University of Oxford.[11]

The paper itself acknowledged a few problems that it tried to address. First, a number of juvenile and sub-adult specimens were used and, as such, their physical characteristics were not given as much credence because dinosaur body morphology is now known to change and develop with age. (I could have told them that, based upon watching any episode of “Bones’. They are always predicting the age of the victim by examining the pelvic girdle or the cranium). Second, some specimens had deformation. (What kind of ‘deformations? Wouldn’t that seem to automatically make you question the accuracy of everything else?). Third, a number are incomplete or are composed of more than one individual. (Well, I will not even try to understand how more than one individual specimen could be construed as just one). Fourth, in their own words, “The most valuable documents to assure genuine association of skeletal parts to one individual are detailed quarry maps and field notes, but these are often absent for historical type specimens.” (So, they didn’t even have a valid treasure map.) And finally, by far the most pressing problem with the study, “is where to draw the line between morphological variation among individuals within species, and variation that allows distinction between species or genera. The decision for specific versus generic separation is somewhat arbitrary, in particular in paleontology.”(In other words, nobody really knows what they are doing). The authors hoped to overcome this problem by basing their decision on a purely quantitative approach, performing the statistical analysis on the bones they examined. However, they surely recognise that basing genus level decisions on small morphological differences may not prove acceptable to everyone. This is due to the very low sample size, the scientists’ inability to perform any tests on these closely related—but now extinct—animals to see if they could reproduce, and their inability to observe breeding patterns.

It will be interesting to see how the scientific community responds to this exceptionally long publication and whether or not the name Brontosaurus thunders through another generation of boys and girls who love dinosaurs, or even lasts the 24 years that it did last time.


Brontosaurus excelsus in Yale Peabody Museum today, with the correct head.

So now that Brontosaurus has been presented as alive and well again, differing morphologically from Apatosaurus, does this mean that they must go onto the Noah’s Ark as well? Did Noah have to fit yet another dinosaur on board? No, it doesn’t actually change anything. While Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus are once again in different genera, they are still part of the dinosaur family Diplodocidae which includes, among many others, another well known dinosaur, Diplodocus. It is highly probable that all of the dinosaurs in this family, and possibly other sauropod dinosaurs, descended from the same created kind and are displaying natural variation due to age, natural selection, or even possibly displaying phenotypic plasticity in response to external factors such as diet. None of these factors is helpful to evolution in the sense of bacteria changing into people over billions of years. Noah would not have taken on board all the variations but only the representatives of that kind, in juvenile form, that God sent to him (Genesis 6:19–20).

Interestingly the paper notes that the Morrison Formation, in which both the original Apatosaurus ajax and Brontosaurus excelsus were found, has yielded about three-quarters of the diplodocid genera reported so far! The Morrison Formation is a huge deposit of mudstone, sandstone and limestone covering an area of approximately 500,000 square miles, and contains within it the spectacular Dinosaur National Monument in Utah. The burial and preservation of these huge animals within the Morrison Formation, some of which have complete articulated skeletons, speak of fossilization conditions unlike anything we see today. Rather, they point to a colossal watery catastrophe, laying down huge waves of sediment and entombing these mighty sauropod dinosaurs, which speaks to us of the judgment that God sent 4,500 years ago in response to mankind’s sin. While God is slow to anger he does not forget to perform His judgment—it will surely come (compare 2 Peter 3:5–6 and 2 Peter 3:7–10).

Brontosaurus, or whatever these creatures were originally called or may yet be called, are wonderful displays of the Creation.


[1] Sauropoda, (“lizard-footed”), are an infraorder of saurischian (“lizard-hipped”) dinosaurs. They had very long necks, long tails, small heads (relative to the rest of their body), and thick, pillar-like legs. They are notable for the enormous sizes attained by some species, and the group includes the largest animals to have ever lived on land. Well-known genera include Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus, Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus.

[2] Apatosaurus ajax was found in Lakes Quarry 10, Gunnison County, Colorado.

[3] Marsh, O.C., Notice of New Dinosaurian Reptiles from the Jurassic formation, American Journal of Science 14(84):514–516, 1877

[4] Brontosaurus excelsus was found in AMNH Quarry 2, Como Bluff, Wyoming.

[5] Marsh, O.C., Notice of new Jurassic dinosaurs, American Journal of Science 18:501–505, 1879

[6] Riggs, E. S., Structure and relationships of opisthocoelian dinosaurs, part I: Apatosaurus Marsh, Field Columbian Museum Publications, Geological Series 2(4):165–196, 1903. (Hard to find, ou might need to get a University library to get it loaned to them.

[7] Berman, D.S. and McIntosh, J.S., Description of the palate and lower jaw of the sauropod dinosaur Diplodocus with remarks on the nature of the skull of Apatosaurus, Journal of Paleontology 49(1)187–199, 1975

[8] Holland, W.J., Heads and Tails; a few notes relating to the structure of the sauropod dinosaurs, Annals of the Carnegie Museum 9:273-278; p. 276, 1915

[9] Tschopp, E. et al., A specimen-level phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic revision of Diplodocidae (Dinosauria, Sauropoda), PeerJ 3:e857, 2015;, accessed 29 April 2015

[10] The study allowed for a minimum of six differences, considering this enough for species-level separation, thereby accounting for individual variation. They allowed for a minimum of thirteen differences for genus-level separation

[11] Anon, Brontosaurus is back! Brontosaurus is a unique genus after all, Science Daily, 7 April 2015;, accessed 29 April 2015.

The Science of it All

Fantastic miniature space lander invented

When human astronauts landed on the moon they did not fear attacks from any local inhabitants since lunatics and other such crazy people only lived on earth. The possibility of any moon creatures had already been ruled out by space researchers.

Therefore, the spacecraft on which the astronauts travelled was designed to make a soft landing on a flat lunar surface, and to be gently and slowly projected into space again for the return trip to earth, after the planned research had been completed.

However, what if they were to land on a possible inhabited planet? What kind of spacecraft would they need? It would certainly need to be equipped for a rapid take-off in virtually any direction to escape a possible attack from any alien inhabitants. A complex highly sophisticated multi-directional scanning system would be required to detect the slightest hint of danger. The landing device itself would need to be constructed so that it could come to rest on any type of surface such as sharp rocks or steep slopes or even suspended from a protective overhang.

NASAT intelligence reports had revealed that a miniature prototype of just such a spacecraft appeared to already be in operation in some Eastern bloc countries. An undercover operation managed to successful hijack one of the prototypes. However, further research on the craft has been plagued by controversy over the origin of the craft. Western aerodynamics experts, who studied the captured model in a laboratory setting and managed to carry out flight tests on it, have concluded that it is a marvel of miniaturisation.

Thorough analysis has shown that it is equipped with some of the most sophisticated aeronautical instruments and landing devices. The controversy emerged however, when a search of NASAT records revealed that the existence of this tiny landing craft has been known for a long time. Modern scientists had been slow to acknowledge its highly sophisticated nature. Many researchers were forced to totally rule out the possibility that the mini-craft appeared on earth following design by an extraterrestrial being.

The general opinion seems to be that there was an original less efficient model that was fitted with two sets of double wings, upper and lower. Over a very long time of testing, it proved to be able to travel reasonably satisfactorily with the dual-wing operation. The lower wings gradually were reduced in size to just appendages beneath the remaining wings. Modern research has shown, however, that these appendages are actually vibrating gyroscopes.

This discovery has been very significant. Before this observation, rotating gyroscopes were used on low-flying aircraft as ‘turn’ and ‘horizon’ indicators, but for high-flying jet aircraft, this type of gyro was proving to be unreliable. The vibrating gyro was a unique answer to that problem. In the mini-craft it consisted of a tiny flexible rod attached to the central power unit. On the end of this rod is a bulbous formation which acts as a weight. When in flight, the rod oscillates rapidly in a fixed plane. When the craft turns or rolls, the gyro continues oscillating in the same plane and so activates various internal signals which are then converted to be read by the computer section.

Although all of the secrets of this tiny craft have not been discovered yet, it has been ascertained that it is equipped with very delicate instrumentation, including a wind-speed indicator in the microscopic antennae fitted to the front of the scanning system. The multidirectional scanning system is a marvel of miniaturisation, being comprised of thousands of infrared, UV, and visual sensors that detect movement coming from practically any angle.

For landing on rugged surfaces, the craft is fitted with forward grappling hooks, and it has four-point landing gear fitted with multi-tube adhesive pads for anti-gravity landing. This remarkable system enables the craft to land on the underside of overhanging rocks or on the ceilings of caves or buildings. The adhesive can be forced down the tiny tubes for retaining hold on such surfaces and can then be retracted for take-off.

This fantastic mini-craft is the common house fly, and it is a fact that “A whole new field of investigation into the flight instruments of insects has amazed aircraft designers as they see remarkably effective control devices packed into unbelievably small spaces.”[1]


If any person could produce such a miracle of working miniaturisation, their accomplishment would be acclaimed world-wide on the front pages of newspapers, on radio and television, and in top scientific journals. When God made the fly, however, there was just a brief mention of the fact hidden in the first chapter of Genesis.

[1] Everest, F.A., The Prior Claim, Moody Press, Chicago, pp.8–9, 1953.