“Whereas geologist Merson Davies sees evolution primarily as a ‘geological’ problem, and biologist Douglas Dewar views evolution as largely a ‘biological’ problem, I see evolution first and foremost as a ‘chemical’ problem’, which at its most basic level required explaining how ‘chemical molecules of gigantic complexity came into existence and have been able to arrange themselves in increasingly complicated ways’, in the face of the apparent compatibility between evolution and entropy or the second law which states in its general expression that ‘disorder will tend to increase, but that order can never arise spontaneously from chaos’? Evolution, accordingly, can ‘never involve any real rise in the degree of organization’ of an organism. If in past ages complex organism ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous. For this reason, the doctrine of evolution can never legitimately form a part of naturalistic philosophical or sociological thought, nor can it ever be rightly used to support such dogmas as the inevitability of progress.”

Clark's 1967 The Christian Stake in Science, the cover of which depicts a Bible in a beaker, indicative of his view that the miracle of god is behind the origin of humans, or something to this effect. [4]

“Just as a part of the energy of hot steam may be converted into highly ordered work at the expense of the remainder so, during the course of evolution, animals may in the last resort have obtained their organization at the expense of the sun's energy which has degraded on the earth's surface.”

“There is surely no great gulf fixed between the older chemists who spoke of atoms as ‘loving’ or ‘hating’ one another and the modern physical chemists who use such terms as ‘lyophilic’ [solvent-loving] or ‘lyophobic’ [solvent-hating].”

— Robert E. Clark and B.C. Saunders (1948), Order and Chaos in the World of Atoms (pg. vii)