HISTORY OF BIOLOGY
Though biology is generally regarded as a modern science with late origins in the early to mid-nineteenth century, it drew on varied traditions, practices, and areas of inquiry beginning in antiquity. Traditional histories of biology generally target two areas that merged into modern biological science: medicine and natural history. The tradition of medicine dates back to the work of ancient Greek medical practitioners such as Hippocrates of Kos (b. 460 B.C.E.) and to figures such as Galen of Pergamum (c. 130–c. 200), who contributed much to early understanding of anatomy and physiology. The tradition of natural history dates back to the work of Aristotle (384–322 B.C.E.). Especially important are his History of Animals and other works where he showed naturalist leanings. Also important is the work of Aristotle's student Theophrastus (d. 287 B.C.E.), who contributed to an understanding of plants. Aristotle and Theophrastus contributed not only to zoology and botany, respectively, but also to comparative biology, ecology, and especially taxonomy (the science of classification).

Both natural history and medicine flourished in the middle ages, though work in these areas often proceeded independently. Medicine was especially well studied by Islamic scholars working in the Galenic and Aristotelian traditions, while natural history drew heavily on Aristotelian philosophy, especially in upholding a fixed hierarchy of life. The Roman naturalist Caius Plinius Secundus (23–79), known as Pliny, also had a major influence on natural history during the middle ages, notably through his compendium Natural History (later shown to be rife with errors of fact). Without doubt the most outstanding contributor to natural history in the middle ages is Albertus Magnus (1206–1280), recognized for his superb botanical studies and for his work in physiology and zoology. A lesser known figure is Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II (1194–1250), whose treatise The Art of Falconry is one of the first serious accounts of ornithology.

Though animals traditionally drew the attention of many naturalists, the study of zoology remained underdeveloped during the middle ages, relying heavily on illustrated books of animals modeled on medieval bestiaries. Botany, on the other hand, flourished in the Renaissance and early modern period. The study of plants was important in medicine, as well as natural history (and in fact constituted one of the few early points of common focus in the two areas), because plants were regarded as materia medica, substances with noted medicinal properties. These medicinal properties drew medical attention to plants. Hence it became standard practice to plant gardens next to primary centers of medical instruction, and professors of medicine were very often experts in materia medica and served as garden curators. Indeed, noted taxonomists of the early modern period—individuals such as Andrea Cesalpino (1519–1603) and Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778), both of whom are considered fathers of modern botany for their work in reforming taxonomy—were simultaneously physicians and botanists. An exception was John Ray (1627–1705), an English taxonomist who also worked with animals.

Also leading to the growing interest in and need for taxonomy and to an unprecedented development of natural history were the voyages of exploration associated with the establishment of colonies from the late fifteenth century. Largely to meet the demand to classify the collections made by explorers and travelers in order to exploit these natural commodities, gardens and museums of natural history were created in European centers associated with colonial conquests, especially Madrid, Paris, and London. A new period of scientific exploration dawned with the first voyage of Captain James Cook, whose expeditions included not only astronomers and artists but also botanists, such as Joseph Banks (1743–1820). On returning to London, Banks was instrumental in helping to found the Royal Institution of Great Britain, as well as in continuing to expand Kew Garden and the Royal Society. He also encouraged these institutions to serve the interests of both natural history and the expanding British Empire in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.

While botany and medicine were closely linked, anatomy and physiology followed other trajectories. After Galen, the next major figure in the history of anatomy is Andreas Vesalius (1514–1564) of Belgium. Unlike many anatomists (such as Galen, who relied on dissections of animals such as pigs and Barbary apes), Vesalius drew his knowledge of the human body from detailed dissections on human cadavers. He was unusual for his time in believing that the authority of nature should supercede the authority of ancient texts. His seven-volume atlas of human anatomy, De Humani Corporis Fabrica (On the fabric of the human body), covered skeletal and muscular anatomy as well as the major organ systems of the body. Skillfully illustrated by some of the leading Renaissance artists, the atlas was considered a work of art as well as of anatomical science. Although Vesalius challenged many of tenets held by Galen and his numerous commentators, he nonetheless retained some erroneous conventions present in Galen's anatomy, such as the existence of pores in the septum of the heart and "horned" appendages in the uterus (present in the pig uterus but not in the human uterus). Vesalius's work was shortly followed by the work of anatomical specialists such as Bartolomeo Eustachio (1510–1574) and Gabriele Falloppio (1523–1562). Eustachio specialized in the anatomy of the ear, and Falloppio specialized in the female reproductive tract.

Developments in anatomy that turned interest to the parts and organs of the body were accompanied by questions dealing with organ function. In the sixteenth century, physiology, the science that deals specifically with the functioning of living bodies, began to flourish. The major animal physiologist of this period was William Harvey (1578–1657). Harvey performed numerous dissections and vivisections on a range of animals to determine that blood circulates through the body and is not manufactured de novo, as Galenic tradition had dictated. Harvey's influence was felt not only in medicine, but also in comparative physiology and comparative biology, since he performed his experiments on diverse animal systems. His experiments and major treatise, An Anatomical Disputation concerning the Movement of the Heart and Blood in Living Creatures (1628), are considered one of the first demonstrations of the method of hypothesis testing and experimentation. While Harvey frequently drew analogies between the pumping action of the heart and mechanical pumps, he resisted the idea that the body entirely obeyed mechanistic principles. Unlike his contemporary René Descartes (1596–1650), who held mechanistic theories of the functioning of animal bodies, Harvey maintained that some kind of nonmechanistic special forces, later called "vitalistic," were responsible for the life processes of animate matter.

The mechanical philosophy—the belief that the universe and its constituent parts obeyed mechanical principles that could be understood and determined through reasoned observation and the new scientific method—thus made its way into the history of biology. This engendered a lively discussion between mechanism and vitalism, between the idea that life obeyed mechanistic principles and the idea that life depended on nonmechanistic "vital" principles or somehow acquired "emergent properties." The debate cycled on and off for much of the subsequent history of biology, up to the middle decades of the twentieth century.

During the Renaissance, the mechanical philosophy did gain some proponents in anatomy and physiology, the most notable figure being Giovanni Borelli (1608–1679), who sought to understand muscle action in animal bodies in terms of levers and pulleys. Some early embryologists, as followers of Descartes, espoused the belief that development too followed mechanistic principles. In what came to be known as preformation theory or "emboitement," the seeds of mature but miniaturized mature adult forms or homunculi were thought to be embedded entirely intact in mature organisms (as though they were encased in a box within a box, hence the name "emboitement"). Prominent advocates of this view included Marcello Malpighi (1628–1694) and Jan Swammerdam (1637–1680). This stood in contrast to the idea of "epigenesis," the belief dating back to Aristotle and his commentators that development began from initially undifferentiated material (usually the ovum) and then followed an epigenetically determined path of development after fertilization. One of the more prominent proponents of this theory was Pierre Louis Maupertuis (1698–1759), who argued that preformationist theories could not explain why offspring bore characteristics of both parents.

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, theories of embryology and development were superimposed with theories of sexual reproduction, along with a number of theories on the origins of life, most of which upheld the idea of spontaneous generation. During this period debates raged over spontaneous generation, the idea that life was spontaneously created out of inanimate matter. The popular belief that living organisms propagated from mud in streams, dirt and detritus, or environments such as rotting meat was supported by a number of scholars from antiquity on. William Harvey's research into reproduction, published in 1651 as Exercitationes de Generatione Animalium (Essays on the generation of animals), began to cast doubt on spontaneous generation. Harvey believed that all life reproduced sexually, a view he pithily stated with his famous dictum Ex ovo omnia ("Everything comes from the egg"). In 1668 the Italian physician Francesco Redi (1626–1697) performed a famous experiment that further detracted from the theory of spontaneous generation. By carefully covering rotting meat so that it was not accessible to flies, he showed that maggots did not spontaneously emerge. The idea that sexual reproduction characterized much of life was further reinforced when Nehemiah Grew (1641–1711) demonstrated sexuality in plants in 1682. Later, in 1768, the Italian physiologist Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729–1799) offered additional evidence disproving spontaneous generation, and in 1779 he gave an account of the sexual function of ovum and sperm. Despite this accumulating experimental evidence against spontaneous generation, new developments continued to fuel belief in spontaneous generation. In 1740, for example, Charles Bonnet (1720–1793) discovered parthenogenesis ("virgin birth"—an asexual form of reproduction) in aphids, and in 1748 John Turberville Needham (1731–1781) offered evidence of what he thought were spontaneously generated microbes in a sealed flask of broth (this was later challenged by Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis [1698–1759]). Finally, the discovery of microbial life supported the idea that living organisms spontaneously emerged from natural environments such as pond water. The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries thus witnessed a number of debates that were only resolved much later in the late nineteenth century when distinctions were made between the very different processes associated with reproduction, the origins of life, and embryological or developmental unfolding. Belief in spontaneous generation was finally put to rest in 1860 by the celebrated "swan-necked flask" experiments of Louis Pasteur (1822–1895).

Other notable developments in the origins of biology came as the result of new instruments and technologies, the most important of which was the microscope. Developed independently by Robert Hooke (1635–1703) in England and Antony Van Leeuwenhoek (1632–1723) in the Netherlands, the microscope revealed a previously unseen and entirely unimagined universe of life. Robert Hooke first observed repeating units he described as "cells" in his Micrographia (1665), while Leeuwenhoek observed varied motile organisms he described as "animalcules." While the microscope opened up cytological and microbiological explorations, it also shattered Aristotle's notion that life is organized along a scala naturae (ladder of nature), since new and minute animal forms were not easily located on the ladder of creation. It also fueled the belief in spontaneous generation. Pioneering the use of the microscope and its application to anatomy, Marcello Malphighi (1628–1694), Italian professor of medicine and personal physician to Pope Innocent XII, drawing on the previous work of Andrea Cesalpino and William Harvey, studied the circulatory and respiratory systems of a range of animals (especially insects). He was one of the first to study major organ groups such as the brain, lungs, and kidneys in diverse organisms.

ABSTRACT
It has often been claimed that the evolution-creation controversy is a conflict between science and religion. This is given as a primary reason for keeping the creation alternative out of the science classroom. But the two powerful ideas of evolution and creation cut across the academic disciplines of science, religion, philosophy, and history. Both are developed from the findings of scientists and are appropriate subjects for science classes. However, both go beyond the capabilities of science and require a measure of faith from their proponents.
Although there are variations in both the evolutionist and the creationist camps, the controversy can be simplified to state that either evolution is true or creation is true. To eliminate one is to confirm the other. Many writers have concentrated on exposing the fatal weaknesses of the evolutionist position, thereby showing that creation is the superior scientific model. But rather than follow this same approach, I would like to provide a positive statement of the creation alternative and give you some of the evidence supporting it. I'll frame this in two somewhat simplified statements, one about the origin of life and one about the origin of species.
Origin of Life
The origin of life had to be by supernatural creation, because life is too complex to arise through natural processes. The living cell is, in some ways, like a chemical factory, but more complex than any designed by humans. Hundreds of chemical reactions are simultaneously going on in each cell. And the cell is not just a bag of chemicals! It is subdivided into many compartments, just as a human factory is divided into areas with different functions. Both the physical design of the cell and the chemistry in it are clear examples of intelligent design.
There have been many attempts in the laboratory to show how life could originate through natural processes. Scientists have succeeded, usually using extreme measures, in simulating tiny steps of the total process of life. Anyone who expresses satisfaction with these attempts shows us one of two things. Either they have a poor understanding of life or they have an incredible amount of faith in evolution. In spite of headlines about the creation of life in a test tube, scientists are nowhere near being able to demonstrate a natural procedure for the origin of the first cell.
Origin of Species
A large number of different organisms had to be created supernaturally, because the processes of biological change are not capable of significant innovation. Let's consider first the processes that produce change in individual living things. Then we'll look at a process that produces change in populations of living things. Both creationists and evolutionists agree that mutations are the only source of new genes. These are genetic mistakes, errors in transmitting the information of inheritance from one generation to the next. Mutations are almost always harmful or neutral in their effects. However, the evolutionist believes in mutations as the source of all the diversity of life on earth today. This would require the production of untold numbers of beneficial mutations. That the same handful of examples is always offered is again testimony to the faith of the true believer.
One of the favorite examples of beneficial mutations is the ability of bacteria to change so that they are resistant to antibiotics. Of course, that is beneficial only to the bacteria, not to the humans they infect. Insects, similarly, undergo mutations that make them resistant to insecticides. These resistance mutations are very beneficial to organisms confronted by these poisons. However, they do not produce the kind of change that is needed to convert one type of creature into another.
There are some beneficial mutations that produce large changes. Charles Darwin, during his voyage around the world, discovered wingless beetles on the island of Madeira. These beetles had undergone mutations causing the loss of wings, a good idea on a windy island. A similar example would be the blind fish that inhabit caves. Here mutations have eliminated organs which have no use in the dark. These changes are, indeed, significant, but notice that they involve the loss of existing structures. No one has ever seen a species undergo mutations that produce brand-new wings or eyes.
There is, however, another process by which individuals can vary. Recombination explains why children look different from their parents. This shuffling of the genes can produce superior combinations of different genes. However, because we see that mutations are incapable of supplying useful variation, the useful genes that are there to be shuffled must have been created at the beginning.
We have mutation and recombination as the processes by which individuals can change. But the history of life is primarily the story of populations, not individuals. What causes populations to change? Charles Darwin correctly described natural selection as a powerful process in the history of populations. If some gene combinations have an advantage over others, their owners will leave more offspring for future generations, and this will cause a shift in the genetic makeup of the population. But Darwin thought that because a little change was possible with natural selection, any amount of change could result. One reason for his mistake was his ignorance of genetics. It is interesting that, during the 1850s, when Darwin was doing his research, Gregor Mendel was discovering the principles of genetics. While Darwin was building a case for unlimited change, Mendel was finding an unchanging pattern of inheritance. What does natural selection accomplish? Using the genes provided by the Creator, natural selection makes it possible for populations to survive changes in their environments. It may also allow a population to migrate into a new environment. Finally, natural selection also prevents change as it eliminates or minimizes the effects of harmful mutations.
With these basic statements about the origin of life and the origin of species, lets try to put the history of life into a meaningful framework.
First Kinds
According to the creation model, each basic type of living thing was supernaturally created. Can we identify the created types today? It is obvious that some species are related, so species can't be the unit of creation. The higher taxonomic categories (genus, family, etc.) are subjective and can't serve this purpose. A new term is needed, and various ones have been proposed. In our book, _The Natural Limits to Biological Change_, Ray Bohlin and I proposed the word "prototype" (first kind). Unfortunately for our egos, this word has not become popular. The clear-cut winner so far is "baramin," which is derived from two Hebrew words meaning essentially "created kind."
A baramin could be defined as the descendants of a single created population. So each baramin has its beginning at the creation, and unless extinct, continues to exist today in its descendants. After the creation, each baramin population grew and subdivided as it spread over the earth. The processes of recombination and natural selection in new environments in many instances caused the members of the same baramin to divide into separate races and species. A question that arises is whether a small original population could provide all the variability seen today in that baramin. An example that suggests a positive answer is the inheritance of skin color in the human species. Humans come in many different shades of color, but it is genetically possible that the First Couple could have been the same color, had children the same color as themselves, and yet produced the entire rainbow of humanity. All this would have been possible without the necessity of mutations being involved.
There are many examples of multiple plant species that have come from the same baramin during historical times. Animals are harder to determine in this regard, but it is possible that the horse, donkey, and zebra are descendants of one baramin. The same may be true of at least some of the big cats: lions, tigers, etc.
Basic Designs
To appreciate fully the living world around us today, we need to have another word in our vocabulary, "archetype" (ancient form). This refers to basic designs used repeatedly by the Creator. There is an endless variety of examples known to biologists. One of the most fundamental archetypes is the living cell, the building block of all life. An example seen in most biology textbooks is the front limbs of different back-boned animals. The evolutionist believes that this is evidence of common ancestry, but it is just as logically evidence of the same Designer. Architects today will use similar materials and techniques in several buildings, varying the basic design for the needs of the particular client.
UNIFYING IDEAS OF LIFE/BIOLOGY
There are ten unifying themes in biology:

1. Emergent Properties - all life forms show hierarchy of organization extending from organic molecules to the ecosystem.

2. Cells- cell theory states that cells are the basic unit of life, of which all living things are composed, and that all cells are derived from preexisting cells. Two main cell types are Eukaryotic (Fungi, Plants, Animals and Protists) and Prokaryotic (Eubacteria, Archaebacteria)

3. Heritable Information- DNA codes for the continuity of life, the basic genetic code lies in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA. These nucleotides (arranged as genes) dictate the specific proteins of a given species.

4. Form and Function- are complimentary at every level of biological organization. Life's structures are the bases for life's functions. If you don't understand something's function, analyze its form, and vis versa.

5. All life forms are dependent upon interactions with their abiotic and biotic components. Organisms are open systems exchanging energy and nutrients with their environment. Nutrients cycle, energy flows. Ex, energy from the sun goes to producers to consumers and dissipates as heat. Life depends on energy sources.

6. Regulation- all functional aspects of life's chemistry must be regulated to maintain homeostasis. Feedback mechanisms are often integrated into the organism.

7. Unity and Diversity- diversity in the varying forms of life (three domains- Eukarya, Archaea, Eubacteria). Unity is found in many shared biochemical processes, such as, a common genetic code, or the basic chemistry of cell respiration.

8.Genetic change through time- Evolution, brought on by mutation and natural selection account for much of the unity and diversity in life.

9. Science includes observation based discovery and the testing of hypotheses through experimentation. Data analysis includes statistical studies to validate hypothesis. Statistical analysis, T-Score, and other calculations.

10. Science, Technology and society- many technologies are based upon scientific discovery and a desire to solve a problem.