1985: David H. H. Chen - If the World Only Knew

1985: David H. H. Chen - If the World Only Knew

D ChenBorn in Manchuria, David H. H. Chen embodies a remarkable story. He began his service at Church College of Hawaii in 1970 as a faculty member in history and government, but only after a colorful past which included electronics study at Harbin College in Manchuria, military training at Hwang Puu Military Academy, resistance work against Soviet incursion into Manchuria, foot marches through China's vast interior after the fall of the Chinese Nationalist government following World War II, complete conversion to the Church in Hong Kong, two years of missionary service in the Far East Mission, degrees (B.S., 1964; M.A., 1965) from Brigham Young University, and an earned doctorate from the University of Utah in 1969. At home on two continents, Chen has acted as a valuable liaison for the Church and the People's Republic of China. A former president of the Hong Kong Mission, he expressed a unique religious position in the twenty-third McKay lecture. He and his wife Nallie have a son, Grant.

Aristotle, commenting upon the phenomena of evolutionary process, said:
nature advances by small steps from inanimate things to animate. . . . After the realm of lifeless things, there follows the realm of plants. . . . The plants appear to be animate compared to other things, but inanimate compared to the animals. (qtd. in Dobzhansky 223-224)

"The top rung of the ladder is occupied by man" (Dobzhansky 223).

Aristotle, however, had no scientific evidence to prove his hypothesis. Perhaps Anaximander of Miletus, the noble Ionic philosopher, could be considered the first evolutionist because he suggested living things come into being as various elements mingle and produce warmth and moisture. He believed that simple forms of life later evolved into more advanced forms, as indicated by his [idea] that "life arose from mud warmed up by sun rays. Plants came first, then animals, and finally man" (Dobzhansky 3). As with Aristotle, Anaximander's concept of evolution was only a hypothetical explanation, with no substantial facts to support it.

Many centuries later, in 1798, Thomas Robert Malthus formulated a theory about population growth in which he held that, while the world's food supply increases arithmetically, the world population growth increases exponentially. The population would, therefore, always tend to exceed the available food supply (Dobzhansky 111). Malthus' theory influenced Charles Darwin's work on the origin of the species by suggesting that some mechanism would be needed to keep population growth in check. It may be assumed, perhaps, that Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles Darwin, also influenced Charles Darwin's concept. Erasmus Darwin agreeing with Comte de Buffon, a French scientist, maintained that when a plant or animal acquired a new characteristic from its environment, it could pass this new characteristic on to its offspring, resulting in a change in that organism (Dobzhansky 77; Seward 7-8, 11).

It was in concurrence with this concept that Charles Darwin introduced his theory of evolutionary change in the organic world, supporting the principles of natural selection and survival of the fittest. This idea held that, in a given environment, there are those species which are better equipped to survive in that environment, and those which are poorly equipped, which will be eliminated. Thus, Darwin believed that favorable variation would tend to be preserved, and unfavorable variation would likewise be destroyed. The result of this process would be a new species, but Darwin was not able to explain why the variation occurred.

This theory of acquired new characteristics advanced by Darwin was somewhat [earlier put forth] by Jean de Lamarck, a French scientist. According to Lamarck's theory, "giraffes [acquired] long necks because they ran out of vegetation" (Did 13). In order to survive, they had to stretch their necks in order to obtain leaves that grew higher up on trees (Did 13). Lamarck did not give any reason why, under the same situation and environment, other animals did not get long necks. August Weismann, a German scientist, attempted to verify Lamarck's theory of acquired new characteristics by creating a breed of tailless mice by simply cutting off their tails before allowing them to mate. After a long period of experimentation, Weismann found that the last generation of offspring had tails as long as those of their ancestors. Consequently, Weismann concluded that acquired characteristics are not inherited because environmental factors cannot influence succeeding generations (Dobzhansky 78).

During the last part of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century scientific conclusions regarding the origin of man gradually reached their apex. During this period, a great number of anthropologists sought diligently to demonstrate the likeness of man to apes. In connection with the theory of organic evolution, Jean B. Lamarck in 1809 announced conclusively "that man had descended from apes" (Clark 24). In a similar pursuit, anthropologists in 1856 discovered a portion of a man-like skeleton, identified it as the "Neanderthal Man," and attempted to prove it to be the missing link between apes and man (Clark 24). They were subsequently disappointed that the discovery could not bridge the huge gap between the apes and man. Eugene Dubois, a Dutch scholar, discovered the remains of an erect ape-man in 1894 (Clark 24). This discovery, which was made up of a skullcap, two teeth and a left thigh bone, was named Pithecanthropus or "Java Man," and was estimated to be approximately half a million years old (Dobzhansky 328). In 1907, anthropologists discovered the so-called "Heidelberg Man." The identification of this finding was based on a lower jaw bone from the ancient remains of a man-like creature believed to have existed during the Anthropoid Age of eighty thousand years ago. Then in 1921, a man-like skullcap estimated to be half a million years old was discovered in northern China, and became known as the "Peking Man." Three years later in 1924, Raymond Dart found a prehistoric African ape he called Australopithecus Africanus (Clark 24). The skull was thought to be that of the most ancient humanoid creature.

Working primarily from these simplified and segmental fossils and remains mentioned above, anthropologists have arbitrarily classified the cultural history of mankind into: 1) A Stone Age, which includes the Paleolithic Period, the Mesolithic Period, and the Neolithic Period; 2) A Bronze Age; 3) An Iron Age. In addition, they have proclaimed that man descended from some unknown ancient ancestors--ape-like human creatures or man-like apes--whom they have given such names as Homo Cro-Magnon, Homo Neanderthalensis, Homo Heidelbergensis, Pithecanthropus, and Homo Erectus. What is important is that we realize that the basis for these classifications--for the existence of these evolutionary stages of humanoids--has always been nothing more than skeletal fragments.

Another interesting point is that the period of existence of these creatures is thought to range from 14 million to 3 million years ago, and from 3 million to a half million years ago, with no interconnection whatsoever between them. From the viewpoint of any objective scientist, therefore, each of these aged fossils or bones of man-like apes, if they truly existed as such, must be considered as artifacts of dead-end races. Most certainly they were not the ancestors of modern man.

As a matter of fact, the fossil record indicates that, instead of links with each other, groups of plants and animals have always remained distinct from one another. Not only have "no transitional forms between [the] major groups of animals and plants" been found in the fossil records, but also there are "no transitional forms among major groups of living plants and animals today" (Did 47).

If we then turn our attention to another consideration, hybridization, we find once again no possibility for the interbreeding of species. In either plants or animals, two conditions or genetic principles always prevail: 1) The interbreeding organisms must be very closely related, and 2) the hybrid traits are lost in the offspring, if there are any offspring at all.

In spite of the evidence of the fossil record and principles relating to hybridization, theories of evolution have not only prospered, but have inspired extrapolations in related fields of study. One very important development was began by Wilhelm Max Wundt, the founder of the science of fundamental psychology. After doing research in the 1830s on sense perception, he advanced the hypothesis that the human brain is simply an organ with a biological function. Wundt ultimately concluded that there was no soul, that man was nothing apart from his physical structure (Wolman 32-33). His conclusion was based on narrow and simplified observation. If one wishes to measure atoms, he must have the appropriate technology. By the same token, if one wishes to observe or measure the soul, one must again have the appropriate technology. Wundt lacked this technology yet concluded that man, consisting only of his physical components, must have derived from a simpler and lower organism. His ideas, in turn, may have influenced Herbert Spencer, a 19th century biologist and social philosopher, who argued in favor of both organic and social evolution. Spencer's main thesis was modeled after Darwin's theories that the struggle for existence led to the survival of the fittest (Simpson 300-301).1 This idea contributed nothing but more chaos and confusion. It did, however, provide an accounting for behavior in the animal world where predation is a primary phenomenon. It is true that the animal world is a place where the strong prey upon the weak and the better equipped tyrannize the lesser equipped.

Now in order to appreciate the impact of Darwin's evolutionary theories and Spencer's Social Darwinism, we need to note that Darwin was born during the industrial revolution, which in itself demanded a great change in social conventions. In the West, this industrialization brought changes to political and economic institutions, commercialization of commodities, expansion of trade, the development of commerce, and the glorification of mercantilism. As a result, many popular and influential philosophies and treatises appeared, among them the idea that a nation-state, like a plant, must either grow or wither away.

Traditionally, the Western concept of man was rooted in Judeo-Christian teachings that man was and is created by God for a divine purpose. Evolutionists, however, have taught that man is simply a biological organism with the ability to feel and to reason. This misconception of the origin of man has diminished man's purpose in life and his vision of his destiny. Consequently, man has attached himself to those things which are very insignificant to his attaining his ultimate goal; he mistakenly thinks those things to be important. In reality, they are not important at all.

The elusive phenomenon of the physical environment surrounding man has not merely bleared man's vision, but has also contributed to the propensity of man to become more like the natural man who highly glorifies material success and despises failure. Man's conscience has been polluted and filled with prejudice and hatred. Thus, it has become a fashion in the world today to pit man against man, people against people, and nation against nation. Darwinism has not merely debased man's origin, but also provided a philosophical pretext for the development of imperialism, chauvinism, colonialism, expansionism, Nazi-racism, and the "Third Roma" dream of the Russian socialistic imperialism.

The ideological fantasy of the latter concept is mainly rooted in Marxian philosophy as influenced by Georg Wilhelm Hegel's concept of progressive evolution. In this philosophy, evolution is seen as a pervasive force relentlessly progressing by means of a clash of opposing systems, in other words, through the endless changing cycle of "thesis-antithesis-synthesis." This process, known as "dialectics," was used by Marx to justify his utopian ideology of "scientific socialism." Ironically, the development of human history has proven that Marx's philosophy has no more scientific support than has Darwin's theory on the origin of the species. The metamorphic Marxist model of totalitarianism, however, has terrified many people since the birth of Lenin's atheistic regime in Russia and his subsequently imposed system of control there. Quite noticeably, Marx's work was identical with the spirit of Social Darwinism. Since the term "dialectics" means constant changing, it does reflect the world in which we live. Indeed, we live in a world which is subject to constant change. For instance, in the last three decades, our world has changed from an age of radio to an age of television, then to the computer, the moonrocket, the spaceship, and now to the age of the Third Wave of Revolution, which has been described as Megatrends: Ten Directions Transforming Our Lives (1982). It is very obvious: materially, the world has been progressively moving from one stage to another, and has now reached the point that mankind is capable of self-destruction. As a matter of fact, the world in which we live could be turned to a fireball at any moment. Humanity is evidently seriously endangered, but the learned as well as the ignorant seem willfully ignorant or unaware of the urgent reality. Nations refuse to strive for peace, but instead commit themselves to the superstitious philosophy of survival of the fittest. Although mankind is capable of turning away from the terminal course of disaster, it will not do so unless it can come to realize that all mankind came from the same divine origin. The world was created for all creatures to come, to live, to develop and to pass on. Nothing can perpetuate itself here on this planet forever; therefore, no life form should exercise "unrighteous dominion" on the other life forms on this earth (D&C 121: 37).

In contrast to the many theories men have proposed to explain the origin of man the evidence, even from science, argues in favor of a special creation. For instance, Von Bertalanffy, the German biologist, pointed out in his work that "to grasp in detail the physico-chemical organization of the simplest cell is far beyond our capacity" (qtd. in Did 26). Sir James Gray, professor of zoology at Cambridge University, stated in Science Today that "a bacterium is far more complex than any inanimate system known to man. There is not a laboratory in the world which can compete with the biochemical activity of the smallest living organism" (qtd. in Did 26). It is a well known "fact that the largest single manufacturing process in the world takes place in one of the smallest units of life--cells of green plants" (Looey 6). Even the simple functional system comprising the human eye is made up of several feeble, complicated parts, such as veins, muscles, nerves, lens, lens muscles, retina, optic, iris, pupil, and cornea. All of these parts would have had to develop simultaneously; otherwise the eye would have been useless.

Dr. Irving S. Bengelsdorf, an internationally famous physician, pointed out in his article, "Network in Human Brain Shames Man-Made Variety," that man's brain is not a simple biological structure, but instead an extremely complicated functional structure (6). It is a very intelligently designed and built, electrical, super-digital computer, and it is made up of billions of parts arranged into scientific and technological units called neurons. There are more than ten billion neurons in a human brain, and in each neuron there is an axon, a long slender wire-like part, which is responsible for transmitting signals. However, unlike a computer, which is made up of circuits physically connected to each other by wires, the neurons do not connect one with another. One neuron is separated from another by a sub-microscopic gap called a synapse. It is an extremely narrow cleft, such that approximately 1.3 million synapses could be laid side by side within the distance of one inch (Bengelsdorf 6).

Dr. Victor P. Whittaker, expert in mental research at Cambridge University, pointed out that when an electrical signal travels down a neuron's axon and comes to its end, the signal will meet the vesicles or tiny bags at the end of each neuron (cited in Bengelsdorf 6). Vesicles contain chemicals which are specific to each particular neuron. When the signals carried by the axon come to the end of the neuron, "the vesicles at the terminal tip discharge their chemicals into the synapse gap" (Bengelsdorf 6). The conduction of the electrical signals between neurons depends on the chemicals discharged from the vesicles which include atoms, quanta (energy), and units named genes. "It is this chemical action [which] transmits information to the neuron [which] lies on the other side of the synaptic [gap] and stimulates [the] neuron to continue" its transmission of messages to the next neuron and to keep the electrical signals going (Bengelsdorf 6).

The location of the chemical bags at the end of the neuron insures that the electrical signals will travel in only one direction. In fact, going in a reverse direction is impossible. A specific chemical stimulates only a specific neuron; thus, electrical signals are regulated by this well designed structure to travel along a single path and to conduct only with specific neurons. Incredible as it may seem, what must at first look like a "neuron 'jungle'" is really a place of exquisite order where billions of individual neurons,--in effect "10 billion wires [with] 100 trillion contacts"--have been ingeniously fitted into a structure the size of the human brain (Bengelsdorf 6). Simply put, the brain's functional structure and phenomena are beyond the comprehension of modern scientists. Evidently, the author of the human brain system must be super-intelligent and there must be an intelligent purpose behind the creation.

In another context, Dr. Albert Schweitzer, the wise Nobel Prize winner, was asked by an interviewer, "Doctor, what is wrong with man today?" Schweitzer was silent for a moment and then replied with an answer that is relevant to the problem of man's origin. He said, "Man simply does not think."2 Indeed, some men do not think, but other men do think. However, they do not always think clearly. On this point, Aristotle pointed out that if a man cannot think clearly, it would be much better not to think. If a man knows how to always think clearly and correctly he will find that life itself is derived from life, and that it is organized by a super-intelligence and has a great purpose.

Moreover, one of the essential or inherent characteristics of life is intelligence. On this subject, the ancient writing of sages reveals that it is only he who possesses the most complete sincerity and intelligence who can exist under heaven, and who not merely labors at his own development but at the development of other men, animals and other living things. Thus he assists the transforming and nourishing powers of heaven and earth. As a result, "he may with Heaven and Earth form a ternion" (Doctrine 399). This teaching gives a clear account for both man's mission on earth and the ultimate goal of this earthly experience. This noble concept not only acknowledges man's ability to feel and reason but also exalts man, acknowledging his potential to become like God.

In contrast, the evolutionary concept of man neglected not only the true origin of man and the purpose of man's earthly life, but debased man from man to the level of the beasts. Evolutionists have obviously denied both the intelligent creation of man and man's intelligence. Abraham, the great sage of ancient times, has pointed out that man is an intelligence, and that intelligence was organized before the world was organized (Abr. 3: 22-23). Those intelligences were good in the sight of God because they were possessed of the most complete sincerity.

Man should therefore be confident in his intrinsic capacity to know truth with the assistance of his creator. Marcus [Aurelius], the powerful Roman Caesar, said that a man is what his thoughts make of him (cited in Bickerstaff 112). Ralph Waldo Emerson, the famous American Transcendentalist, said that a man is what he thinks about all day long (cited in Bickerstaff 112). William James, the popular American pragmatist, said that the great discovery of his generation was that mankind can alter its lives by altering its minds and attitudes (Peter 333). Indeed, a man becomes what he thinks about himself (Allen).

If a man thinks of his origin as related through evolution with that of the apes and of his race as merely having advanced to the present stage, whatsoever it might be, he will likely attempt to find evidence to prove so. Consequently, paranoiac data will be found and paranoiac theories will be produced. Yet throughout all of history, great teachers, prophets, sages, wise men, thinkers, and philosophers have taken us in a different direction. While they have frequently disagreed with one another on many things, on one point they are almost unanimously agreed: that men are intelligences and born with a great purpose.

In the ancient classic work, The Great Learning, the opening sentence states that man's earthly life is a great learning, and its objective is to "illustrate illustrious virtue, to renovate the people, and to rest in the highest excellence" (308). Chu Hsi, the famous ancient commentator, observed that the phrase to "illustrate illustrious virtue" has reference to the good characteristic which God has conferred on man or the good nature which man has inherited from Heaven. When the principle of this great learning is realized, the whole world and all mankind will become perfectly good (Great 308-309).

In time, whether the time reference be to a millennial reign or to a celestial heaven, the predatory nature of theories such as "survival of the fittest" will be deserted by man; man will practice the principle--"to those who are good (to me), I am good; and to those who are not good (to me), I am also good;--and thus (all) get to be good. To those who are sincere (with me), I am sincere; and to those who are not sincere (with me), I am also sincere;--and thus (all) get to be sincere" (Lao 91). Those who cannot practice these principles, will at least be able to practice the principle of "what I do not wish men to do to me, I also wish not to do to men" (Confucian 54). In other words, when man comes to realize that his existence is by creation, not evolution, he will place his priorities on self-development and perfection.

The second objective of man's life is to appreciate other lives by preserving, renovating, and developing them. The third objective is to assist other lives to reach and rest in the highest excellence. On this subject, Jesus Christ, the redeemer of all mankind, has taught very clearly, as recorded in Matthew 5: 48 of the Holy Bible: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect." In order to achieve the condition of perfection or rest in the highest excellence, it is necessary for man to reject the biological and social concept of survival of the fittest, along with selfish desires. Selfishness is identical to the simple concept of self-preservation which is closely tied to the idea of survival of the fittest. Man's actions should be commanded by his mind, not the other way around. Man should not be enslaved by simple physical needs. This is because man is an intelligence, not just an unconscious biological organism. By nature, men are nearly alike; by practice, they become wide apart. In practice, it seems, there are three types of individuals: the first two groups are polar opposites. One consists of those more highly intelligent individuals who have been receptive to the truth, have firmly grasped it and practiced it. The other group consists of those who for whatever reason--tradition, sin or willfulness--have been unable to grasp the truth. By and large, however, most people belong to the middle group. They are capable of change, capable of recognizing truth and grasping it. However, these individuals are also easily influenced by external conditions, including false doctrines. Rollo May, the distinguished psychologist, pointed out in his work, Man's Search for Himself (1953), that the opposite of courage in our society today is not cowardice, but conformity (225). Indeed, we live in a society in which people tend to go along, to think and behave like everyone else; listening without discerning; knowing without thinking is the real trouble we face today.

A typical example of this situation is the academic response to the stages of cultural development. What would be the resulting interpretation of historical research if scholars in fact accepted the account provided in the scriptures? What would be the result if intellectuals in the academic world, instead of accepting some evolutionary theory, were to envision man getting out of Noah's ark into a world ravaged by the flood and needing almost everything possible to enable him to rebuild civilization. As Dr. Harold W. Clark observes,

we might well expect [man] to seize upon the first material available and shape crude tools until he could find sources of metal for making them. The long periods of time assumed by evolutionary interpretation would be unnecessary. Man could go through the Stone Age into the Metal Age very quickly. (26)

The Holy Bible has revealed that in Noah's time, people had not only knowledge of making clothes, but also might have been had knowledge of metals.3 Furthermore, Dr. Harold W. Clark has pointed out that if anthropologists would simply "follow the Bible record" concerning the origin of man, there would be "a new understanding" concerning "the rise of civilization," and a better understanding of the proper relationship among men (26).

Why is it so hard to accept the divine origin of man? Even our common observation teaches us that man remains man and roses remain roses, generation after generation. And beyond common sense, we have the observation "that living things are enormously diverse in form, but are remarkably consistent within any given line of descent" (qtd. in Did 50). Why is it so hard to accept the record found in the Book of Genesis, when it states that every thing exists according to its kind (1: 25). This is an unchangeable law for all living things on this planet. That is just what modern scientists have learned.

Man must search the truth of the origin of man for himself, and man must know that as the search for his origin goes, so goes the search for his own roots. In this pursuit, if we can objectively look beyond contemporary theories and hypotheses, we may find more reliable evidences and answers. As recorded in chapter one, verses 1-3, [of] one of the oldest books, Ye-Chou-Shu, Heaven gives birth to all mankind, and Heaven stipulated a system for all of them to obey; therefore, lives are great because of their divine origin. Heaven has its will, and its people have their purposed on this earth (Ye-Chou-Shu 25). Man must know that life came neither from evolution nor as a random force, but instead was created for a great purpose. All things have their roots and their branches, all events have their ends and their beginnings. To know what is first and what is last would be indispensable for the attainment of perfection and rest in the highest excellence.

It is essential, therefore, that we first of all realize the true origin of man. To deny the divine origin of man is to deny the fundamental source of truth, ethical principles, and the governing system of all mankind. When this fundamental truth and this system are expounded and elaborated as they will be during the millennium, the entire human world will benefit. War and disaster will disappear. Man's virtue is rooted in his divine origin; therefore, a proper knowledge of the true origin of man would not merely enable man to alter his behavior, but also would alter man's attitude toward other men. This knowledge can make the entire world different. In time, man's determination and attention will no longer focus on the struggle for the elimination of others, but will instead, focus on the advancement, enrichment and perfection of all mankind.

When mankind really knows and has faith in the true origin of man and man's true purpose on earth, there will be no room for ultra-selfishness, social classes, cultural prejudice, racial idiosyncrasy, ideological stupidity, hegemonism and expansionism. Instead of engaging in predatory behavior, man will devote himself to the noble purpose of helping others and will create a situation for all men to be able to live together in harmony and peace. In time, prejudices, hatreds, and the various forms of murder and war will be diminished and will eventually disappear in large part because men and women will strive to concentrate their efforts in the cultivation of personal virtue, in order to be perfect and rest in the highest level of eternal excellence. When all mankind finally incorporate this truth into their daily lives, the great principle of universal harmony will prevail. In time, the world will become as one family, common to all and governed by the higher law. Honesty and sincerity will govern all dealings between men. Men of virtue and merits will be elected to governing offices, people will not only love their own parents and children but also the parents and children of others. Those who are old folks will have good endings to this mortal life, and those who are young and strong will have opportunities to apply their abilities to good and beneficial activities as well. There will be caring and charity for the poor, the downtrodden, and the disabled. Doors will not have to be locked nor will things lost on the road be picked up and taken by others. There will be no one to disturb the social tranquillity or to revolt against the good system. Nations and peoples will feel responsible not only to make those who live within free and happy, but to also attract and assist those who live without and far away. Eventually, peace and good will will prevail throughout the world.


1Ed. Note. Darwin actually, of course, borrowed the term, "survival of the fittest, from Spencer who had coined it in his Principles of Psychology, published in 1855, four years before Darwin's own cataclysmic publication. Back to Top

2Ed. Note. Chen recalls listening to a tape of this interview many years ago while he was a student at Brigham Young University in Provo, from which he graduated in 1964. Another observation by Schweitzer contains a similar idea: "Man has lost the capacity to foresee and to forestall" (Peter 387). Back to Top

3Ed. Note. The biblical account of Noah's building the ark mentions neither metals in general nor metal tools specifically (Gen. 6: 14-22); as for clothes, people in the Bible were wearing them considerably before Noah's time (Gen. 3: 21). Back to Top

Works Cited

Allen, James. As A Man Thinketh. Salt Lake City: Publisher's P, n. d.

Bengelsdorf, Irving S. "Network in Human Brain Shames Man-made Variety." Los Angeles Times 8 October 1968, pt. 2: 6.

The Bible.

Bickerstaff, H. George. So Well Expressed. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1964.

Clark, Harold W. "Shock Waves in Anthropology." Signs of the Times. January, 1976: 24-26.

Confucian Analects. The Four Books. Trans. James Legge. New York: Paragon Book Reprint, 1966. 1-306.

Did Man Get Here by Evolution or by Creation? New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1967.

Dobzhansky, Theodosius. Evolution, Genetics, and Man. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1955.

The Doctrine and Covenants

The Doctrine of the Mean. The Four Books. Trans. James Legge. New York: Paragon Book Reprint, 1966. 347-427.

The Great Learning. The Four Books. Trans. James Legge. New York: Paragon Book Reprint, 1966. 307-346.

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. The Philosophy of History. Trans. J. Sibree. Great Books of the Western World. 54 vols. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952. 46: 153-369.

Lao Tzu. Tao Te Ching. The Texts of Taoism. 1891. Trans. James Legge. 2 vols. New York: Dover, 1962. 1: 47-124.

Looey, Beatrice H. "How to Improve on Photosynthesis." New York Times 13 November 1966: Sec. 4: 6.

Malthus, Thomas Robert. An Essay on the Principle of Population. 1798. New York: Reprints of Economic Classics, 1965.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. Manifesto of the Communist Party. 1848. Capital, The Communist Manifest, and Other Writings. Ed. Max Eastman. New York: Modern Library, 1932.

May, Rollo. Man's Search for Himself. New York: Norton, 1953.

The Pearl of Great Price.

Naisbitt, John. Megatrends: Ten New Directions for Transforming Our Lives. New York: Warner Books, 1982.

Peter, Laurence J. Peter's Quotations: Ideas for Our Time. New York: William Morrow, 1977.

Seward, A. C. Darwin and Modern Science. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1910.

Simpson, George Gaylord. The Meaning of Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and Its Significance for Man. New Haven, CN: Yale UP, 1952.

Wolman, Benjamin B. "Concerning Psychology and the Philosophy of Science." Handbook of General Psychology. Ed. Benjamin B. Wolman. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973. 22-48.

Ye-Chou-Shu. Taipei: Cheng Hwa Book, n. d.