References
[Editor’s notes are in blue.]

* The title refers to Nathaniel Branden’s lecture “The Concept of God,” from his lecture series “The Basic Principles of Objectivism.” That lecture is fully transcribed in his book The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism (Gilbert, Ariz.: Cobden Press, 2009), chapter 4. Partial and perhaps complete audios seem to be available throughout the Internet, especially here. See also R.A. Childs, “The Epistemological Basis of Anarchism,” Note 19.

[01] William Paley, Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearance of Nature (London, 1802).

[02] See Loren Eiseley, Darwin’s Century (Anchor, 1961); pp. 310–13.
  Alfred Russel Wallace, “Geological Climates and the Origin of Species,” Quarterly Review 1869 (Vol. 126); pages 359–94.
  Wallace, “Difficulties of Development as Applied to Man,” Popular Science Monthly 1876 (Vol. 10); page 65.
  Wallace, “Limits of Natural Selection in Man,” Natural Selection and Tropical Nature (London, 1895); page 204.

[03] Charles Darwin: See last footnote in “History of the Argument.” [James has a much longer discussion of Darwinism and six-day creation, which is reproduced here. He discusses the compatibility of Darwinism with Genesis here. These two discussions there are independent of his discussion of the existence of God, though the second contains some overlap with this one.]

[04] See N. Branden, PSE 30 [The Psychology of Self-Esteem (New York: Bantam Books, 1971), page 30].

  See A. Rand, “Intro. to Obj. Epistemology” 5/10/3b, 6/1/10b, d [References of this form refer to The Objectivist Newsletter, so that volume 5, number 10 would be October 1966 and volume 6, number 1 would be January 1967. After volume 4, the name of the publication was The Objectivist. The page numbers for the latter are those of the original format, not those in the bound volume. I believe that the first citation should be 5/12 (December 1966)] & IOE 54, 97, 98 [Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, the monograph published by The Objectivist, Inc., 1967, page 54; the Expanded Second edition published by New American Library in 1990, pages 62–64]
  [Dr. Branden, speaking for himself, and Miss Rand, speaking for Objectivism, both take the view that ours is the only species of rational animal. I shall follow their lead, although as far as I can see, none of my arguments will have to be scrapped if chimpanzees, dolphins, or Martians turn out to be rational.]

[05] PSE 7–12 [The Psychology of Self-Esteem (New York: Bantam Books, 1971), pages 7–12].

[06] Dr. Branden’s book, just cited, is an Objectivist text only when it quotes material from earlier speeches or writings that have received Miss Rand’s explicit endorsement. I suspect that the material quoted is from his Albion speech (see next footnote), and therefore qualifies as official, but I have not verified this.

[07] “Objectivist Calendar” 4/3/14aa. [March 1965]
  On Wednesday, March 10 [1965], Nathaniel Branden will deliver two lectures at Albion College in Albion, Michigan. In the afternoon, his subject will be: “The Role of Consciousness in Psychology — A Critique of Behaviorism.”

  A. Rand, “What Is Capitalism?" 4/11/51g [November 1965] and CUI 11. [Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (New York: New American Library, 1946–1966), page 51]
  ... the collapse of science is all but complete.... In psychology, one may observe the attempt to study human behavior without reference to the fact that man is conscious.

  R. [Robert] Efron, “Biology Without Consciousness — and Its Consequences,” 7/2/12c-13e [February 1968] & PBM vol. 11 (1967) p. 16 [Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, vol. II, no. 1, Autumn 1967, page 16. James’s “vol. 11” is a typographical error.]
  Some reductionist biologists adopt a different position. They hold that consciousness is identical to, that is, the same as, the physiological and physico-chemical actions of the brain.... This position is referred to as a “psycho-neural identity theory.”
  There are two implications of all psycho-neural theories which contradict the principle of reduction.

[08] Mr. Robert Crim writing in The Libertarian Review December 1975. [The quotation from Crim does not, in fact, occur in the December issue of Libertarian Review and I can find it in no other issue of that publication. A Google search turns up only one reference to Crim and LR, and that is in the August issue, a photocopy of which is available here. The remarks quoted and linked to Note #9 may be found in Crim’s “Brief Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents,” 14-562, 14-571 in Supreme Court of the United States, October 2014 Term, Valeria Tanco et al., v. Bill Haslam, Governor of Tennessee, et al., in support of the Respondents, pages 29-30, and may be read here. The block quotation following the paragraph that begins “The critic goes on to say,” however, is not in that brief, and I have not been able to find it. It is not impossible that it comes from private correspondence.]

[09] Sherwood L. Washburn and David A. Hamburg, “The Study of Primate Behavior” in Primate Behavior: Field Studies of Monkeys and Apes, Irven Devore, ed. (New York: Holt, Rhinehart, and Winston, 1965), pages 5-6.

[10] A.D. Bradshaw, “Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants,” Advances in Genetics, (1965) 13:105-55.

[11] N. Branden, “Does man possess instincts?” 1/10/43aa-ff. [October 1962, Intellectual Ammunition Department]
  An excellent example of the type of analysis that is replacing “explanation by instincts” may be found in Morgan and Stellar’s Physiological Psychology (McGraw-Hill, 1950, pp. 402-417). Discussing the migratory behavior of salmon, the authors write:

  Their place of birth and early growth is far up in the headwaters of streams. In their second year they migrate downstream to the ocean and there spend two or three years. After that they reenter the river, usually the one from which they came, and proceed up the river and its tributaries to its headwaters. There they spawn and die.... The question is how they do it.
  The first phase of migration is controlled by light. The salmon has some photosensitive receptors deep in its skin.... In the young salmon these receptors are first covered by a layer of pigment, but gradually the pigment is lost. Then, of course, the photosensitive receptors are stimulated and the fish reacts negatively, i.e. avoids light. Since the upper streams are shallow, this light-avoidance reaction eventually takes the salmon downstream to the deep ocean, where it gets away from a lot of light. Because the waters of the river emptying into the ocean are somewhat colder, contain somewhat more oxygen, and are less salty, the salmon tends to stay in the general region of the ocean in which the river runs.
  Eventually the salmon matures sexually and its gonads put out more sex hormones. These raise its activity and probably its general metabolism, which in turn leads it to choose the colder and more oxygenated water at the mouth of the river. Once the salmon gets back into the river, it has a strong tendency to swim against the current, a reaction known as a rheotropism. As the fish swims upstream and comes to each branch of the river, it chooses the one that is colder.... The salmon arrives eventually at one of the headwaters of the stream, usually the one that is coldest. There it lays its eggs and dies, thus closing one cycle and beginning another. Because of the factor of temperature in the route of migration upstream, it turns out that salmon tend to return to the same places in which they were born. Thus what may seem to be a mysterious instinct or phenomenal memory for their places of birth is really a matter of reaction to particular stimuli in their environment.