The Watchtower Society's Commentary on Conscience.

CONSCIENCE:

The word is translated from the Greek sy·neiʹde·sis, which is drawn from syn (with) and eiʹde·sis (knowledge) and thus means co-knowledge, or knowledge with oneself. Conscience is a capacity to look at oneself and render judgment about oneself, bear witness to oneself. The apostle Paul expresses the operation of his conscience in this manner: “My conscience bears witness with me in holy spirit.”—Ro 9:1.

Conscience is inherent in man, having been made part of him by God. It is an inward realization or sense of right and wrong that excuses or accuses one. Hence, conscience judges. It also can be trained by the thoughts and acts, convictions and rules that are implanted in a person’s mind by study and experience. Based on these things, it makes a comparison with the course of action being taken or contemplated. Then it sounds a warning when the rules and the course conflict, unless the conscience is “seared,” made unfeeling by continued violations of its warnings. Conscience can be a moral safety device, in that it imparts pleasure and inflicts pain for one’s own good and bad conduct.

From the very start, man has had a conscience. Adam and Eve manifested this as soon as they broke God’s law and hid themselves. (Ge 3:8) In Romans 2:14, 15 we read: “For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused.” Thus it can be seen that conscience has not been wiped out even among non-Christians. This is because all mankind descended from Adam and Eve, in whom conscience was inherent. Many laws of the nations are in harmony with a Christian’s conscience, yet such nations and lawmakers may not have been influenced by Christianity at all. The laws were according to the leadings of their own consciences. All persons have the faculty of conscience, and it is to this that the life course and preaching of Christians appeal.—2Co 4:2.

Conscience must be enlightened; if not, it can mislead. It is an unsafe guide if it has not been trained in right standards, according to the truth. Its development can be wrongly influenced by local environment, customs, worship, and habits. It might judge matters as being right or wrong by these incorrect standards or values. An example of this is shown in John 16:2, where Jesus foretold that men would even kill God’s servants, thinking that they were doing Him a service. Saul (later Paul the apostle) actually went out with murderous intent against Christ’s disciples, believing he was zealously serving God. (Ac 9:1; Ga 1:13-16) The Jews were seriously misled into fighting against God because of lack of appreciation of God’s Word. (Ro 10:2, 3; Ho 4:1-3; Ac 5:39, 40) Only a conscience properly trained by God’s Word can correctly assess and set matters of life thoroughly straight. (2Ti 3:16; Heb 4:12) A Christian must have a stable, right standard—God’s standard.

Good Conscience. One must approach Jehovah with a cleansed conscience. (Heb 10:22) A Christian must constantly strive for an honest conscience in all things. (Heb 13:18) When Paul stated: “I am exercising myself continually to have a consciousness of committing no offense against God and men” (Ac 24:16), he meant that he continually steered and corrected his course of life according to God’s Word and Christ’s teachings, for he knew that in the final analysis God, and not his own conscience, would be his ultimate judge. (1Co 4:4) Following a Bible-trained conscience may result in persecution, but Peter comfortingly counsels: “For if someone, because of conscience toward God, bears up under grievous things and suffers unjustly, this is an agreeable thing.” (1Pe 2:19) A Christian must “hold a good conscience” in the face of opposition.—1Pe 3:16.

The Law with its animal sacrifices could not so perfect a person as regards his conscience that he could consider himself free from guilt; however, through the application of Christ’s ransom to those having faith, a person’s conscience can be cleansed. (Heb 9:9, 14) Peter indicates that those who receive salvation have to have this good, clean, right conscience.—1Pe 3:21.

Consideration for Consciences of Others. In view of the fact that in order to make proper evaluations a conscience must be fully and accurately trained in God’s Word, an untrained conscience may be weak. That is, it may be easily and unwisely suppressed, or the person may become offended by the actions or words of others, even in instances where no wrongdoing may exist. Paul gave examples of this in connection with eating, drinking, and the judging of certain days as above others. (Ro 14:1-23; 1Co 8:1-13) The Christian with knowledge and whose conscience is trained is commanded to give consideration and allowance to the one with a weak conscience, not using all his freedom or insisting on all his personal “rights” or always doing just as he pleases. (Ro 15:1) One who wounds the weak conscience of a fellow Christian is “sinning against Christ.” (1Co 8:12) On the other hand, Paul implies that while he would not want to do something by which the weak brother would be offended, thereby causing him to judge Paul, the weak one should likewise consider his brother, striving for maturity by getting more knowledge and training so that his conscience will not be easily offended, causing him to view others wrongly.—1Co 10:29, 30; Ro 14:10.


Bad Conscience. The conscience can be so abused that it no longer is clean and sensitive. When that happens it cannot sound out warnings or give safe guidance. (Tit 1:15) Man’s conduct is then controlled by fear of exposure and punishment rather than by a good conscience. (Ro 13:5) Paul’s reference to a conscience that is marked as with a branding iron indicates that it would be like seared flesh that is covered over with scar tissue and void of nerve endings and, therefore, without sense of feeling. (1Ti 4:2) Persons with such a conscience cannot sense right or wrong. They do not appreciate the freedom God grants them and, rebelling, become slaves to a bad conscience. It is easy to defile one’s conscience. A Christian’s aim should be as shown in Acts 23:1: “Brothers, I have behaved before God with a perfectly clear conscience down to this day.”

File under "well said" XXI

Don't join the book burners. Don't think you are going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER,

The menace of 'settled science' III.

New and Old Eugenics United by Rejecting Human Exceptionalism:
Wesley J. Smith February 20, 2016 3:27 AM

Buck v. Bell was one of the most pernicious Supreme Court decisions ever written. Authored by the odious social Darwinist Oliver Wendell Holmes, the 1927 8-1 ruling permitted an innocent woman named Carrie Buck to be involuntarily sterilized.

There is a book about the case just out, Imbeciles, the title taken from Holmes's infamous statement in the ruling: "Three generations of imbeciles is enough." The issue is discussed by Charles Lane in the Washington Post:

At its peak, in the years before, during, and just after World War I, the pseudo-science of "eugenics" was a national fad, almost a mania. Advocates were not only or even especially right wing; state sterilization laws emerged first in the North and West, and many progressives embraced "racial hygiene" along with pure food and drug laws or urban sanitation.

Lane makes a big mistake. The "right wing" was not the driving force behind eugenics. Progressives were, and those in the ruling class.

Indeed, the progressive elite and ruling class of the era almost unanimously and enthusiastically embraced the pernicious notion with authoritarian zeal that human beings could be invidiously divided between the so-called "fit" and "unfit."​ Think Theodore Roosevelt. Think Margaret Sanger. Think even -- good grief! -- Helen Keller. Think the Carnegie Institution that funded the evil Charles Davenport at Cold Spring Harbor. Think George Bernard Shaw.

Eugenics was also that era's scientific consensus. Those who opposed it were branded as anti-progress, perhaps even anti-science.

We see similar agendas at work today; in the sex selection and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis practiced in the assisted reproductive industry; transhumanism's push for developing "post-human" genetic enhancement technologies, eugenic abortion of fetuses testing positive for Down syndrome and dwarfism, the push for infanticide of babies born with disabilities, among other supposedly progressive causes.

These "new eugenics" ideas will end up as tyrannical as the original version was. Here's why: All eugenics, new and old, spring from the same toxic well -- the denial of human exceptionalism and of the intrinsic and equal dignity of each and every one of us. Once that dark vision is embraced, the weak come into mortal danger.


The best book I have read on eugenics is War Against the Weak, by Edwin Black.

Pre Darwinian design.

Is It a "Pumpjack"? An "Unsewing" Machine? In Search of the Right Metaphor for a New Molecular Wonder:
Evolution News & Views February 19, 2016 12:11 PM

Never presume that the list of molecular machines in the cell is exhausted by the bacterial flagellum, kinesin, and ATP synthase. Those are just three that we have animated thus far. There are so many thousands of machines in living cells, we don't stand a chance of running out of examples to talk about. Here's a new one: the "eukaryotic replicative CMG helicase." Call it CMG helicase for short (the -ase suffix indicates that it operates on a helix, namely the DNA double helix).

Of the many kinds of helicase enzymes that operate on nucleic acids, this one is important right before cell division, when the cell must replicate all of its genetic code. Since DNA consists of two strands, something needs to break them apart so that spare nucleotides can pair up with each side, producing two strands. That's the job of CMG helicase. You could also compare it to a sewing machine, but an "unsewing" machine would be more accurate. As it passes by, it unzips the DNA strand with a unique rocking mechanism.

Research from Stony Brook University describes how it works. The authors' preferred metaphor is a "pumpjack" like those machines that rock up and down as they pump oil out of a well. New close-up images of the helicase showed that it takes on two shapes as it moves down the DNA:

Using computer software to sort out the images revealed that the helicase has two distinct conformations -- one with components stacked in a compact way, and one where part of the structure is tilted relative to a more "fixed" base.

The atomic-level view allowed the scientists to map out the locations of the individual amino acids that make up the helicase complex in each conformation. Then, combining those maps with existing biochemical knowledge, they came up with a mechanism for how the helicase works.

"One part binds and releases energy from a molecule called ATP. It converts the chemical energy into a mechanical force that changes the shape of the helicase," Li said. After kicking out the spent ATP, the helicase complex goes back to its original shape so a new ATP molecule can come in and start the process again.

"It looks and operates similar to an old style pumpjack oil rig, with one part of the protein complex forming a stable platform, and another part rocking back and forth," Li said. Each rocking motion could nudge the DNA strands apart and move the helicase along the double helix in a linear fashion, he suggested. [Emphasis added.]

They also liken the action to an inchworm. To each his own. Since pumpjacks don't go anywhere, and inchworms move but don't change anything, probably a sewing machine analogy is more appropriate. Video clips in the article show how the enzyme moves along the helix, rocking as it goes.

As the helicase moves along, it interacts with other parts similarly to how a sewing machine interacts with the thread, the needle, and the cloth. Notice the complexity described in the paper in Nature Structural and Molecular Biology.

The CMG helicase is composed of Cdc45, Mcm2-7 and GINS. Here we report the structure of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae [yeast] CMG, determined by cryo-EM at a resolution of 3.7-4.8 Å. The structure reveals that GINS and Cdc45 scaffold the N tier of the helicase while enabling motion of the AAA+ C tier. CMG exists in two alternating conformations, compact and extended, thus suggesting that the helicase moves like an inchworm. The N-terminal regions of Mcm2-7, braced by Cdc45-GINS, form a rigid platform upon which the AAA+ C domains make longitudinal motions, nodding up and down like an oil-rig pumpjack attached to a stable platform. The Mcm ring is remodeled in CMG relative to the inactive Mcm2-7 double hexamer. The Mcm5 winged-helix domain is inserted into the central channel, thus blocking entry of double-stranded DNA and supporting a steric-exclusion DNA-unwinding model.

The Stony Brook research team studied this molecular machine in yeast cells, but all eukaryotes rely on it, including humans. Is it important? You bet. More:

"DNA replication is a major source of errors that can lead to cancer," explained Li, a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry & Cell Biology at Stony Brook University, a scientist at Brookhaven Lab, and lead author of the paper. "The entire genome -- all 46 chromosomes -- gets replicated every few hours in dividing human cells," Li said, "so studying the details of how this process works may help us understand how errors occur."

Fortunately, errors are very rare. Lee Spetner in his book Not by Chance says that because of molecular proofreading, the error rate is one in a hundred billion. That's "like one error in fifty million pages of typescript," he says. "Fifty million pages are the lifetime output of about a hundred professional typists" (p. 39).

Yet the machinery is much more rapid than the best typist. It rocks! -- not like the slow, lumbering mechanism of the oil pumpjack, but at blinding speed. Jonathan M. wrote here at Evolution News that DNA replication works at 749 bases per second with an error rate of 10-7 to 10-8. Yet the cell performs this feat in just hours, trillions of times in your body. Nor does it work alone. All the other machines in the DNA replication factory keep up with it, bringing in nucleotides, proofreading them, and fastening the new helices together.

There are other helicases that have inspired machine analogies:

The torque wrench that repairs DNA

The train engine that exposes a broken section of track

The oscillator that pulls bacteriophage DNA strands apart like a rotary engine

The jackhammer zipper that opens up double-stranded RNA

What's fundamentally important for philosophy of biology is that these really are machines. They may not look like man-made machines, but they fit the definition. They use energy to perform work in a highly detailed and specific manner. These are not your normal chemical reactions, where molecules simply bump into each other and exchange electrons. These machines have precise shapes with moving parts. They operate on other structures. And most importantly, their parts and functions are dictated by coded instructions. It's phenomenal that those instructions code for the creation of machines that come back to work on the coded instructions, making sure they are intact and error-free. How cool is that?

Think about these machines at work in your own body right now. Somewhere in your brain, a cell is dividing. That cell needs to continue operating while its DNA is being replicated at about 750 bases per second. Multiple CMG helicases have to know where to unzip the DNA without interrupting genes that other machines are transcribing. Machines keep track of what parts are done and what parts remain to be done. Other machines check for errors in the copies. Machines supervise the operation, setting checkpoints that don't let cell division proceed until all requirements are met.


This is all happening while the cell is at work. It's mind-boggling. Could humans duplicate every part of a factory while it is in full operation? Could they duplicate every thread in a suit of clothes while it is being worn? Word pictures fail to capture the complexity of such things. They don't just indicate design; they scream design.