subscribe to our mailing list:
A Lost Chance
Dr. Spetner derives non-random evolution from the Talmud
By Mark Perakh
First posted on January 14, 2000. Last update January 30, 2002.
Spetner calculates probabilities
Spetner discusses randomness
Spetner discusses information
In the book
titled Not by Chance. Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, Dr. Lee M. Spetner offers its readers interesting pieces of information
from molecular biology and adjacent fields of science. Unfortunately, rather
than limit his discourse to scientific arguments, Spetner's book contains
passages which introduce the extraneous question of the compatibility of science
with religious dogma.
the above mentioned question at the very beginning of his book. In the
Preface (page ix) Spetner writes: "...I met the evolutionary theory in
a serious way, and I found it hard to believe. It clashed not only with my
religious views, but also with my intuition about how the information in living
organisms could have developed."
This is a damning
admission for a scientist. The latter is supposed to base his/her views only on
facts established via a verifiable and reproducible procedure of an unbiased
exploration. Religious views (i.e. beliefs) to which every scientist is, of
course, fully entitled, are supposed to be kept aside from his/her scientific
search for truth. As to intuition (often alternatively referred to as common
sense) it has its legitimate place in research, but the problem with it is
that it often leads different people into different directions, and as often as
not leads nowhere. (I have described elsewhere situations where relying on
common sense, i.e. on intuition, would lead to disaster – e.g. in the case of
orbital flights .)
It can be assumed from the above passage that the motivation behind Spetner’s effort had been his desire to reconcile his religious beliefs with scientific evidence. In other words, Spetner seems to have had an agenda rooted in his religious beliefs, i.e., beyond the boundaries of science. A non-scientific agenda chosen a priori is something a scientist is supposed to avoid (although I am not trying to assert that scientists always succeed in completely avoiding ideological presuppositions).
The book in
question leaves the impression that Spetner the believer was watching Spetner
the scientist thus limiting his freedom of following only the facts wherever
they might lead him.
believer is in full force as the book starts, but becomes less and less visible
as his story unfolds. Toward the end of the book, Spetner the scientist seems to
have won the battle, as he writes, on page 212, about his theory, which he calls
NREH: "The NREH, on the other hand, is agnostic..."
Of course, Spetner
the believer hates to admit his weakness, so this other Spetner surfaces in the
continuation of the quoted segment, as follows: "...and poses no contradiction to
creation. The NREH, as an explanation of evolution, is in fact derivable from
While readers have
no reason to doubt that Spetner himself may sincerely believe in what he says
about the alleged derivation of his theory of evolution from the Talmud, the
quoted statement is irrelevant as far as the theory itself goes. In the space
of two hundred pages, Spetner offered a variety of seemingly scientific
arguments against the Neo-Darwinian Theory (NDT) and finally suggested his own
hypothesis without using any notions, originating either in the Talmud or in any
other religious sources or beliefs. Hence his sudden reference to the Talmudic
sources sounds like nothing short of a ransom paid to his agenda. Moreover, in
such an immense compendium of commentaries and interpretations as the Talmud,
one can certainly find some commentaries of this or that rabbi seemingly
compatible with any views.
In view of the
above, the subtitle of the book in question Shattering the Modern Theory of
Evolution seems to be misleading.
In fact, Spetner's
theory itself is that of evolution. Contrary to what some readers could
conclude from the title and subtitle, Spetner's argumentation is not against the
theory of evolution per se. Spetner actually only argues against some
aspects of the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, namely against the idea that
evolution necessarily included random variations, suggesting instead what
he calls "Non-Random Evolutionary Hypothesis" (NREH).
However, the term
used by Spetner for his hypothesis, Non-Random Evolutionary Hypothesis,
is itself misleading. The Neo-Darwinism does not maintain that evolution
occurred in a purely random way. On the contrary, the Darwinian theories in all
of their modifications maintain that evolution included both random and
non-random elements. According to the neo-Darwinian approach, the random
element of the evolution entails mutations in the genome. Mutations are
believed to be random - this is indeed the assumption of the Neo-Darwinism
(although even this assumption must be qualified – see a further discussion).
However, the evolution theory is rather far from being limited to mutations. Its
second, equally crucial part is the concept of natural selection. The latter is
by no means random. The natural selection is directed by the environment. Using
Spetner's terminology, natural selection is led by the signals from the
environment. In that sense, evolution according to Neo-Darwinism is governed
both by random and non-random factors.
seems to be blissfully unaware of the actual basic principles of the Darwinian
evolution theory. If he paid attention to what actually the Darwinist theory of
evolution entails, he would have realized that the the concept of randomness is only a part of that theory which entail non-random elements as well.
Moreover, whereas the adherents of Neo-Darwinism who are the target of Spetner's
assault, do indeed view mutations as occurring randomly, they do qualify that
concept in a quite substantial way. For example, one of the most distinguished
defenders of Darwinism, Richard Dawkins, who, unlike Spetner, is a professional
biologist, in his very popular book  provides five aspects in which the mutations are not completely random (pages
305-307 in Dawkins's book). Here is just one brief quotation from Dawkins' book
(page 306): "There are, in truth, many respects in which mutation is not
random." On page 308 Dawkins continues: "The Darwinian says that variation is
random in the sense that it is not directed toward improvement, and that the
tendency toward improvement in evolution comes from selection."
In view of the above, the very name Spetner chose for his hypothesis
sounds as an obvious misnomer. As the matter stands now, Spetner seems to fight
against a straw man.
then the real difference between the Neo-Darwinism which Spetner rejects and his
shifts the non-random step of the evolution from natural selection to mutations.
According to Spetner, random mutations followed by natural selection could not
ensure the rate of evolution rapid enough for the appearance of the enormous
multitude of the existing species. Hence, insists Spetner, to explain the
actual rate of the evolution of the species, we must assume that mutations are
non-random but rather caused by signals from the environment.
What Spetner seems
not to be aware of, is that his hypothesis is by no means a novel one. Similar
ideas had been suggested before Spetner and rejected by the overwhelming
majority of biologists for a number of reasons, mainly because they are not
supported by evidence. Spetner's predecessors sometimes are referred to as "mutationists."
For example, in the above quoted book by Dawkins, we find a rather detailed
criticism of the views of such "mutationists," (pages 305-309).
Maybe, unlike his
predecessors within the ranks of "mutationists," Spetner came up with some
hitherto unknown arguments in favor of non-random mutations, triggered by a
"signal" from environment and directed toward improvement? Unfortunately, this
is not the case. There is not a shred of positive evidence in Spetner's book
which would support his hypothesis. All his argumentation is of negative
character, wherein, rather than offering evidence in favor of his hypothesis,
Spetner tries to show that the Neo-Darwinian theory entails serious faults. Of
course, even if Spetner's critique of the Neo-Darwinism were well substantiated,
this in itself would not signify the validity of his alternative hypothesis.
is entitled to suggest whatever hypothesis he chooses, in order to be accepted
in science, his mislabeled Non-Random Evolutionary Hypothesis would require,
first, an explanation of what is the nature and mechanism of the supposed
signals from the environment which cause the necessary useful mutations. And,
second, his theory would require empirical evidence to support his hypothesis of
directed rather than random mutations. Unfortunately, Spetner's discourse does
not meet either of the two mentioned requirements. His hypothesis is an
unsubstantiated assumption which lacks both empirical foundation and explanatory
details which are necessary to lead from his ideas to a real scientific theory.
No wonder Spetner published his work as a popular book for a broad audience
rather than in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
critical discussion of various aspects of the Neo-Darwinism comprises three
parts - probabilities, information and randomness. I will discuss all the three
elements of Spetner's discourse in subsequent sections of this article.
It is hard to
disagree with Spetner when he says that his hypothesis is agnostic. Every
scientific hypothesis is. This statement by Spetner, made at the book's end,
contradicts his agenda as it could be understood from his statements at the
The questions of
faith cannot and must not be treated by means of scientific research, which has
no tools to either confirm or reject religious claims, except for the cases of a
deliberate fraud that can be debunked by an impartial test. Spetner's hypothesis
provides no arguments either in favor or against any religious beliefs, however
strongly some defenders of religious views, including Spetner himself, may wish
to derive from that hypothesis such conclusions.
interesting to mention that Spetner's book, which its author intended to serve
as a weapon defending religious beliefs, was subjected to rather strong
criticism  in the Jewish
Action magazine which serves the Orthodox Jewish community. The author of
the review of Spetner's book in that magazine, Dr. C. Feit, concentrates
on the very heart of Spetner's discourse, namely on Spetner's rejection of
randomness in the process of evolution. Feit is mainly interested to show that
randomness is not contrary to the biblical story. While the religious reasons to
disagree with Spetner are beyond the scope of my discussion, there are certain
points in Feit's review which could very well be accepted in a rational analysis
of Spetner's writing. As Feit indicates, Spetner's premise can be characterized
as the "God-in-the-Gaps" approach to the conflict between religion and science.
The adherents of that approach look for "gaps" in scientific theories, i.e., for
points either insufficiently explained or not explained at all by the existing
theories and insist that the only explanation of such points is in invoking the
idea of a supernatural deity. Feit, who is a believer, rejects such an approach
because the ongoing development of science can eventually lead to a scientific
explanation of the yet obscure points, thus forcing religion to retreat with
humiliation. Feit also indicates that Spetner has left out many important areas
of modern biological research such as (I am quoting) "complexity theory,
neutral mutations, self-organization in complex systems, artificial life, common
attractors, the modular domain structure of modern proteins." Since Feit is an
expert in biology, this part of his critical remarks casts a shadow on the very
aspects of Spetner's book which purportedly constitute its strongest points.
Since I am not a biologist, I leave it to Dr. Feit and other experts in that
field to discuss the biological aspects of Spetner's book, discussing instead
some points which are closer to my own expertise.
A detailed critical discussion of Spetner's work from a biological standpoint was given, for example, by biologists Ian Musgrave  and Gert Korthof. These two critics, using very specific arguments from biology, have shown very convincingly the absence of substance in Spetner's hypothesis.
2. Spetner calculates probabilities
4 and 6 of his book, Spetner devotes much space to the discussion of
probabilities. Chapter 4 is titled Is the deck stacked? In that
chapter Spetner discusses probabilities of random mutations and of other events
which, according to the Darwinian approach, were the steps of evolution.
Spetner repeats here the same well known calculations of probability which had
been copied with slight variations from book to book written by opponents of the
theory of evolution but which are actually irrelevant for the problem of the
origin of life.
I discuss those
calculations of probabilities at length at
Improbable probabilities. I will not repeat
here all those arguments, but will only discuss briefly a few points in regard
to Spetner's calculations.
As I point out in
the above posting, from the cognitive viewpoint, the concept of probability first
and most reflects the level of ignorance about a situation. If we possessed the
full knowledge of the latter, we would deal with certainties rather than
probabilities. The extremely low values of probabilities of various events, such
as the spontaneous emergence of life and the like, which are often quoted by the
opponents of evolution, first and foremost reflect the paucity of information
about the events which would lead, for example, to useful surviving mutations or
to the emergence of life. This lack of knowledge forces us to assume an enormous
number of possible competing events thus resulting in the very low probabilities
cited by Spetner, Aviezer , and others.
How is the
probability of an event estimated to be, say, 1/N where N is a very large
number? This estimate is tantamount to the assumption that there could be N
possible events, of which, say, the emergence of life is just one. Assuming
further that all those N possible events are equally probable, we divide 1 by N
and arrive at the very low probability 1/N, which turns out to be, say, one in
ten to the twenty-seventh power (as in Spetner's example). The conclusion
derived by the anti-evolutionists is that the cited probability is so small that
the event in question is all but impossible.
This way of
thought, common to many discussions by the opponents of evolution, is flawed as
it misinterprets the meaning of the mathematical quantity called probability.
Indeed, if the probability of an event (say, of a useful mutation) is calculated
as 1/N, it means that we assumed the competition of N equally probable events.
One of those N equally probable events must necessarily happen (even though we
don't know in advance which one). If any of these events is viewed as
impossible, then by the same token each of them must be viewed as impossible, as
all those events have exactly the same chance of happening or not happening.
This conclusion, based on the assumption of impossibility of any one of N events
is absurd. Hence the premise was wrong.
certain event, A (for example a certain mutation) whose probability was
calculated as 1/N did not actually happen, it only means that some other event
B, whose probability was equally small, happened instead. Why could event B
happen but the equally probable event A could not? From the standpoint of
probability, there is no difference between all those N events, even if one of
them is very special from some non-mathematical viewpoint (for example, being
the spontaneous emergence of life).
Moreover, the Neo-Darwinism is not based on the premise of a purely random process. The combination of random mutations with a suitable law (for example, the non-random natural selection) can accelerate evolution by many orders of magnitude (as, for example, has been demonstrated by Dawkins ) and this makes Spetner's probabilistic exercise immaterial.
Add one more
comment. Discussing the analogy with a lottery, Spetner considers a favorite
example of the opponents of evolution, that of multiple wins, and states
correctly that the probability of cheating seems to be much larger than the
probability that a person wins a lottery twice in a row. Similarly, he states
that in a poker game the simultaneous occurrence of two straight flushes
indicates fraud with a much larger probability than its happening by chance. He
writes (page 94): "As we have seen in the story of the poker-playing cowboy, too
much luck might be not good for you." (In the story in question, the cowboy who
had the straight flush was shot to death for the alleged fraud). Then Spetner
continues: "So too in nature, if we see the occurrence of the event with
exceedingly low probability, we must suspect the event was not random..." This
statement is unsubstantiated. Indeed, fraud can be more probable than two
simultaneous straight flushes in a poker game, or a double win in a lottery.
However, this example is irrelevant in regard to nature where there is no
analogy of fraud. In nature an event is perfectly possible despite its
exceedingly small calculated probability, because, first, the very small
value of the calculated probability is mainly due to the extreme paucity of
information about the situation, and, second, because the event whose
probability was calculated as very small is actually as probable as any other of
N events assumed to be possible.
The chapter in
question contains many other calculations of probabilities, but all of them are
fraught with similar fallacies, discussed and dismissed many times before. Therefore the argumentation by Spetner against the
theory of random evolution, based on his calculations of probabilities in his
chapter 4, is not convincing.
In chapter 6,
titled The Watchmaker's Blindness, Spetner returns again to
probabilities estimation, this time using it to refute the ideas suggested by a
prominent adherent of the NDT, Richard Dawkins .
Here, again, Spetner offers calculations of extremely small probabilities of
such events as encountering a "perfect bridge hand." According to that
calculation, the probability of getting a perfect hand in one deal is one in ten
to the twenty eighth power. This number, although correct from the formal
viewpoint, is irrelevant. Spetner accuses Dawkins of not understanding the
meaning of probability. Actually such an accusation could be directed toward
Spetner himself, who obviously knows how to calculate probabilities but ascribes
to them properties those quantities do not possess. The value of
probability does not predict the outcome of any particular event. Despite the
extremely low calculated probability of an event, it can well happen on the very
first trial, whereas an event whose calculated probability is much higher may
not happen even in hundreds of thousands of tests. When such problems as
the possibility of the spontaneous emergence of life are discussed, their
calculated probability is rather irrelevant and cannot be used as a proof of any
opinions on that subject.
3. Spetner discusses randomness
Spetner suggests instead of the NDT is, as we mentioned, what he calls NREH,
which stands for Non-Random Evolutionary Hypothesis. While NDT is based on the
assumption that evolutionary changes occurred via random mutations, followed by
non-random natural selection, Spetner's idea is of non-random mutations
triggered by the demands the environment imposes on species. Obviously, since
the difference between NDT and NREH essentially boils down to that between
random and non-random chains of events, the concept of randomness becomes
germane for the discussion of those two hypotheses. Consequently, we could
expect that Spetner would provide some definition of randomness, as the
fundamental concept of his hypothesis. Strangely, Spetner seems not to be
worried about the precise meaning of a term he uses so frequently in his
discourse. As a result, in different contexts, he uses the terms random and
randomness in different ways, seemingly not noticing the vagueness this
sloppiness of usage imparts to his discourse.
Here are a few
On page 44 Spetner
writes: "The motion of these genetic elements about to produce the above
mutations has been found to be a complex process and we probably haven't yet
discovered all the complexity. But because no one knows why they occur, many
geneticists have assumed they occur only by chance. I find it hard to believe
that a process as precise and as well controlled as the transposition of genetic
elements happens only by chance. Some scientists tend to call a mechanism
random before we learn what it really does. If the source of the variation
for evolution were point mutations, we could say the variation is random. But if
the source of variation is the complex process of transposition, then there is
no justification for saying that evolution is based on random events."
We see that
Spetner used in the quoted segment the term random twice, once in
relation to a "mechanism," and once to "events." He, apparently, assumes that
the term in question is universally understandable without an explanation, in
both contexts he uses it. Let us guess what Spetner means when he uses the word
"random." From the quoted text it seems to follow that, according to Spetner,
random is such event that, first, occurs just by chance, and, second, is simple,
comprising only one step. As to the "random mechanism," this term seems to mean
a combination of consecutive random events.
interpretation of the meaning Spetner implies when saying "random" differs from
that by Spetner himself, it only means that he had to define the usage of this
term in an unambiguous way.
On page 46,
Spetner writes: "But Darwinian theory asks that the mutations be both
spontaneous and random." It is not clear whether Spetner intended the quoted
sentence as a quasi-direct quotation from some writings by adherents of NDT, or
it is given as his own formula, but in any case he uses the expression
"spontaneous and random" without any indication that he might view it as
imprecise or misleading. Does that expression mean that events (and
mechanisms?) can be random but not spontaneous, or spontaneous but not random,
or both spontaneous and random? What exactly is meant by these terms?
The necessity for
a stringent definition of the above terms and for following that definition
consistently is crucial because the concept of randomness (and related to it
concepts of complexity and spontaneity) are fundamental for his hypothesis.
Spetner gives no
indication that he is familiar with the mathematical definitions of randomness
At the core of Spetner's hypothesis is the suggestion that the variations leading to evolution
are triggered by forces of environment and are directional rather than random.
To substantiate that suggestion, he must first clearly understand in what way
the variations in question are not random. To this end he must clearly define
what is random and what distinguishes non-random from random. Without first
building the foundation in terms of random vs non-random, Spetner's idea remains
too vague for a scientific hypothesis.
believe that the variations he admits to be the steps in evolution are
non-random, but he actually has no knowledge which allows him to clearly
establish that the variations in question are indeed non-random. So far his
classification of events as random or non-random remains a matter of his
personal preference rather than a clearly established fact.
The concepts of
randomness and of the closely connected complexity are strictly
defined in the algorithmic theory of probability (ATP). Let us recall these
definitions. The "complexity" of a system (or of a process) which is often
referred to as Kolmogorov's complexity, is defined in ATP as the minimal size of
an algorithm (or of a program) which can encode the system (or the process) in
question. From this definition follows the definition of randomness as follows:
A system (or a process) is random if its complexity approximately equals the
size of the system (or process) itself (in bits).
"approximately" appears in the above definition because, as ATP shows,
randomness is a matter of degree. The closer the value of a system's (or of
process's) complexity to the system's/process's own size, the closer that system
(process) is to perfect randomness. This shows that the concept of randomness is
more complex than it may seem at first glance. The demarcation between random
and non-random events or mechanisms is diffuse. Events or mechanisms can be
more random and less random. This feature of events is absent in Spetner's
To base any
hypothesis on the concept of random vs. non-random requires a
quantitative approach. There are no signs of such an approach in Spetner's
book. Therefore when Spetner tells us that certain events are random while some
other are non-random, we really cannot verify his statements and with them to
judge his line of thought rationally.
mathematical definitions are universal and applicable to all systems and
processes. Since Spetner's treatise lacks reference to the strict definition of
randomness, his whole discourse in relation to random vs. non-random
events and mechanisms has little meaning.
to his biographical data, has extensive experience in research related to
communication systems, and also, according to his book, must be well familiar
with information theory. Therefore he is expected to also be familiar with the
mathematical concept of randomness, even more so because he has based his theory
of evolution on the distinction between random and non-random events.
Strangely, there is not a single sentence in Spetner's book which would reveal
his knowledge of the pertinent mathematical concepts and this gives his
suggestion of the supposedly non-random sources of evolution the flavor of
speculations by a dilettante.
4. Spetner discusses information
Chapter 5 in
Spetner's book is titled "Can random variation build information?"
One of Spetner's main
arguments is that random variations never or almost never lead to the build-up
of information. Since this concept is one of the foundations of his NREH, one
would expect that the fundamental concept of that hypothesis, information, would
be presented in an unambiguous, rigorous manner.
theory is the scientific basis of modern communication technology. Spetner has
been introduced to the readers as an expert in signal processing, a field
largely based on the information theory. Hence the readers are entitled to a
good professional discussion by Spetner of matters related to information in its
application to NREH. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
probabilities and randomness, Spetner uses the term "information" vaguely, as if
this concept has no quantitative measure. Therefore, when he maintains that
certain variations do or do not add information to a system, these statements
remain unsubstantiated. Having accused some other authors (e.g. Dawkins) of
lacking calculations which would support their theories or hypotheses, Spetner
himself does not offer a single quantitative estimate of the change in the
amount of information caused by the variations he discussed. Without such
calculations his assertions that this or that variation did or did not add
information to a system remain ambiguous and non-verifiable. His statements in
regard to particular variations allegedly adding no information are based not on
factual evidence but only on his intuition, which may or may not lead to the
One example of such an
ambiguous situation is Spetner's example with a streptomycin molecule fitting
into a specific location in a ribosome (figs. 5.3 and 5.4 in Spetner's book).
There is a steric match between the molecule of streptomycin and the bacterium's
ribosome. The streptomycin molecule fits a specific site in the ribosome like a
key fits into the proper lock. This inhibits the bacterium's normal functioning
thus eliminating its detrimental effect on the human body. A random mutation
can cause a change in the shape of the pertinent site in the ribosome making it
unsuitable for the attachment of a streptomycin molecule. Such a mutated
bacterium acquires immunity against streptomycin thus improving its chance for
survival. Spetner maintains that the described mutation leads to a loss rather
than increase of information. This assertion is not substantiated.
The described change in the
ribosome's shape may either increase or decrease the amount of information
associated with that ribosome. To decide whether it is a loss or a gain in
information, a detailed calculation is necessary based on the detailed knowledge
of a particular shape's change. As long as such knowledge is not available, my
guess as to whether the information increased or dropped, is as good as yours or
Spetner's attempt to
substantiate his assertion that the amount of information is decreased by the
described mutation because this mutation makes the ribosome less specific
is itself unsubstantiated. The ribosome may become less specific in relation to
streptomycin, but may become instead specific in relation to some other
substance. Since information about such a possibility is absent, there is no
reason to assert that the specificity in Spetner's sense has indeed
dropped. Therefore Spetner's assertion that the mutation in question resulted in
a decrease of information is pure speculation with no evidentiary value.
5. What remains?
In his effort to
substantiate his hypothesis, Spetner used, as the three foundation stones,
calculations of probabilities, the randomness vs. non-randomness
comparison, and the consideration of information's build-up. After we have
dismissed the calculations of probabilities as irrelevant, the notion of "random
events not capable of causing evolution" as uncertain, and the alleged absence
of information build-up as not proven, the natural question to be asked is,
"what then remains of the book in question to be taken seriously?"
My answer to that question
is "almost nothing." There is nary a chance Spetner's book may be taken
seriously by biologists. Of course, adherents of Intelligent Design may praise
Spetner for allegedly showing that evolution cannot generate information, but
this thesis has been promoted by other ID creationists on a much higher level of
sophistication, and all of their arguments were rejected by the overwhelming
majority of both biologists and information theorists (see, for example, the discussions of books and articles by Dembski, Behe and Johnson on this site).
Anyway, regardless of
Spetner's hypothesis being correct or wrong, it entails no religious
consequences, even if that might be contrary to Spetner's own intention.
Spetner's attempts to interpret his hypothesis as proving certain religious
concepts were, first, not useful, and, second, unsuccessful, since his
hypothesis can be equally viewed as either confirming or contradicting those
concepts which have no relation to that hypothesis's veracity. Another weakness
of Spetner's book is his attempts to substantiate his hypothesis by invoking
probability, randomness, and information, and having done this in a way not
meeting the requirements of scientific discourse, even on the level of a popular
Spetner had a chance to
write a serious discussion of an important problem, suggesting his view of that
problem, in a non-sensational way. He chose another way. Therefore the title of
his book, Not by Chance would become more proper if changed to A
(1) Lee M. Spetner, Not
by Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, (New York: The Judaica
(2) Mark Perakh,
Improbable probabilities, accessed on April 4, 2002.
(3) Richard Dawkins, The
Blind Watchmaker, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company,1986).
(4) C. Feit, "Review of Not By Chance by Dr. Lee Spetner," Jewish
Action, Spring 1999.
(5) Ian Musgrave, Spetner and Biological Information. Accessed on June 23, 2003.
(6) Gert Korthof, Could It Work?, 2001. Accessed on June 23, 2003.
(7) Nathan Aviezer, In
the Beginning (Hoboken, NJ: KTAV Publishing House, 1990).
Mark Perakh's home page.