It is now a full century since Charles Darwin died, but the theory of evolution associated with his name remains a subject of heated controversy. For the past few years, much publicity has been given to a vigorous continuing debate between defenders of the idea, originally put forward by Darwin, that evolution is an exceedingly gradual process, and aggressive advocates of a radical new approach who argue that the evolutionary process actually consists of long periods of stasis punctuated by rapid bursts of change.

At the same time, battle continues to rage between Darwinians of all stripes, committed to the idea that the fundamental generator of species change is a purely random process on the microscopic scale, and those who argue that biological change is directed and purposeful; of the latter, the most extreme repudiate, commonly on theological grounds, the whole concept of evolution. The site of this battle has recently been a number of state houses, where anti-evolutionists have succeeded in persuading legislators to pass laws mandating equal time in high-school biology classes to Darwinism and to a new theory called scientific creationism which attempts to reconcile the observed facts of biology and geology with a literal reading of the biblical account of creation.

The continuing existence of such wide-ranging disputes provides perhaps the clearest demonstration of the central role played by Darwin’s thought in modern biology, a role which serves to unify the far-flung specialties of that broad science by reference to the presumed common descent of all life on earth. The importance of Darwin is one of the central themes in the newly published first volume of Ernst Mayr’s The Growth of Biological Thought.¹ In this monumental work of intellectual history, Mayr, professor emeritus and former director of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, and himself one of the major figures in the development some forty years ago of the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution—the so-called “modern synthesis”—traces the development of biological theories from the thought of the ancients to the modern era.

Mayr shows how the gradually developing awareness of the vast range of living forms in the world made it more and more difficult to regard taxonomy, the systematic classification of life forms, as a simple sorting of creatures into fixed places along a static and ideal Great Chain of Being, as the Greeks and medieval Christian philosophers had believed. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the discovery of whole new classes of fauna through geographic exploration, new familiarity with the world of microorganisms made possible by the invention of the microscope, and the unearthing of fossils obviously very different from living species led to a variety of attempts to propose evolutionary theories. All of these presented glaring problems until Darwin put forward his carefully argued scheme.

In broad terms, both the historical background of Darwin’s revolutionary theory and the content of that theory are part of the intellectual patrimony of modernity. The twenty-two-year-old Charles Darwin, an avid amateur naturalist whose undistinguished academic record at Cambridge had caused his family to decide he was best suited for a career in the ministry, accepted a position as naturalist on the Beagle, hoping that the extensive observations he would be able to make could provide evidence confirming the account of creation given in Genesis. He returned from his voyage some five years later with a completely transformed outlook. Having observed the radical effects of frequent geological upheavals, and the diversity and distribution of life forms on islands and continents, he was led to the idea that the contemporary plethora of species, each suited to its particular ecological or geographic niche, had evolved from common ancestors. That the distribution of species on earth had changed drastically over the ages was demonstrated by the existence of fossils, and evidence for the common ancestry of different species was provided by the limited number of basic body plans and by the frequent presence of vestigial organs of no apparent current use but vital in assumed ancestral stages.

The idea of common descent was not original with Darwin; his essential contribution was the development of a natural mechanism for evolution. Malthus had noted the propensity of natural populations to increase beyond limit unless somehow checked, and Darwin saw the evolutionary implications of this insight. If the vast number of individuals in any population are in ruthless competition with one another for a limited supply of resources, then those possessing any heritable quality that gives them some slim competitive advantage will survive preferentially and pass on this advantage to their descendants. It was Darwin’s observations of the great diversity of form among individual members of any single species, plus the evidence—supplied by plant and animal breeders—that this random divergence could be purposefully channeled into different lines of descent, that brought him to the concept of natural selection. According to this concept, the pressures of competition dictated by the facts of geography and the nature of the food supply led, after the passage of eons of geological time, to the emergence of all the diverse species observed on earth today.

For over twenty years Darwin kept these ideas largely to himself while he achieved a position of professional eminence in biology with the formidable determination which typified the Victorian era, publishing inter alia a multi-volume work on the classification of barnacles that exhibited his mastery of detail and his expertise in taxonomy. Then, in 1858, he received a manuscript written by the much younger naturalist, Alfred Russell Wallace, which independently advanced Darwin’s own theory of natural selection, and he was galvanized into the publication of his masterwork, The Origin of Species.

Darwin’s theory, with its denial of the literal scriptural account of creation, caused a storm among orthodox Christian believers, but the mass of illustrative detail and supportive argument he provided, together with the general Victorian partiality to the notion of gradual progress, facilitated the rapid assimilation into common discourse of the idea of evolution by natural selection. When Darwin died in 1882 he was a sufficiently eminent Victorian to receive the ultimate accolade of a resting place in Westminster Abbey.

_____________

The Darwinian theory was welcomed because of the range of phenomena it could be used to explain, but a number of serious questions still had to be resolved. There were three main areas in which 19th-century Darwinism could be, and was, challenged scientifically. The first concerned the evidence: if there were indeed a continual process of gradual evolution, where was the evidence of transitional links between species? A second question concerned the mechanism of evolution: by the conventional definition, a species is a reproductively isolated group of organisms; how, then, can a new species actually come into being? A third problem, possibly the most challenging theoretically, was to explain in detail how small random changes could result in the development of new and highly specialized organs integrated with the rest of a creature’s anatomy. For example, what series of random events could result, in certain varieties of snakes, in the simultaneous acquisition of glands producing complex and highly toxic substances to which the snake is itself immune, fangs suitable for injection of these toxins, pumping mechanisms, and connections to the snake’s circulatory and nervous system?

It was only in the middle years of the 20th century, following the assimilation of the new knowledge of genetics, that a more fully consistent theory of evolution emerged. The neo-Darwinist theory, the “modern synthesis,” provided answers to all of these questions in a manner that satisfied a broad consensus across all the areas of biology. As we shall immediately see, however, even this theory has been found wanting by critics both within and outside professional ranks.

The modern synthesis answered the first question, that of the observational evidence for evolution, by stipulating that the fossil record is incomplete by its very nature, but that it contains enough evidence to make the hypothesis of gradual evolution highly plausible. Thus the famous fossil archaeopteryx (a familiar character in the comic strip B.C.) is cited as a transitory form between reptiles and birds, while long chains of fossil forms extending back through multiple geological strata are identified as spanning the ancestry of various present species, notably the horse.

Against this, skeptics argue that ordering fossils in this fashion merely assumes what it purports to prove. The modern “punctuationist” school, following a ten-year-old suggestion of Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, maintains that while the fossil record does irrefutably demonstrate that evolution has occurred, the broken nature of that record suggests strongly that, at least on a geological time scale, the appearance of new species is much more abrupt than has been assumed by orthodox evolutionists. The record of the fossils, as the punctuationists read it, shows that species typically continue virtually unchanged for millions of years, but then radically different forms develop suddenly and in turn persist for similarly lengthy periods, sometimes alongside their own ancestral forms. If there are transitional forms, they last for so few generations that their chances of fossilization are negligible.

This is one point in a more general theoretical disagreement between the orthodox neo-Darwinists and the punctuationists which is discussed in a sophisticated but not overly technical fashion for the general reader by the Johns Hopkins paleontologist Steven Stanley in his The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species.² The classical Darwinian argument reduces evolution to a competition between individuals, with natural selection determining the future of the species. The punctuationists do not dispute the existence of this process, microevolution, but they argue that events on a larger scale are determined by a process they term macroevolution, which takes place on a higher level and in which the actors are whole species rather than individuals. Direct competition does not play a dominant role in the development of new species, according to the punctuationists—who place a greater emphasis on the periodic mass extinctions of whole classes of species, often in catastrophic fashion.

One well-publicized example cited by the punctuationists and others has to do with the extinction of the dinosaurs, which some now regard as having taken place over a dramatically short interval, when environmental conditions suddenly changed. The fossil record shows a number of such sudden transitions, as huge classes of creatures that had dominated an entire geological epoch abruptly vanished, to be replaced by other dominant classes in the next epoch. Environmental changes at the boundary of the two epochs, the punctuationists assert, made certain classes of species more viable than others; the absence of competition, under the special transitional circumstances, facilitated the rapid spread pf the new species.

This emphasis on the rapid creation of species grew out of a particular phenomenon discussed by the modern synthesis. The laws of statistics tells us that chance plays a much more important role in small samples than in large ones. The application of this insight by geneticists answered the second basic question that had bothered 19th-century critics of Darwin who wondered how minor changes in a few individuals could spread throughout a large population and cause a species to evolve. The answer was that when such advantageous changes happened to arise in a subgroup isolated from the main body of the species (typically by a geographical barrier), they could spread so rapidly that in the course of a few generations the genetic makeup of the subgroup would differ sufficiently from the original species to isolate it reproductively, thus making it a new species. While neo-Darwinians and punctuationists agree on this mechanism, they diverge considerably on how many generations it takes.

_____________

Evolutionary thinkers had a tougher time, both technically and philosophically, in answering the third question, that of the origin of the changes which natural selection channels into the more perfect adaptation of organisms to their environments. They rejected both the pre-Darwinian ideas of Lamarck (although his concept of the inheritance of acquired characteristics was more subtle and less absurd than the popular caricature of it) and the post-Darwinian heresy of the orthogenetic movement which believed that the direction of evolution is preordained rather than contingent on circumstances. The modern synthesis also rejected the idea, associated most often with the name of Richard Goldschmidt, that large changes could be brought about by macromutations which produced in one giant leap the founding members of new species. Rather, change was held to come about through the gradual accumulation of small mutations, random variations in gene structure, which in turn controlled the external form of the organism.

But how can a random accumulation of small mutations give rise to highly specialized organs which require the development of a number of different and complex systems at the precise time they will be useful to the whole individual in its environment? The answer developed by the neo-Darwinians had three components. First, the time constraint was relaxed by noting that many mutations are neutral at the time they occur, with neither positive nor negative implications for the organism. Such neutral mutations may continue to be carried by the genetic material of the species, thus being available for selection at the appropriate time. Next, it was pointed out that the connection between the genetic structure of an organism (the genotype) and its observable anatomical manifestation (the phenotype) is quite complex, so that one gene can control a fair number of large-scale features and thus there need not be many individual mutations. Finally, the neo-Darwinians argued that adaptations originally selected for utility in one function may at later stages prove suitable for others; for example, feathers useful for flight in birds could have served earlier as a heat-regulating medium. (This last concept has traditionally been called preadaptation, but the disturbingly teleological overtones of that term have led to a recent suggestion by the ever-resourceful Stephen Jay Gould that the word “exaptation” be used instead.)

_____________

These fundamental arguments over the mechanisms of evolution arise because, as Mayr emphasizes, evolutionary theory is primarily historical in nature rather than mathematical on the pattern of the physical sciences. Although evolutionary arguments can certainly be expressed in sophisticated mathematical form, observation and experiment provide such a limited base of non-speculative knowledge that the overall “feel” of the arguments will play a strong role in their acceptability to different scientists at different times.

The difficulties of reaching a consensus on evolutionary mechanisms even by those comfortably within the confines of a common theoretical structure are perhaps illustrated most effectively by the specific case of the earliest stage of the evolutionary process, the origin of life on earth. The conventional approach suggests that on the early earth, some billions of years ago, lightning discharges in the hydrogen-rich atmosphere initiated reactions between simple organic molecules in the primeval oceans to produce a mixture of more complex molecules such as amino acids; with the passage of time, these combined into chains that eventually hooked up to form the much more complicated proteins and nucleic acids whose reactions created the chemical basis of life.

The major support for this theory is provided by experiments performed some thirty years ago which demonstrated the possibility of the first and simplest stage of the process. There has so far been no demonstration of the later, and far more difficult, stages, and indeed no confirmation that conditions on the early earth were similar to those hypothesized. If one simply relies on probability, it is exceedingly unlikely that relatively simple molecules should have combined at random to produce the immensely complex interacting structure of DNA, RNA, and protein molecules necessary for the metabolism and reproduction of living creatures. But if one accepts the overall evolutionary picture, then one can tentatively accept this part of it as a necessary precursor stage, assuming that as knowledge accumulates in the fashion typical of scientific advance, either the current version will be more convincingly fleshed out or a better theory will supersede it. If the probability of the conventional theory seems too low, one can suggest an alternative.

One such alternative scheme, supported by Francis Crick, co-winner of the Nobel Prize for his contribution to the elucidation of the structure of DNA, is expounded in his book, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature.³ According to Crick, the earliest life on earth was in the form of bacteria, sent from somewhere in space by a more advanced civilization seeking to spread life, Johnny Appleseed fashion, throughout the universe. A slightly different approach, the most notable advocates of which are the distinguished astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle and his collaborator Chandra Wickramasinghe, asserts that bacteria distributed throughout space were brought to earth by encounters with cometary tails. To their supporters, who by any account are serious scientists, these unorthodox, and indeed bizarre, ideas appear more plausible than the conventional account.

The existence of such wide and fundamental areas of disagreement, and the inaccessibility to direct observation of many processes and phenomena which are essential to the confirmation of the mechanism of evolution, have been cited as objections to its being granted the status of a scientific theory altogether. But in fact, as is pointed out by the philosopher Philip Kitcher in his Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism,⁴ the same objections could be raised against many other theories advanced in times past which have subsequently become firmly based and universally accepted. The key ingredients of scientific thought are the attempts to connect observation with logical reasoning, to devise tests of hypotheses, and to keep testing the whole structure for consistency both internally and with other branches of science. In all these respects, and whether or not some of their theories turn out to be correct, evolutionary biologists act much as do other scientists.

Kitcher points out that even for scientific theories which are universally accepted, a determined skeptic can always find problem areas or interpret particular phenomena without using the conventional explanation. This is especially true in the case of evolution, with its even stronger use of inferential argument as opposed to direct observation. Yet if we look at the closest analogy in the physical sciences, which is cosmology, the study of the history of the universe, we find that an ever increasing observational capability and reasonable extrapolation of experimentally confirmed principles of particle physics, relativity theory, and thermodynamics have given rise to a standard model, the big-bang theory, which is widely accepted, even though there remain serious observational gaps. It is perhaps not unreasonable to hope that in the case of biology, where comparable insights into the microscopic structure of living matter have come at an ever increasing pace in recent decades, similar success may be achieved in the future.

_____________

Grounds for this hope lie in the way in which the fundamental study of biology has already contributed to the clarification of evolutionary theory. Mayr’s historical exposition shows how this process has operated in the 120-odd years between Darwin’s publication of The Origin of Species and the present.

Knowledge of the means by which living organisms can exhibit both similarity and diversity was given its initial impetus by Mendel’s formulation of his laws of inheritance, which by one of the ironies of history languished in near-total obscurity for thirty-four years following their first publication in 1866, at the very height of Darwin’s career. According to the laws of combination of genes, the irreducible particles of inheritance, inherited traits are not averages of the parents’ contributions but all-or-nothing patterns, with the possibility that recessive genes may lie dormant until two such genes from different parents combine in some later generation.

Cell biologists discovered the material basis of genetic inheritance in the chromosomes, identifiable microscopic bodies within the cell nucleus, which fission and recombine during the process of reproduction and carry the sites of the genes themselves. Biochemists have shown that the chemical substance of the chromosomes is made up of large molecules called nucleic acids, whose structure was finally determined in the 1950’s when molecular biologists, using techniques borrowed from physics, demonstrated that the essential genetic material, DNA, is a double helix of two long chains of complex molecules entwined in a lovers’ embrace, which can unwind and duplicate themselves separately, and whose intricately folded three-dimensional arrangement enables different parts of the molecule to give coded instructions to create the proteins and other substances needed for all the functions of the miniature but highly sophisticated factory which is the living cell. The structure of the DNA molecule explains the source of the tremendous variability in natural populations, especially in sexually reproducing species where large numbers of genes can combine and rearrange themselves in a bewildering variety of ways, widened even more by the relatively rare but regular occurrence of mutations (understood on this level as errors in duplication which result in changes in the DNA molecule).

Since the basic material and processes of all living forms have thus been shown to be universal, it is now possible to distinguish different species microscopically through differences in their DNA, rather than visually through differences in their external (morphological) characteristics. In general, classification in this fashion results in an ordering of species similar to the more conventional method. Butt it has proved particularly useful in a new mode of classification, termed cladistics, which arranges species according to their common features rather than their presumed descent, so that those with the greatest number of common features are placed closer together. There is no one-to-one correspondence, however, between genetic and morphological differences, since it has been found that some genes control many morphological characters, while some characters are under the control of a number of genes. A promising approach is the quantitative measurement of differences between species by means of a molecular “clock”: if mutations occur at a known rate, it is possible to translate differences in DNA structure to time differences. If the time scales established in this fashion are consistent with those suggested by fossil evidence, which in turn can be dated by a variety of independent methods including radioactive dating and tree-ring counts, then the plausibility of the whole theory is further enhanced.

_____________

We may say, then, that while there is insufficient evidence to decide absolutely whether various evolutionary theories are or are not correct, they certainly represent scientific thought. Because of the unavoidable gaps in the evidence, however, there remains much opportunity for heterodox ideas. In The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong,⁵ Francis Hitching presents for the general reader a number of problems in conventional (and even punctuationist) Darwinian theories. Though he fully accepts that evolution has occurred, Hitching argues strongly that something more is needed to explain it than is provided by the modern synthesis. While abundant direct evidence may exist for variation and change over time within suitably defined species boundaries, there is, Hitching writes, no convincing demonstration of one species being transformed into another. He accepts the punctuationist argument that the fossil record disproves the idea of gradual evolutionary change assumed by the modern synthesis, but rejects the belief, which punctuationists share with orthodox neo-Darwinists, that the origin of specialized organs can be accounted for by the mechanism of preadaptation.

Hitching cannnot formulate any conclusion more specific than a dissatisfaction with natural selection and an expectation that a theoretical breakthrough will occur in the near future. But he appears to believe that there is some underlying law of form which drives evolution in the appropriate direction. He is intellectually venturesome enough to mention a number of unorthodox proposals, such as the sophisticated theory proposed by the Nobel Prize-winning chemical physicist Ilya Prigogine that when a system far from equilibrium becomes sufficiently complex, it can reproduce and transform itself into an even more complex state rather than breaking down as might be expected. But Hitching lacks the technical qualifications to provide real guidance in his discussion of this and many other topics he takes on which are even farther from the mainstream of current scientific thought.

_____________

If Hitching and the skeptics he cites feel that modern evolutionary theory is still lacking some key insight, they agree that Darwin’s thought resulted in a giant step in the direction of understanding nature. The creation-science movement, by contrast, rejects evolution root and branch—insisting upon the immutability of species; castigating the time scale developed by evolutionary biology, geology, and astronomy as a mere hypothetical construct based upon an unjustified extrapolation from an extremely limited period of experimental observation; and pointing to various geological anomalies in order to prove that the ordering of fossils used by evolutionists is unjustifiable.

The creationists go on raising objections which evolutionists regard as long since resolved, maintaining for example that the development which is assumed by evolutionary theory to occur through randomly generated changes contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. A far better explanation of how the world came to its present state, they claim, is provided by a literal reading of the early chapters of Genesis, belief in which requires no greater suspension of rationality than does acceptance of the far-fetched reasoning of Darwin and his followers. Both theories are equally scientific or non-scientific, since assent to either depends ultimately on an act of faith.

To this line of argument, defenders of evolution, who are represented ably by Philip Kitcher in his book, give an answer which has both defensive and aggressive components. The defensive answer marshals the evidence for evolutionary theory and refutes point by point the specific criticisms of the creationists. The aggressive answer states that the alternative explanations provided by the creation scientists are extremely strained and, more importantly, derive not from an open-minded attempt to answer particular problems in the normal way of science, exemplified by Darwin’s approach, but from an ingenious (and disingenuous) effort to defend a set of religious beliefs. They are consequently by definition not part of science.

In a celebrated 1981 case in Arkansas, testimony along these lines persuaded the court to strike down a recently formulated state law mandating equal time for the teaching of creation science alongside evolution. Judge Harold Overton held that the teaching of creation science in the public schools was a constitutionally proscribed establishment of religion, because its basic aim of confirming Scripture and its rejection of the fundamental scientific rule—willingness in principle to abandon previously held assumptions—removed it from the category of scientific theory.

Now it is certainly possible to construct a theory which combines acceptance of the laws of nature as they currently operate with a belief that the biblical account of creation is to be taken literally. But how one is to translate the terms used into the operational language of modern sience is itself not a trivial problem, and it is also the case that the intellectual gymnastics involved in such a program are not part of what is normally described as science. The claim of the creation-science movement that open-minded investigation leads naturally to a fundamentalist description of creation is, then, as Judge Overton ruled, intellectually dishonest. But it must be seen as a response to a situation regarded as desperate.

Creationist literature, examples of which are quoted or reproduced by both Hitching and Kitcher, is quite explicit about what it considers the most dangerous aspect of evolutionism, and we may paraphrase the concern as follows: the only way man knows he is divinely commanded to act morally is through the Bible. If the absolute truth of the Bible is impugned, as it is by the teaching of evolution, men will first come to believe that they are no more than animals, and then begin to act accordingly. If we look around us, we can see that the process has already begun.

Sophisticated intellectuals will have no trouble attacking this argument. In the final chapter of Abusing Science, Philip and Patricia Kitcher do so at length. One can believe in the divine origin of the Bible without reading it literally; mankind can be related to the rest of the animal kingdom biologically while remaining distinct from it morally; even if some evolutionists act immorally, it does not follow that their belief in evolution is false. All of these arguments are correct, but the fundamentalists still have a point.

To begin with, it is not unduly cynical to question whether students in more than a handful of elite high schools ever learn what was stressed so heavily by the expert testimony in the Arkansas creationism trial—namely, that the hallmarks of a scientific theory are that it is explanatory, tentative, and falsifiable. It is far more likely that the mass of pupils in the real word, who in substantial numbers manage to graduate lacking even the rudiments of literacy and numeracy, will come away with a few highly oversimplified concepts, taught to them in dogmatic fashion.

Indeed, in an interesting footnote to the Arkansas trial, with its elaborate expositions of the philosophy of science, the New York City Board of Education recently barred several biology texts on the grounds of insufficient fealty to Darwin. Upholders of open scientific debate were not heard regretting the opportunities thereby lost for classroom discussion of the problematic areas in the theory of evolution, or the nature of scientific theories. The standard response of the educational establishment to any suggestion that such subjects might be as valuable intellectually as a straight exposition of conventional theory is that there is no time in already limited science curricula for topics not strictly scientific, and no place in the public schools for anything that might end up involving sensitive religious issues. Kitcher adds the consideration that unprepared teachers and naive adolescents would be unable to answer effectively the sophistry of cunning creationist arguments—a rather strange response coming from a philosopher. All of these arguments rest on, but do not articulate, the assumption that is transmitted clearly by the school curricula themselves: scientific knowledge is the only serious source of truth. It is this message, more than the details of evolutionary theory, that is behind the conflict with the creationist movement.

_____________

In their failure to realize that science and religion of necessity use different languages, today’s creation scientists repeat, but in the opposite direction, the mistake that Darwin made over a century ago and that continues to be made by so many of his intellectual heirs. The scientific method has been shown to be ideally suited to investigate in detail the workings of the natural universe, but it can say nothing about its ultimate purpose or man’s proper role in it. To conclude, from evidence that the laws of nature have a substantial statistical component, that the world is without purpose, and that man is an accident of nature is not only unscientific, but also reflects a failure of comprehension.

Just as do the creation scientists, pre-Darwinian biologists regarded species as unchanging fixed types, variations within which were embarrassing anomalies to be explained away, inconsistent with the idealistic concepts inherited originally from Greek philosophy. In Darwin, evidence of the prodigality of nature provided not only the key to evolution but also a reason to reject the concept of divine creation because of his inability to believe that God could be so wasteful. Both of these crabbed approaches, lacking the generosity of spirit needed to recognize the limitations of human intellect in comprehending the infinite, can be contrasted with that taken by the rabbis of the Talmud, to whom it was precisely the wide variation of populations within species that showed the unmistakable stamp of their divine origin.

The development of a scientific description of the universe difficult to reconcile with a world view based on Scripture has indeed presented believers with a new challenge. However, a world of statistical laws raises fewer philosophical problems than one which is strictly deterministic, and religious believers going at least as far back as the author of the book of Job (traditionally identified with Moses himself) have faced far more serious challenges to faith than the purely intellectual one posed by evolutionary theory. Perhaps the most fundamental question that can be asked by scientists is how it is that human logic is able to describe the world so well. The answer to this question lies outside the realm of science, but was provided many centuries ago by Rabbi Akiva: “Beloved is man, for he was created in God’s image, but it is by even greater love that he is informed that he was created in God’s image.”

¹ Harvard University Press, 974 pp., $30.00.

² Basic Books, 222 pp., $16.75.

³ Simon & Schuster, 192 pp., $12.95.

⁴ MIT, 213 pp., $15.00.

⁵ Ticknor & Fields, 288 pp., $13.95.